Please rise as you're able for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America Welcome, everybody, to our August 3 it's already August City Council meeting. And we begin every City Council meeting with our, our open comment period. And this is an opportunity for anyone from the public to speak on items that we will not be taking public testimony on later in the agenda. Each person has up to two minutes to speak for a total of twenty minutes,
And I keep track, through two methods. One is the, stoplight here at the dais and the other is the digital clock on the wall. I'd ask each speaker to be concise, to allow others to speak. 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 the public comment period but will instead follow-up on any specific requests separately.
And if you have materials to share with the council, you may give them to the city clerk, who is to my right there, Ms. Casel, and she will distribute them to, the council. With that, you will be invited up as you, signed up. And first, we have Samantha Loomis. Hello. You may have to turn the mic on. It pushed the button right in front till it turns green. You gotta push it hard sometimes. Harder. There you go. There we go. Alright. Alright. I'm Samantha Loomis. I'm coming to talk about h two, the Willow Creek Regional Trail Feasibility Study,
and specifically about segment one c alternative one. That portion of the map is going right through the center of our family's property, which we've lived there for over fifty plus years going back a few generations. Alternative two goes on the border of the property, and it wouldn't not have to go through the center for the bike path that they're recommending. I read in the report narrative that this trail will help provide access to jobs, food, and recreation for at least 1,000 households within a half mile or a mile and then 2,700
within a half mile. But those actually aren't even part of this project to put in this report narrative. Those are spurs that are unfunded and for years down the road. So I feel like currently that doesn't actually have a true purpose for this bike path with connecting the people, to the jobs and to the groceries and activities. So, basically, my point here is, wherever I wrote it, I asked the city council to vote nay on segment one c if it's possible to just take that and choose the alternative two option,
which would include a bridge. That option is $3,400,000 more expensive. So but they do have funding for up to 5,500,000, so they just are needing to get 463,000 more dollars to achieve to cover for the bridge cost. Otherwise, everything else is funded. So my thought was the property tax. They did an error this year. I don't know if the 1,500,000 error would go into parks and recs as far as for the project next year where they could cover that $463,000
to do the back path through our home. We already have homeless people. In fact, I let some live at the end of our road because they weren't safe where they were. They actually helped me keep all the other people out. Who's gonna please your bike path? Who's gonna please everything that happens in this area if you put it closer to alternative two, I also vote nay to one. But if you go to two, maybe you'd have the option to do the end of your month to make it
safer for people that are gonna use your backpack. And I don't even go Under the bridge. I didn't study like my family studied more than I did about your bridge. I think if you went under the overpass, there's other options. You really need to study it, and you really need to save money. And fraud's a big thing. Spending money is a big thing right now, and I think you really need to look at the spending. You bought the piece of We're having a little bit of technical. It's not you. So keep going. You bought the property across the other side of the highway.
Does this I mean, we don't need I don't even have a ward. I can't even vote for mayor. And you're all coming to me. I'm not in the city. We're not in the city. So you don't you know? It's hard to we don't even have a voice to vote for mayor. So anyway, please Thank you, Ms. Loomis. Thank you. Next, we have Kelly Rae Kirkpatrick. Good evening. This is an open letter from the leaders of Neighborhood Associations. I am Kelly Ray Kirkpatrick, 1107 East Center Street, President of the Eastside Neighborhood Association. Rochester is changing faster than at any point in generations.
Our neighborhoods understand that change is inevitable, and we support thoughtful investment, economic vitality and a prosperous future. But the people who built these neighborhoods, care for them and call them home, deserve to help that change be shaped, not simply endure it. Rochester neighborhood leaders hear the same concerns repeatedly. Families, seniors and young people are increasingly priced out by rising housing costs, property valuations and special assessments. Redevelopment, major construction and widespread upzoning transform our neighborhoods while tree canopy green space and neighborhood
character disappear. We are concerned with the great rate of growth is experiencing because we often feel decisions affecting our neighborhoods and communities are made before we are meaningfully invited into the conversation. Neighborhood associations are one of Rochester's greatest civic assets. We provide knowledge of our neighborhood's history, infrastructure issues, environmental conditions and community needs. We identify challenges early, build consensus among neighbors and contribute thousands of volunteer hours each year to strengthen Rochester.
Engaging neighborhoods early leads to better planning, stronger public trust and more successful projects. We believe Rochester can continue to grow while protecting the neighborhoods that make our city strong. To accomplish that, we ask our elected officials, city staff, public infrastructure institutions, and development partners to commit to the following: engage neighborhood associations early, recognize neighborhood associations as standing partners, evaluate neighborhood impacts, establish regular ongoing communication. And last,
these requests are not to slow Rochester's progress. They are to enact more thoughtful, more collaborative and more sustainable growth. Rochester's greatest strength has always been its people. And as neighborhood leaders, we are committed to building a city where growth is measured not only by what we construct, but by how well we protect the people in places that are Rochester's home, that make Rochester home. Neighborhoods are not barriers to Rochester's future. They are the foundation of it. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have, Joe LaForge. Alright.
President Chu, ring, council members, mayors, city staff, etcetera. Lots of you guys here. Joe LaForge. I live in the Northeast for over sixteen years at this point. I've seen enough of these meetings to know I'm gonna throw you the rare curveball and come up here with a positive comment. Let's say my son, he received special ed services, a tenth century. He has been a longtime participant in the Parks and Recreation Adaptive Rec program, and it's really done him wonders. I wanted to come up here and just say that Sue Miller has done a phenomenal job, expanding programming, making these kids feeling included,
and really hiring really good young people to work on these programs. So my son right now is attending the Silver Lake, teen camps, and what inspired me to brave the road construction to come here tonight is that last week he and I were at the fair. We actually ran into, two of the counselors from the camp and they greeted him by name. I was so happy to see them. It might not sound like much, but that's a very rare kindness for him and that really made a difference.
So I'm just happy to say that Adaptive Rec has been wonderful for my family And I wanna thank the city council and the city staff, the parks board, again, particularly Sue Miller. It's really made a big difference. Thank you. Thank you, mister LaForge. We appreciate it. Next, we have Molly Dennis. Hello. Molly Dennis. It's been said that an unhappy prisoner knows that they are trapped, but a comfortable prisoner can mistake their prison for freedom. People are too busy surviving to pay attention to what's going on, and leaders are gradually eroding their freedoms.
They're systematically dehumanizing the truth tellers, disregulating, disregarding the laws, and abusing rights. Power is now often without accountability. When I was a council member sitting up here, other business was a time we brought up residents' concerns. It was six times every month, and I wrote it down now to only two, silencing residents' voices. Four minutes for open comment, now barely enough time for someone to gather a thought, and blocking feedback on social media. Eliminating residents from calling in, and having reports and recommendations like h two that should be a public hearing.
We my question is is why is city hall scared of transparency? That is a question we must all ask now, August 11, and in the future because transparency is trust and integrity matters. Please do better. Thank you. That is, all I have on our list. So I will close the public comment period and, ask Clerk Casel to call the roll. Good evening. Council Member Keane? Here. Council Member Miller? Here.
Council Member Wall is absent. Council Member Fredericks? Here. Council Member Palmer? Here. Council Member Doring? Here. Council President Schoebring? Here. Mayor Norton? Present. Thank you. Next up we have our city administrator's report. Administrator Zelms, take it away. Thank you, council president. Council members, Mayor Norton, members of the public, I always start the administrator's report, sharing with our teammates how they act with respect, integrity, safety, and excellence in mind. Really appreciate all of their hard work every day. Sometimes nights and weekends as well for some of our teammates,
so appreciate their work. Also did wanna note that Civic Center North parking lot is closing starting August 15. That is to make way for, development in that area, which we expect mobilization to start several days thereafter. Community members are encouraged to use the public parking on the east side of the Civic Center South lot in lieu of that. So we will see that forthcoming. Also, for folks who aren't aware, we are rescheduling the fireworks that did not go off as planned, to September 4. That will be at Soldier's Field Memorial Park, Friday, September 4.
