Please rise as you're able for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Welcome everybody to the May eighteenth, twenty twenty six Rochester City Council meeting.

Uh, we begin every city council meeting with our open comment period.

This is an opportunity for for anyone from the public to speak on items that we will that we will not be taking public testimony on during a public hearing later in the agenda.

Each person has up to two minutes to speak for a total of twenty minutes.

And I will be keeping track of time through two methods.

One is the stoplight here, the red, white or the green, yellow, and red, and the also the red digital clock on the wall there.

So know that I may need to cut you off.

Um I also request that each speaker be concise to allow for more people to speak during the designated time.

And participants are also encouraged to limit comments generally to topics that are within the scope and jurisdiction of the council's ability to affect policy.

Council members and staff do not respond to your comments during public comment, but will instead follow up on any specific requests separately.

I'm a lifelong resident of Rochester, Minnesota.

I am here tonight on behalf of the Friends of Silver Lake, a group representing thousands of Rochester residents like myself who do not want to see major changes to Rochester Silver Lake Park that the dam removal is about to bring.

As someone who has lived in Rochester my entire life, I've never heard concerns about this dam being unsafe until the removal effort began.

For many residents, that raises a legitimate question about whether this project is truly necessary.

Part of the dam removal effort has been in the works for the past decade.

City council approval to spend more than three million dollars of Rochester public utilities electric ratepayer money for dam removal, despite RPU estimated it would cost similar amounts to maintain the current dam over the next 20 years.

We believe this is poor use of public funds and raises serious concerns about how taxpayer and ratepayer dollars are being spent.

This project will likely lead to future requests for millions more in public funding for a project many raster Rochester residents do not support.

This also follows numerous misleading statements made by city staff and the mayor over the past six years in an effort to convince citizens, council members, and state DNR officials that dam removal will improve Silver Lake Park, despite the fact that many residents believe the park has been a valued and cherished cherished community asset for more than 90 years.

We respectfully respectfully ask that you give this request serious consideration before voting on this public expenditure and consider the voices of many Rochester residents who do not support this project.

Whatever happens in the in the project, the main consideration should be the beautification of Silver Lake Park and the removal of all unnecessary um debris in the park and make it fishable for people.

Um the park will be used much more if you made the boundaries of the park a lot nicer.

Thank you, Mr.

Gove.

Okay.

Next up we have Molly Dennis.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Molly Dennis.

A governing principle of America is the constitutional separation of powers.

Dictated by our Rochester weak mayor charter.

Rochester's mayor is non-partisan.

She's not here today, but she's nonpartisan, and she is also part of the executive branch of government.

Residents can easily be confused because both the mayor and the city administrator sit on the high dais of the legislative uh official dais, but both of you are not legislators.

As a former teacher living in Rochester, I have for decades paid a close attention to details and patterns.

I have consistently advocated for honesty, governmental accountability, and fiscal transparency.

As a council member sitting here on the dais, I have proven myself to be nonpartisan, voting for both sustainability and also against a high property taxes because there was not any travel receipts.

I have promoted accessibility and public safety while advocating fiercely for affordability for struggling families here in Rochester.

I have played these games before, and I do not like this game.

Or the unchecked power of the local executive branch.

To change corrupt rules starts with transparency from within.

As someone who listens, who shows up and who does not rubber stamp.

I have been asked by many residents in Rochester from both political parties to run for mayor.

I have been asked to stop this propaganda.

I have been asked to bring resident voices back into the public agenda, and I have asked to be protect the rights of people here in Rochester.

Thank you, Miss Dennis.

Transparency of trust.

Thank you.

Integrity matters.

And on August 11th, I hope you vote for Molly for Mayor.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Romere's Biddle.

Good evening, everyone.

To the mayor who's not here today, the city council that is here present before me, and to all the public that is here listening in the in the back and then the uh and then the uh TV waves.

Because I have three concerns addressing the city.

