Welcome.

Please rise as you're able for the Pledge of Allegiance.

And one nation under the interest.

Thank you.

And welcome to our uh Monday, September 22nd uh city council meeting.

Uh we begin every city council meeting with our open comment period.

This is a time uh where anybody has two minutes to speak for a total of 20 minutes.

And uh I request that each speaker be concise to allow more people to speak during the designated time.

Uh participants are also encouraged to uh limit comments generally to topics that are within uh the scope and jurisdiction of the city's uh ability to affect policy.

Uh council members and staff do not respond directly to your comments during public comment, but instead will follow up as on any specific requests separately.

If you have materials to share with the council, you may give them to the city clerk uh over there.

Uh Clerk Queso, could you raise your hand?

And uh she will distribute materials to the council.

And uh I will also be keeping track of time through two methods.

One is a stopwatch back there that's set currently for two minutes, and so you can you will be able to see that from the podium.

And then there's also a stoplight there over by the mayor that will at I believe the one-minute mark will start to give you a yellow light.

So with that, I will um go to our list, and we have uh Molly Dennis.

Okay, um thank you so much.

On August 18th, the National Civic League inquired about these uh civic engagement cards that you all got to decrease to help address the decreased public engagement at city council meetings.

Here are the facts.

September 8th, along with a the local news reporter, myself and half a dozen residents showed up at City Hall.

We had done a prior Google search, and that is where the meeting was said to be, but in fact, it was here.

It had been moved to RPU and thus silenced an incredible amount of voices at that this month's meeting.

Uh also these constant changes in location disrupt public engagement, having only two short minutes, which are subjectively enforced, uh, if you look at the record, lead residents to believe that their voices do not matter.

Moving the council meetings to 6 p.m., which is a proven dinner time, has also had a substantial substantial drop in public engagement.

I was there for the vote and have seen it happen.

Silence pub silencing public comment on all Rochester social media has proved to residents that Rochester, all of you do not care about their opinions.

And having meetings behind closed doors erode public trust, and that transparency is trust.

So I just asked that please do not falsely claim that our city or anyone on the dias here cares for residents, what residents think as your actions and your policy prove otherwise.

And since I have just a moment of time, I would like to also address the 311 system that fails to respond to citizens' questions.

So ask that President Schuebring if you could help enforce that your statement that uh staff or council will follow up.

I would like staff and council to follow up on all the previous months of questions that I have had about potential wasteful spending here in Rochester that will impact their taxpayer dollars in the future.

So I appreciate those uh two things being done.

And I hope and just want to thank thank you for the very brief two minutes of time.

Thank you, Miss Dennis.

Uh uh Miss Dennis is the only person who signed up.

Is there anyone else wishing to be heard during our open comment period?

Anyone else wishing to be heard during our open comment period?

Seeing none, I will close open comment period and ask Clerk Caseel to please call the roll.

Good evening.

Councilmember Keene.

Here.

Councilmember Miller.

Here.

Councilmember Wall.

Here.

Councilmember Fredericks.

Councilmember Palmer.

Here.

Councilmember Doring.

Here.

Council President Schubering.

Here.

Mayor Norton present.

Thank you.

Next, uh actually we've got a slight change to our agenda this evening.

Uh we do have a member of our Rochester legislative delegation here who asked to uh address the council for uh about five minutes.

And uh just so uh members of the public know we will extend this opportunity to any other Rochester legislators.

So without objection, uh Senator Carla Nelson.

Well, thank you, uh Mr.

President, council members.

I know you have a packed agenda tonight, and so I do appreciate the opportunity to just uh bring you greetings from the Minnesota Senate, uh, bit of a short wrap-up, although we've had lots of times for wrap-ups.

Uh and also um speaking about things important to Rochester.

Um, and then uh at the end, I'd like to uh just give some brief uh uh I have a memo from the Senate uh fiscal staff, uh taxation staff, uh nonpartisan staff, just about the uh local sales taxes.

And I just want to I'll that's available to you uh and the public too if they'd like.

But I thought we might just address that a little bit too make sure we all have the same set of facts we're different we're dealing with.

We might have different opinions, but perhaps different, um, but not different facts.

So one, I just want to say it's a joy to uh be here with you.

It's a joy to be your partner at the state level.

Certainly a lot of things that are happening at the state that certainly impact the Rochester community, the broader Rochester community.

I think uh something that is heavy on all of our hearts, uh, and I would just be remiss not to mention it, is the um the violence that we have seen uh to elected officials.

And it was very hard to see that with my state colleagues uh with the murders of the Hortman, uh the attempted murders of the Hoffman's friends of us all.

That was a terrible thing to see.

And then the most recent uh the uh the shootings at the um at the school and and then with uh Charlie Kirk.

I mean, this just has to stop.

We have to uh all say there is no room for this type of violence.

And um with that, I will uh just speak a little bit about the things that uh are important uh to you.

I know one thing that I heard the most about at the legislature was local government aid.

Hear about that a lot, LGA.

And as you know, the legislature came into session with looking down the barrel of a six billion dollar budget deficit.

That's not a happy time.

And unfortunately, one of those first initiatives was to really drastically reduce local government aid.

I want you to know the League of Minnesota Cities, uh, your lobbyists have been very effective uh at the Capitol.

Uh sometimes you have to look at well, what good things that were accomplished.

Sometimes you have to look at that in the alternative.

What bad things were we able to stop?

And in this case, I was very glad that we were able to not uh pursue with the local government aid um reductions that had been proposed by some.