The show will begin at 9PM, a little bit earlier than when it's, in the middle of summer, and there will be more details forthcoming, including a sign up for, updates about the event. Also, did want some more flashy stuff here, the aurora lights. There is going to be a presentation at the Public Library Auditorium on August 10 from six to 7PM. Presenter Randy Hemann is going to be presenting. He is from the Rochester Astronomy Club and is a NASA solar system ambassador. So if that's something that you are interested in, please head over to the library on that date.
And it is time for Downtown Art Walk. That will be from five to 8PM, Thursday, August 20. There are printed maps will be available at the historic Chateau Theatre and Threshold Arts during the event. It is a self guided tour through Downtown Rochester. And that's all I have. Thank you. Next up we have the mayor's report. Mayor Norton, go ahead. Terrific. I've got a couple announcements. First, this is National Farmers Market Week, August second through eighth. The global farmers market that we got a, grant for, dollars 50,000
grant, is, MLK Park on the seventh, two to 6PM, and then the Cascade Lake, Farmers Market, which is larger, is, Tuesdays, four to seven. And, if you go on a bike, if you walk, if you do yoga or exercise while you're there, there's $4 off of free produce. So I would encourage folks to go. That's, part of the grant, and, we hope folks will participate. Also, just an announcement, it is night to night this week, so on, Tuesday, tomorrow evening, there are dozens and dozens of neighborhoods,
celebrating, all evening long. And it's, a way to bring law enforcement, neighbors together, really to build community and help introduce you to your neighbors so that you can help protect each other and, promote a safer community. So I would encourage folks to, participate in nineteen night. Also, just a reminder, August 11 is primary election day, so encourage folks to vote. You can vote early now in person, or you can wait and vote on the eleventh. And there's a QR code there that takes you to the Secretary of State website. You can type in your address and actually find out what ward and precinct that
you actually live in because sometimes folks don't know that. Safe City Nights is the final. Safe City Nights is Tuesday, next Tuesday, August 11, from six to 8PM, and it will be at Ben Franklin School. I assume we're gonna continue those, passport, events. And so I many of your council members will be there, and we hope, the folks it seems to be the young people are really enjoying those, passport days. So hopefully, they'll get to know their council members and mayor while they're at Ben Franklin. Back to school day is Saturday, August 15 from twelve to four at Soldier's Field.
This is a time, to make sure our kids are prepared with backpacks, hygiene kits, and shoes. Multiple community agencies get together, volunteering and, providing free school supplies for students. There's also food and music. And, again, this year it's at Soldier's Field because MLK Park is under construction. So twelve to four at Soldier's Field. The next, town hall is, getting around town, and it really is about transit, biking, transportation, and all its forms. It will be Thursday, August 20, from six to 07:30PM.
And, we are still determining a location and we will, let folks know and publicize that as quickly as we can. The location we had ended up, not being available, and so we're having to make some quick shifts. It's looking like it could be at one of our public high schools. We'll let you know. And lastly, this is, National Civility Month. And, so in August, maybe we can all be on our best behavior. I think this council has, been behaving quite well. But, the, it's a reminder that the League of Minnesota Cities actually has a, civility pledge that they've asked all cities to,
take part in. So maybe the council could give a peek into the League of Minnesota Cities website. They have a sample resolution and many of you at LMC, signed on the little page saying you supported that concept. So, it's easy to do. It has, five whereases, and maybe that's something we could bring forward to the council later this year or this month, maybe even, during National Civility Month. So to my friendly colleagues, let's have a great meeting. Thank you, Mayor. We all, council, Council Member Fredericks has a very civil question for the mayor.
Go ahead. You brought up night to unite. It's a great event. Where can we go to find the list of all the, locations for that in our neighborhoods? Great question. Michonne just got a copy of that. The police have that list for elected officials, and she just sent it to me, like, last night or the night before. So it's We've all gotten it too. Check your So check your email. It just maybe Friday, it came out is what I wanna say, but I just saw it this weekend. Must have went to spam. And if Oh. Yeah. And if members of the public would like a copy, you can just send one of us a quest and we'll we'll send it to
you. Thanks for that question. Next up, we have our order of the agenda. Is, are there any changes to the agenda? Seeing none, is there a motion to approve the agenda? So moved. Second. Moved by Councilmember Fredericks and seconded by Councilmember Miller. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, say nay. Motion passes. Moving on to our consent agenda. I have received no requests for, items to be pulled from the consent agenda, so I would entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. Move approval. Second.
Motion made by Councilmember Miller and seconded by Councilmember Doring. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. Motion passes. We have no public hearings, this evening and we have two reports and recommendations. We'll start with h one, which is wood debris management operations update, mister Mike Niebuhr, Taryn Eanes, and Aaron Luckstein. Mr. Niekberg, go ahead. Good evening, and thank you for having us tonight. I appreciate your time you're spending with us. Let me first start and just say that, we're here tonight because of a lot of collaboration going on between departments and other
entities. So public works, RPU, administration, community development, our park and forestry team, Olmsted County, and it and our vendor for our wood waste is Hathaway Tree Service. So all these folks are getting together, having conversations, trying to find a solution to this very important problem. So that's the way I wanna start off with it. Tonight, we're talking about three different things. History, I'll give you that brief history on the site. Taryn will talk about the existing conditions that were out there, and then Aaron will finish up with the proposed project that we're looking towards, making satisfactory improvements on. So, with that, the history.
We've got a long history of private vendors working with wood waste in our community. And those private vendors have evolved in time. And in fact, in 1996, we purchased a property that, had a private vendor on it. Being that we owned the property, we now became a public partner with that private vendor. Had a lease with that vendor for many years. And in fact, through 2005, it worked very, very well, or a couple years before that, actually. In that time frame, though, as encroachment started happening from the developments from near, north side of that property, we started hearing complaints from those residents.
It's the noise, the backup beepers, the grinding operation, smoke periodically from the burning operation. These are things that we heard from those neighbors, and we wanted to solve that. So in 2005, we moved that site from the East Side Of 50th Avenue over to the West Side Of 50th Avenue. What that did, it provided a greater separation for a long time, you know, twenty plus years, before any issues became apparent. And we're now in a situation right now where development is once again encroaching upon that area. And we're looking for a solution that's sustainable long term that we can set in place and and go for quite a long time.
It's really important to think about why we have that to begin with, though. And we have it there because our operations, Park and Forestry, Public Works, RPU, are the primary users, at least from the city side of things, for a wood waste facility. We bring lots of debris there, lots of waste there, used for recycling, then it goes out in a different manner. If we didn't have a facility we could utilize and draw upon, we'd struggle yearly on what we do with our waste. So, again, having a facility that we can help control is to our benefit. The side benefit of that is the community benefits along with us. And by having a public forum or public area that they can dispose of their
waste, their tree limbs, their area their issues, you know, in a storm event or or otherwise, it's good for the community. If we did not have that and we found along the way that, people illicitly discharge or dump debris along public rights of way or in our parks or across the county, things we don't want to have happen. So again, this has been a solution that we've been working towards for a very, very long time. We've talked about it internally whether we should be involved in this process. And I think that decision, that public benefit is there for that very reason. So with that, I'll turn over to Taryn,
and she can take over the existing site. Thanks, Mike. Taryn Edens with Community Development. I'll talk about the existing site from a community development perspective a little bit about the, I guess, regulatory nature of this as well. So the site, just to get your bearings here, is located at 2555 50th Avenue Northwest, West Of 50th Avenue, South Of Valley High Drive Northwest. Currently, as mentioned in that slide, the site sits on city owned land and is operating under an existing conditional use permit. So technically, it's not allowed by right. It's, operating with conditions,
essentially. What's happening at the site today? Today, if you were to go there, there's a residential service where there's brush drop off. They process that wood. There's retail sales of mulch and plants. There's offices. And essentially, there's vehicle parking for the tree service part of the, operations as well. So why are we bringing this before you today? Why are we having this discussion around potentially, changing what happens here or relocating it? And we're looking for preliminary approval of that, suggestion or recommendation, essentially. A few things are happening. First of all, we already did some work and investment on 50th Avenue Northwest.
