have to hold it. >> Please rise as you're able for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Welcome everybody to our August 3rd, it's already August uh city council meeting. And we begin every city council meeting with our uh 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. Uh each person has up to two minutes to speak for a total of 20 minutes. And I keep track uh through two methods. One is the uh stoplight here at the dis and the other is the digital clock on the wall. Uh, 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, Miss Quasel. Uh and she will distribute them to uh the council. With that, you will be invited up as you uh signed up. And first we have Samantha Lumis. >> Hello. You may have to turn the mic on it. Push the button right in front till it turns green. You got to push it hard sometimes. Harder. >> There you go. >> There we go. All right. All right. I'm Samantha Lumis. I'm coming to talk about H2, the Willow Creek Regional Trail Visibility Study. Um, and specifically about 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. Um that option is $3.4 4 million more expensive. So, but they do have funding for up to 5.5 million. So, they just are needing to get $463,000 more dollars to achieve to cover for the bridge cost. Otherwise, everything else is funded. Um, so my cons thought was the property tax, they did an error this year. I don't know if the 1.5 million error would go into parks and wrecks as far as for the project next year where they could cover that $463,000 to do the bike 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 going to police your bike path? Who's going to 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 things with your money to make it safer for people that are going to use your background. And I don't you can 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 even 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, >> thank you Miss Miss Lumis. >> Thank you. >> Next we have Kelly Kelly Ray Kurt Patrick. Good evening. This is an open letter from the leaders of neighborhood associations. I am Kelly Ray Kirkpatrick, 1107 East Center Street, uh president of the East Side 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 Rochester 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 [snorts] 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 and 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 uh Joe Leforge. >> All right, President Shu Ring, council members, mayor, city staff, etc. Lots of you guys here. Uh Jello Forge, lived in the Northeast for over 16 years at this point. Uh I've seen enough of these meetings to know I'm going to throw you the rare curveball and come up here with a positive comment. Um let's say my son um he received special ed services a 10th century uh he has been a longtime participant in the parks and recreation adaptive wreck program uh and it's really done him wonders. I wanted to come up here and just say that Sue Miller has done a phenomenal job uh expanding programming, making these kids feeling included uh and really hiring really good young people to work on these programs. Um so my son right now is attending the Silver Lake um teen camps and um what inspired me to brave the road construction to come here tonight is that last week he and I were at the fair. Uh we actually ran into uh two of the counselors from the camp and they greeted him by name. He was so happy to see them. Um, it might not sound like much, but that's a very rare kindness for him and that really made a difference. Um, so I'm just happy to say that adaptive wreck has been wonderful for my family and I want to thank the city council and the city staff, the parks board, and again, particularly Sue Miller. Uh, it's really made a big difference. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Leforge. We appreciate it. Next, we have Molly Dennis. Hello, Molly Dennis. Um, it's been said that an unhappy prisoner knows that they are trapped, but a comfortable p 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 H2 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 11th and in the future because transparency is trust and integrity matters. Please do better. >> Thank you. Um that is uh all I have on our list. So I will close the public comment period and uh ask ask clerk to call the role. >> Good evening. Council member Keane >> here. Council member Miller >> here. >> Council member Walls absent. Council member Frederick's >> here. >> Council member Palmer >> here. >> Council member Doring >> here. >> Council President Schub >> here. >> Mayor Norton >> present. >> Thank you. Uh next up we have our city administrators 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 um sharing with our teammates how they act with respect, integrity, safety, and excellence in mind. Really appreciate all of their hard work every day. Um sometimes nights and weekends as well for some of our teammates. So appreciate their work. Um also did want to note that Civic Center North parking lot is closing starting August 15th. That is to make way for uh development in that area. Um which we expect mobilization to start several days thereafter. Um community members are encouraged to use the public parking on the east side of the civic center south lot in lie of that. Um so we will see that forthcoming. Um also for folks who weren't aware we are rescheduling the fireworks that did not go off as planned um to September 4th. Um that will be at Soldiers Field Memorial Park uh Friday, September 4th. Um the show will begin at 9:00 p.m. uh a little bit earlier than when it's um in the middle of summer and there will be more details forthcoming including a sign up for um updates about the event. Also did want to some some more flashy stuff here. The Aurora lights um there is going to be a presentation at the public library auditorium on August 10th from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. Um presenter Randy Heman 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, um, please head over to the library on that date. And it is time for downtown ArtWalk. That will be from 5 to 8:00 p.m. Thursday, August 20th. Um, there are printed maps will be available at the historic Chateau Theater and Threshold Arts during the event. It is a self-guided tour through downtown Rochester. And that's all I have. >> Thank you. Uh, next up we have the mayor's report. Mayor Norton, go ahead. >> Terrific. I've got a couple announcements. Uh, first, this is National Farmers Market Week, August 2nd through 8th. Um, the global farmers market that we got a uh grant for, $50,000 grant, uh, is uh, MLK Park on the 7th, 2 to 6:00 p.m. And then the Cascade Lake uh, farmers market, which is larger, is uh, Tuesdays 4 to 7. And um, 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 pro produce. So I would encourage folks to go. That's uh, part of the grant. And uh we hope folks will participate. Also, just an announcement. It is night this week. So on uh Tuesday, tomorrow evening, there are dozens and dozens of neighborhoods uh celebrating um all evening long. And it's uh 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 uh promote a safer community. So, I would encourage folks to uh participate in Night to Unite. Also, just a reminder, August 11th is primary election day. So, encourage folks to vote. You can vote early now in person or you can wait and vote on the 11th. 