Uh as you know, the Rochester local government aid in 2025, 5 million uh 30,008, and then in 2026, the proposal uh didn't go up by much, but it did uh briefly 5 million 34,737 is the anticipated piece.

We know that those are um challenges, excuse me.

Three-year-old mother who's probably watching on TV.

Um and um, so we know that that's always a challenge, but uh that was really uh one of the bigger fights that the legislature was making sure that that local government aid wasn't cut.

Um, one of the other things was of course uh bonding.

That was important, um, always important to us.

Uh, and we did pass a bonding bill.

Uh, and I'm very glad about that.

And basically, it was uh focused on those things that I think are pretty well uh understood as real bonding needs, clean water, infrastructure, roads, bridges.

Now, unfortunately, none of those were in Dodger Olmstead County.

Uh, none of those, uh none of the cities uh top priorities were covered, and that was shocking to me after uh 16 years in the legislature that the city of Rochester, not a one of its priorities was addressed.

Um, but we have another year, and this the bonding bill this year uh is looking at those uh priorities.

Uh I thought they were all very good priorities, particularly uh those interchanges on highway 14 at counties five and three.

That's a dangerous, dangerous intersections.

We definitely need to get that.

And of course, I'm still a fan of the Rochester International Airport, uh, as in all avenues.

It is so important to not just Rochester, but really the vitality of our of our not just the southeast part of the state, but all over the state.

With that, I think I should use my time briefly just discussing the uh memo from Senate Council um regarding what used to be called local option sales taxes, lately they're called just LST local sales taxes.

And I did want to just make sure that um that you have the information uh regarding the authorization in that 2023 tax bill.

I know there's been some some confusion about that.

I'm sure the counselors, you all have that information.

50 million for an economic vitality fund, 50 million for the street reconstruction, and then flood control and water quality, excluding the removal of the dam.

That's not included.

Um, and then uh 65 million for the sports and recreation complex.

And the one thing that I is I sensed some uh public discussion that I want to make sure people were aware of is that these local sales taxes must be regional in nature.

So they're not for those things that are part of the city's responsibilities and budget.

Uh the other statutory requirements are that obviously you had to adopt a resolution and it had to include these things, the proposed tax rate, detailed description of no more than five capital products projects to be funded from the revenue, and then documentation of regional significance for each project, um, and including the economic benefit share of that benefit to of each project by persons residing in the business located here and also outside the jurisdiction.

So that regional nature is written right into uh state law, and the amount the local sales tax revenue would be used for each project, and then the estimated time for for that to happen.

So I think um that is important to know.

Um, and then of course, that the uh total revenue raised for all projects before the tax expires, and then of course, that estimated time to do that.

Um, and then of course you submitted that resolution along with documentation.

Um, and the legislature um also just requires that those are for capital projects, and those are defined in statute as well.

And um, but as you would know, the first three projects did not meet what was those statutory requirements, and so therefore there's that wonderful word or challenging word, however you look at it, notwithstanding.

So, notwithstanding that requirement, Rochester was able to go to the voters and bring these uh five pro I think it was five projects to the four projects uh to the voters for passage, which which they did.

Um and then um I I think that was there's quite a bit more on here.

You're welcome to look at that.

You can take the links to the language itself, the statutory language itself.

And um, so just to note that the legislature, you asked the legislature to approve.

We approved based upon the language in law and notwithstanding certain aspects of that, and then uh the regional nature is is required.

Uh so with that, I'll be glad to um cede my time, but just know that uh I'm available.

Should you have any questions?

We have a terrific nonpartisan um fiscal service uh in the tax department, particularly.

I speak as a former tax chair, and if there's ever any questions, you know, just please let me know and we'll have staff uh take a good look at that.

Uh great um staff attorneys who can can look can look at those questions.

But I just want to thank you for your service.

Uh it's not always easy to be an elected official, but it's essential.

We need people who are willing to run.

We need people who are willing to serve.

And I think it behooves all of us to debate, to debate respectfully, to debate thoughtfully.

And um, and I I appreciate the fact that you do that here.

So thank you so much.

And I'm very much questioning Senator Wanted.

Thank you.

Moving on uh to our city administrators report.

Administrator zones, go ahead.

Council president, council members, Mayor Norton, uh, Senator, Senator Nelson, uh grateful to have you here.

Um, and of course, um all the members of the public who are here today.

Um, we always start the report with thanking our teammates for acting with respect, integrity, safety, and excellence and everything they do, whether that's in an office or out in the field.

Um, we have many, many employees who are out in the field every single day, making sure they provide wonderful service to the community.

Um, and so just a big thank you to them for all that they do.

And with that, we have some exciting things coming up.

Um, every year we have the Peregrine Falcons in the city of Rochester somewhere.

And this year, uh, they will be here Wednesday, September 24th from 4 30 to 5 30 at the Rochester Public Library and the Auditorium.

So that is for families and youth.

Um, um, if you're ages six, 12, it'd be perfect for you.

So head on down with your family, um, join the Midwest Peregrine Society and the Mayo Clinic Peregrine Falcon program.

Um, also our partners at uh the Rochester Art Center are going to be co-hosting Otfest 2025 at um the Art Center, 30 Civic Center Drive Southeast, 11 a.m.

to 4 p.m.

That is going to be on September 28th.

Um, it's a free sensory sensitive uh family fun day and art festival.

So you can get for more information on that um at the Arts Center or at Autism Resource.guide forward slash fest.

Um also we are celebrating a week without driving.

So that is coming up September 29th through October 5th.

Um, and you can learn more at DMC.mn forward slash week dash without dash driving.

