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 the May 18th, 2026 Rochester City Council meeting. Uh we begin every City Council meeting with our open comment period. This is an opportunity for for anyone from the public to speak on items that we will that we will not be taking public testimony on during a public hearing later in the agenda. Each person has up to 2 minutes to speak for a total of 20 minutes, and I will be keeping track of time through two methods. One is the stoplight here, the red, white, or the green, yellow, and red, and the also the red digital clock on on the wall there. So, know that I may need to cut you off and I I also requested each speaker be concise to allow for more people to speak during the designated time. And participants are also encouraged to limit comments generally to topics that are within the scope and jurisdiction of the council's ability to affect policy. Council members and staff do not respond to your comments during public comment but will instead follow up on any specific requests separately. If you have materials to share with the council, you may give them to the city clerk to distribute to my right. And you will be invited up in the order that you signed up and first we have Mr. Jeffrey Gove. And Mr. Gove, you may have to turn the microphone on there. You push the button and you got to push it kind of hard until you see the green light go on. There you go. >> Got it. My name is Jeff Gove. I'm a lifelong resident of Rochester, Minnesota. I'm here tonight on behalf of the Friends of Silver Lake, a group representing thousands of Rochester residents like myself who do not want to see major changes to Rochester's Silver Lake Park that the dam removal is about to bring. As someone who has lived in Rochester my entire life, I've never heard concerns about this dam being unsafe until the removal effort began. For many residents, that raises a legitimate question about whether this project is truly necessary. Part of the dam removal effort has been in the works for the past decade. City Council uh approval to spend more than $3 million of Rochester Public Utilities electric rate payer money for dam removal despite RPU estimated it would cost similar amounts to maintain the current dam over the next 20 years. We believe this is poor use of public funds and raises serious concerns about how taxpayer and ratepayer dollars are being spent. This project will likely lead to future requests for millions more in public funding for a project many Rochester Rochester residents do not support. This also follows numerous misleading statements made by city staff and the mayor over the past 6 years in an effort to convince citizens, council members, and state DNR officials that dam removal will improve Silver Lake Park. Despite the fact that many residents believe the park has been a valued and cherished cherished community asset for more than 90 years. We respectfully respectfully ask that you give this request serious consideration before voting on this public expenditure and consider the voices of many Rochester residents who do not support this project. Whatever happens in the in the project, the main consideration should be the beautification of Silver Lake Park and the the removal of all unnecessary um debris in the park and make it fishable for people. Um the park will be used much more if you made the boundaries of the park um a lot nicer. >> Thank you, Mr. Goke. >> Okay. >> Next up we have Molly Dennis. >> Thank you. Hi, I'm Molly Dennis. A governing principle of America is a constitutional separation of powers. Dictated by our Rochester weak mayor charter, Rochester's mayor is non- partisan. She's not here today, but she's non-partisan, and she is also part of the executive branch of government. Residents can easily be confused because both the mayor and the city administrator sit on the high dais of the legislative uh official dais, but both of you are not legislators. As a former teacher living in Rochester, I have for decades paid a close attention to details and patterns. I have consistently advocated for honesty, governmental accountability, and fiscal transparency. As a council member sitting here on the dais, I have proven myself to be non-partisan, voting for both a sustainability and also against the high property taxes because there was not any travel receipts. I have promoted accessibility and public safety while advocating fiercely for affordability for struggling families here in Rochester. I have played these games before, and I do not like this game. Or the unchecked power of the local executive branch. To change corrupt rules starts with transparency from within. Our mayor cannot be connected to lobbyist party politics or big development organizations or big money. All conflict of interest needs to be reported to the public, and receipts need to be exposed. As someone who listens, who shows up, and who does not rubber stamp, I have been asked by many residents in Rochester from both political parties to run for mayor. I have been asked to stop this propaganda. I have been asked to bring resident voices back into the public agenda, and I have asked been protect the rights of people here in Rochester. >> Thank you, Ms. Dennis. >> Transparency and trust. >> Thank you. >> Integrity matters. And on August 11th, I hope you vote for Molly for mayor. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next we have uh Romears uh Biddle. >> Good evening, everyone. Uh to the mayor who's not here today, the city council that is here present before me, and to all the public that is here uh listening in the in the back and in the uh and in the TV waves. I raise because I have three concerns addressing the city. One um is traffic lights in that I noticed that for many multi-dur- multi-lane roads, there's only one directional traffic light above the road, and then there's one on the side, and then there's one that's above the road, there's a left turn protected light. My concern is is that if there's when this is a multi-lane road, and a 18-wheeler is blocking the traffic light that is on the side, but one of but the one directional light is out, it's hard to it's very a very dangerous thing can happen in that one might assume that um that because this one's not showing red, that um that it's okay to go. Now, we all got to understand common sense should be common, but it's not so common. Uh, railroad crossings. I'm concerned that, um, for multiple cars being parked on the railroads as they're waiting for the light to turn and long tractor trailers that are blocking the railroads. And finally, uh, street markings. I have a concern about the street markings because at night they are very hard to see. Now, um, I am 40 years old and I have and and I'm in pretty good health, but for someone of my age, it's it's hard to see and for I imagine it's very hard for someone that is much older to see. So, I would, uh, like to I I would like for the city council to consider improving, uh, traffic safety or traffic lights, railroad crossings, and street markings. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you, Mr. Brittle. Uh, that is all I have on the sign-up sign-up sheet. Is there any anyone else who wishes to be heard during the public comment period? Seeing no one, I will close the public here uh, the open comment period and ask Clerk Casal to please call the roll. >> Good evening. Council member Keen. >> Here. >> Council member Miller. >> Here. >> Council member Wall. >> Here. >> Council member Fredericks. >> Here. >> Council member Palmer. >> Here. >> Council member Doring. >> Here. >> Council President Schubring. >> Here. >> Mayor Norton is absent. >> Thank you. Uh, next up we have the city administrator's report, Administrator Helms. >> Uh, thank you, Council President, Council members, members of the public. We always start this report by thanking our teammates for acting with respect, integrity, and safety, and excellence in everything that they do and and you have, uh, um, appreciation, a special appreciation coming up, Council President, for our public works teammates, but just want to echo that um it is public safety or excuse me, public works week. And um want to appreciate everything that our teammates do there. Uh also, we have a couple of things underway involving public works and others. Um the North Broadway Park and Ride uh project has begun. Um that started today and we do have information out for the community about the parking uh situation at the Rec Center and 125 Live while the construction is underway and of course this is a little bit of a pain point for for folks while we actually construct significantly more parking on that site primarily um to be able to utilize that for a park and ride that we are constructing but also at nights and weekends that is also a parking that will be available uh for use for patrons of the Rec Center and 125 Live. So, that is exciting. Please um work with us as we move through the construction and we look forward to that future amenity for the community. We also have an open house coming up on this Wednesday, May 20th, 5:30 to 7:00 p.m. That is a conversation with the community at Elton Hills Elementary School, 1421 Elton Hills Drive Northwest in the cafeteria gym space. Um that is to talk about um possible improvements along that stretch of road, Elton Hills Drive Northwest from East Frontage Road, um which is US 52 to Broadway Avenue North. Um construction would be anticipated in 2027 and so this is a conversation about what that would look like and getting feedback from the community about um the design of that as we enter major resurfacing project. And then it is an exciting time of year in Rochester. We have announced the Forward Concert Series and we will keep this under wraps, but Riverside will be um also getting announced soon here. Um but the Forward Concert Series are Wednesday evenings, June and August um in the parks uh, system. We're kicking off