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. Uh, Safe City Nights is the final Safe City Nights is Tuesday, next Tuesday, August 11th, um, from 6:00 to 8:00 PM and it will be at Ben Franklin School. Um, I assume we're going to continue those uh, passport uh, events and so I many of your council members will be there and we hope uh, the folks it seems to be the young people are really enjoying those uh, passport days. So hopefully they'll get to know their council members and mayor while they're at Ben Franklin. Uh back to school day is Saturday, August 15th from 12 to 4 at Soldiers Field. This is a time um to make sure our kids are prepared with backpacks, hygiene kits, and shoes. Multiple community agencies get together um volunteering and um providing free school supplies for students. There's also food and music. And again, this year it's at Soldiersfield because MLK Park is under construction. So 12 to 4 at Soldiers Field. Um the next uh town hall is uh getting around town and it really is about transit, biking, transportation and all its forms. It will be Thursday, August 20th from 6:00 to 7:30 p.m. And um we are still determining a location and we will uh let folks know and publicize that as quickly as we can. the location we had ended up um not being available and so we're having to make some quick shifts. Uh it's looking like it could be at one of our public high schools. We'll let you know. And lastly, this is uh National Civility Month and uh so in August maybe we can all be on our best behavior. I think this council has um been behaving quite well. Uh but uh the it's a reminder that the League of Minnesota Cities actually has a uh civility pledge that they've asked all cities to uh 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 uh signed on the little page saying you supported that concept. So um it's easy to do. It has uh five wherees and maybe that's something we could bring forward to the council later this year or this month maybe even um during national civility month. So to my friendly colleagues, let's have a great meeting. >> Thank you, Mayor. We all tr uh council council member Frederick's has a very civil question for the mayor. Go ahead. [laughter] >> You brought up night to unite. It's a great event. Where can we go to find the list of all the um locations for that in our neighborhoods? >> Um great question. Um U Michawn 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 >> I think we've all gotten it too. Check your >> So check your email. Just maybe Friday it came out is what I want to say, but I just saw it this weekend. >> Must have went to spam. >> And if Yeah. And if members of the public would like a copy, you can just send one of us a question and we'll we'll send it to you. Thanks for that question. Uh next up we have our order of the agenda. Is uh are there any changes to the agenda? >> Seeing none, uh is there a motion to approve the agenda? >> So move. >> Second. >> Moved by council member Frederick's and seconded by council member Miller. All in favor say I. >> I. Post say nay. Motion passes. Moving on to our consent agenda. I have received no requests for uh 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 council member Miller and seconded by council member Doring. All in favor say I. >> Oppose say nay. Motion passes. We have no public hearings uh this evening and we have two reports and recommendations. We'll start with H1 which is wood debris management operations update. Uh Mr. Mike Nigberg, uh Taran Edens and Aaron Luxstein. Mr. Neber, 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 um 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, um, Homestead County, and it and our v vendor for our wood waste is halfway 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 want to start off with it. Um, tonight we're talking about three different things. History, I'll give you that brief history on the site. Um Taran 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 um making satisfactory improvements on. So um 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 uh had a private vendor on it. Being now 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. A couple years before that actually in that time frame though as encroachment started happening from the development from near uh north side of that property. Um 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 20 plus years um 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 uses 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 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 uh 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 Taran and she can take over the existing site. >> Thanks Mike. [clears throat] Taran 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. Uh so the site just to get your uh bearings here is located at 2555550th Avenue Northwest uh west of 50th Avenue south of Valley High Drive Northwest. Uh [clears throat] currently as mentioned in that slide uh 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 uh 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. Uh there's retail sales of mulch and plants, there's offices, and essentially there's vehicle parking for the tree service part of the uh operations as well. So, why are we bringing this before you today? Why are we having this discussion around potentially uh changing what happens here or relocating it? And we're looking for preliminary approval of that uh suggestion or recommendation. Essentially, a few things are happening. Uh first of all, we already did some work and investment on 50th Avenue Northwest. Uh so there are plans within our capital improvement project uh plan to extend 50th Avenue and that will occur in 2027. So we do need to use some of that city-owned uh um site for that work. So that's sort of the part of the reason. Uh 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. Uh but essentially the city's made a few investments in this area. As early as 2021 when the city council approved the West Zumbro uh sewer extension in order to meet some of our community's growing housing needs, we intentionally invested uh in this direction and grew um this way. So those are some of the reasons why we're bringing this to you today. So what one of the uh proposals that we're seeking preliminary support of uh is allowing for uh um some of the operations to continue at the site, specifically the residential portion. that would be continued options for uh community members to drop off their brush uh to continue