One um is traffic lights, and then I noticed that for many multi multi-lane roads, there's only one directional traffic light above the road, and then there's one on the side, and then there's one that is above the road, there's a left turn protected light.

My concern is that if there's when this is a multi-lane road, and uh 18 wheeler is blocking the traffic light that is on the side, but one but the one directional light is out.

It's hard to is very a very dangerous thing can happen that one might assume that um that because this one's not showing red that uh that it's okay to go.

Now we all gotta understand common sense should be common, but it's not so common.

Uh railroad crossings.

I am concerned that um for multiple cars being parked on the railroads as they're waiting for the light to turn and long track trailers that are blocking the railroads.

And finally, uh street markings.

I have a concern about the street markings because at night they are very hard to see.

Now I am 40 years old and I have and and I'm in pretty good health, but for someone of my age, it's it's hard to see.

And for I imagine is very hard for someone that is much older to see.

So I would uh like to I would like for the city council to consider improving uh traffic safety or traffic lights, railroad crossings, and street markings.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr.

Biddle.

Uh that is all I have on the sign up sign up sheet.

Is there any anyone else who wishes to be heard during the public comment period?

Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing uh the open comment period and ask Clerk Caseel to please call the roll.

Good evening.

Councilmember Keene.

Here, Councilmember Miller.

Here, Councilmember Wall.

Here, Councilmember Fredericks.

Here, Councilmember Palmer.

Here, Councilmember Doring.

Here, Council President Schubring.

Here.

Mayor Norton is absent.

Thank you.

Uh, next up we have the City Administrators Report, Administrator Salms.

Uh, thank you, Council President, Council members, members of the public.

We always start this report by thanking our teammates for acting with respect, integrity, and safety and excellence, and everything that they do.

And I know you have a um appreciation, a special appreciation coming up, Council President for public works teammates, but just want to echo that um it is public safety or excuse me, public works week, and um want to appreciate everything that our teammates do there.

Uh also we have a couple of things underway involving public works and others.

Um, the North Broadway Park and Ride uh project has begun.

Um, that started today, and we do have information out for the community about the parking uh situation at the rec center and 125 live while the construction is underway, and of course, this is a little bit of a pain point for Poke for folks while we actually construct significantly more parking on that site, primarily um to be able to utilize that for a parking ride that we are constructing, but also at nights and weekends.

That is also a parking that will be available uh for use for patrons of the rec center and 125 live.

So that is exciting.

Please um work with us as we move through the construction and we look forward to that future amenity for the community.

We also have an open house coming up on this Wednesday, May 20th, 5:30 to 7 p.m.

That is a conversation with the community at Elton Hills Elementary School, 1421 Elton Hills Drive Northwest in the cafeteria and gem space.

Um that is to talk about um possible improvements along that stretch of road, Elton Hills Drive Northwest from East Frontage Road, um, which is US 52 to Broadway Avenue North.

Um construction would be anticipated in 200 2027, and so this is a conversation about what that would look like and getting feedback from the community about um the design of that as we enter major resurfacing project.

And then it is an exciting time of year in Rochester.

We have announced the forward concert series and we will keep this under wraps, but Riverside will be also getting announced soon here.

But the forward concert series are Wednesday evenings, June and August in the parks uh system.

We're kicking off with Corey Kennedy on June 3rd.

You might recognize her as a local.

Um and of course, these are um Minnesota artists.

Um the performances are rotating throughout different parks in the ward system across the community.

They're free and open to the public.

We encourage folks to stop by um in your local park or around the community, and um food and beverage will start at 5 p.m.

and concerts 5 30 to 7 45.

Um check that out on Rochester Mn.gov.

Uh and candidate filing does open tomorrow.

That will be at City Hall and Conference Room 104.

Um, and or excuse me, um, that will be at City Hall in order to have candidate filing through June 2nd.

And then we do have a candidate information session scheduled for Tuesday, May 26th, 6 p.m.

Um, in room 104.