So there are plans within our capital improvement project plan to extend 50th Avenue, and that will occur in 2027. So we do need to use that city owned site for that work. So that's sort of the part of the reason. Just as well as you can see, there is a residential subdivision that is being developed to the north and one forthcoming to the West as well. But, essentially, the city's made, a few investments in this area as early as 2021 when the city council approved the West Zumbro, Sewer Extension in order to meet some of our community's growing housing needs. We intentionally invested, in this direction and grew,
this way. So those are some of the reasons why we're bringing this to you today. So what one of the, proposals that we're seeking preliminary support of, is allowing for, some of the operations to continue at the site, specifically the residential portions. That would be continued options for, community members to drop off their brush, to continue to allow vehicle parking there for the tree service, and to have, the sales in office there. So what won't be happening, which, Aaron will talk about soon, is the commercial portion and the more, I would say, frankly, louder commercial operation. So what we're proposing going forward is what we would call a temporary use permit.
This is a way essentially for us to be proactive. It requires an annual review by city staff. It is approved at a city staff level, But it gives us, once again, more proactive opportunities to mitigate any nuisances that might come up that have come up in the past. We have worked with the property owner, to go this route, and he is they are agreeable with that as well. Why are we recommending this? Frankly, there are some opportunities for this use to continue regardless, so that's why we recommend this as a more proactive approach to mitigate any nuisances. So with that, I will pass it over to Aaron. Thanks, Taryn. Aaron Luckstein, Public Works Department.
I'll talk about the, right now, this is the proposed, commercial site. So keep in mind, as Taryn just talked about, the proposal is kind of a twofold. So one, residential, services would remain at the current site. So residents would continue to deliver their, woody debris to that site. They could also pick up their residential mulch at that site. They really would not notice much of a disruption in operations at all except actually it should be improved services because they're not competing with commercial traffic, the clam trucks, the services because they're not competing with commercial traffic, the clam trucks, the grinder running, things like that. The commercial operations is what we're proposing would be moved to the Kelmar 3 Reservoir
site. So that's, further to the west, down, 19th Street. So, in the image that I have on the screen there, so the the Kelmar Landfill is just to the the north. This site reservoir is just to the south of that. We're proposing to use the Northeast corner. You can see in that that image that on the the Northwest side of it, that's where we are we've gotten approval from township. We use that for dredged soils, other construction soils, things like that. So that north portion has already been used or is being used for public works related services, and we'd look at repurposing the Northeast side.
All of this is out of floodplain. There's no need for it from a flood storage standpoint, so there's, additional use opportunities there. So commercial business operations, what it would be is any of the tree services large would would bring their deliveries here including city services. And then it would also be, if we have a major storm, this could be the overflow for residential if it exceeds the capacity of the current site. And then what would be part of that is the largely the processing. So you'd have the truck traffic, but the grinder would be out there, which does the mulching. The air curtain burner,
is out there as well as then the hauling away because, Hathaway currently has a contract where that mulch is used in a, energy, product with Excel. And so the vast majority of that mulch is hauled off-site, as a renewable fuel. We're proposing that it would be set up as a phased approach. We would start with two acres, which is the first working space that we would need under normal operations. We would grade everything because we would be installing a storm water treatment system out here so everything would be graded to get to that storm water treatment system. And then the light gray that you would see kind of on the east side,
that's about two acres. It would be set up that we could expand the site without additional gradients. So you'd put a mat down, and you could add additional class five and bituminous to expand the site based on growth demands of the city if need be. So anticipating for future growth if need be. Again, it would include, stormwater treatment, fencing, gates for security. When we initially had been working with the county on a shared site, they had saved a 30 by 40, building, and that they were gonna put on their site. They no longer need that, so they're willing to, to allow the city to put that on this site.
So there'd be a building there for equipment maintenance. We would also the proposal would be for, a portable, portable water tank. So we're not drilling wells. We're not installing septic. Everything would be, portable, 250 gallon portable water tank, a gray water tank that could be pumped and hauled, and then a portable toilet. And that is really just for the employees that are out there, not public use or things like that. It's really just, meet the needs of the employees that would be out there operating the grinder. And then we would improve, we would maintain access, public access to the reservoir, but also improve it.
So if you've been out there right now, the gate is way up on 19th. We've had some issues with people parking on 19th. So we'd be able to actually get them into the site, a little bit further in where we had a, there's a parking lot down there with a marker, to be able to get the public there. This is, an area where people like to walk and there's some birding around that reservoir. So we'll maintain access for that use. Right now, so our target budget is $700,000 and we have a preliminary plan that currently is within that budget that does include 10% for contingency as well as 10% for engineering and permitting.
We're at about a 60% design, and we're still in conversations with the township. So things are subject to change. We really want to make sure we stay within that dollar amount. And so then, so I'll jump to the last bullet. Yeah. We're coordinating with the township. This site is out in Calmar Township, so we would need township approval on that. We've, begun preliminary meetings with them to understand what they need to see from a site standpoint as well as permitting side of it. So the, action that we're, asking for council tonight is two part. One, is just to be able to direct staff.
We don't want to spend a bunch of time on something that you don't see value in in pursuing this further. So the first is authorizing preliminary approval for relocation of those commercial operations to that Northeast, portion of the the KR3 site there. Subject, of course, to final construction approval, final permits, we need to go through all of that. So we're not asking for final vote tonight. We just want that preliminary support that we're going in the right direction, and we can spend more time and energy on this. The second piece of it is to preliminarily support a funding request of up to
$350,000 in contingency funds or 50% of the project associated with that relocation. Much of this is associated with the site prep and and with the stormwater treatment, that is required from a regulatory standpoint. So in order to get all the grading and everything and the stormwater portion, that's a large part of this expense, with the project. So those are the two asks in front of council tonight. And with that, we will open it up to discussion and any questions. Thank you, team. Questions? Council member Keane.
Yeah. First, I appreciate the way you guys come here as a group. You're representing the different groups here and that we're working with the county and the townships. I guess I am a little I'm still trying to get my head around this is outside the city limits, but we're still talking about a conditional use permit as if it were city as if it were private enterprise operating within the the city limits. This is the city operating outside the city limits, and we're approving a conditional use permit? Not not tonight, but that's the direction. So I'll answer it, and then, Taryn, you correct me if anything's wrong. So the conditional use permit is gonna be applied to Hathaway's current site which is
in city limits. So that's what the permit is for related to continuing the operations for the residential and then the the the tree operation company. Everything else with the KR3 site would be under the township, approval. There would be one requirement. The city, because the city owns the land, we would have a lease with Hathaway, so there would be that, but there's no permit approvals associated with that. A lease would come forward to the council for authorization, just like we have on the the current lease because they operate on some of the reservoir land, at their current site.
Okay. And just to clarify again, make sure I understand it right, these are, flood control properties that are outside the city. Is the city the owner or do we just have some sort of control of them? So the city owns, the this K R 3 Site. Yep. Okay. Alright. Thank you. So we have the control over that as well as the landowner, keeping in mind that township is local government unit up from the front and center. Front and center. Thank you. Council member Miller. Yeah. My question is just about the timing. So we're in the budget process for the supplemental 2027 budget.