to allow vehicle parking there for the tree service and to have uh the sales and office there. So, what won't be happening which uh Aaron will talk about soon is the commercial portion and the more uh I would say frankly louder uh uh um [clears throat] commercial operation. So, what we're proposing going forward is what we would call a temporary use permit. Uh 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. Um but it gives us once again more proactive opportunities to mitigate any nuisances that might come up that have come up in the past. Uh we have worked with a property owner uh to go this route and he is they are agreeable with that as well. Um why are we recommending this? Uh 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 Erin. Uh, thanks Taran. Aaron Luxstein, public works department. I'll talk about the um right now this is the proposed um commercial site. So keep in mind as Taran just talked about the proposal is kind of a twofold. So one residential um services would remain at the current site. So residents would continue to deliver their um 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 grinder running things like that. Um the commercial operations is what we're proposing would be moved to the Kelmar 3 reservoir site. So that's um further to the west um down uh 19th Street. So uh 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. Um 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 dredge spoils, 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 flood plane. There's no need for it from a flood storage standpoint. So there's um 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. Um and then 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. And then what would be part of that is the largely the processing. you'd have the truck traffic, but the grinder would be out there and which is does the mulching, the air curtain burner um is out there as well as then the hauling away because um Haway currently has a contract where that mulch is used in a um energy uh product with Excel. And so the vast majority of that mulch is hauled off site um as a renewable fuel. Uh we're proposing that it would be set up as a phased approach. We would start with 2 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 2 acres. It would be set up that we could expand the site without additional gradient. So, you'd put a mat down and you could add additional class 5 and batuminous to expand the site based on growth demands of the city if need be. Um so anticipating for future growth if need be. Again it would include um storm water treatment fencing gates for security. Um when we initially had been working with the county on a shared site they had saved a 30x40 uh building um and that they were going to put on their site. They no longer need that. So they're willing to um to allow the city to put that on this site. So there' be a building there for equipment maintenance. Um uh we would also the proposal would be for a portable portable water tank. So we're not drilling wells, we're not installing septic. Um everything would be um portable uh 250-galon portable water tank, a gray water tank that could be pumped and hauled. Um 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 to um meet the needs of the employees that would be out there operating the grinder. And then we would improve um 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 [snorts] um a little bit further in where we had a um there's a a parking lot down there with a a marker um 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. Uh so we'll maintain access for that use right now. Um so our target budget is $700,000 and we have a preliminary P 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. Um and we're still in conversations with the township. So things are subject to change. We really want to make sure we we stay within that dollar amount. Um uh and so then uh so I'll jump to the last bullet. Yeah, we're coordinating with the township. This site is out in Kalmar Township, so we would need township approval on that. And we've u 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 um action that we're uh asking for council tonight is is two-part. One um is just to be able to direct staff. We don't want to spend a bunch of time on something that 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 um portion of the the KR3 site there subject of course to final construction approval, final permits. We need to go through all 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 storm water treatment um that is required from a regulatory standpoint. So in order to get all the grading and everything and the storm water portion, that's a large part of this this expense um with the project. So, those are the two asks in front of council tonight. Um, and with that, we will open it up to discussion and any questions. >> Thank you, team. Questions? Council member Keane? >> Uh, yeah. First, um, I appreciate the way you guys come here as a group representing the different groups here and that we're working with the county and the townships. Um, 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 Taran, you correct me if anything's wrong. So the conditional use permit is going to 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. Um everything else with the KR3 site would be under the township um 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. it would 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 um at their current site. >> Okay. And just to clarify again, make sure I understand it right, these are um uh 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 uh the this KR3 site. Yep. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> So, we have the control over that as well as a land owner keeping in mind the township is a local government unit from a permanent >> side front and center. Thank you, >> Council Member Miller. >> Yeah, my question is just about the timing. Um, 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 I'll start and I'll ask any of my teammates to to chime in. Um, so the reason this is coming forward now, one, we had been working with with the county under a joint project up until February of this year. We 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. Um, from our standpoint, again, the reason we need to move forward in 2026 is because of the adjacent development. those homes are are being constructed right now. People are are those homes are being sold and and moving into those. Two, um we do have 50th Avenue. There's going to be that that future road construction. So, we need to use part of this area around Hathaway. Um and so there's going to be additional construction traffic um in that area. And so, the the reduction in commercial truck traffic, we see a benefit um you know, on that side of it. The last piece of it is again this would be a one-time funding ask. Uh we didn't have time to be able to get into into a CIP and