with Corey Kennedy on June 3rd. You might recognize her as a local, um, and of course these are, um, Minnesota artists. Um, the performances are rotating throughout different parks in the ward system across the community. They're free and open to the public. We encourage folks to stop by, um, in your local park or around the community and, um, food and beverage will start at 5:00 p.m. and concerts 5:30 to 7:45. Um, check that out on Rochester mn.gov. Uh, and candidate filing does open tomorrow. That will be at City Hall in conference room 104, um, and, or excuse me, um, that will be at City Hall in order to, um, have candidate filing through June 2nd and then we do have a candidate information session scheduled for Tuesday, May 26th, 6:00 p.m., um, in room 104. So, if people are interested in just understanding a little bit more about how the organization works and, um, meeting up with some city teammates to get a uh, feel for what we do, um, we would welcome you to stop by. Um, candidates, if you are considering a run for office, need to be an eligible voter, be a resident of Rochester for at least 30 days, be at least 21 years old upon taking office, and, um, must reside in the ward that they represent, um, or if they're running for mayor, they need to live, um, in the city of Rochester. Uh, we also are at the end of our, uh, legislative session, gratefully, and I will turn it over to Council President Schubring, who's doing dual duty today, um, to talk a little bit more about that. >> Thank you, Administrator Zelms. Yes, as most of you know, the Minnesota Legislature adjourned at midnight last night. And first, I'd just like to thank our local lawmakers and their colleagues from across Minnesota for their bipartisan work during the 2026 legislative session and for supporting priorities important to Rochester residents and the broader region. This session included meaningful progress on several city priorities related to infrastructure, housing, uh recreation, and community investment. Is that going to stop? There we go. Uh among our city's top legislative priorities was funding for the East Zumbro sewer and water infrastructure project, and Rochester received $13.2 million in state funding to support pre-design, design, and construction of phase one and a portion of phase two of the East uh Zumbro uh sewer and water systems. This investment uh paired with additional $1 million that we received in federal funding will help unlock future developable land as well as enable infill and redevelopment to support housing and long-term community growth. So, this was our top priority, and we actually got more money than we asked for. We also appreciate legislative support for the state's lead service line replacement program and the local road and bridge program funding included in the overall bonding package, which may further benefit Rochester's infrastructure and residents. Additionally, the city appreciates legislative action earlier in this session authorizing a liquor license for the historic Chateau Theatre event space. The addition of liquor service capabilities will allow the city-owned facility to expand and event opportunities, improve operational flexibility, and better support community gatherings, celebrations, cultural programming, and visitor experiences in downtown Rochester. I'd also like to acknowledge the efforts of our local legislators to elevate continued community discussion on the regional sports center and recreational opportunities across the board. And while we appreciate the ability to continue moving forward with the Rochester regional sports and recreation complex, we are committed to continuing discussions on potential indoor recreational facility whether at the campus of RCTC or at our southeast sports complex as well as building greater awareness and access to all of our rec amenities. Stay tuned on that. The council is expected to continue these discussions at our June 1st council meeting. And with that as administrator Zelm said this week is public works week. I see some of our public works staff here at May 17th to 23rd and it the theme is rooted in service powered by community. So congratulations to our public works team and they're working on my roads as we speak. We also have May is national historic preservation month. So now's a good time for my colleagues to visit the the HPC. I think they're meeting tomorrow night or the night after that. So congratulate that commission and those interested in historic preservation. And then finally we have the mayor's play ball camp courtesy of Honkers and the office of the mayor and this is Monday June 8th 9:00 a.m. to noon at Mayo Field. Boys and girls age 6 to 12 are invited to join us for a free play ball camp and we will have real professional baseball players from the Honkers and I've heard there may be others but you'll have to be there in order to see. So, it should be a fun event. It always is. So, uh check that out on June 8th. And that is the end of