Why is this coming in contingency? And if we were to say no to contingency this year, is it something that could be continued into the 2027 budget? Sure. And again, I'll start and I'll ask my teammates to chime in. So the reason this is coming forward now, one, we had been working with the county under a joint project. Up until February of this year, we had high confidence that that was going to happen. Once that didn't happen, we pivoted quickly to be able to provide a city solution for this. From our standpoint, again, the reason we need to move forward in 2026 is because of the adjacent development.
Those homes are being constructed right now. People are those homes are being sold and moving into those. Two, we do have 50th Avenue. There's gonna be that that future road construction. So we need to use part of this area around Hathaway. And so there's gonna be additional construction traffic, in that area. And so the the reduction in commercial truck traffic, we see a benefit, you know, on that side of it. The last piece of it is, again, this would be a one time funding ask. We didn't have time to be able to get into a CIP.
And so we felt the contingency was the best use for a one time fund versus trying to build it into 2027 that could then be perceived as an ongoing funding source. So Is there a seasonality to the wood management operation? I mean, is it does it go dormant in the winter? Or does it continue all year? From my understanding, that does continue all year. And in fact, we do see an increase sometimes in the in the fall and winter, just because of frozen ground and being able to do some of that activity. There also are some limitations, just for protection of endangered species or sensitive species and when you can cut.
And so there's, commercial operations need to work with that, especially in larger clear treeing operations. Okay. Mayor Norton? I guess my line of questioning was very similar to Councilmember Miller's. It doesn't seem like this is an emergency, which is what I, envision contingency funds being used for. And it just seems to me this, you know, people are building those homes and purchasing them with that being there. So that that to me, that isn't an emergency. It could happen next year. I've seen this happen a couple times over the last few years where items come
at the end of the year when there's money in the contingency as opposed to being budgeted for in the coming year, which to me feels like a more appropriate way to handle it. So you've answered the question about why you feel, you know, you wanna move ahead, I would just, you know, push back a little bit and say it's would be more appropriate for a budgeted item for for the next year. But just, Thank you, Mayor. Oh, Council President, can I add one more thing that I forgot in my response to Councilor Miller that reminded me with Mayor Norton's comment? So one other additional item is because of the current lease that we have with
Hathaway and there was an annual requirement that it's on a year to year lease. So, in order to meet our lease requirements, we had to notify them of our intent to have them move off of the reservoir site. And so we already provide that notification. So there will be some additional requirements that we would need to work through if this gets pushed into 2027 and then ultimately construction in the spring summer. So there's some additional ramifications work associated with that lease that the city has with, Hathaway right now. Council member King.
Yeah. Again, with the delivery to one place and then the processing another place, obviously, there's going to be transit between the two locations. Have we considered what those routes are and if there's any concerns with how the, tree, waste will be moved from one one, place to the other? Yep. And I'll pull up the image for the existing site. So, yes, so the current site would be used what I would call as a transfer station. So, again, people are bringing their waste there. They would transfer it out. Based on the average volume, that Hathaway sees, they're estimating there would be two truckloads,
semi truckloads per week that would need to be hauled out. So we're not talking significant truck traffic. Currently, they would go up, 50th Avenue Northwest and then come around to bring it to 19th. Once once the new 50th Avenue is constructed, they would then go south and head right down 19th Street out to, to K R 3. Okay. So they would be going on they would be going on county roads or they would be going on there the roads the trucks that they'd be putting on this would be well able to handle this kind of traffic. Correct. Yep.
And they're the same same trucks that are leaving the site right now, coming and going. Good. And then just one comment. As part of this council, I think it was back in 2020 when we first when we got into the thing of moving the other one. I I do appreciate the idea of trying to do this before residents move in, before it becomes a problem. I don't think the costs are more because we're doing it now. If anything, it's probably less. So I do support the, like, kind of the contingency need to do this now versus waiting until housing gets in and, frankly, probably stalling some of the sales potentially because of this kind of property near nearby.
So I I have a better, like, support position of why we're here today doing this and using contingency versus waiting until a budget year, but also waiting until those homes are trying to be sold and this becomes more of an issue. I I like being ahead of it instead of having residents here talking to us about it. Council Member Baumer. Yeah. I'll make a motion adopting a resolution authorizing preliminary approval for relocation of commercial operations to the northeast portion of the KR3 Reservoir site subject to final construction and permit approvals and authorizing preliminary support for the funding request up to 350,000
in contingency funds for project costs associated with relocating commercial processing of woody debris for continued wood waste management. Council, motion made by Councilmember Palmer, seconded by Councilmember Fredericks. Councilmember Palmer? Nothing more. Councilmember Fredericks? I'll wait to be proactive. Councilmember Miller? I'll just say I don't plan to support this tonight for the reasons I've given. I would rather see it come through the regular budget process. If there's a need to do CIP amendments, we can deal with that. I heard about all the collaboration, all the partners,
and I'm honestly quite frustrated that there was a notification to a lease change before this even came to us. So I heard about the collaboration, and there was a, council update in mid June that talked about a future funding opportunity, which kind of aligned with the budget. So I'm frankly quite surprised to see it coming on contingency. I don't see the urgency that it can't be with the 27 budget amendments. And so for those reasons, it's not that I don't think it's a good proactive step. I just don't feel like we were involved at the right times to build the
glide path that we continue to talk about and not have to triage these very urgent requests that staff have fully built out and then ask us for final approval. So, that's that's my comment. Council member Keane. Yeah. I'll just I'll just say I I too have spoken and concerned about, you know, emergency sort of spending. And, I'd much rather do things in the full budget. I think it's a much cleaner way to do it. But I do see the need with what's happening here and with the way this thing has fell through going back to February when we were trying to work on one location, getting to the point that these houses are gonna start to be trying to get,
people moving into them in the coming months. So I am prepared to support this this action tonight, based on heading off a problem before it gets to be a bigger problem. Any further discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, say nay. Nay. Motion passes four to two with Councilmember Miller and Councilmember Doering voting nay. Thank you. Thank you. Next up we have H2 which is Willow Creek Regional Trail Feasibility Study and Professional
Services Agreement for Final Design. Mister Dombrowski. Good evening, mayor, president, members of the council. We're here tonight to talk about the Willow Creek Path project that's been long documented, as a priority when we think about active transportation in the community dating back to the as far as the nineties, and thinking regionally. As we we you know, consider this a regional path. There's other trail groups in the area. Getting this path to Game Haven then allows longer term planning for the Bluestem Trail to Stewartville.
So, it's more than just this one path. It's the broader transportation network when we think about walking and biking. So the goals of the project would be to, get the path out to Game Haven Regional Park, creating this safe, accessible sort of nature space, quiet, calming as you're as you're getting off to the park. Highway 52 is a barrier just south of Menards to any sort of people trying to get to areas south of the highway, walking or biking. The only way to get there is via car. And we do have transit, service to the Woodlake area.
But pretty limited. It's a barrier. So the history, I mentioned the nineties. They started talking about the project. It was in the 2012 bike master plan. Rocog has identified it in their planning documents and their chapters of their long range, transportation plan that address walking and biking. Again, when the council adopted the 2022 active transportation plan, this was identified. It had been a bonding priority a number of times, achieved the bonding success in 2023, 3,600,000 from the legislature. And, in 2024, late in 2024,
you authorized us to begin this feasibility study. So we hired Alliant Engineering to help work through the study. Really, I'm gonna walk you through the different segments that we've kinda chunked it out into tonight. If you look at this, slide that the red, you see the red roof, that's the fire station on 28th Street. That's a beginning point. We have we have a shared use path on 28th Street just, to just west of the fire station. We'd reconstruct the sidewalk along that segment of City Street to a wider mixed use
or shared use path. And then segment one b would extend along, that's Seneca owns the property. It'd be just east of the apartment complex out there and past their stormwater facilities, which gets you to 30th Street. This is one of the one of the decision points tonight. We we studied two alternatives to get from 30th Street to the bridge the bridge under Highway 52. I will acknowledge both are feasible. There's challenges. You know, one's much more costly. More environmental concerns when we think about just seasonal flooding.