so we felt that 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? Does it continue all year? From my understanding, it does continue all year and in fact we do see an increase sometimes in the in the fall and winter um just because of frozen ground and being able to do some of that activity. There also are some limitations um just for protection of endangered species or sensitive species and when you can cut and so there's uh commercial operations need to work with that especially in larger clearing operations. Okay. Um, Mayor Norton, >> um, I I guess my line of questioning was very similar to Council Member Miller's. It doesn't seem like this is an emergency, which is what I um 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, to me, that isn't an emergency. It could happen next year. Um, 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, it you've answered the question about why you feel, you know, you want to 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 a >> Thank you, mayor. Oh, council president, can I can I have one more thing that I I forgot in my response to council member Miller that reminded me with Mayor Norton's comment. Um, so one other additional item is because of the current lease that we have with Hathaway and there was a annual requirement that it's on a year-to-year lease. So, um, in order to meet our lease requirements, we had to notify them of our intent to have them move off of the reservoir site. Um, 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 um Hathaway right now. >> Council member Keane. >> Yeah. I 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 um tree uh waste will be moved from one one uh place to the other? >> Yep. Uh and I'll pull up the image for the existing site. >> Um so yes uh 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 um that Hathaway sees. They're estimating there would be two truck loads, semi-truck loads per week that would need to be hauled out. So, we're not talking significant truck traffic. Currently, they would go up uh 50th Avenue Northwest and then come around to 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 um to KR3. >> Okay. So they would be going on they would be going on >> county roads or they would be going on 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 just one comment um 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. Um 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 uh 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 Balmer. 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 permit approvals and authorizing preliminary support for the funding request of to three up to $350,000 in contingency funds for project costs associated with relocating commercial processing of woody debris for continued waste wood waste management. Second council uh motion made by council member Palmer, seconded by council member Fredericks. Council member Palmer. >> Nothing more. >> Council member Fredericks. >> A way to be proactive. >> Council member Miller. >> 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 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. >> Uh 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 um 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 going to start to be trying to get um um people moving into them in the coming months. So, I am prepared to support this uh this action tonight uh based on heading off a problem before it gets to be a bigger problem. >> Any further discussion? All in favor say I. >> I. >> Oppos say nay. >> Nay. >> Motion passes for uh 4 to2 with council member uh Miller and council member Doring voting nay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh, next up we have H2 which is Willow Creek Regional Trail FE feasibility study and professional services agreement for final design. Mr. Dumbrossski. >> Good evening, Mayor, President, members of the council. are here tonight to talk about the Willow Creek path project that's been long documented um as a priority when we think about active transportation in the community dating back to the as far as the 90s um and thinking regionally um as we we you know consider this a regional path u there's other trail groups in the area getting this path to game haven um then allows longer term planning for the Blue Stem Trail to Steuartville. So, um it's more than just this one path. It's the broader transportation network when we think about walking and biking. Um so, the goals of the project would be to um get the path out to Game Haven Regional Park. Um creating this safe, accessible sort of nature space um um quiet, calming as you're as you're getting out to the park. Um, Highway 52 is a barrier just south of Menards to any sort of people trying to get to areas south of the highway. Um, walking or biking. The only way to get there is via car. Um, and we do have transit um, service to the Woodlake area, but pretty limited. It's a barrier. Uh, so the history I mentioned the 90s, they started talking about the project. It was in the 2012 bike master plan. Rohog has identified it in their planning documents in their chapters of their long range um transportation plan that uh address walking and biking. Um again, when the council adopted the 2022 active transportation plan, this was identified. Uh it had been a bonding priority a number of times uh achieved the bonding uh success in 2023, 3.6 6 million from the legislature and uh in 2024 late in 2024 you authorized us to begin this feasibility study. So we hired Alliant Engineering to help work through the study. Um really I'm going to walk you through the different segments that we've kind of chunked it out into tonight. Uh if you look at this uh slide that the red um you see the red roof that's the fire station on 28th Street. Um that's a beginning point. We have uh we have a shared use path on 28th Street just uh to just west of the fire station. Um we'd reconstruct the sidewalk along that segment of uh City Street to a wider mixed use or shared use path. Uh and then segment 1B would extend along um that's uh Senica owns the property. It would be um just east of the apartment complex out there and past their storm water facilities. which gets you to 30th Street. Um this is one of the one of the decision points tonight. Um we we studied two alternatives to get from 30th Street to the brid the bridge under Highway 52. Um 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. Um, segment two is get really getting under the highway. There's a nice wide area today that you can um you can see the foot path through there. Uh, it's it's the opportunity to really address that barrier I mentioned at the start. Um, you get south of the highway, you have to do a slight climb uh to get up towards the old uh rail spur that you can see on the screen there. that that narrow curve curve linear segment is is old rail railroad bed. Um and then that this is just north of the the sportslex. So continuing south we the