Uh, and that will have a whole list of events that you could participate in, all or some of them.

If you want to learn more about being a non-driver or uh becoming a non-driver and how you can move about Rochester without a dedicated vehicle.

And then the last thing that I would want to share is for those who are either reliant on or um one of our participants that uh takes the bus, the temporary bus stops are going to be moved temporarily on Tuesday and Wednesday, September 23rd and 24th, weather permitting, um, because we have a construction schedule set at Central Park to be conducting tree maintenance with our partners at uh the parks department.

So if you are a regular utilizer of the Central Park temporary stations, they will temporarily be moving so long as the weather um holds out, although it is looking questionable.

Um so just be aware of that and always uh check that out on the city's websites or on the transit app before you ride.

And that's all I have.

Thank you, administrator Zelms.

We'll move on to the mayor's report.

Mayor Norton.

Thank you very much.

I have a couple things to go through.

We're gonna see if we can get this to work.

Well, a little slow.

It happens.

Okay, Constitution Week um ran from September 27th to the 23rd tomorrow.

Um we were asked for proclamation uh because of the timing of the meeting.

It was um requested by one of the high school uh social studies and government instructors in town, and um that's been delivered.

So I'm not going to read it here this evening.

Um, it was read at a constitution event this week, I believe.

Um, but just uh to note that I'm glad that our high school students are learning about the constitution.

Um we have German delegation visits um last week and this week.

So just to quickly highlight, we had a group that was discussing education.

Um there are some global health exchange programs starting with uh the University of Munsters uh program.

They came here this summer uh through UMR and did some um exchanges with UMR and Mail Clinic, um some job shadowing.

And I think the hope and the goal is to have the exchange go the other way moving ahead.

Uh DMC's uh Michael Flynn uh spent an hour and a half with them talking about potential.

Um as we as we think about uh bold forward unbound and what that's transforming health care, which a lot of it is digital transformation, um, both Germany and some of our Scandinavian partners that they're working with and that we're working with are really working in that area.

So it was an opportunity to talk about possible um links as we use AI and digitalization and the healthcare sectors moving ahead.

So it was an interesting uh week last week and this week.

Commissioner, County Commissioner Senjum, and I will be hosting, but some of you will be in attendance too, and we're happy to have you there to talk about DMC, infrastructure design, bold for it unbound, the circular economy, and waste management.

Those were kind of the topics that they wanted to learn about.

So in addition to some discussion with some of our wonderful city staff in the morning, we're going to have a little bus tour and go through, talk about bicycle traffic, bus rapid transit, roads and bridges, climate change, and he'll see he, they, there's a dozen of them will visit sites in the city on a bus tour.

So that should be really nice.

I have been sharing a little bit with the Rochester Vision, and I skipped it last time.

So I'm going to do infrastructure this time.

These are the results that the community gave us about their thoughts about what the community were.

Infrastructure was one of the subcategories that was highlighted.

And so there were six areas.

I'm going to highlight four of them.

One is they requested more integration with public transit, which is interesting.

We have public transit coming up as a topic in the next week or two.

They asked for more frequent practical bus routes, especially on evenings and weekends.

They're looking for improved route planning, better and more frequent routes, better bus infrastructure, and integration with biking and walking options.

There was also a request for high-speed rail.

Oh, don't I like that?

And light rail connections between Rochester and the Twin Cities.

In the area of urban design and livability, the public, the community said residents want vibrant walkable neighborhoods featuring more benches, lighting, greenery, and public art to create inviting community spaces.

There's concern that was raised about suburban sprawl and a preference for increased urban density to make better use of existing infrastructure.

Many emphasized investing in public amenities that benefit the broader community rather than flashy private developments.

Equity and inclusion came up as a topic with regard to infrastructure.

They want investments to be equitable and accessible for all, especially low-income elderly, disabled, and carless residents.

Many point out gaps in access to park and transit and sidewalks in underserved neighborhoods.

Affordability concerns were raised, such as utility rates and transit fares as key barriers to full participation in city life.

And there was a strong call for inclusive planning, basic services for homeless residents, and more opportunities for public.

Oh, I lost my input.

Thank you.

Safety and accessibility for all users came up as the fourth highest.

And these were all these top four were almost all equal in importance.

Community members expressed strong concerns about safety and accessibility, especially for pedestrians and bicyclists near schools, parks, and busy roads.

Demand for more traffic, calming measures, improved lighting, and stronger enforcement to create safer and more welcoming public spaces.

And then I'll just mention the other two topics without going into detail, where environmental health benefits, a lot about energy solutions like solar, EV charging, and geothermal.

And then the last one was dedicated and connected infrastructure for active transportation.

Again, continuous, well-connected networks that separate for separated bike lanes and connecting folks to neighborhoods, parks, and all the things that they want to go see.

So that's uh you have two sections left in the in the RV 2050 data, but um that narrows it down to two now.

So I thought I would share that with you.

The mayor's medal of honor is something that was started many, many years ago.

So I'm changing subjects here.

And uh we continued that tradition.

The nominations come in for the whole month of October, and um, then there will be a celebration in December for those that are uh nominated and then selected.

So if you know anyone, and I would suggest uh you go online and you can see that we will take applications starting on October 1st for people in the community in one of a dozen different areas where people volunteer, give of themselves, give back to the community.

So if you know someone in the community who's just a stellar volunteer in a club or a church or in public that you know, please consider nominating them for the mayor's medal of honor.

Talk the block is coming up.

Um, it's a family-friendly and free event.

Um, artists have been hired and are chalking from 9:30 to 1230 over at Riverside Elementary School.

