Rochester City Council Study Session on 2026-2027 Budget - August 25, 2025
Rochester City Council Study Session on 2026-2027 Budget - August 25, 2025
This was the first of three study sessions on the recommended 2026-2027 operating budget. City Administrator Alison Zelms presented the high-level budget overview, highlighting efforts to reduce the originally projected 10.68% tax levy increase to 5.9%. The session also included a presentation from Rochester Public Utilities (RPU) General Manager Tim McCullough on utility rate proposals. No formal votes were taken; the next study session is scheduled for September 3, 2025 at RPU.
Discussion Items
-
Budget Reduction and Levy Increase: Staff worked to lower the levy from an initial projection of over 11% to a recommended 5.9% increase, equivalent to $6.589 million in new tax levy dollars (total recommended levy $118.2 million). The total recommended budget, including RPU, is $663.85 million. Administrator Zelms emphasized that the reduction was achieved through departmental optimization, baseline adjustments, and careful review of decision packages.
-
Property Tax and Growth Drivers: The estimated 2026 property tax rate is approximately 49.7%. Total estimated market value growth is just above 6.5%, with 1.77% from new construction and 4.8% from valuation adjustments. The residential share of property tax has been increasing, while commercial share has decreased. Councilmember Palmer noted that the bulk of the value increase comes from valuation adjustments, not new construction.
-
Local Government Aid (LGA): Discussion centered on Rochester's relatively low LGA compared to similar cities like Duluth and St. Paul. Administrator Zelms stated that the formula is unlikely to change significantly, and the city focuses on other state funding sources. Councilmember Keene expressed that making LGA a legislative priority would not be a good use of time, while Councilmember Palmer questioned whether the city could do more to secure additional aid.
-
Franchise Fees and Right-of-Way Charges: Councilmember Keene raised concerns about declining cable franchise fees and the inability to charge internet-only providers. Administrator Zelms noted that a natural gas franchise fee could raise between $500,000 and $2 million, but it would ultimately be paid by residents. Councilmember Miller expressed interest in exploring that option further.
-
Decision Packages for 2026: The recommended budget includes a number of new investments aligned with the city's strategic priorities. Key items include:
- Four library customer service support assistants (transition from part-time to full-time)
- Personal protective equipment for fire (two sets of turnouts per firefighter)
- Snowplow sweeping software ($32,000 ongoing)
- Maintenance service center operations
- Development services contracted positions
- Shelter restrooms, playground, and parks activation (seasonal CSO and park activation)
- Management analyst focused on ADA accessibility
- Digital content assistant (reduced from full-time to two part-time for cost savings)
- Arborist position (first added in decades)
- Two community service officers (with vehicles)
- Community connectors (10-hour/week positions, funding made permanent)
- Technology forensic detective (child crimes focus)
- 311 customer service specialist
- Reclassification of transit project manager to operations manager
- Artificial intelligence implementation strategist (reprioritized existing FTE)
- Building inspector (roofing, windows, siding)
-
Council Feedback on Decision Packages: Councilmember Palmer questioned several items, including the digital content assistant and the need for four library assistants without corresponding part-time reductions. He expressed interest in lowering the levy further by considering library closure on Sundays or Mondays and contracting snow removal. Councilmember Keene opposed library hour reductions, stating it was "penny wise pound foolish." Councilmember Fredericks advocated for using contracted workers where possible to avoid full-time benefit costs. Councilmember Miller noted that many items classified under "environmental stewardship" seemed stretched and suggested reclassifying them.
-
2027 Decision Packages: Staff presented preliminary requests for 2027, including two community service police officers for homeless outreach, a GIS technician, a custodial position for parks and forestry, two transit attendants, an additional arborist (bringing total to eight), and IT support for the new ERP system. Councilmember Doring asked about including a full-time social worker instead of police officers for homeless outreach, and Chief Franklin indicated the social worker pilot is still being evaluated and may be a future request.
-
RPU Enterprise Funds: Tim McCullough presented the water and electric utility budgets. Water rates are proposed to increase by 9% (about $2/month), and electric rates by 6% (about $5.78/month in 2026, $6.12/month in 2027). Key drivers include the advanced metering project ($16-17 million each for water and electric), lead service line replacement (externally funded but requiring cash flow), and major capital investments like the Mount Simon station ($175 million, with $240 million debt issuance planned in 2027). The electric rate increase is due to power supply costs, SIMPA debt retirement, and the need to build generating capacity. Councilmember Keene emphasized the impact on low-income residents and questioned the debt's effect on bond ratings. Councilmember Miller requested a deeper dive on renewable energy planning and environmental responsibility.
-
Cost Allocation and In Lieu Payments: The budget introduces a new central service cost allocation for overhead costs (HR, IT, etc.) to enterprise funds, spreading $2.1 million in 2027. In lieu of taxes payments from utilities were adjusted after years of no increases, adding about $40,000 for stormwater in 2026.
-
Employee Costs: Personnel costs are the largest driver of the levy increase, with 19 bargaining units and 8 contracts under negotiation. Health and dental costs are projected to increase by 8% and 1.5% respectively. The increase in police and fire costs accounts for $3 million of the $5.4 million general fund increase.
-
Outside Agency Requests: Outside agencies requested a 21% increase, but the recommendation provides about 5% in 2026 and 3% in 2027. Councilmember Palmer expressed interest in increasing the Community Building Fund from $50,000 to $100,000, with a cap of $10,000 per grant.