sportslex has been mining uh sand for their project and we've uh 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 going to be helpful when we get to construction. um which then gets you to the north edge of the sports plex. Segment 3B is being constructed and funded with the sports plex project and that would get uh the path to the um county road where I where it's noted future grade separation. So that will get to Cass 47 which is a 55 mile per hour county highway. Um so not quite to Game Haven yet as as identified in those bonding um requests. a couple spurs that that we did study just to understand um they weren't in the bonding request. They they weren't within the the limits of that um package. However, we really want to 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 um County 1 and Pinewood Road um points north of there towards Mayo High School. And then we we heard a lot from the Woodlake uh area thinking of the the health and human services that that occur out in that complex and the different um uh 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 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 the Wood Lake complex. So, we we studied that. We have a cost as we start to think about future opportunities and potential grants. Um, the bridge was something we really wanted to identify and and you'll see in the decisions later uh in the slide deck. um would like a decision on being able to continue with design of this bridge and understanding a more detailed um final cost estimate. Uh we looked at a number of alternatives. The the cheapest is the one you see on the screen today. Um it would come in just west of our game haven parcel that the parks owns and um 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 uh runs over to Game Haven. Um 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 uh the soil conditions. Um as you get onto the Game Haven parcel, it gets really swampy. So just construction constructability, but then costs are going to go up. Um with engagement, we had a project website through throughout since the council authorized the project. Um we continue to update that. We did an open house just under a year ago uh out at the county um public works building uh off of uh just south of Game Haven and we plan to do additional open houses to provide updates to the public as we better um understand what we're what the final design becomes, how the project advances and and as we think about construction. right now planning if you accept the feasibility study this evening uh we want to get moving into final design over the the fall and winter uh with a plan to begin construction. The current agreement we have with the DNR that the council's approved is for a June of 2028 substantial completion date. So we would anticipate construction in 27 and into 28 uh to wrap up the project. Overall, the recommended alternative, not including that pedestrian bridge over the county highway, is 2.6 million. Uh the bridge when we think about engineering acquisition costs, uh 3.4 million. Uh you see this cost for those other spurs I mentioned that we'd want to look for grant opportunities. Um so that total on those two lines that are being recommended is 5.96 million. Right now in the CIP we have 5.5 uh which breaks down the 3.6 from the state and 1.875 via tax levy and that's in the CIP. Um so really the key decision points to keep the project moving we're looking for tonight would be to select uh alternative one or two along segment 1C and then um we'd really like to like I noted proceed with design of the bridge if it turns out we can't fund it. um we still would be able to have the the bridge designed, the plans can be on the shelf. Um we're ready to go when we do have the funding. So um again tonight asking for adopting the feas accepting the feasibility report and moving forward with final design which would also include uh a contract amendment to continue with Alliant Engineering to do that design. So, with that, um, I am here for questions, feedback, and anything else we need to talk about. >> Thank you, Mr. Dumbarrowski. Council member Palmer. >> Thank you. I have just two quick questions. Um, this trail was designed before the sports complex was was cited. >> It was it was always on the the long range plans. >> Okay. >> And second question is, since we bought the old lights in property, we have a lot of sand. Isn't there no reason you can't use the sand over on the um um alternative two to to raise that that grade? >> I would have to work with the the parks team to better understand what sort of quantities u 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. Um we really aren't though looking to do the the challenge is we can't be filling in the flood plane. So we really have to try and follow existing elevations as closely as possible because if we were to import sand and fill in the flood plane now we have to figure out where we're compensating for it and digging out storage within the flood plane. 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 um the flood plane. And just my understanding of flood plane 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 Sportslex 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 um isn't that going to cost us a lot of money and time? >> I guess I would maybe word that a little differently, but um you know, we've talked with the Lumis family. We've the mayor and I have met with them and it 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 um in all likelihood. So there would be those costs. Um and when we go to condemnation, we we we get our appraisals valuation on that property. Uh the property owner has that same opportunity. Um it can advance as far as um appointing um commissioners to hear the the hearing. three commissioners to settle on the final amount. Um what the condemnation does allow is it does give us um possession of the property after 90 days through the quick take process which [cough] we've had to do on different projects but um 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 Doring, >> you had some similar questions uh about the the cost between the two options. And uh my first one, I'm just going to 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 bo both of the either alternative is in the in the floodway for a good chunk of it in the flood flood plane. So it's not developable. So the valuation's going to 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. There the county is obviously not a partner with this project. >> Yep. And then um I'll save my last question. Council member Frederick's >> isn't off and I'm not concerned about cost. Uh what trumps at this time for me is just I don't I don't believe in like putting things down uh land owners throats especially when they it's been in the family for a lot of years anytime for that matter. If there is 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 um goes westerly and would require the boardwalk is about 