the uh acting mayor's report. And if you have any questions, please uh contact the mayor's office. And with that, uh we move on to the order of the agenda. I have not received any changes to the agenda. Is there a motion to approve the order of the agenda? >> I move to approve the agenda. >> Second. >> Moved by uh Council Member Doran and seconded by Council Member Wall. All in favor, say I. >> I. >> Opposed, say nay. Motion passes. Uh moving on to our consent agenda. Council Member Palmer has pulled items F6 and F20. Are there any other pulled items? Seeing none, I would invite a motion to approve in block items F1 through F5, F7 through F19, and item F21. >> So moved. >> Moved by Council Member Frederick, seconded by Council Member Keen. All in uh Council Member Wall has a comment to make. >> Thank you. We are re- awarding four contracts, F10, 12, 14, and 15. Engineer estimates of 3.553 million, but the bids came in at 2.786 million for a savings of 766,000 or 21.6% off of the engineers' estimates. So, that the process continues to work well for the Rochester uh community. Uh thank you very much for your work. >> And uh Council Member uh Frederick and I had decided we're going to have an F uh or a uh consent agenda subcategory called uh Council Member Wall's report on the budget. So, we'll have it every time. So, with that, uh uh we have motion made and seconded. All in favor of approving the consent agenda in block as stated, say I. >> I. >> Opposed, say nay. Motion passes. We have one public hearing on our agenda tonight, and before we begin, uh a lit- little clarification on our public hearing. It's a little different than the open comment period. Uh we start uh the public hearing process with a report from staff. And then after the staff report, uh if there is an applicant to the item, the applicant has up to 10 minutes to discuss the item prior to the start of the public hearing. And then uh we open the public hearing. Members of the public have 5 minutes each to discuss the item. Similar to the open comment period, we ask that you please keep your comments directed to the item itself, and uh and uh and then following the uh public hearing, we'll invite the applicant up to uh make any closing comments or respond to any questions that came up during the public hearing. So, with that, we have item G1, which is a vacation uh petition by Bella Vit Vita of Rochester LLC and Forte of Rochester uh 2 LLC and Mr. Desmond McGill. >> Yes. Uh thank you, President Shivering, members of the Council. Good evening. My name is Desmond McGill. I'm a Community Development Planning Division, and I'll be introducing this item. Uh Bella Vita and Forte Rochester LLC are requesting approval of a drainage and public utility easement vacation. Uh the subject easement is approximately 45 ft in width and 65 ft in length. Um it's located on the shared property line of lot one and two of the Stencil Addition plat. Uh these two lots are part of the Forte uh senior living apartment community. Um and the apartment project is located between Superior Drive Northwest and 46th Avenue Northwest on the north side of Badger Hills Drive. Uh the project received site plan approval and final plat approval for the Stencil Addition plat in 2020. Uh during construction uh of the project, the developer requested a breezeway uh intended to connect the two uh structures on site together. A revocable permit was issued uh to allow the construction of a 10-ft wide uh breezeway over the subject easement. However, the width of the building exceeded uh the issued permit area. And the applicant has recently approached the city and requesting uh to increase the effective area of the revocable permit to the extent of the finished structure. However, upon uh determining that there were no utilities in the easement and it was unneeded for site drainage, the public works department uh directed the applicant to request a vacation uh rather than to extend the uh revocable permit easement area. Um the development review team supports this application. Um and uh we are recommending approval of of the vacation request subject to a slight revision to the area of easement release contained in the legal description. Uh the area of the easement shall now read uh the drainage and utility easement with the added language as shown on and and then continuing on to dedicated as part of the plat of the Stencil Addition. Uh we've discussed this change with the applicant uh the applicant's counsel and uh they have no objection to the proposed revision in that description. Uh we'll forward a revised um resolution tomorrow to the city clerk's office uh subject to the council approval. So, that concludes my uh presentation or my intro. I I'll be happy to answer any questions after the public hearing uh and I believe our applicant's representation is online uh on the on uh Teams as a panelist. >> Thank you, Mr. Miguel. Uh uh I the So, the applicant is online. Can you uh introduce yourself? And uh you have