So if people are interested in just understanding a little bit more about how the organization works and uh meeting up with some city teammates to get a uh feel for what we do, um we would welcome you to stop by.

Um candidates, if you are considering a run for office, need to be an eligible voter, be a resident of Rochester for at least 30 days, be at least 21 years old upon taking office and uh must reside in the ward that they represent.

Um, or if they're running for mayor, they need to live um in the city of Rochester.

Uh, we also are at the end of our uh legislative session gratefully, and I will turn it over to Council President Schubring, who's doing dual duty today to talk a little bit more about that.

Thank you, Administrator Zelms.

Yes, as most of you know, the Minnesota legislature adjourned at midnight last night.

And first, I'd just like to thank our local lawmakers and their colleagues from across Minnesota for their bipartisan work during the 2026 legislative session and for supporting priorities important to Rochester residents and the broader region.

This session included meaningful progress on several city priorities related to infrastructure, housing, uh recreation and community investment.

Is that going to stop?

There we go.

Uh among our city's top legislative priorities was funding for the East Zumbro sewer and water infrastructure project.

And Rochester received 13.2 million dollars in state funding to support pre-design design and construction of phase one and a portion of phase two of the East Zumbro uh sewer and water systems.

This investment uh paired with additional 1 million that we received in federal funding will help unlock future developable land as well as enable infill and redevelopment to support housing and long-term community growth.

So this was our top priority, and we actually got more money than we asked for.

We also appreciate legislative support for the state's led service line replacement program and the local road and bridge program funding included in the overall bonding package, which may further benefit Rochester's infrastructure and residents.

Additionally, the city appreciates legislative action earlier in this session, authorizing a liquor license for the historic Chateau Theater Event Space.

The addition of liquor service capabilities will allow the city-owned facility to expand event opportunities, improve operational flexibility, and better support community gatherings, celebrations, cultural programming, and visitor experiences in downtown Rochester.

I'd also like to acknowledge the efforts of our local red legislators to elevate continued community discussion on the regional sports center and recreational opportunities across the board.

And while we appreciate the ability to continue moving forward with the Rochester Regional Sports and Recreation Complex, we are committed to continuing discussions on potential indoor recreational facility, whether at uh the campus of RCTC or at our Southeast sports complex, as well as building greater awareness and access to all of our rec amenities.

Stay tuned on that.

The council is expected to continue these discussions at our June 1st council meeting.

And with that, as uh administrator Zelm said, uh this week is public works week.

I see some of our public works staff here at May uh 17th to 23rd.

And it the theme is rooted in service, powered by community.

So congratulations to our public works team, and they are working on my roads as we speak.

We also have uh May is National Historic Preservation Month.

So uh now's a good time for my colleagues to visit the HPC.

I think they're meeting tomorrow night or the night after that.

So congratulate that commission and uh those uh interested in historic preservation.

And then finally, uh we have uh the mayor's play ball camp, uh, courtesy of honkers and the office of the mayor.

And uh this is Monday, June 8th, 9 a.m.

to noon at Mail Field.

Boys and girls age six to twelve are invited to join us for a free uh play ball camp, and we will have real professional baseball players from the honkers, and I've heard there may be others, but you'll have to be there in order to see.

So it should be a fun event, it always is.

So uh check that out on June 8th.

And that is the end of the uh acting mayor's report.

And if you have any questions, please uh contact the mayor's office.

And with that, uh we move on to the order of the agenda.

I have not received any changes to the agenda.

Is there a motion to approve the order of the agenda?

I move to approve the agenda.

Second.

Moved by uh Councilmember Doring and seconded by Councilmember Wall.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Pose saying nay.

Motion passes.

Uh moving on to our consent agenda.

Councilmember Palmer has pulled items F6 and F20.

Are there any other polled items?

Seeing none, I would invite a motion to approve in block items F1 through F5, F7 through F19, and item F21.

So moved.

Moved by Councilmember Frederick, seconded by Councilmember Keene.

All uh Councilmember Wall has a comment to make.