1 6. So $1.3 million additional. So >> 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, if that's the direction the council chose, we would have to start to look at um additional grant opportunities and think about um funding because I do think that's going to be going to be very important to the success of this system. If if we can't get families safely across the county highway um to be able to access the park and other areas out there, that's going to 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 to the property. Has that been discussed or that's just not going to work? >> Well, that's that's what we would um that's how we would look at acquiring the space for the path would be via an easement of a certain width. Uh however, if you recall, the council's also already had to uh institute a court action just to do right of entry to go onto the property to do topographical survey, soil borings, and wetland delineation. Um 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 again, what I what I was surprised to hear, it's not a matter of getting an easement through the property. It's we want to 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. >> Mr. President, >> uh go ahead, Mr. Add to that piece. Thank you. I appreciate the question, Council Member Keane, Council Members, Mayor Norton. Um for purposes of a of a trail um the trail boundary itself would be uh construed as a permanent easement. That would be the focus of the eminent domain action. Um also included in that action would be temporary easement which is essentially the area that construction >> the construction workers need to access in order to build this project. Um this is fairly similar to other trail work that we have approved. um that the council has approved in uh in prior years, a trail that heads to the east out of Rochester was a a similar manner where um we of course did our best with homeowners that were um ready to sell and agreed on valuation and there were a few homeowners that wanted to go through the the process and as Mr. Donovski um generally described um it is a pretty prescribed process under state law that is generally um pretty generous and favorable to the land owner um to tell you the truth. um gives them a full process for uh them to make their case for their own uh valuation um under state law and eventually uh can appeal to a a uh commissioner hearing process um 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 um and describe what that would look like. Okay. >> Thank you, Mr. Spindler. Craig. Uh, >> yeah. Also, I I guess I want you to just comment on the two different spurs. Um, I've heard requests for the route to Willow Creek, and I was kind of oddly surprised of how inexpensive that looked relative to um 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. Um we we do have sanitary sewer over there. So there's there's some space where we'd want to make sure we incorporate maintenance activities for for that team to be able to access our sewer and there's RPU has um power lines running through there. So, while it is lowerly like all these other areas we're talking about, it's it's feasible. And um 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 um achieving that grant numerous times. And um as we think about school connectivity, safe routes to school, depending on how the legislature um 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 going to ask it anyways. They just the county just built County Road 47 from um from from County Road One to uh St. Bridget's Road in the last three years. Um did we look at going under it or over it at the time or was that just timing wasn't there? We >> we didn't. However, we've talked about that as a team and just looking at the the soil borings. Um 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 um frustrating. Um uh yeah. Thank you, >> Council Member Miller. >> I guess this is not a question for you, Mr. But could someone speak to the the the public safety element of this? There was a concern brought up about um what trails get who gets access to the trails and how the trails are used and camping activity or other um you know versus recreational use. Um I know we've had updates from RPD on um rates of encampment, intensity of encampments, how they're policing that. Um I don't know if maybe Mr. Cracker, 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 um I can try to answer it generally speaking. Um 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 um may be able to get access to and then be hidden to some extent. So there's no doubt that over the years um enforcement activity has generally been um in some of those main areas. Um the success that those entities have seen over the last couple of years has really been focused on assuring that the larger camps um don't occur. Um generally the oneoffs um maybe um 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 um have a similar approach with this particular trail. Um try to address and uh any any uh reports of um camping activity um that is that is problematic and needs attention. Sorry, [clears throat] >> com one comment to that. Um 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 um people camping in those areas. Again, you've got a a similar a very uh small corridor for that to happen in areas where we've got larger park spaces beyond that trail quarter specifically, you can tend to have some of those issues crop up. Um since I have the floor, one more comment if I may. um 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. Um I just point that out to you as well. >> Thanks, Mike. >> 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 um with the recent connection of the Soldersfield Southwest Trail connection. Have we seen any sort of nuisance behavior reports from those properties that now above the trail? >> Who wants to take that one? >> Mr. Spindler Craig, >> I would only say um not not that has come to my attention, not through um either actual enforcement actions that have led to any criminal charges or that I've heard as being a a challenging um parks issue otherwise. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Council Member Palmer. Yeah, I guess I'm I'm frustrated on the bridge um question because it's counting 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 Startville. 