It would have to sit lower just based on elevations. With the new DNR rules for floodways, we can no longer utilize a culvert crossing of the creek. So we would have to construct a boardwalk over the entire distance from one side of the floodway to the other. So that's where when you look at the report, you'll see much higher cost for that second alternative on the the left or the west. But you obviously heard from the family, tonight who owns the property that the recommended segment is is along.
It it does sit a little it sits higher. We don't have to span the floodway. So that's again why the, you know, the costs are much less and why we are recommending that alignment. But I would acknowledge both of those alternatives are feasible and we can engineer for them. Segment two is get really getting under the highway. There's a nice wide area that today that you can, you can see the footpath through there. It's it's the opportunity to really address that barrier I mentioned at the start. You get south of the highway, you have to do a slight climb to get up towards the old,
rail spur that you can see on the screen there. That narrow curve curvilinear segment is is old rail railroad bed. And then this is just north of the the Sportsplex. So continuing south, we the Sportsplex has been mining, sand for their project. And we've, we would set up the alignment of this path to really follow where their trucks have been hauling because they're already doing the compaction for us. So that's gonna be helpful when we get to construction, which then gets you to the north edge of the Sportsplex. Segment three b is being constructed and funded with the Sportsplex project,
and that would get, the path to the County Road where I where it's noted future grade separation. So that will get to Casaw 47, which is a 55 mile per hour County highway. So not quite to Game Haven yet as as identified in those bonding, requests. A couple spurs that that we did study just to understand, they weren't in the bonding request. They they weren't within the the limits of that package. However, we really wanna wanted to understand based on some of the feedback at the engagement
sessions what what it would take to to get to these different locations. So getting to Willow Creek Middle School would be really important to also open up all the neighborhoods along, County 1 and Pinewood Road, points north of there towards Mayo High School. And then we we heard a lot from the Woodlake, area, thinking of the health and human services that occur out in that complex and the different businesses. We have an alternative school. Students have no safe way. A lot of them you know, don't have a vehicle, obviously. They,
you know, they could struggle to get to that alternative school. So that spur long term will be important to figure out how to get to the Woodlake complex. So we study that. We have a cost as we start to think about future opportunities and potential grants. The bridge was something we really wanted to identify and you'll see in the decisions later in the slide deck. Would like a decision on being able to continue with design of this bridge and understanding more detailed final cost estimate. We looked at a number of alternatives.
The cheapest is the one you see on the screen today. It would come in just west of our Game Haven parcel that the park zones and bridge over that 55 mile per hour highway, and then the yellow would be a path to tie back in. There's an existing path along the county highway that, runs over to Game Haven. There's a boardwalk that that gets into Game Haven. This is the cheapest of the four or five alternatives we looked at just because of the soil conditions. As you get onto the Game Haven parcel, it gets really swampy. So just constructability, but then costs are going to go up.
With engagement, we had a project website throughout since the council authorized the project. We continue to update that. We did an open house just under a year ago out at the county, Public Works Building off of just south of Game Haven. And we plan to do additional open houses to provide updates to the public as we better understand what the final design becomes, how the project advances, and as we think about construction. Right now, planning, if you accept the feasibility study this evening,
we want to get moving into final design over the fall and winter, with a plan to begin construction. The current agreement we have with the DNR that the council has approved is for a June 2028 substantial completion date. So we would anticipate construction in 'twenty seven and into 'twenty eight to wrap up the project. Overall, the recommended alternative, not including that pedestrian bridge over the county highway, is $2,600,000 The bridge, when we think about engineering acquisition costs,
3,400,000. You see this cost for those other spurs I mentioned that we'd wanna look for grant opportunities. So that total on those two lines that are being recommended is 5,960,000. Right now in the CIP, we have 5.5, which breaks down the 3.6 from the state and 1.875 via tax levy and that's in the CIP. So really the key decision points to keep the project moving we're looking for tonight would be to select, alternative one or two along segment one c. And then, we'd really like to,
like I noted, proceed with design of the bridge. If it turns out we can't fund it, we still would be able to have the the bridge designed. The plans can be on the shelf. We're ready to go when we do have the funding. So, again, tonight, asking for adopting the fees accepting the feasibility report and moving forward with final design, which would also include a contract amendment to continue with Alliant Engineering to do that design. So with that, I am here for questions, feedback, and anything else we need to talk about.
Thank you, Mr. Dombrowski. Council member Palmer. Thank you. I have just two quick questions. This trail was designed before the sports complex was was sited? It was it was always on the the long range plans. And second question is, since we bought the the old lights in property, we have a lot of sand. Is there no reason you can't use the sand over on the, alternative two to to raise that that, grade? I would have to work with the parks team to better understand what sort of quantities, they've estimated and what what's actually there. We haven't been super engaged,
but we would we would be able to look into that. We really aren't though looking to do the the challenge is we can't be filling in the flood plain, so we really have to try Follow existing elevations as closely as possible. Because if we were to import sand and fill in the floodplain, now we have to figure out where we're compensating for it and digging out storage within the floodplain. So, really, we're trying to balance it right along the existing elevation so we minimize the the amount of grading with any of the alternatives we're doing here. We have to really be cognizant of that with the,
the floodplain. And just my understanding of floodplain is is is if I'm taking sand in that over there and moving it over here, aren't I increasing the flood capacity over there? Well, they are actually filling that back in with the excess material that they're moving out that isn't suitable for use on the Sportsplex site. So, really, when that sand mining is complete, it's going to be restored to similar to what's existing today. I guess my last question would be if you went with your first alternative, obviously, you would you'd be suing for access across the the personal property.
And, is that gonna cost us a lot of money and time? I guess I would maybe word that a little differently. But, you know, we've talked with the Lumens family. We've the mayor and I have met with them, and, you know, we've gotten to know them. And as you heard tonight, they're they're not happy with what's proposed. So if this was the selected alternative, yes, we would end up in condemnation, in all likelihood. So there would be those costs. And when we go to condemnation, we we we get our appraisals, valuation on that property. The property owner has that same opportunity. It can advance as far as,
appointing commissioners to hear the the hearing, three commissioners to settle on the final amount. What the condemnation does allow is it does give us, possession of the property after ninety days through the quick take process, which we've had to do on different projects. But, I would anticipate we would be talking about that later this year. And that would take city council approval to go condemnation, and I'm not in favor of that. So I would think the alternative two seems to be the the best and easiest route for us and see if you can't work with parks to get the sand
out of that pit, and it's not far to drive it. So I'm done with my questions. Council member Doreen. Yeah. I had some similar questions, about the the cost between the two options. And, my first one, I'm just gonna ask it in a different way. Land acquisition costs, have we kind of done the math to figure out the difference between those costs between option one and the alternative option? The the both both of the either alternative is in the in the floodway for a good chunk of it in the flood flood plain.
So it's not developable. So the valuation is gonna be the the same, you know, as we go to do an appraisal on on one versus the other. Okay. And this is this is even though it's labeled as a regional trail system, this is a city project. Correct? Correct. So the overarch the overcharge of property taxes, which was a county issue, could not be applied to a city project. Correct? Correct. The county is obviously not a partner with this project. Yep. And then, I'll save my last question. Council member Fredericks. Isn't often I'm not concerned about cost.