And then after that, from 12:30 to 5, the community is invited.

You can come watch them do the art, but then you can come see all the art that is done afterward.

There in there's interactive poetry, a scavenger hunt, obstacle course face painting, and multicultural food trucks that will also be available that day at Riverside.

So swing by Riverside on Saturday, September 27th.

Another fun event that's coming up in the mayor's office is co-sponsoring this year the annual education summit summit that's put on by Cradle to Career, one of our wonderful nonprofits in town.

Um it is free and includes lunch.

They're all day sessions that you can go to during the day.

Um, and then in the evening, there is a keynote that's open to the public.

So even if you're working or in school during the day, in the evening, uh Dr.

Amit Sood will uh give a presentation to anyone who's interested, but really focusing on caregivers, so teachers, parents, child care providers, and others, ministers who care for other people, and he will talk about how you can take care of yourself.

But even if you're not a parent or one of those, if you would like to go, it's free and open to the public, and it will be at the Mayo Civic Center.

Um just lastly, quickly, we have boards and commissions.

We only have two openings right now, one on the citizens advisory on transit, which is super important about busing and our routes, and the other is sustainability and resiliency, and that is for a youth member.

So if any of you are interested in the audience or listening in energy and environmental issues, we do have one position on that that is for youth.

And um, our last youth graduated and went on to college, and so we're looking to fill that position.

So please let us know.

Contact the mayor's office.

And lastly, the Rochester Umstead Youth Council is again taking applications.

You have to be between 14 and 20 years old, reside in Olmstead County, so you don't have to live in Rochester.

Um, and want to learn about city county government and leadership.

So if any of those things interest you, there's a phone number to the mayor's office.

Please give us a call and let us know.

We'd be happy to hear from you.

That's all I got.

Thank you, Mayor.

I think you've got an audience for a few of those last items.

So moving on to our order of the agenda.

I have not heard any changes to the agenda from staff.

Council members, is there a motion to uh approve the agenda?

I'll move to approve the agenda as presented.

Um moved uh actually by council member Fredericks over here first and seconded by Councilmember Keene.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, say nay.

Motion passes.

Moving on to our consent agenda agenda, excuse me.

Uh Councilmember Wall has pulled item F7, which we will discuss under reports and recommendations.

Uh, we are also pulling item F25 for consideration at a later council meeting.

Any other items to pull?

If not, I would invite a motion to approve the consent agenda in blocks uh uh F1 to F6, F8 to F24, and F26 to F38.

Second.

Moved by council, everybody really wants to make these motions tonight.

Uh moved by council member uh Fredericks and seconded by councilmember Miller.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say nay.

Moving on to our public hearings.

We have uh I believe three public hearings on our agenda this evening.

Uh before we begin the public hearings, I'd just like to take a moment to clarify the process for our public hearings.

Uh, first staff will introduce our present the item.

And then if there is an applicant or an applicant's representative, uh, they will have up to 10 minutes to discuss the item.

And then I will open the public hearing.

Members of the public have up to five minutes to uh address uh the item.

And at that point, uh I will close the public hearing and then the applicant will have a rebuttal time for up to five minutes.

And at that point, I will invite my colleagues uh to ask clarifying questions of staff or the applicant and uh and then uh invite a motion.

So with that, I will move to our first public hearing, which is the um the 2026 annual action plan for community development brock block grant allocations and Mr.

Brent Svenby is at the microphone.

So go ahead.

Um Brent's gonna be community development department.

Um this evening, I'm here to ask the council to open the comment period for the 2026 annual action plan, which is associated with the community block grant program.

So this is for the year 2026.

Um, just so the council is aware that just last week the city received our 2025 funding of CBG dollars.

So it does take a while for the city to receive us funding, but we do get it.

It seems like every year it's getting later and later, but um hopefully we will receive funding in 2026.

So just a little background.

So the city does receive annual funding through HUD through the community development blockback program.

The city is considered a entitlement community.

And the funding is used for a wide variety of community development projects, including the goals of the program are to provide decent, safe and sanitary housing, provide suitable living environments, and to expand economic opportunities.

The primary use of CBG funding is that for lower and moderate income persons.

So those individuals below 80% AMI levels would be considered low and moderate individuals.

To be an eligible activity for CBG funding, you must be an eligible activity as defined by HUD regulations and meet one of the three national objectives of the program, which are listed on the screen before you.

Access to affordable housing, access to public services, non-housing community development, planning administration, and fairly furthering fair housing.

So here's a timeline for 2026 CBG funding.

So back on July 18th, I emailed over 50 individuals who have previously expressed interest in CBG funding.

And then on July 19th, there was a notice published in the Pulse Bulletin, notifying the community that the application window was open, and that application window was open until August 18th.

And between those two dates, we did also do a press re plus release on July 22nd, and then on July 28th, we did host an open house for anybody with questions in regards to the CBG process.

Unfortunately, at that July 28th meeting, we had zero people attend this year.

Then on September 3rd, the steering committee met, they reviewed the applications, had great discussion on the applications received, and formulated what activities they would recommend for funding for 2026.

So then, based off of that meeting on September 3rd, our office did go ahead and draft the 2026 annual action plan.

So we are at September 22nd where we're asking the council to open the comment period.

And then we'll come back to the council on November 3rd, asking the council to close the public comment period on the action plan and make a formal adoption of those programs you would like to fund for 2026.

During the open comment period, we received 11 applications for public service activities back in 2020.

Basically, cities can spend up to 15% of their CBG allocations on public service activities.

And the city has decided that those are the activities that the city would seek applications for.

