Rochester City Council — Transcript
Monday, August 3, 2026
Willow Creek Regional Trail Feasibility and Design
Wood Debris Management Operations Relocation
Flood Plain Overlay Ordinance Amendment
Open Comment Period and Community Concerns
Votes (5)
H1: Wood debris management operations update
Dissent: Council Member Miller and Council Member Doring voted nay, citing concerns about using contingency funds and not following the regular budget process.
Moved by Council Member Palmer [0:42:07] · Seconded by Council Member Fredericks [0:42:25]
Staff presented a proposal to address the city's wood debris management needs. Due to residential encroachment and upcoming road construction, the commercial processing of woody debris needs to move from its current location on 50th Avenue Northwest. The plan is to keep residential brush drop-off, mulch sales, and vehicle parking at the current site under a Temporary Use Permit, while relocating commercial operations (grinding, air curtain burner, hauling) to the northeast corner of the city-owned Kelmar 3 reservoir site. The proposal included a phased approach, storm water treatment, fencing, and a portable facility for employees. The target budget is $700,000, with a request for preliminary support for $350,000 from contingency funds. Council members debated the use of contingency funds versus integrating the cost into the 2027 budget, with some supporting the proactive move to avoid future problems with residents and ensure lease compliance, while others preferred the regular budget process.
H2: Willow Creek Regional Trail Feasibility study and professional services agreement for final design
Dissent: Council Member Keane, Council Member Miller, and Council President Schubank voted Nay. This motion was to accept Alternative 2 (boardwalk).
Moved by Council Member Palmer [1:15:02] · Seconded by Council Member Fredericks [1:15:23]
The council discussed two alternatives for Segment 1C of the Willow Creek Regional Trail. Alternative One, recommended by staff, was less costly and did not require a boardwalk but would pass through a private family's property, potentially leading to condemnation. Alternative Two involved a more expensive boardwalk to bypass the property, but raised concerns about long-term maintenance, especially in winter conditions. A key related issue was the funding and design of a pedestrian bridge over County Road 47, which would be jeopardized if the more expensive Alternative Two for Segment 1C was chosen. The Mayor and some council members expressed strong opposition to condemnation and advocated for working with the county to secure additional grant funding for Alternative Two and the pedestrian bridge. An initial motion to table the discussion to explore funding for the bridge was rejected. A subsequent motion to proceed with Alternative Two (the boardwalk option) failed on a tie vote. Finally, a motion to accept the staff-recommended preferred route (Alternative One) and proceed with design, while directing staff to provide a legal update on condemnation, passed.
H2: Willow Creek Regional Trail Feasibility study and professional services agreement for final design (Alternative Motion)
Dissent: Council Member Fredericks and Council Member Palmer voted Nay, having previously supported the boardwalk alternative.
Moved by Council President Schub [1:23:05] · Seconded by Council Member Doring [1:24:02]
Following the failure of the previous motion, an alternative motion was proposed to accept the feasibility study with the staff-recommended preferred route (Alternative 1), advance to final design, authorize a supplemental agreement with Alliant Engineering, and direct staff to return to council with a legal update on any condemnation action. This motion aimed to move the project forward with the more cost-effective route while ensuring council oversight on potential property acquisition processes.
J1: An ordinance amending subsection one and subsection two of subp paragraph A of paragraph 10 of clause E of section 6.200.040 relating to flood plane overlay and various definitions of the unified development code.
Dissent: None
Moved by Council Member Keane [1:25:52] · Seconded by Council Member Miller [1:26:01]
The city attorney requested a waiver of the minimum 25 days between the first and second reading of this ordinance due to a late notice and quick turnaround requirement from a federal agency. The waiver was sought to expedite the approval process, as permitted by the city charter for such circumstances. There was no substantive discussion on the ordinance content itself during this reading.
K1: An ordinance amending section 2-1-2 of chapter 2-1 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.
Dissent: None
Moved by Council Member Keane [1:26:35] · Seconded by Council Member Doring [1:26:40]
This item was presented for its second reading. No discussion was held prior to the vote.
Notable Quotes (9)
The commercial operations is what we're proposing would be moved to the Kelmar 3 reservoir site... it would also be a if we have a major storm this could be the overflow for residential if it exceeds the capacity of the current site.
I'll just say I don't plan to support this tonight for the reasons I've given. I 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 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.
segment [clears throat] 1C, 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 50 plus years going back a few generations. Um, 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. Um, 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 um to the jobs and to the groceries and activities. Um so, basically my point here is wherever I wrote it, um I asked the city council to vote nay on segment 1C if it's possible to just take that and choose the alternative to option which would include a bridge.
I will acknowledge both are feasible. Um, there's challenges uh, you know one's much more costly uh more environmental concerns when we think about just seasonal flooding. it would have to sit lower just based on elevations. Um, with the new DNR rules for floodways, we can no longer utilize a culvert uh crossing uh of the creek. So, we would have to construct a boardwalk um over the entire distance from one uh 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. Um, but you obviously heard from the family um tonight who owns the property that the recommended segment is is along um it it does sit a little it sits higher. Uh 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 um with a legal update on any sort of condemnation action.
Ordinances & Resolutions (14)
Agenda item for Willow Creek Regional Trail Feasibility Study and professional services agreement for final design.
Document mentioned by a public speaker regarding the Willow Creek Trail project.
Historical document identifying the Willow Creek Trail as a priority.
Documents from the Rochester-Olmsted Council of Governments (ROCOG) identifying the trail.
City plan identifying the Willow Creek Trail as a priority.
City planning document that includes funding for the Willow Creek Trail and the 50th Avenue extension.
Regulations impacting trail construction in flood-prone areas, precluding culverts.
Proposed permit type for residential wood debris services at the existing site.
Agenda item for an ordinance amending flood plain overlay.
Specific section of the Unified Development Code being amended, relating to flood plane overlay.
City code being amended regarding flood plain overlay.
City charter section allowing waiver of 25-day period between ordinance readings.
Agenda item for an ordinance establishing fees and charges.
Specific section of the Rochester Code of Ordinances being amended to establish fees and charges.