What trumps at this time for me is just I don't I don't believe in, like, putting things down, landowner's throats, especially when they've been in the family for a lot of years. Anytime for that matter. If there's a workable option where we can do a workaround, stick to the property line, I'm definitely favoring option number two. Council member Miller. Can you just explicitly define what the difference in costs are between the alternative one, alternative two, and then how that would impact your final slide there showing the budget and what
funds we have. The the difference between the two alternatives, the recommended is 275,000, let's just say 300. The the other alternate two that, goes westerly and would require the boardwalk is about 1.6. So $1,300,000 additional. So Difference. Really, that would that would be within the project's current budget, but it would definitely price us out of that pedestrian bridge alternative over the county highway. And, you know what? If that's the direction the council chose, we would have to start to look at,
additional grant opportunities and think about, funding because I do think that's going to be very important to the success of this system. If we can't get families safely across the county highway, to be able to access the park and other areas out there, That's gonna be our our biggest challenge from day one if we don't have a bridge. Council member Keane. Yeah. I was surprised to hear you talking about condemnation right away because I thought this might have been an easement through the property. Has that been discussed, or that's just not gonna work? Well, that's that's what we would, that's how we would
look at acquiring the space for the path would be via an easement, of a certain width. However, if you recall, the council has also already had to, institute a court action just to do right of entry to go onto the property to do topographical survey, soil borings, and wetland delineation. So the family, you know, they've shared. They're not happy with the project. We had to go through that action just to be able to collect the data to be able to finish our feasibility. But but, again, what I what I was surprised to hear here, it's not a matter of getting an easement through the property. It's we wanna take ownership of it.
We would just want to acquire an easement. Okay. So that that is the preferred method. It's just that that that probably can't happen without an agreement. Correct. Okay. Mister president? Go ahead. Mister If I can just add add to that piece. Thank you. I appreciate the question. Council member Keane, council members mayor Norton. For purposes of a of a trail, the trail boundary itself would be, construed as a permanent easement. That would be the focus of the eminent domain action. Also included in that action would be temporary easement,
which is essentially the area that construction workers need to access in order to build this project. This is fairly similar to other trail work that we have approved, that the council has approved in, in prior years, a trail that heads to the east out of Rochester was a similar manner where, we, of course, did our best with homeowners that were, ready to sell and agreed on valuation, and there were a few homeowners that wanted to go through the the process.
And as mister Dombrowski, generally described, it is a pretty prescribed process under state law that is generally, pretty generous and favorable to the landowner. To tell you the truth, gives them a full process for them to make their case for their own, valuation, under state law and eventually, can appeal to a commissioner hearing process, for them to consider valuation. And if they're not satisfied with that process, would have access to the courts as well.
So just wanted to build out a little bit on this discussion, and describe what that would look like. Okay. Thank you, mister Spindler. Craig. Yeah. I also I I guess I want you to just comment on the two different spurs. I've heard requests for the route to Willow Creek, and I was kind of oddly surprised of how inexpensive that looked relative to, like, it looks like pretty swampy land to go through. Is that a pretty well fleshed out estimate, or is that just a rough No. It is. We we do have sanitary sewer over there, so there's there's some space where we'd wanna make sure we incorporate maintenance activities for
for that team to be able to access our sewer. And there's our POS, power lines running through there. So while it is lower lying like all these other areas we're talking about, it's it's feasible. And, that's the sort of project that we would there's a DNR local trails connection program that we've I know our parks department has been successful in, achieving that grant numerous times. And, as we think about school connectivity, safe routes to school, depending on how the legislature, will fund that going forward, that's also another great opportunity for a spur project like that. Okay.
And this is kind of an ugly one, but I'm gonna ask it anyways. The county just built, County Road 47 from, from County Road 1 to, Saint Bridget's Road in the last three years. Did we look at going under it or over it at the time, or was that just timing wasn't there? We didn't. However, we've talked about that as a team. And just looking at the the soil borings, it would have been a challenge to go underneath that roadway just from a groundwater level and being able to maintain that facility. Yeah. I'm just sort of disappointed here to think of,
like, we're at this point, and then if we don't have the money for making it across there, we don't have a very successful project. So it's it's it's, frustrating. Yeah. Thank you. Council member Miller. I guess, this is not a question for you, mister Dombrowski, but could someone speak to the the the public safety element of this? There was a concern brought up about, what trails get who gets access to the trails and how the trails are used and camping activity or other, you know, versus recreational use. I know we've had updates from RPD on rates of encampment, intensity of encampments,
how they're policing that. I don't know if maybe mister Swindler Craig or someone could speak to how that has been managed in past years and what sort of activity we're seeing along the trails. Thank you, council member Miller. I I think only, I can try to answer it generally speaking. Certainly, RPD and Parks has noted that trails and parks tend to be particular attractions to the extent that they generally include areas where folks, may be able to get access to and then be hidden to some extent.
So there's no doubt that over the years, enforcement activity has generally been, in some of those main areas. The success that those entities have seen over the last couple of years has really been focused on assuring that the larger camps, don't occur. Generally, the one offs, maybe, have certainly been less problematic and less of a of a public nuisance, less of an enforcement concern. I would assume that RPD and Parks would, have a similar approach with this particular trail,
try to address and, any any, reports of, camping activity, that is that is problematic and needs attention. Sorry. I may add one comment to that. The trails that we have that are linear and not a lot of space beyond that have been much easier to manage and maintain without, people camping in those areas. Again, you've got a similar, a very small corridor for that to happen in. Areas where we've got larger park spaces beyond that, trail corridor specifically, you can tend to have some of those issues crop up. Since I have the floor, one more comment if I may. On a boardwalk,
I'll just point out that wintertime use may be more challenging from a plowing standpoint. So you've got, you know, half a mile of distance across that wetland area you've got to maintain. Doing so by hand is rather difficult. I just point that out to you as well. I I appreciate the, the the clarification. I I know that this came up as well as far as fear of access and, like, if there's a public trail, with the recent connection of the Soldiers Field Southwest Trail Connection. Have we seen any sort of nuisance behavior reports from those properties that know about the trail?
Who wants to take that one? Mister Spindler Craig? I would only say, not not that has come to my attention. Not through, either actual enforcement actions that have led to any criminal charges or that I've heard as being a challenging, parks issue otherwise. Okay. Thank you. Council member Palmer. Yeah. I guess I'm I'm frustrated on the bridge, question because going over a county road, and there should be a lot of opportunities for the county and the city to ask for state funding. And it's a trail that we're working towards to get to Stuartville,
so I would think that would be high in their priority also. Am I missing something on that? I don't I mean, I can't speak for the county, but their their engineering team like us wants to design the safest facilities possible. So At Rocog, this last Rocog, me, we talked about this trail, and their park department now is on trails, and it sounded like one of the priorities was to get to Certfol. So They are you know, the the county is through Rocog is working through a a trails master plan update to connect those surrounding communities in the county and and thinking more regionally.
So, yeah, I mean, Roquark will be supportive. It really comes down to what becomes a bonding priority if that's the route you wanna go in the future. But you but you could I mean, even though it's a high speed limit, you could put a rapid flash in a crosswalk and and do some safe things there, not before you get to a bridge. Is that In in the interim, if if we didn't have a bridge, we would work with the county on designing a know, a safer crossing as possible. We'd we would look at is it does it make more sense to route them down to Saint Bridget's Road? It's still an uncontrolled, intersection for that East West movement down there.
So, maybe we just save on routing people around and work on a safe solution to get across the highway in the interim. Okay. Thank you. Council member Kean. Yeah. Again, I'm gonna just follow-up on this one more time and see if we can make sure I understand this right. I mean, I went to these public meetings. I've known about this private property concern for well over a year, probably two. And it is like this easement. I guess I thought it was fighting over an easement and whether it was further away or closer. But, it it appears now would you if you would assess where we're at,
you've been spending a lot of time with this, that we really are towards condemnation as opposed to there's two or three other routes? Because I think what's in front of this council right now is probably a $1,300,000 spending discussion to resolve that. And I'm I guess I'm I'm not sure we've turned over all the rocks yet. We don't know that we're in condemnation. We haven't even done an appraisal and made an offer. That's the first that's going to be the first step with all of the property owners. Quite quite honestly, they're left that we we still don't have, the the easement from. So we we need to go through that process first.