up to 10 minutes to discuss the project. >> Uh yes, I'm Jack Swanson. Hope you all can hear me. >> We can. >> counsel for Okay, great. General counsel for Stesla Group, uh the development uh company that developed the uh two phases of the project here. I don't really have anything further to add that um uh apart from what Desmond brought up. Um just to reiterate again that the uh the easement area that we're requesting being vacated is currently not being used for any easements and um the impacted area will not affect any easement use at the two properties or any uh neighboring properties. >> Thank you, Mr. Swanson. >> to Yeah, happy to answer any questions. >> We will call you back after the public hearing. Uh th- this is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to be heard on this item, please step forward. Anyone wishing to be heard on this item, please step forward. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. And Mr. Swanson, any final comments? >> No, nothing further. >> With that, uh council members, any questions for staff or the applicant? Council member Keen. >> Yeah, I just want to ask community development just to make sure. I mean, this seems to be as well understood that the original plan that was approved in 2020, it didn't get built that way, so it makes sense. But, I did hear words of such that there's no expected usage. If there did turn out to be some sort of usage for it, what how does that resolve? This is all on private property. Would the city need to purchase an easement in the future? And what is the likelihood something like that could happen? >> Sure. Uh thank you, Council member member Keen. I'll I'll try to answer that question the best I can and maybe have with some assistance from public works. Um I I don't think um the we would have provided the direction uh to vacate the easement had there been um any concern about uh additional being needed to be placed in this area that would extend through the project um to other properties. Um and um uh I think uh they could if there was any additional uh needs uh there's easements throughout the entire parcel around surrounding the parcel. I think there was a change in the uh project uh midway through where they added uh land. So, um I think that the need for that easement had been eliminated through that process. >> Very good. Thank you. >> Any further questions? Is there a motion on this item? >> I'll move to adopt the resolution approving the vacation petition CD 2026-004 VAC by Bellavida of Rochester LLC and Forte of Rochester 2 LLC to vacate a 45-ft wide drainage and public utility easement approximately 65-ft in length located on the 3955 and 3975 Superior Drive Northwest. >> Motion made by Council member Keen. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Seconded by Council member Miller. Anything further to add, Council >> to add. This seems to make sense. >> Nothing to add. >> All in favor, say I. >> I. >> Those say nay. Motion passes. Moving on to our reports and recommendations, we have uh item uh H1 which is a budget amendment of Rochester Public Utility Silver Lake Dam Modification Project. And this is a item that was on our consent agenda pulled by Council member Palmer. Council member Palmer, go ahead. >> Yes, I'll make a motion to table this item. >> Motion made by Council member Palmer to table and seconded by Council member Frederick's. Council member Palmer, do anything to say on the tabling? >> Well, a couple things. I've read the Barr Engineering report and it says 1.9 million dollars and the answer back was that the reason they need 3 million is is that the DNR is going to request something. I would like us to table it until the DNR finalizes requests so we get the final permit so we know the total cost. And then we can continue on this. It's not a overreaching item or timeline on this so that's the reason I'd like to table this. >> Before before we vote on that, could we hear a report from Mr. McCalla on the item itself so we're all clear and members of the public are clear on the on the item? >> Certainly willing to do that. This item was reviewed by the Rochester Public Utilities Board at their April meeting. The recommendation to expand the funding for the Silver Lake Dam contribution towards the modification project is based on an updated cost estimate. Council member Palmer is correct in the identifying the Barr Engineering report as one of the foundations of that cost estimate. Largely the gate needs dam functions with a hydraulically operated steel gate that is in need of maintenance. The bulk of the 1.9 million is needed near-term repairs on that floodgate, the leaf gate. But the revised estimate uh the estimate was revised based on two additional factors including 20 years of O&M expense that totaled around 600,000 additional dollars representing what uh expense the electric ratepayers would carry to continue to operate the dam over the next two decades. In addition, the scour downstream of the dam