Thank you.

We are reward awarding four contracts, F10, 12, 14, and 15.

Engineer estimates of 3.553 million.

But the bids came in at 2.786 million for a savings of 766,000 or 21.6% off of the engineers' estimates.

So that process continues to work well for the Rochester uh community.

Uh thank you very much for your work.

And uh Councilmember uh Fredericks and I had decided we're going to have an F uh or a uh consent agenda subcategory called uh Councilmember Wall's Report on the Budget.

So we'll have it every time.

So with that, uh we have motion made and seconded.

All in favor of approving the consent agenda in block as stated, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed say nay.

Motion passes.

We have one public hearing on our agenda tonight.

And before we begin, uh a little clarification on our public hearings, a little different than the open comment period.

Uh we start uh the public hearing process with a report from staff.

And then after the staff report, uh, if there is an applicant to the item, the applicant has up to 10 minutes to discuss the item prior to the start of the public hearing.

And then uh we open the public hearing.

Members of the public have five minutes each to discuss the item.

Similar to the open comment period, we ask that you please keep your comments directed to the item itself.

And uh and uh and then following the uh public hearing, we'll invite the applicant up to uh make any closing comments or respond to any questions that came up during the public hearing.

So with that, we have item G1, which is a vacation uh petition by Bella Vit Vita of Rochester LLC and Forte of Rochester 2 LLC and Mr.

Desmond McGill.

Yes.

Uh thank you, President Sheaving, members of the council.

Good evening.

My name is Desmond McGill.

I'm a community development planning division, and I'll be introducing this item.

Um Bella Vita and Forte Rochester LLC are requesting uh approval of a drainage and public utility easement vacation.

Uh the subject easement is approximately 45 feet in width and 65 feet in length.

It's located on the shared property line of lot one and two of the stencil addition plat.

These two lots are part of the Forte uh Senior Living Apartment Community.

And the apartment project is located between Superior Drive Northwest and 46th Avenue Northwest on the north side of Badger Hills Drive.

The project received site plan approval and final plat approval for the stencil addition plat in 2020.

During construction uh of the project, the developer requested a breezeway uh intended to connect the two uh structures on site together.

A revocable permit was issued uh to allow the construction of a 10-foot-wide uh breezeway over the subject easement.

However, the width of the building exceeded uh the issue permit area.

And the applicant has recently approached the city requesting uh to increase the effective area of the revocable permit to the extent of the finished structure.

However, upon uh determining that there were no utilities in the easement and it was unneeded for site drainage, the public works department uh directed the applicant to request a vacation uh rather than to extend the uh revocable permit easement area.

Um the development review team supports this application.

Um, and uh we are recommending approval of of the vacation request, subject to a slight revision to the area of easement release contained in the legal description.

Uh the area of the easement shall now read uh the drainage and utility easement with the added language as shown on and then continuing on to dedicated as part of the plat of this stencil addition.

Uh we've discussed this change with the applicant, uh the applicants council, and uh they have no objection to the proposed revision in that description.

Uh we'll forward a revised um resolution tomorrow to the city clerk's office, uh, subject to the council approval.

So that concludes my uh presentation or my intro.

I'd be happy to answer any questions after the public hearing.

Uh and I believe our applicant's representation is online on the on uh Teams as a panelist.

Thank you, Mr.

McGill.

Uh uh the so the applicant is online.

Can you uh introduce yourself and uh you have up to 10 minutes to discuss the project?

Uh yes, I'm Jack Swanson.

Oh, hope you all can hear me.

Uh, General Council for okay, great.

General Council for Stencil Group, uh, the development uh company that developed the uh two phases of the project here.

I don't really have anything further to add that um apart from what Desmond brought up.

Um, just to reiterate again that the uh the easement area that we're requesting being vacated is currently not being used for any easements and um the impacted area will not affect any easement use at the two properties or any uh neighboring properties.

Thank you, Mr.