Like, our attorney said, it's it's laid out in statute and very, you know, linear, and we have these checkpoints. We we work along from appraisal to offer the response times. And, you know, at some point, if we can't come to an agreement, that's when we move to the condemnation action. Okay. And I'm I'm trying to think of other things. Like, when I'm down in Preston or that and I'm along the Root River, those are probably similar things where those are probably private property easements going through someone's property. Correct. And I think what council member Miller was trying to get towards here and I
I don't know if we have the right people in the room, but there is always a concern with that sort of thing happening. And do we end up experiencing it? Like, I we've had one in Ward 1 with, the, the the trails allowed us, an easement to build a, a walking biking trail there. And I ride it not not every week, but just check it to see if anything's going wrong. It seems like there's been no problems, but I guess I I don't know if we're dealing with a potential problem or there it is just fear that something bad could happen. Could you respond? Oh. You know, it's more of a statement. But I guess I'm looking I I looked around the room here.
We're not looking I'm not really looking for a law enforcement response. I'm looking for this idea of, you know, how should we with, you know, with full data understand, like, that these are possible concerns but unlikely? Or there are real, concerns that this council could or should act on even to the point of a $1,300,000 or making the project less safe in another part of it because we're gonna spend our money somewhere else? Well, we've we've heard, we heard some of those on that rail project along, from 16th To 20th Street.
I have not heard any anecdotal evidence of issues along that corridor out to Chester Woods, the one the one from Eastwood Golf Course going east. We heard similar concerns with that project. We actually ran a fence along both sides. Some of it was more trespassing type concerns, so we we ran a fence along both sides of the the path, all the way through the the various properties that we had to, cross to get out to 50th Avenue. I have not heard anything anecdotally with with that trail system that has become a challenge. Okay. Mayor Norton. Thank you. A year or so ago,
we sat at this table and had a very similar discussion. And I left very frustrated, and I felt horrible for the family. And we did sit down, and Dylan was kind enough to come in, and we had a good talk. And my hope had been that we would come back here with alternatives rather than taking someone's land or having to go into condemnation, which just is like the worst case scenario and should be the very last resort. And, you know, my hope is there would have been two or three or four other ideas that could come forward,
and I'm a little frustrated that we seem to be not that much different than we were a year ago. We seem to kinda be stuck here. And I guess we, as I said, I feel like condemnation is a last resort when there are no other choices. And there are other choices here. They just cost more. And what I wish we could do and what I would love to see happen is that we would work with the county and go back and see if we can't get grant funding in order to protect the family and their property and still
get what we want, which is a safe path all the way to the final destination. So I guess best case scenario for me is getting doubling down with the county and seeing if we can't get some some funding in the in the coming session from, you know, any number of places, whether it be state or federal or what have you, rather than take someone's property. And I just not only do I just that just hurts my heart to think that we would do that to someone who's had property out there that they love and for fifty years. It just feels like a violation,
that had as I said, had we no other choices, we'd feel better. But we have other choices, and my hope is we can take those. And can I just respond? We did look at other alternatives. There's really we need to get to that point below the the highway so that it it takes away a lot of options. We did look at going all the way east of their property. But if you've ever driven, say, you're coming from La Crosse and into town, the the elevation change to the east of their property is a 100 plus feet. So we couldn't we cannot get the ADA grades to work without doing a tremendous
amount of cutting, into that property to their to the east. The other alternative would have been to go all the way to County 1, try and figure out where to fit it within the county right of way along that highway, essentially, to get out to the roundabout. Again, much longer, more not not cost effective. So really it's getting to that point below the Highway 52 Bridge, which, you know, because of that barrier barrier I reckon or mentioned earlier. The other place that wouldn't even be feasible is along Highway 63. There's just no safe space there as that transitions to become a 65 mile per
hour highway. Council Member Doreen. My thoughts were going to reflect a lot of what Mayor Norton just shared as well. But my I just want to make sure I understand the pinch point. What I heard you say in the presentation, I think, as followed up by a couple of my colleagues is that if, and I'm just going to talk about segment 1c. If we choose alternative one, there's this possibility of condemnation, the, the additional expenses with that possible process. Also, we have to talk about, the emotional component of going through the middle of someone's land,
but that would free up dollars to create a safe crossing over 47. If we went with alternative two, the creation of the boardwalk, that would mean we would not have the option to create or even study or design safe crossing over 47. Correct? Is that what I'm understanding? That's accurate. So if if if we choose the boardwalk option, we could still go out and seek additional funding with the county at this point to create that that future project funding,
and and maintain, the Luminess property how it sits now, correct, essentially? Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understood where we were at. Council member Miller. So the the idea of the long term maintenance came up, the winter maintenance, we've talked about that in our other trail segments. Can you talk about what is the useful life of a boardwalk? What would be an ongoing maintenance cost that we don't currently have funding for? Help us understand, sort of the the ongoing implications. I might look to partners from the park and rec team. We do have a boardwalk out at Game Haven.
I I have not had experience with a boardwalk in my career. Yeah. So boardwalks can be challenging from a standpoint. We're building it within a wetland, and we built the Game Haven Wetland Boardwalk in there. We've had a couple of piers that sank down, creating some issues where you go back and kick it out and re jack it back up. That was initially on. And then now we're supposed to see boards that are starting to deteriorate. So again, we're four or five years into that right now, so that's going to be your cycle. And it's just not a matter of replacing one board here and there. It's gonna be I mean, we're a thousand feet on that boardwalk. We're hold on this one, two thousand five hundred feet,
2,400 feet. So it's quite long. So twice the work about every five years you're doing something probably on it. Okay. Again, the winter type of type of use, rather challenging. You you just don't maintain it. People walk across it and they just take their own risks. Because the equipment is too heavy, because it damages the boards, because All the above. Yep. Yep. You could hand shovel it, but that's, again, not very effective. Yeah. So we got $1,300,000 in initial construction cost difference and something that we will struggle to maintain. I've got a question on, kind of the land acquisition process.
So, attorney Spindler Craig explained the process. And so my question is this process, which is engaging with the property owner, are there options in that process for the city and the property owners to come to agreement? There are. Anytime we make an offer, when we're acquiring, whether it's easements, permanent, temporary, there's always that negotiation period where you meet with the property owner and you understand
their concerns, and you talk through, those items. And, you know, sometimes you incorporate changes based on those conversations. It really just comes down to every property owner is different, and it's it's part of the process, though. And up to this point, there hasn't been any discussion of, purchase prices or No. Estimates? No. We have not been authorized to start that appraisal period process. Okay. Council member Fredericks. Much has been brought up about main about maintenance of the trail in the winter.
The one be South Of Eastwood Golf Course, we don't maintain in the winter at all. So what's what would we be maintaining in the winter? It it really comes down to prioritizing the different paths around the community and and what gets maintained between the public works and parks teams and what does not. We've obviously been adding more and more, annually with the help of, the council added a position, and, we've been able to do more. We can't do everything yet. Okay. Is there a motion on this item? Council member Palmer? Yes. I'll make a motion accepting the feasibility study with using alternative two trail route to
advance to final design and and authorizing a supplemental agreement to the amount of $418,170 with Alliant Engineering for a final design of the proposed trail. Second. Motion made by council member Palmer, seconded by council member Frederick, council member Palmer. Yeah. I'll just point out that in the motion I made, I'm I'm using alternative number two. Okay. Discussion? Any discussion? Seeing none, all in I guess I'll just add Council member Miller. I don't plan to support this motion and only because I don't want us to
build a segment of our trail system that is inaccessible and continues to be an ongoing maintenance headache year after year. I agree with the mayor and council member Doring. I would love to see how we continue to advance the conversation, give you some leeway on funding authorization, negotiations, see if something could come to an agreement in actual numbers. But I think creating a wooden boardwalk in our winter conditions that's going to continually freeze and thaw and deteriorate when we have no ongoing funding currently for our trail system feels like the wrong choice for our community long term.