So based on our projective of the funds we would receive in HUD from HUD, we would have about 101,000 to allocate towards public service activities.

So you will see that we received 11 applications based on the scoring from the steering committee.

They are recommending funding six of those agencies that submitted for funding and the recommended funding amount.

As previously mentioned, the steering committee met on September 3rd to review the applications.

The steering committee is made up of seven individuals, four individuals work for the city of Rochester.

And then this year we added three community members.

One person was a past recipient of CBG funds, one was a disability advocate, and the other was the affordable housing advocate.

I will say this year we had great discussion from the committee members more than we have in the previous years.

So that was great to see from that group.

And then they do have a scoring criteria that they use when they do review their applications.

They're looking at timeless.

How soon can the money be spent by the applicant?

Um, because there are regulations through HUD that the city can only have so many dollars by November 1st of each year.

Basically, it's no more than one and a half times of your allocation amount.

Um they also look at project effectiveness for priorities of the council and also of the consolidated plan, and also if the project or activity was previously funded.

So for 2026, here's the recommended allocation.

You will see that the total dollar amount that we're projecting to have is um eight hundred and twenty-six thousand dollars of that amount, about 150,000 is projected to come from program income, and program income is what the city receives from our single family rehab program.

So when we do a um rehab loan for a property, we do a mortgage um, and um when the person no longer lives at the house, they sell the house, um, then that money gets paid back to the city a number of years ago.

The council um directed us to change the interest rate from that program from 2% to 0%.

So those loans are at 0% because those loans um are again, you have to be a low monitoring individuals to get a loan for the rehab program.

So they're at that 80% AMIOS.

Um so they're they are getting loans to um rehab their house to make them decent living conditions.

So you can see that um they allocated 101,400 for public service activities, um 150,000 in administration activities, um 464,600 in rehab activities.

That's consisted of our single family rehab loan program and also a rental rehab program that we started a couple years ago, and then some administrative costs for that rehab program.

And then for the last couple of years, we've been putting about 100,000 away for infrastructure projects and lower and moderate incomes.

Those are mostly for um pedestrian crossing or pedestrian ramps at those at intersections, and again, those have to be in low and moderate income neighborhoods.

So here's our funding kind of breaks down into about um 12.3% going to public service activities, um 57.4% into housing rehab type of work, 18% into administration, and about 12% into infrastructure cost.

Again, here's the timeline shown previously in the process for 2026, and we're at September 22nd, asking the council to open the public comment period and then coming back to the council on November 3rd to close the public hearing and then adopt those programs for allocation for 2026.

I will note that um I did publish the ad in the paper on Saturday, notifying of an open house we're gonna have on this Wednesday from three to four out at um the community development office for anybody who wants to come and review the annual action plan or provide any comments on the action plan.

The action plan is also posted on the city's website.

So in the person will interview the plan, then they can either call me or submit or email me with any comments they have on the plan.

Again, the question action is asking the council to open the public comment period.

Any questions?

Thank you, Mr.

Svenvi.

At this point, I will open tonight's uh public uh comment period.

This is a public hearing.

Anyone who wishes to be heard on this item, please step forward.

Anyone wishing to be heard on this item, please step forward.

Seeing no one, we will close the public hearing for this evening and uh ask uh members to leave the public hearing open.

Leave I will leave this public hearing open and it will uh when we uh take our motion, we will have a public hearing open until uh November third.

Council member Keene.

Yeah, I just want to point out this small administrative problem.

I think on page six of your summary, I think you missed the Jeremiah project listed.

It should be it should be listed as one of the funded projects.

Yep, it's on yeah, this right there.

It's on this one.

It's on this one.

Yeah, I messed it up on the other.

Yeah, thank you.

Mayor Norton.

I have a question.

Uh, can you talk a little bit about uh how uh the uh 2026 applications and recommendations uh are either similar or different from uh last year's or are there trends in uh uh what we're seeing as far as uh those that are seeking uh CBG uh I think it's C D B G dollars.

Now this I mean it's trying to every year we're trying to spread a wider net to get more organizations realizing that the CBD dollars are all there, but it does have to benefit lower minor income individuals, and they have to be able to track that the persons are low income.

So there's quite a bit of reporting requirements that maybe turn off some individuals or some organizations from applying for CBG funding, but um, we do get a lot of repeat organizations asking for CBG dollars, but they do have to have a quantifiable increase of service that those dollars are going for.

So we just can't keep funding the same program over and over again.

There has to be an increase in service, unless it's a program that we've started funding from the very beginning.

So, example, Catholic Charities Warming Center.

That was a program that we funded that center, their very first year they're open.

So the city is able to keep funding that program, even though they're not increasing, but they don't have to have a qualified increase in service every year for that program.

That answers your question.

Yes.

Any other questions?

Councilmember Palmer.

Thank you.

I have a question on the CEO and the smoke detector.

Um, $10,000.

Who's handing those out and who's qualified to get them?

That's uh a program that the fire department would like to start next year.

So um we will work with the fire department to come up with a method of um distribute distributing those fire inspectors, but they will have to be qualified individuals to receive a smoke detector.

But that's something we'll work with from now or from November 3rd until we get our funding next year to come up with a program of how they can distribute those smoke detectors and still meet the requirements of the CBG program, but it would be for lower moderate income individuals.

So the fire department will go out and purchase smoke detectors, they would get a phone call from a resident requesting that that smoke detector, they would have to verify that they qualify for the program as being lower moderate income individuals, and they would go out and they would install smoke detectors in their homes.

And and so I've I've had some experience with the program.