I'm happy to yeah, happy to answer any questions.

We will call you back after the public hearing.

Uh this is a public hearing.

Anyone wishing to be heard on this item, please step forward.

Anyone wishing to be heard on this item, please step forward.

Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing.

And Mr.

Swanson, any final comments?

No, nothing further.

With that, uh council members, any questions for staff or the applicant.

Councilmember Keene.

Yeah, I just want to ask community development just to make sure.

I mean, this seems to be as well understood that the original plan that was approved in 2020, it didn't get built that way, so it makes sense.

But I did hear words of such that there's no expected usage.

If there did turn out to be some sort of usage for it, what how does that resolve?

This is all in private property.

Would the city need to purchase an easement in the future?

And what is the likelihood something like that could happen?

Sure.

Uh thank you, Councilman Member Keene.

I'll I'll try to answer that question the best I can and maybe with some assistance from public works.

Um, I I don't think um the uh we would have provided the direction uh to uh vacate the easement had there been um any concern about uh additional utilities being needed to be placed in this area uh that would extend through the project um to other properties.

Um and um uh I think uh uh they could if there was any additional uh needs uh there's easements throughout the entire parcel around surrounding the parcel.

I think there was a change in the uh project uh midway through where they added uh land.

So um I think that the need for that easement had been eliminated uh through that process.

Very good.

Thank you.

Any further questions?

Is there a motion on this item?

I'll move to adopt a resolution approving the vacation petition CD 2026 004 VAC by Bellavita of Rochester LLC and Forte of Rochester to LLC to vacate a 45 foot wide drainage and public utility easement, approximately 65 feet in length, located on the 3955 and 3975 Superior Drive Northwest.

Motion made by Councilmember Keene.

Is there a second?

Second.

Seconded by Councilmember Miller.

Anything further to add, Council Member.

No, nothing to add.

This seems to make sense.

Nothing to add.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Say nay.

Motion passes.

Moving on to our reports and recommendations.

We have uh item uh H1, which is a budget amendment of uh Rochester Public Utility Silver Lake Dam modification project.

And this is an item that was on our consent agenda polled by council member Palmer.

Councilmember Palmer, go ahead.

Yes, I'll make a motion to um table this item.

Oh sorry motion made uh by council member uh Palmer to table and seconded by councilmember uh Fredericks.

Uh councilmember Palmer, do you anything to say on the tabling?

Well, a couple things.

Um I've read the bar engineering report and it says 1.9 uh million dollars.

Um and the answer back was that um the reason they need three million is is that the um DNR is going to request something.

I would like us to table it until the DNR a final request so we get the final permit so we know the total cost.

Um, and then we can continue on this.

It's not a overreaching item or or timeline on this, so that's the reason I'd like to um um table this.

Uh before uh before we vote on that, could we hear a report from uh Mr.

McCullough on the item itself so we're all clear and members of the public are clear on the on the item.

Certainly willing to do that.

Uh this item was reviewed by the Rochester Public Utilities Board at their April meeting.

The recommendation to expand the funding for the Silver Lake Dam contribution towards the modification project is based on an updated cost estimate.

Councilmember Palmer is correct in the uh identifying the bar engineering report as one of the foundations of that cost estimate.

Largely the gate needs the the dam functions with a hydraulically operated steel gate that is in need of maintenance.

The bulk of the 1.9 million is needed near-term repairs on that floodgate, the leaf gate.

Um, but the revised estimate uh the estimate was revised based on two additional factors, including 20 years of OM expense that totaled around 600,000 additional dollars, representing what uh expense the electric ratepayers would carry to continue to operate the dam over the next two decades.

In addition, the scour downstream of the dam was identified in need of repair again.

The bar engineering report identified $65,000 of riprap large boulder structure to put in the scour.

That was attempted uh in the last repair, and that was not a sufficient repair to uh be a long-term fix for the scour.

So there's an additional $700,000 roughly to a total of $3,900,000 in a net present value that it'll cost the electric rate pairs to continue to operate and maintain the dam over the next 20 years.