was identified in need of repair again. The Barr Engineering report identified $65,000 of riprap large boulder structure to put in the scour that was attempted uh in the last repair and that was not a sufficient repair to uh be a long-term fix for the scour. So, there's an additional $700,000 roughly to a total of 3,900,000 in a net present value um that it'll cost the electric ratepayers to continue to operate and maintain the dam over the next 20 years. That's the basis of the expanded budget. Um if the project does not happen, those dollars need to be spent anyway to continue to maintain the dam, operate it over the next foreseeable future in that 20-year period and if it is beyond the costs only continue to go up from there as maintenance and operations continue on the dam. It is the board's recommendation that the council consider um approving this budget amendment as a necessary expense um and a contribution towards the project. Uh it would have to be spent otherwise uh to continue to operate the dam. I'd be happy to take any questions if that wasn't sufficient. >> Councilmember Keen. >> Yeah, I just I want to just speak against tabling this this evening. Um like Councilmember Palmer, I had some peers on the RPU board who were very concerned about this and they ended up doing a tour. These are the newer members of the board and they wanted to make sure they understood that this wasn't just your rising costs. I think um General Manager McCollough pinpointed the thing here. These are costs that will RPU will will take on and use. These aren't new This isn't a donation they're giving to the project. Um and that's how the scaffolding of the funding worked for this project. I think we've been on this kind of work talking about it for about 5 and 1/2 years now and there's been different times of studies. There's been trying to find the funding models. Things go up over time. So, I think we we've This has gotten a clear hearing through staff, but also through other boards and I want to support it tonight. >> Council Member Doring. >> Yeah, I'm just I'm just looking for a little clarification on the dollar amount that's being quoted tonight. In our packet, it says $1,009,700 and I've heard $1.9 million repeatedly in this discussion. >> That was a misstatement on myself if I did say $1.9 million. I the I'm sorry. I did say $1.9 million. That is the cost estimate of Barr Engineering's report that is from 2024. The recommend There's also a number in the RCA of $1,009,000 and that is the additional budget that is being recommended to bring the total RPU contribution to just over $3 million. There was $2 million approved previously in the last budget cycle. >> Yep. Thank you for that clarification. >> Council Member Wall. What would the effect of tabling this motion mean for the project? >> Um based off of the timeline, I think the council would need to re bring this back and reconsider it at a future date before letting the final contract. So, at the moment, it would be a non-issue. We're bringing this forward in this timeline so this piece of the puzzle, the contribution is uh not uh not a barrier to future steps in the process. But, I think there is some additional time if if that's the will of the council to to table it, it would have to be reconsidered before any future actions related to the budget. >> Administrators Elms? >> And just to further clarify, that wouldn't change anything with the project moving forward. It would just put in jeopardy your funding sources. >> Any further discussion on the motion to table table this item? Council member Keen. >> Yeah, just in the side discussion on on the timelines here. Uh there are some concerns going through the timelines right now. There's still some um other outside groups, DNR, and uh some other groups that are going through approvals. And as that happens, we're going to be on a timeline. So, this idea of having the city stuff in good shape so that when those approvals happen, we can do our next steps and not be caught up is important to be able to do the dredging and the other work starting this fall. So, again, I do not want to support uh this sort of hold up. The RPU board went through this in April and is confident that this is the right thing for on the RPU side. So, I I don't see a a reason to hold it up tonight. >> Council member Palmer. >> Well, it it to me it's kind of funny because um we don't know what the end result's going to be from the Corps of Engineers or the um DNR. They have not issued their permit, and they could come back and say we need to do a lot more stuff, and then RPU could say, "Well, you know what? We already gave you your 3 million. Um we're not going to give you any more." So, um you there's a lot of issues here, and I'm just trying to keep it to the RPU part of this um because yes, RPU will not have to do the maintenance if they give this to the de- deconstruction of the dam, but someone's going to have it it's not a removal of the dam, it's a modification