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. Well, at Rok this last Rogue meeting, we talked about this trail and their park department now was on trails and it sounded like one of the priorities was to get to Startfell. So, >> they are, you know, the county is through Roco is working through a a trails master plan update to connect the surrounding communities in the county and and thinking more regionally. So, yeah, I mean Roquog will be supportive. It really comes down to what becomes a bonding priority if that's the route you want to go in the future. But you but you could I mean even though it's a high speed limit, you could put a a rapid flash and 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 you know as safe a crossing as possible. We we would look at is it does it make more sense to route them down to St. Bridget's Road. It's still an uncontrolled um intersection for that east west movement down there. So, um, 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 Keane. >> Yeah. Again, I'm going to 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. Um, 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 um it it appears now would you if you would assess where we're at, you've been spending a lot of time with this um 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 $ 1.3 million 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. And that's the first that's going to be the first step with all of the property owners quite quite honestly that are left that we we still don't have um yep >> the the easement from. So we we need to go through that process first. Like um our attorney said, it's it's laid out in statute and uh 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. Um, and I think what council member Miller was trying to get towards here, and I'm 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 experienc it? Like I we've had one in Ward one with uh the um the the trails allowed us uh an easement to build a um a walking biking trail there. Uh 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 or >> 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 um you know how should we with you know with full data understand like that these are possible concerns but unlikely or there are real um concerns that this council could or should act on even to the point of a $1.3 million or making the project less safe in another part of it because we're going to spend our money somewhere else. Well, we've we've heard um we heard some 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 and some of it was more trespassing type concerns. So, we we ran a fence along both sides of the the path um all the way through the the various properties that we had to um 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. Um, 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. Um, 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 kind of 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. um 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 50 years. Um it just feels like a violation. Um that had, as I said, had we no other choices would 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 Lacrosse and into town, the the elevation change to the east of their property is 100 plus feet. So, we couldn't we could not get the ADA grades [clears throat] to work without doing a tremendous amount of cutting um into that property to their to the east. The other alternative would have been to go all the way to county one, try and figure out where to fit it within the county right of way along that highway essentially to get out to the roundabout. Um, 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 recom or mentioned earlier, the other place that wouldn't even be feasible is along Highway 63. Um there's just no safe space there as that transitions to become a 65 mile per hour highway. >> Council member Doring, >> my thoughts were going to reflect a lot of of what Mayor Norton just shared as well. Um but my I just want to make sure I understand the pinch point. um what I heard you say in the presentation I think as followed up by a couple of my colleagues is that if uh and I'm going to just talk about um segment 1 C if we choose alternative one um uh there's this possibility of condemnation the ex uh the additional expenses with that possible process also we have to talk about um uh the emotional component of 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 B 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, uh we could still go out and seek additional funding with the county at this point to create that that future project funding um and and maintain um the the Lumis property how it sits now. Correct. Essentially. Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understood where we were at. Uh, 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 um sort of the the ongoing implications. >> I might look to partners from the park and wreck 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. Uh we've had had a couple peers that sank down uh creating some issues where you go back and take it out and rejack it back up. That was initially on and then now we're starting to see boards that are starting to deteriorate. So, again, we're 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. is going to be I mean we're 1,000 ft on that boardwalk. We're how long this one? 2500 feet 2400 ft. >> So it's quite long. So twice the work about every 5 years you're doing something probably on it. >> Okay. >> Um again the winter type type of use rather challenging. 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've got $1.3 million in initial construction cost difference and something that we will struggle to maintain. >> I've got a question on um kind of the land acquisition process. So, uh 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 um when we're acquiring whether it's easements, permanent, temporary, um there's always that negotiation period where um you meet with the property owner and you understand their concerns and you talk through um 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 uh purchase prices or >> estimates. >> No, we have not been authorized to start that appraisal period process. >> Okay. >> Uh council member Frederick's >> much has been brought up about m about maintenance of the trail in the winter. The one 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. Um, we've obviously been adding more and more um annually with the help of um 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? Uh, Council Member Palmer. >> Yes. I'll make a motion accepting the feasibility study with using alternative 2 trail route to advance to final design and authorizing a supplemental agreement to the amount of $418,170 with Allian 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. Uh 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. would love to see how we continue, advance the conversation, give you some leeway on funding, authorization, negotiation, see if something could come to an agreement in actual numbers. Um, 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 Frederick's that we're seeing in 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 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 to 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 uh future headaches. >> I also will not be supporting this uh this motion. And I look at the I think we're kind of scared of the condemn 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 want to see that process go along and and uh and open up those discussions with the family. If it