That's the basis of the expanded budget.

Um if the project does not happen, those dollars need to be spent anyway to continue to maintain the dam, operate it over the next foreseeable future in that 20-year period.

And if it is beyond the costs, only continue to go up from there as maintenance and operations continue on the dam.

It is the board's recommendation that the council consider um approving this budget amendment as a necessary expense and a contribution towards the project.

Uh it would have to be spent otherwise uh to continue to operate the dam.

I'd be happy to take any questions if that wasn't sufficient.

Councilmember Keene.

Yeah, I'll just I want to just speak against tabling this this evening.

Um, like council member Palmer, I had some peers on the RPU board who were very concerned about this, and they ended up doing a tour.

These are the newer members of the board, and they wanted to make sure they understood that this wasn't just your rising costs.

I think um General Manager McCullough pinpointed the thing here.

These are costs that will RPU will take on and use.

These aren't new.

This isn't a donation they're giving to the project.

Um, and that's how the scaffolding of the funding worked for this project.

I think we've been on this kind of work talking about it for about five and a half years now, and there's been different times of studies.

There's been trying to find the funding models, things go up over time.

So I think we've we've this has gotten a clear hearing through staff, but also through other boards, and I want to support it tonight.

Councilmember Doring.

Yeah, I'm just I'm just looking for a little clarification on the dollar amount that's being quoted tonight.

In our packet, it says $1,009.

And I've heard $1.9 million repeatedly in this discussion.

That was a misstatement on myself.

If I did say $1.9 million, I the I'm sorry, I did say $1.9 million.

That is the cost estimate of bar engineering's report that is from 2024.

The recommended there's also a number in the RCA of 1,090.

And that is the additional budget that is being recommended to bring the total RPU contribution to just over $3 million.

There's two million dollars approved previously in the last budget cycle.

Yep.

Thank you for that clarification.

Councilmember Wall.

What would the effect of tabling uh this motion mean for the project?

Um based off of the timeline.

I think the council would need to re bring this back and reconsider it at a future date before letting the final contract.

So at the moment it would be a non-issue.

We're bringing this forward in this timeline.

So this piece of the puzzle, the contribution is uh uh not uh not a barrier to future steps in the process.

But I think there is some additional time if uh if that's the will of the council to to table it, it would have to be reconsidered before any future actions related to the budget.

Administrators elms.

And just to further clarify, that wouldn't change anything with the project moving forward.

It would just put in jeopardy your funding sources.

Any further discussion on the motion to table this item?

Councilmember Keene.

Yeah, just in the side discussion on on the timelines here.

Uh there are some concerns going through the timelines right now.

There's still some um other outside groups, DNR and uh some other groups that are going through approvals, and as that happens, we're going to be on a timeline.

So, this idea of having the city stuff in good shape so that when those approvals happen, we can do our next steps and not be caught up is important to be able to do the dredging and the other work starting this fall.

So again, I do not want to support uh this sort of hold up.

The RPU board went through this in April and is confident that this is the right thing for on the RPU side.

So I I don't see a reason to hold it up tonight.

Councilmember Palmer.

Well, it it to me it's kind of funny because um we don't know what the end result's gonna be from the Corps of Engineers or the um DNR.

They have not issued their permit, and they could come back and say we need to do a lot more stuff, and then RPU could say, well, you know what, we already gave you your three million.

Um we're not gonna give you any more.

So um there's a lot of issues here, and I'm just trying to keep it to the RPU part of this.

Um, because yes, RPU will not have to do the maintenance if they give this to the deconstruction of the dam, but someone's gonna have it.

It's not a removal of the dam, it's a modification of the dam.

And it's someone's gonna have to maintain this dam and and who's going to end up doing that.

So I guess the biggest concern for me right now is we don't know until the permit's issued from the DNR.

And as soon as it's issued, I mean the next meeting, we can bring it back and take it off the table and we can make a decision on what we want to do.