Um the programs that you have.

So they're gonna have to provide their W-2 and prove that they're on the 80% AMI.

Is that the correct?

Yeah, and we do that now.

We have uh uh a tree removal assistance program where um the homeowner documents um their income.

Either they provide us with their last year's tax statements, so we verify that they qualify for the program.

Okay, and what I'm just curious uh who how did you decide or who decided to put three community members and how did you decide to pick those three community members?

We like to keep the steering, I think I guess the steering committee is always been around seven people, and we've always had a notion to I think we started out with all seven members being members of the city team.

We what we wanted to get away from being out city teammates and go out into the community to find um members.

So um this year it was kind of sort of a late, so we didn't have a time to put out applications for to seek individuals to be on the steering committee.

So we did um did some rainstorm between staff and came up with um three three members that we thought would be suitable for the steering community, but we are looking at other ways to get other individuals involved in the steering committee.

So the past person recipient isn't receiving any funds this year.

Correct, it was a recipient of a um rehab loan.

So okay, thank you.

Any other questions, council members?

Is there a motion on this item?

No.

Do we not take action to uh to open open the public comment period?

That's what the hearing is for this evening.

Okay, we will move on.

Thank you, Mr.

Suspendy.

Moving on to uh public hearing uh uh G2, which is a final plat by Stonebrook of Rochester LLC.

Uh Mr.

Desmond McGill.

Please go ahead.

Yeah, uh thank you, uh President Schuberging, Mayor Norton, members of the council.

Good evening.

Uh this is a final plat subdivision for Stonebrook 6th.

Uh, this consists of 69 total lots, uh, two common area lots and three outlots on 62.5 acres.

Uh, this is located east of Sunnydale Drive, Southeast, and east of 40th Street, 40th Avenue Southeast, and south of College View Drive, Southeast.

Um, the final plat proposes 28 single family lots and 41 town home lots.

Uh, the general development plan for this site was originally approved uh back in 2002, uh encompassing single family homes, townhomes, wetlands, and open space area.

Um the GDP has been revised a few times, the most recent being uh April of this year.

Uh the final flat is consistent with the P2S comprehensive plan land use designation of low density residential.

Uh it is also consistent with the R1 and R2 zoning districts, which underlie it.

Uh in additionally, uh the recent updated uh Stonebrook GDP.

It is consistent with that.

And uh there is uh the uh June 2025 council approval of the preliminary plat uh for Stonebrook 6 and 7.

Uh it is consistent with that.

Um the subdivision will help the city uh in addressing current shortages of uh single family homes.

And uh the development review committee is recommending approval of this subdivision subject to four conditions of approval.

Uh, I do not know if the applicant is here tonight.

Uh they didn't note that they if they could not be in attendance tonight that they would uh uh they supported all the uh the conditions of approval that were added.

Um, and that concludes my introduction.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr.

McGill.

Is uh the applicant here or their representative?

Seeing uh not, uh I will at this point open the 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 invite my colleagues uh to ask questions of staff on this item.

Any questions?

Seeing no questions, is there a motion on this item?

I'll make a motion.

Uh move by uh are you gonna read I'll read it.

Adopted resolution approving final plat number CD 2025-030 plat by Stonebrook of Rochester LLC to be known as Stonebrick 6 with four conditions for the subdivision of 62.5 acres into 69 residential lots, two common area lots, and three outlots.

Move by council member Palmer, seconded by councilmember Fredericks.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say nay.

Thank you.

Uh moving on to G3, which is a final plat by Noble Development LLC.

Mr.

McGill.

Uh yes, uh indeed.

This is a uh final plat subdivision for Highland Hills town homes.

Uh, this final plat consists of 20 residential town homes and one common area uh lot on 3.63 acres.

Uh this is located on the south side of Queens Drive Northwest and approximately 250 feet east of 55th Avenue Northwest.

Uh this final plat proposes those 20 things.

Well, there's single family detached town homes or what we would refer to as twin homes, uh, and that one common area lot for public utilities, uh common area driveway.

Um the Highland Hills uh general development plan was initially approved in uh 2022 and encompassing single family homes, uh uh town homes and open space.

Uh this site has uh been previously platted as outlaw F as part of the original uh Ponds of Highland Hills final plat.

Uh it is this this uh infilling of this parcel is consistent with the P2S comprehensive plan, the low density residential uh land use designation and the R2 zoning district.

Uh additionally, uh the the recently updated uh Highland Hills GDP.

Uh the council approved the preliminary plat for Highland Hills.

Um I think in 2022, and uh the subdivision will help uh the city uh address current shortages in single family residential dwelling units.

Uh the review committee is recommending approval uh of this uh application, uh subject to the one condition of approval.

Uh that concludes my uh introduction.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr.

McGill.

Is there a the applicant or a representative of the applicant here for this item?

Seeing none, we will open the public hearing.

Anyone from the public wishing to be heard uh about 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 uh council members, any questions for staff?

See uh I'll make a motion.

Uh go ahead, council member Doring.

I'll move to adopt a resolution approving final plat number CD 2025-031 plat by Noble Development LLC to be known as Highland Hills Town Home Second with one condition for the subdivision of 3.63 acres into 20 residential lots and one common area lot.

Move by council member Doring.

Seconded by Councilmember Keene.

Anything more to add, council members seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say nay.

Motion passes.

Moving on to our reports and recommendations.

Uh H1 is our 2026 preliminary tax levy and recommended budget.

Uh city administrators Elms.

Thank you, Council President, Council members, Mayor Norton, members of the public.

Um, we have the recommended budget.