of the dam, and it someone's going to have to maintain this dam, and and who's going to end up doing that? So, I guess the biggest concern for me right now is we don't know until the permit's issued from the DNR. And as soon as it's issued, I mean, the next meeting we can bring it back and take it off the table, and we can make a decision on what we want to do. So, there is no rush on this. >> Any further discussion? Seeing none, Clerk Castle, could you pull take the roll on the motion to table? >> Council member Keene. >> Nay. >> Council member Miller. >> Nay. >> Council member Wall. >> Nay. >> Council member Fredericks. >> Aye. >> Council member Palmer. >> Aye. >> Council member Doering. >> Nay. >> Council President Schubring. >> Nay. >> Motion fails two to five. >> Is there a alternative motion on this? Council member Miller. >> I'll make a motion adopting a resolution approving a 2026 budget amendment in the amount of $1,009,700 for capital expenditures associated with the Silver Lake Dam modification project, increasing the total project funding to $3,009,700. >> Motion made by Council member Miller. >> Second. >> Seconded by Council member Keene. Council member Miller, any more to add? >> Uh again, this recommendation coming from the RP board, the governing structure of the utility, um I trust their assessment and the staff work on this, understanding the the increasing future cost of maintenance and the the limited use of this piece of infrastructure to the utility. So, I I don't see a reason to um move away from the recommendation of the board. >> Any further discussion? Council member Wall. >> Part of the reason I asked about the effect of a tabling is the timeline for the project. Uh many of us were hoping that this would have been done over this last winter, the drawdown, the dredging uh didn't happen because of permits, and I thought that we were told perhaps that would commence by uh September of this year. Is that the timeline on which we are proceeding? >> Mr. Luxinger. >> Yeah, thank you for that question. Um timeline is entirely dependent on we need one more permit from the DNR and then one from the US Army Corps of Engineers. Both of those are under review. I wish there was a timeline specifically tied to those. Unfortunately, there isn't. We are still aiming for final approvals and from them and bringing this back to council in August so that we can start in September. Ideally, we would start in September or October to take advantage of the low flow period through the winter. So, we'll keep pushing on that. That is the the timeline, but until we receive final words on those permits, I don't have an absolute concrete schedule. >> Any further discussion seeing uh come I'm sorry. Uh Mr. McCollough, go ahead. >> Excuse me, I just wanted to ask for a point of clarity. Uh Council Member Miller's motion was a portion of the resolution that was in front, but it wasn't the complete resolution. Just wanted to understand if that was intentional or if the motion on the table is for the motion as presented in the resolution. There was a be it further resolved portion of that as well. >> Council Member Miller. >> So, I I would accept a friendly amendment. I I'm reading directly from the RCA and the action requested. I don't see a be it further resolved in the packet. >> It that is in the resolution attachment to it as well. I apologize if the >> Sure. >> cover page motion did not match the full resolution. >> So, if I might, then I would amend my motion >> I've got it. >> to be it further resolved that operations, maintenance, and financial responsibility for the dam be transferred to the Public Works Department upon commencement of demolition of the Silver Lake Dam Modification Project and will remain with the Public Works Department until upon project completion. >> Friendly amendment by Council Member Miller. Council Member Keen, do you accept that? >> I accept. >> All right. Uh any further discussion seeing none, all in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Pose say nay. >> Nay. >> Motion passes 6 to 1. 6 >> Yesterday. 6 to 2 with council members Oh, I'm sorry. 5 to with council members Palmer and Frederick's voting nay. 5 to 2. Very good. Uh on to item H2, which is safe streets and roads for all planning and demonstration grant application. Council member Palmer. >> Yeah, I'm not going to make a motion on this one. Um there's a lot of things in this that I'm not a fan of and one of them is is that we're asking for grant money. Then the next up is they get the grant and they come to us and say this is what we're going to do and we have to do it because we have a grant. Um in reading the the details on it, um some groups uh walked around and they looked at the street and they said, "Well, jeez, you can't see crosswalks and oh, by the way, the ADA ramp is in in in the wrong spot, but public works could put it there." Um and so these roads that we have for streets Southeast, 3rd Avenue Southeast, and 11th