So there is no rush on this.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, Clerk Kaisel, could you take the roll on the motion to table?

Councilmember Keene.

Nay.

Councilmember Miller.

Nay.

Councilmember Wall.

Nay.

Councilmember Fredericks.

Aye.

Councilmember Palmer.

Aye.

Councilmember Doring.

Nay.

Council President Schuebring.

Nay.

Motion fails.

Two to five.

Is there an uh alternative motion on this?

Councilmember Miller.

I'll make a motion adopting a resolution approving a 2026 budget amendment and the amount of $1,090 for capital expenditures associated with the Silver Lake Dam modification project, increasing the total project funding to $3,000 nine thousand seven hundred dollars.

Motion made by Councilmember Miller.

Second.

Seconded by Councilmember Keene.

Councilmember Miller, any more to add?

Uh again, this recommendation coming from the RPU board, the governing structure of the utility.

Um I I trust their assessment and the staff work on this, understanding the the increasing future cost of maintenance and the limited use of this piece of infrastructure to the utility.

So I I don't see a reason to um move away from the recommendation of the board.

Any further discussion?

Councilmember Wall.

Part of the reason I asked about uh the effect of a tabling is the timeline for the project.

Uh many of us were hoping that this would have been done over this last winter, the drawdown, the dredging uh didn't happen because of permits.

And uh I thought that we were told perhaps that that would commence by uh September of this year.

Is that the timeline on which uh we are proceeding?

Mr.

Luxteen.

Yeah, thank you for that question.

Um timeline is entirely dependent on we need one more permit from the DNR and then one from the U.S.

Army Corps engineers.

Both of those are under review.

I wish there was a timeline specifically tied to those.

Unfortunately, there isn't.

We are still aiming for uh final approvals and from them and bringing this back to council in August so that we can start in September.

Ideally, we would start in September or October to take advantage of the low flow period through the winter.

So we'll keep pushing on that.

Um that is the the timeline, but until we receive final words on those permits, I don't have an absolute concrete schedule any further discussion seeing uh I'm sorry.

Uh Mr.

McCullough, go ahead.

Excuse me, I just wanted to ask for a point of clarity.

Uh Councilmember Miller's motion was a portion of the resolution that was in front, but it wasn't the complete resolution.

Just wanted to understand if that was intentional or if the motion on the table is for the motion as presented in the resolution.

There was a be it further resolved portion of that as well.

Councilmember Miller.

So I I would accept a friendly amendment.

I I'm reading directly from the RCA and the action requested.

I don't see a be it further resolved in the packet.

It that is in the resolution attachment to it as well.

I apologize if the cover page motion did not match the full resolution.

So if I might then I would amend my motion.

I get it.

To be it further resolved that operations maintenance and financial responsibility for the dam be transferred to the public works department upon commencement of demolition of the Silver Lake Dam modification project and will remain with the public works department and upon project completion.

Friendly amendment by Councilmember Miller.

Councilmember Keene, do you accept that?

I accept.

All right.

Uh any further discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye pose say nay.

Motion passes six to one six six to two with council members.

Five two.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Five two with council members Palmer and Frederick's voting nay.

Five to two.

Very good.

Uh on to uh item H2, which is safe streets and roads for all planning and demonstration grant application.

Councilmember Palmer.

Yeah, I'm not gonna make a motion on this one.

Um a lot of things in this that I'm not a fan of, and one of them is that we're asking for grant money.

Then the next step is they get the grant, then they come to us and say this is what we're going to do.

We have to do it because we have a grant.

Um, in reading the the details on it, um, some groups uh walked around, they looked at the street and they said, well, geez, you can't see crosswalks.

And oh, by the way, the ADA ramp is in in in the wrong spot, which public work to put it there.

Um, and so these roads that we have, four street southeast, third Avenue Southeast, and 11th Avenue Southwest, Northwest are not roads that we're going to expand.

