Rochester City Council — Transcript
Monday, May 18, 2026
Silver Lake Dam Modification Project Funding and Public Concerns
Local Government Accountability and Transparency
Traffic and Roadway Safety Enhancements
City-wide Infrastructure and Economic Development Initiatives
Community Events and Civic Engagement
Easement Management and Development Facilitation
Votes (6)
Consent Agenda
Dissent: None
Moved by Council Member Frederick [00:23] · Seconded by Council Member Keen [00:24]
The consent agenda, which included numerous routine contractual agreements, was approved in block. Council Member Wall highlighted that four re-awarded contracts (F10, 12, 14, 15) came in significantly under engineer estimates, resulting in a savings of $766,000 (21.6%).
Vacation Petition by Bella Vita of Rochester LLC and Forte of Rochester 2 LLC (G1)
Dissent: None
Moved by Council member Keen [00:32] · Seconded by Council member Miller [00:33]
The petition requested the vacation of a drainage and public utility easement located between two senior living apartment buildings. The developer had built a breezeway that exceeded the scope of a previously issued revocable permit. Staff determined there were no utilities in the easement and it was unneeded for site drainage, leading Public Works to recommend vacation rather than extending the permit. Council members clarified the likelihood of future need for the easement, with staff confirming it was eliminated due to project changes.
Budget Amendment of Rochester Public Utility Silver Lake Dam Modification Project (H1)
Dissent: Council Member Palmer, Council Member Fredericks
Moved by Council member Miller [00:47] · Seconded by Council member Keen [00:48]
Council Member Palmer moved to table the budget amendment, citing discrepancies between Barr Engineering's $1.9 million estimate and the $3 million RPU contribution, and pending permits from DNR and US Army Corps of Engineers. RPU General Manager McCollough clarified that the additional $1,009,700 sought would bring RPU's total contribution to just over $3 million, covering 20 years of operations and maintenance ($600k) and scour repair ($700k) that RPU would incur anyway if the project didn't proceed. The motion to table failed. Subsequently, a motion to approve the budget amendment passed, including a friendly amendment to transfer dam O&M responsibility to the Public Works Department upon demolition.
Safe Streets and Roads for All Planning and Demonstration Grant Application (H2)
Dissent: Council member Palmer
Moved by Council member Miller [00:56] · Seconded by Council member Dorning [00:56]
Council Member Palmer expressed concerns about applying for grants that might obligate the city to projects he doesn't support, questioning the effectiveness for bottleneck roads. City staff clarified the grant is for a demonstration project to repurpose space for walking, rolling, and biking along three specific corridors identified in the Rocog Safety Action Plan. It is 100% federally funded with no local match, aiming to inform future full reconstructions.
Ordinance amending subsection 3 of subparagraph A of paragraph 3 of clause E of section 60.200.040 of the Unified Development Code (K1)
Dissent: None
Moved by Council member Keen [00:58] · Seconded by Council member Miller [00:59]
This was a second reading of an ordinance to amend a specific section of the Unified Development Code. No discussion points were recorded.
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 5 of the Rochester code of ordinances relating to mobile food units (K2)
Dissent: None
Moved by Council member Keen [01:01] · Seconded by Council member Miller [01:02]
This was a second reading of an ordinance concerning mobile food units, involving the creation of a new section and renumbering existing ones. No discussion points were recorded.
Notable Quotes (9)
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 the process continues to work well for the Rochester uh community.
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.
I don't think the we would have provided the direction to vacate the easement had there been any concern about additional being needed to be placed in this area that would extend through the project to other properties. I think that the need for that easement had been eliminated through that process.
I've read the Barr Engineering report and it says 1.9 million dollars and the answer back was that the reason they need 3 million is is that the DNR is going to request something. I would like us to table it until the DNR finalizes requests so we get the final permit so we know the total cost.
But the revised estimate the estimate was revised based on two additional factors including 20 years of O&M 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. 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 ratepayers to continue to operate and maintain the dam over the next 20 years. That's the basis of the expanded budget.
These are costs that will RPU will 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'm not going to make a motion on this one. Um there's a lot of things in this that I'm not a fan of and one of them is is that we're asking for grant money. Then the next up is they get the grant and they come to us and say this is what we're going to do and we have to do it because we have a grant.
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 as 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.
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.
Ordinances & Resolutions (12)
Governing document defining the mayor's non-partisan role.
Report providing a cost estimate for the Silver Lake Dam project, referenced during budget discussions.
Resolution approving the vacation petition for a drainage and public utility easement.
Plat related to the Forte senior living apartment community, approved in 2020.
Issued permit for the construction of a breezeway, which was exceeded by the finished structure.
Section of the UDC that was amended by Ordinance K1.
Chapter relating to mobile food units, amended by Ordinance K2.
Grant application to the US Department of Transportation for a demonstration project to improve road safety.
Grant-funded plan completed by Rocog (Rochester-Olmsted Council of Governments) that identified corridors for safety improvements.
City priority that received significant state and federal funding for pre-design, design, and construction.
State-level program that received legislative support, potentially benefiting Rochester.
State-level program that received legislative funding as part of the overall bonding package.