I want to um just share it that as you are aware, it was carefully designed to significantly reduce the levy that was projected last year while still providing additional investment to support services in our growing and diverse community.

And I want to thank um provide my appreciation for the dedication of all of our departments for their work on the baseline budget, um, the submittal of their decision packages that help to invest in the community and their thoughtfulness in their approach to the budget.

In particular, I want to thank Rachel Hoduk and Josh Doerr.

They are the principal people who work diligently to finalize all of this into the full budget and CIP document.

It is 1,081 pages, and you can find that on the city's website, Rochester Admin.gov.

If you head to the finance section to reports, you can see that all the way back into the um brief history of time, but you can find the 2026-2027 recommended budget there with a lot of detail as you have all participated in.

The city councils discussed the recommended budget over the course of five study sessions starting in April, um, continuing into June, August, and then the past two study sessions of September.

Um, we discussed a number of different topics during those study sessions after the presentation of the recommended budget.

That resulted in one change to the 2026 levy, which adjusted the community building fund with an additional $50,000 to enhance the that program.

Um and those discussions resulted in a preliminary levy adoption coming forward to you today of 118,284,623.

Uh that includes a recommendation to establish the preliminary 2026 operating and capital budget in the amount of 663 million 901,470, which is inclusive of Rochester Public Utilities, and then establishing Monday, December 1st, 2025 for the public hearing and final adoption of the recommended 2026 tax levy and budget, both operating and capital.

Um, so what that means is um that we are recommending a $6,639,481 levy change, which represents the year-over-year uh change in the total levy that would need to be certified for collection to the county to provide revenue to support the recommended 2026 budget.

Um and so the levy, the dollar amount of the levy is certified then with Olmstead County and then apply it across all property uh based on the tax classification of someone's property and then the assessed valuation of each property um serves as the basis for tax notices that are sent to each individual property um owner.

Um so what's happening this evening um will um result in the forthcoming tax notices that help to inform um more specific public comments on the tax levy during the established public hearing in December.

Um and of course, that December 1st, 2025 um date and location as well as time will be listed on every single tax notice that goes out to individual taxpayers in the city.

Um, as we've noted previously, the preliminary tax levy established is the maximum levy that can be levied for 2026.

So after this evening, the city tax levy can remain the same or be reduced, but it cannot be increased going forward.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

We've met about this a number of times, um, but that would that's it principally what you would be doing this evening is establishing the preliminary levy, which establishes those tax doses that go out to each individual tax owner or property owner, excuse me.

Thank you, admin administrator Zelms.

Any questions from council members?

Uh Mayor Norton.

Well, I want to thank the administration for all the work they've done and the many many hearings we've had about this and discussions.

Um, I think it's it's been good, and I'm glad we've gotten it out there.

I did want to um I just clarify.

So can you tell us is there a limit on how much a city could levy?

There is a limit on how much a city could levy.

We are drastically underneath that limit.

Um, and I think people are probably grateful for that.

I can't I off the top of my head cannot give you that number, but it is significantly higher than what um the city of Rochester levies and um over the course of the last 11 years, we have hovered between about a four point 48% and 52% net tax capacity rate, which is that resulting percentage of spreading um the total levy dollar amount across all of the um property value in the city.

So thank you.

So I'm I'm just wanting for the community's understanding to know we could levy significantly more than we are.

We do not.

We have not chosen to do that historically, nor are we anywhere close to doing that this year.

And the other point, which we've hit home every time we've talked, but I want to say it again because I talked to a couple constituents this week who continue to be confused that a five point nine five percent increase is not what we're increasing in taxes, it is an increase just of the levy portion that we're talking about here, and that it's taxes will be impacted by this, but primarily the impact has to do with the valuation of their home.

And it gets very confusing for taxpayers when they hear we're increasing our levy by 5.95%, and they don't understand that does not mean a 5.95% for them necessarily.

So if you have a clearer way to say that, do so.

If not, I think I've made my point, but I just it it is very confusing to residents when we talk about this increase and what that means to them.

Administrator Zones, any messages that are more concise.

Council President, Council members, I think the mayor said it well.

Maybe one other um way of explaining it is that even if the tax levy didn't change at all, each individual tax bill will adjust based on how much your assessed valuation is relative to the other properties in your class.

Thank you.

Councilmember Wall.

I think further complicating uh that is when they open the envelope, there will be three contributors to uh the property tax.

And so whatever the city levies is not necessarily what the school or the county will levy either.

So um, yeah, it just gets uh there are multiple levels for possible confusion.

Councilmember Keene.

Yeah, I'll just add that I think when we go through this work, I think there it's fairly common for a uh resident to just watch the high-level numbers, and those key facts are the size of the overall budget, but then that percent impact to uh to the levy.

And I think some of the key facts get lost underneath there.

And one of them that I want to share is the pool of taxpayers in the in the pool is getting better year over year.

So with the money that's being levied against that for the city, there are additional properties paying that.

I believe our tax base went up two percent based on new properties being added.

Um, and that's new taxpayers.

So a four uh six, five point nine percent.

If it all if all other things equal, it would not turn out to be that much for because of the new taxpayers in the pool.

Um, but of course, as my peers have pointed out, your mileage will vary with with things like, and then that I didn't say that assessed property values went up for are gonna go up about 4.5% across the whole um tax paying base.

Um, and that's gonna have as much and likely more impact on what your tax uh what your tax rate is next year.

I was one of the lucky ones in 2025, even with our nine percent increase in the county having a six percent, my bay tax base went down because my property value didn't go up.