Key Outcomes
- No votes taken: This was a study session; the next formal action is the preliminary levy hearing on September 22, 2025.
- Next study session: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 at RPU, approximately 9 days later.
- Staff will follow up: Administrator Zelms noted that they will provide additional details on items raised, including natural gas franchise fee estimates, library cost savings scenarios, and information on parks and recreation scholarship programs. The second study session agenda will be published on Friday, August 29 to allow staff time to prepare responses.
- Council direction: Several councilmembers signaled they would like to see the levy increase lower than 5.9%, with Councilmember Palmer suggesting options like reducing library hours or contracting services. Councilmember Keene stated he could support 5.9% for 2026 but not the projected 7.9% for 2027.
- RPU resources: A more detailed discussion on RPU's long-term resource planning and renewable energy will be held at a separate study session in late September.
Meeting Transcript
Great to have staff here, guests and media who so faithfully report uh council and city work. This is the first of three study sessions on the budget, the next of which will be nine days from today, Wednesday, September 3rd at RPU. So not in this uh room, but uh oh a little ways north and uh much closer to ward three. We're grateful to Administrator Zelms for her wonderful work uh that she has sent out prior to, and I turn this study session on the budget over to administration administrator Zelm. Uh thank you for happy to help us here and it's budget season, so I'm excited to be here. Um, I really can't take much credit for this other than it does take a lot of people to put the budget together. Um, so special thanks before I get started to all the departments for um they've been working on this actually probably since October or November of last year, um, as we uh tried to bring a budget to you that is less than what we had anticipated, and then of course, going through all the regular process of their baseline adjustments and decision packages, and um the people who do a whole lot of work are uh Rachel Hodick in the finance department as well as Josh Doer, um Erin Parish, Brian Anderson. Um, so it is a labor of many people in order to bring you a budget, and they are still working on getting the flipping book version working for you, but you do have the detail um within the PDF that went out. So today we are setting sort of a high level, trying to go through this with you. Please feel free free to stop me if you have questions about something. Um, for some of you, it's your first city budget doing this from the dais. So um if you have questions or need clarifications, happy to do that. Um, and the intent as um acting president Wall pointed out is um that we would based on some of your questions, information that you would like a deeper dive on, um, be able to come to you over the next few study sessions and uh be able to do that for you. Your strategic priorities made uh in appearance here, and uh obviously you adopted those um midstream of us working on the budget. Um they are different than the prior strategic priorities, but not drastically different. Um they are a little bit more focused than the prior strategic priorities, and so we did um adjust uh mid-budget process to try to identify how some of the decision packages are fitting in with your strategic priorities and foundational principles that um this body has uh acted upon. So you can see it does say that we really start going in February or March, but um the team is sort of always working on the budget, so appreciate that. Um, also always managing to their budget and trying to make sure that where they can, they don't spend every dime. Um they try to actually always bring this in under every year, um, and very happy to see that most of the time we're able to do that in most areas, but sometimes we can't. Um so we're here in August and September. We're at the the bottom uh step steps of this with the uh recommended budget, and then your next really important um vote will be the preliminary levy on September 22nd. And so I like to point that out because that is the levy amount over you that you cannot go higher than after that public hearing, or excuse me, after that date. So um you have the option between September 22nd and December to lower um the levy portion of the budget, but not increase. Um so just important contacts there uh for the city council as we're moving through the process. So something to be thinking of is do you have questions or feedback for us about the recommended operating budget? I would know it's a two-year budget, but we do a supplemental budget in two in 2027. So we don't try to make significant changes then, but as things adjust, we still will come back to you with adjusted budgets if fuel prices increase significantly or something changes, um, and we need to make an adjustment for that future year. Um, does this effectively balance your foundational principles and strategic priorities? Sometimes those are a little bit in conflict with each other, depending on what we're looking to accomplish. So dynamic tension there and sometimes trade-offs. Is there anything specific in any of these decision packages that you want us to bring back a lot more detail on? We're happy to do that. And then is this where you want to be sitting as far as the preliminary tax levy for adoption on September 22nd? And the key there is if you would like it to be higher, we need definitely would need to know that now. It's rarely happened in my career, but there's an opportunity for anything. And of course, if you are looking for it to be less, it's helpful for us to have an understanding of where you would be interested in cutting, but you don't have to accomplish that by September 22nd in order to accomplish it by the public hearing in December. So without further ado, um, we did start looking at how can we reduce what was sitting at one point at over 11% levy adjustment year over year increase. Um, and then with the changes that the city council made last year to the budget, which carried forward, we were sitting down at that about 10.68% levy adjustment. Um, and we looked at the budget, both the baseline and the decision packages with sort of this financial eye. We try to use a financial eye when we're looking at the budget. Um, is there any strategic value? We don't really have ROI per se in local government, but we do have the value on investment that can be returned to the community. And sometimes there are revenue sources associated with an item. Um, does it present financial sustainability? Am I gonna be worried that I'm coming to you the following year to say actually this costs more than we anticipated, or 10 years from now and say, you know, we should have been working on this all along and now we can't afford to buy vehicles, something of that nature. Is there efficiency included here? Are we being adaptable in how we provide our services and not just looking to add new, but think about how we are doing our work? Um, can we collaborate across departments in order to accomplish something or partner with another group? Um are we going to be having community impact and organizational impact? Um, there are parts of our organization that have some pressing capacity challenges, um, and then um what kind of accountability and performance are we gonna have to ensure that as these investments are made that we're continuing to provide all of that value.
openpublica.com