gets to a point where there is not an agreement uh uh between the the owners of the property and the city, it will come back to us. Correct. Before there is any condemnation uh motions. Is that correct? we would have to talk internally. I mean the when we come back to ask for um the ability to begin >> acquisition it all typically the action includes initiating the 90-day quick take. Um so we just have to talk um on what how we bring it back to the council before we would move forward. >> Mr. Spindler Craig, >> I think I can build on that a little bit. Yes, the council would um con continue to have involvement in any condemnation process and setting some parameters for how any owners are treated. Um certainly it is uh staff's intention um bound by the legal structure involved um that owners are compensated fairly and council has a role in figuring that out. >> Thank you. Uh council member Keane. Yeah, I again I'm listen to uh Council President Schub say that I think we are kind of leaning into that too much. I'm um I I guess I I'm more dis 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. Um I I um 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 uh Palmer, >> if I remember correctly, didn't you say that we had to um sue to get access to do the design? >> We had to go to district court to get right of entry to do the um survey, soil borings, and wetland delineation. >> Okay. 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 um 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. Um the other one is is we hear this this idea that we can't maintain a wood um trail. Um we have one already at Game Haven, and we must be maintaining that, I'm assuming. But we we have to put wood trails in if we if we want to go across swampy land, don't we? >> We would. I I would acknowledge Alliance has designed 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 can't we use some sand from our friends at Park and Wreck to to at least eliminate part of the the the wood trail? >> That would be final design detail we talked through. Okay. Uh, Council Member Doring, >> have a procedural question. Um, can I table can I uh move to table a motion >> at this point? >> Yes. I move to table uh this motion until uh the design team has the opportunity to talk with the county about pursuing funding for a ped bridge over 47th. >> Motion made by council council member Doring. Is there a second? >> I'll second that. >> Seconded by council member Palmer. Further discussion. >> Yeah, I I would love to put a time frame on that. I don't know what that time frame would be, but but that's the sticking point for me here is that we are we're are talking about uh what a a property owner views as an invasive project uh through the middle of their property versus pedestrian safety over a county highway. And I feel like I need that additional piece of information uh before I can make a decision. Council member Frederick's >> Dylan, you're going to have a boardwalk either way. It's just going to be half the length. Correct. >> No, with the the alternative or that was recommended is less costly because there is not a need for spanning the creek with a with a boardwalk. >> Okay. And and I heard 2500 feet of boardwalk >> potentially. >> Potentially. >> Yeah. 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 what let's call it the >> council member Frederick's if we can kind of contain our discussion to the tableabling motion. That's the first order. Uh if if that does not prevail, we can always get back to >> uh the project. Is there any more discussion on tableabling? Council member Keane. >> Yeah, again I'm not predisposed to supporting a table amendment. I mean, I understand the need and what what council member Doring 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. Um, and that's where we're at right now. Um, 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 um and let him go forward to make progress. Um, as far as the that that specific funding, that's something our discussion is tightly tied together that you're going to either cross county 47 or uh or do the um the less evasive part around by the lake. Those are things we decided and I I don't think we're going to 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 that direction. >> Clerk Queso, could you call the role on the tableing motion? Council member Keane, >> nay. >> Council member Miller, >> nay. >> Council member Frederick's >> nay. >> Council member Palmer, >> I. >> Council member Doring, >> I. >> Council President Schubank, >> nay. >> Motion fails. >> We are back to the original motion. Is there further discussion on uh alternative two, which has been uh I see none. Uh clerk, please call the role. Council member Keane. >> Nay. >> Council member Miller. >> Nay. >> Council member Fredericks. >> I. >> Council member Palmer. >> I. >> Council member Doring. >> I. >> Council President Schubang. >> Nay. >> Uh. 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 um with a legal update on any sort of condemnation action. Second, >> Council Member Keane. >> Uh, nothing to add. >> Further discussion? >> I'm sorry. I do have one thing. I guess I guess I should ask staff. I added a parag a par phrase in here about uh 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, >> all right. Thank you, >> Administrators Elms. >> Uh, Council President, council members, I did just also want to 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 Queso, please call the role. >> Council member Keane, >> I. Council member Miller, >> I. >> Council member Fredericks, >> nay. >> Council member Palmer, >> nay. >> Council member Noring, >> I. >> Council President Schub, >> I. >> Motion passes 4 to two. >> Thank you. Uh, moving on to uh our ordinance first readings. Go ahead, Mr. Spindler. Craig. [clears throat] >> Thank you, Mr. President. Uh item 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. Uh Mr. President on item J1 uh with the first reading um that stems from item F20 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 25 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 wave the 25 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 wave the typical requirement of at least 25 days between the first and the second reading and instead bring item J1 back for a second reading on August 17th, 2026. >> Motion made by council member Keane and seconded by council member Miller. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Oppos say nay. Motion passes unanimously. >> Thank you. One second reading. Item 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. >> Move approval. >> Second. >> Motion made by council member Keane and seconded by council member Doring. All in favor say I. >> Post say nay. Motion passes. Is there uh we have no other business. Uh is there a motion to adjurnn? So move >> second. >> Motion made by council member Miller, seconded by council member Palmer. All in favor say I. I. >> Post say name. We are adjourned.