Um, they're already um a bottleneck, so I'm not particularly sure what this grant would help us with.

So um I won't be approving, I won't be um supporting this grant.

Mr.

Dombrowski, could you uh briefly uh explain this item?

Yeah, thank you.

Um President members of the council.

Uh this is uh uh building off of a grant that was previously received through the the MINDOT um active transportation program, looking at how we can again work towards our mode shift goals ultimately in the community and thinking about how we get people out of their single occupancy vehicles.

So that project looked at the three corridors that are identified Third Avenue Southeast, Fourth Street Southeast, and then 11th Avenue, both Northwest and Southwest.

And it was really focused on how do we connect people more safely to the link corridor to again grow ridership.

Um work towards the mode shift outcome.

And so what this would be is asking for a grant.

If we're successful in achieving in receiving it, we would look at uh working on a demonstration project, some planning and demonstration to really help inform instead of just going right into full reconstruction of these corridors because they're not all ready for it.

How could we repurpose the space within those corridors to make improvements for people walking, rolling, and biking, um being able to safely navigate across intersections that we see is troublesome and really again um learning before we do a full blown reconstruction and add something to the CIP.

Again, there's no local match on this this grant application, so it's it's all 100% federally funded.

Councilmember Miller.

And Mr.

Dombrovsky, and the safety action plan project that Rokog completed last year.

Were all three of these corridors identified in that plan?

Yes, that's correct.

And and that was my understanding as well.

And Mr.

Palmer and Mr.

Keene and the mayor and I and Mr.

Schubering serve on ROCOG.

And so I would just say that we went through a very intentional process, grant funded to identify these corridors.

It was not looking at individuals to tell us these were um places where they just wanted to see additional biking or walking infrastructure.

It was a look at safety history uh for serious injury and fatal crashes, uh road profiles, and the entirety of the board um unanimously approved this plan to my knowledge.

So my understanding all along was that this was the subsequent step to go back to the federal government with the results of a safety action plan and not to just have a plan that we don't implement.

So I would submit a motion or I would make a motion approving the submittal to the U.S.

Department of Transportation of a Safe Streets and Roads for All Planning and Demonstration Grant application for a demonstration project along three corridors, fourth street southeast, third Avenue Southeast, and 11th Avenue Southwest and Northwest.

Motion made by Councilmember Miller, second, seconded by councilmember Doring.

Any more to add, Councilmember Miller?

No, I I think uh to Mr.

Dombrowski's point uh doing a demonstration grant before we commit to hard infrastructure is a good step.

Obviously, there's no guarantee that we would even receive this uh this grant.

So I think it is a good step for the council to uh approve the application to this program while there are still funds available because my understanding is that they are soon to be exhausted unless the uh Congress reauthorizes the service transportation funding for this.

I have nothing to add.

Uh all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Oppose say nay.

Nay.

Motion passes six to one with councilmember Palmer voting nay.

Uh moving on to our ordinance second readings.

Go ahead, Mr.

Spindler Craig.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Item K1, an ordinance amending subsection three of subparagraph A of paragraph three of clause E of section 60.200.040 of the unified development code.

Is there a motion on this item?

Move approval.

Second.

Motion made by Councilmember Keene, seconded by Councilmember Miller.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Oppose say nay.

Motion passes.

Item K2, an ordinance creating a new section 5-21-9, amending sections 5-21-1, 5-21-2, 5-21-4 through 5-21-8, and renumbering previous sections 5-21-9 and 5-21-10 as sections 5-21-10 and 5-21-11, respectively, to accommodate the addition of new Section 5 21 9 of chapter 5 21 of Title V of the Rochester Code of Ordinances relating to mobile food units.

Move approval.

Second.

Motion made by Councilmember Keene, seconded by Councilmember Miller.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Oppose say nay.

Motion passes.

Uh is there a motion to adjourn?

Second.

Motion made by Councilmember Palmer, seconded by Councilmember Miller.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed say nay.

We are adjourned.