And I would just also say to council member Fredericks that, we're seeing increasing demand across the county, which is why the county is doing this trails master plan. It does include this idea of how our trail system serves transportation needs for our growing community. We have sewer expansion coming to the southeastern parts of town. We can see housing that would follow that. So I just think planning in the long term, looking ahead to where we're going, I see this alternative two segment and the boardwalk construction specifically not commenting on the route as a fragile part of our trail system.
And I I think that that sets us up for, future headaches. I also will not be supporting this, this motion. And I look at the I think we're kind of scared of the condemn may condemnation word, and I don't think that's where we are in this process. My understanding of the process is this is when the process begins for us to negotiate acquiring the land, and it's an easement. And so I really do wanna see that process go along and and, and open up those discussions with the family.
If it gets to a point where there is not an agreement, between the the owners of the property and the city, it will come back to us, correct, before there is any condemnation, motions. Is that correct? We would have to talk internally. I mean, the when we come back to ask for, the ability to begin acquisition, it all typically, the action includes initiating the ninety day quick take. So we just have to talk on how we bring it back to the council before we would move forward. Mister Spindler,
Craig? I think I can build on that a little bit. Yes. The council would, con continue to have involvement in any condemnation process and setting some parameters for how any owners are treated. Certainly, it is, staff's intention, bound by the legal structure involved, that owners are compensated fairly, And council has a role in figuring that out. Thank you. Council member Keane? Yeah. I again, I listened to, council president Schubert saying that I think we are kind of leaning into that too
much. I'm, I I guess I I'm more unhappy tonight that the the amount of money difference it was. I looked at this when I was looking at these design meetings and didn't see these sort of differences. I I, I will not support the motion with the idea of trying to use the process to see if we can get to a better result. Council member, Palmer. If I remember correctly, didn't you say that we had to, sue to get access to do the design? We had to go to district court to get right of entry to do the survey, soil borings, and wetland delineation. K. And and when you do a taking of of this property and you divide the
property in half, isn't that going to be very expensive? And, I mean, you're basically, use a better word, wrecking the the the the use of the property, aren't you? I wouldn't be the one to ask that. We'd have to talk with our appraiser. Okay. The other one is is we hear this this idea that we can't maintain a wood trail. We have one already, a game haven, and we must be maintaining that, I'm assuming. But we we have to put wood trails in if we if we wanna go across swampy land, don't we? We would. I I would acknowledge the line to design these sort of boardwalk systems.
So if the council went with that alternative, we would push them hard on the concerns that we heard tonight around maintenance and longevity and durability of that structure, essentially. And can't we use some sand from our friends at Park and Rec to to at least eliminate part of the the the wood trail? That would be final design detail we've talked through. Okay. Council member Doreen. I have a procedural question. Can I move to table a motion at this point? Yes. I move to table,
this motion until, the design team has the opportunity to talk with the county about pursuing funding for a ped bridge over 47th. Motion made by Council Member Dohring. Is there a second? I'll second that. Seconded by Council Member Palmer. Further discussion? Yeah. I would love to put a timeframe on that. I don't know what that timeframe would be, but that's the sticking point for me here is that we are we are talking about, what a a property owner views as an invasive project,
through the middle of their property versus pedestrian safety over a county highway. And I feel like I need that additional piece of information, before I can make a decision. Council member Fredericks. Dylan, you're gonna have a boardwalk either way. It's just gonna be half the length. Correct? No. With the the alternative where that was recommended is less costly because there's not a need for spanning the creek with a with a boardwalk. Okay. And I'm and and and I heard 2,500 feet of boardwalk? Potentially. Potentially. Yeah. I mean,
when we get into final design, we would tighten up where the start and end point is. But on but on the wet let's call it the Council member Fredericks, if we can kinda contain our discussion to the tabling motion, that's the first order. If if that does not prevail, we can always get back to, the project. Is there any more discussion on tabling? Councilmember Keane. Yeah. Again, I'm not predisposed to supporting a table amendment. I mean, I understand the need and what what Councilmember Doering is asking for of trying to get better information.
From from my experience or my assessment here is the staff has come to where they need direction, and that's where we're at right now. It is always something you can do about looking for other funding. Those are always options. But I think in order to progress this thing that's really been in flight for about five years, I think we need to come to give some direction tonight, and let them go forward to make progress. As far as the that that specific funding, that's something our discussion is tightly tied together, that you're gonna either cross County 47 or, or do the,
the less invasive part around by the lake. Those are things we decided, and I I don't think we're gonna get the county to kind of drop what they're doing and start working on it for us. So I would rather not table it based on go that direction. Clerk Queso, could you call the roll on the tabling motion? Council member Keane? Nay. Council member Miller? Nay. Council member Fredericks? Nay. Council member Palmer? Aye. Council member Doreen? Aye. Council president Schubert? Nay. Motion fails. We are back to the original motion. Is there further discussion on,
alternative two, which has been, I see none. Clerk Kasel, please call the roll. Council member Keane. Nay. Council member Miller. Nay. Council member Fredericks. Aye. Council member Palmer. Aye. Council member Doring. Aye. Council president Schoebring. Nay. The motion is tied. Fails. Fails on a tie. Is there an alternative motion? I'll move to accept the feasibility study with the recommendation of the preferred route trail and advanced design, and also authorize a supplemental agreement in the amount of $418,170
with Alliant Engineering for final design of the proposed trail and direct the staff to come back to council, with a legal update on any sort of condemnation action. Second. Council member Keane. Nothing to add. Further discussion? I'm I'm sorry. I do have one thing. I guess I should ask staff. I added a paragraph a a paraphrase in here about, coming back with that. Is that a reasonable thing or is that something we can work out or is it unreasonable? That's reasonable. We're we're going to have to have you initiate the property acquisition process at a
later date. So Alright. Thank you. Administrator Zalms. Council president, council members, I did just also wanna note that a significant amount of funding for this project is coming from state bonding dollars and there are provisions within those state bonding dollars unless you go back and get reauthorization from the legislature that you have to spend them within a certain period of time. So I just want that to be something that you're aware of. Clerk case, so please call the roll. Council member Keane. Aye. Council member Miller. Aye. Council member Fredericks. Nay. Council member Palmer. Nay. Council member Doreen? Aye.
Council president Schoebring? Aye. Motion passes four to two. Thank you. Moving on to, our ordinance first readings. Go ahead, mister Spindler Craig. A of paragraph 10 of clause E of section six point two zero zero point zero four zero relating to floodplain overlay and various definitions of the Unified Development Code. Mister president, on item j one, with the first reading, that stems from item f 20 this evening,
which you approved. As noted in that RCA, we are asking for the council to approve by motion a waiver of the minimum twenty five days between first and second reading. The need for an expedited approval is due to a late notice and quick turnaround from a federal agency. This waiver process is contemplated in the charter itself, section 6.06, allowing the city council to waive the twenty five days between first and second reading if you do so unanimously. We use this waiver process sparingly, but for the right circumstances like this,
it is a useful tool. Staff, including legal, encourage the following motion. A motion to waive the typical requirement of at least twenty five days between the first and the second reading and instead bring item j one back for a second reading on 08/17/2026. Motion made by Councilmember Keane and seconded by Councilmember Miller. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. One second reading item K one, an ordinance amending section two dash one dash two of chapter two dash one of
title two of the Rochester code of ordinances establishing fees and charges for licenses, permits, services, and other charges provided by the City of Rochester. Move approval. Second. Motion made by Councilmember Keene and seconded by Councilmember Doring. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. Motion passes. Is there, we have no other business. Is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. Motion made by Councilmember Miller, seconded by Councilmember Palmer. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Oppose, say nay.
We are adjourned.