Avenue Southwest and Northwest are are not roads that we're going to expand. Um they're already um a bottleneck, so I'm not particularly sure what this grant would help us with. So, um I won't be approving I won't be um supporting this grant. >> Mr. Dombrowski, could you uh briefly uh explain this item? >> Yeah, thank you um President, members of the council. Uh this is a uh building off of a grant that was previously received through the the MnDOT um active transportation program looking at how we can again work towards our mode shift goals ultimately in the community and thinking about how we get people out of their single occupancy vehicles. So, that project looked at the three corridors that are identified, 3rd Avenue Southeast, 4th Street Southeast, and then 11th Avenue both Northwest and Southwest. And it was really focused on how do we connect people more safely to the link corridor to again grow ridership, um and work towards the mode shift outcome. And so, what this would be is asking for a grant. If we're successful in in receiving it, we would look at uh working on a demonstration project, some planning and demonstration to really help inform uh instead of just going right into full reconstruction of these corridors, cuz they're not all ready for it. How could we repurpose the space within those corridors to make improvements for people walking, rolling, and biking, um being able to safely navigate across intersections that we see as troublesome, and really again, um learning before we do a full-blown reconstruction and add something to the CIP. Again, there's no local match on this this grant application, so it's it's all 100% federally funded. >> Councilmember Miller. >> And Mr. Dombrowski, in the safety action plan project that Rocog completed last year, were all three of these corridors identified in that plan? >> Yes, that's correct. >> And and that was my understanding as well, and Mr. Palmer, and Mr. Keen, and the mayor, and I, and Mr. Schubring serve on Rocog, and so I would just say that we went through a very intentional process, grant-funded, to identify these corridors. It was not looking at individuals to tell us these were um places where they just wanted to see additional biking or walking infrastructure. It was a look at safety history uh for serious injury and fatal crashes, uh road profiles, and the entirety of the board um unanimously approved this plan, to my knowledge. So, my understanding all along was that this was the subsequent step to go back to the federal government with the results of the safety action plan, and not to just have a plan that we don't implement. So, I would submit a motion, or I would make a motion approving the submittal to the US Department of Transportation of a Safe Streets and Roads for All Planning and Demonstration Grant Application for a demonstration project along three corridors, North Street Southeast, 3rd Avenue Southeast, and 11th Avenue Southwest and Northwest. >> Motion made by Council member Miller. >> Second. >> Seconded by Council member Dorning. Any more to add, Council member Miller? >> No, I I think to Mr. Dombrowski's point, doing a a demonstration grant before we commit to hard infrastructure is a good step. Obviously, there's no guarantee that we would even receive this this grant, so I think it is a good step for the Council to approve the application to this program while there are still funds available because my understanding is that they are soon to be exhausted unless the Congress reauthorizes the surface transportation funding for this. >> I have nothing to add. >> Uh all in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed, say nay. >> Nay. >> Motion passes 6 to 1 with Council member Palmer voting nay. Uh moving on to our ordinance second readings. Go ahead, Mr. Spindler Craig. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Item K1, an ordinance amending subsection 3 of subparagraph A of paragraph 3 of clause E of section 60.200.040 of the Unified Development Code. >> Is there a motion on this item? >> Move approval. >> Second. >> Motion made by Council member Keen, seconded by Council member Miller. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed, say nay. Motion passes. >> Item K2, an ordinance creating a new section 5-21-9 amending sections 5-21-1, 5-21-2, 5-21-4 through 5-21-8, and renumbering previous sections 5-21-9 and 5-21-10 as sections 5-21-10 and 5-21-11 respectively to accommodate the addition of new section 5-21-9 of chapter 5-21 of title 5 of the Rochester code of ordinances relating to mobile food units. >> Move approval. >> Second. >> Motion made by Council member Keen, seconded by Council member Miller. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed say nay. Motion passes. Is there a motion to adjourn? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Motion made by Council member Palmer, seconded by Council member Miller. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed say nay. We are adjourned.