Uh and the those who were getting the higher values were carrying a bigger part of the of the levy.

Um City Administrator Zelms mentioned that uh net tax capacity, but that's a key metric that I've been watching since I've been doing this.

We were as high as 52 percent of what our tax base was, and we're down we got down as far as 48 percent, which means that we're basically for every hundred thousand dollars of value you had, you were paying a little bit less in terms of tax capacity.

And that's something that it's not a it's not a all encompassing indicator, but it's a sign that we're trying to keep we're we're managing our our expenses.

This budget closes at about 49 point something, getting closer to the 50 percent number.

Uh and again, it's not a magic number, but it's a key indicator for me that we're under control.

Um, where we've this will always be the balance between um our our ploy our where are we treating our employees uh with respect?

Are we maintaining our assets for the future?

Or are we are we doing some sort of budgetary tricks of reducing things and pushing responsibility to future councils?

And I feel good pretty good right now that when I look at what we're spending on uh on our employees, but also on uh capital improvements and maintaining our buildings and maintaining our assets.

I think we're being responsible stewards going forward.

Thank you.

Councilmember Palmer.

Thank you.

I've got a couple pages here.

Um I think people have to remember that the residential portion of this is is going up quite a bit compared to the commercial and the and the apartments.

Um, you know, I'm kind of disappointed in how some of our taxpayer dollars have been used this last year.

Um, I go to the RPT GO Microtransit Pilot program.

Um, it turned out to be 232 dollars per ride.

Um, and I don't think 232 dollars per ride is is is using taxpayer dollars very well.

And the cost to us as as a city of Rochester transit fund was 121,585.

Um, that's 20% match.

And so I'm I'm disappointed that that's what had had to happen.

The other thing I'm disappointed in is in the 2025 transit overview.

Um the numbers of ridership is down from almost 2 million um before 2019 to um 600,000 this year.

And they're thinking maybe that they might decrease it by 10 percent um the overall cost of of transit.

So I I think with the federal dollars and the state dollars, I think that we need to look at that a little bit closer.

Um somebody asked me why I don't like the library.

I like the library.

I think it's a great facility.

Um, I read and I enjoy it.

Um, but our library is the most expensive library in the state of Minnesota.

It has the most amount of hours.

If you look at the hours from the cross to Cedar Rapids to Mancato, Sioux Falls, Fargo, and South St.

Cloud and Duluth, you can see on Sunday hours we we are more than anybody else.

And in adding four new um FTEs for that, it to me just doesn't make much sense.

I don't think that they've done a real good job of of looking at their budget.

It's a $9 million budget.

When we ask them what would what would we say that we um um closed on a Sunday or a Monday, the response was well, 100,000.

Um, out of a nine million dollar um budget, that doesn't make much sense.

Um, and so then you go into, you know, what do you think it should be?

I think 4.8 percent.

I have until December 1st to to make that argument to have three other people join me on that.

Um, but you know, we're adding an arborist at 124,000.

We had a grant for an ADA management coordinator.

Um, now since we had that grant, we've decided we needed that position.

There's 153,000.

The North Maintenance person is 134,000, and that building doesn't open until maybe August.

Um, city council travel doubled in from from last year, um, which is not a lot of money, but but it doubled.

Um, you know, four librarians adding that's 193,000.

Um, and so I look at those and go, can we do better?

No, we have till December um one to do better because this is the top limit that we have.

I'm more than happy to look at other things.

There are other council members, and we heard this again today in the past that said, oh, geez, we just need to cut.

Um, I don't believe the city is is is ill-managed.

I think that we do a pretty good job, but I think these are suggestions that we could do um to to lower that because when you go and talk to people in the neighborhood, knock on their door, listen to them.

The most frustrating thing for them is that their property taxes are going up.

Yes, their property values are going up, but it's getting harder and harder and harder for people to make that that payment.

And so um that's my statement.

Obviously, you understand that I will not be voting for this tax levy.

I'd like to see it be at 4.8%.

Um, we have until um December 1st to do better.

So I appreciate your time.

Thank you, council member.

Uh I'll uh say a few words at this point.

I believe we should be celebrating this 5.9% tax levy.

A year ago, this council was sitting here working on getting a 10% tax levy down to 9%.

And this is uh a levy that includes $4 million worth of cuts that uh our administrator and her very diligent staff work to efficiently look at all the programs throughout the city and cut four million and and is adding uh 1.9 million in new spending that will uh uh increase our uh level of service to Rochester residents.

This is half of what uh was projected for 2026, and it is the smallest budget that the administration has given us since COVID.

So I really want to commend our diligent staff on working for the people of Rochester, looking at better ways to provide service and uh continue on this road that we're we're on at this point.

So with that, are there other council members?

Councilmember Miller.

I guess I'll just make a brief comment.

Um, thinking about what the mayor said of how we communicate this, how we bring people into the discussion and uh in the strategic priorities at the beginning of the year, we've made inclusive growth management and bringing the community in.

And I am very excited that in our action plan, we have an opportunity to improve the tools that we use to tell the story of what how we develop, how we're providing efficient services, and to continue to tell the story of how we make decisions together, because I look around our region and I see many communities struggling with double digit recommendations and then fighting to get down and in many cases cutting essential services or pushing off the funding of those services to future years, and we are not in that situation.

And so I agree with council president Schubring that uh we have a staff through the city administrator who have done diligent work to keep this number under control to continue to provide services.

But I look around and this is not something that is unique to the city of Rochester, these pressures of increasing cost, but I think is unique of how um tightly we've been able to control this and bring down even the number from last year.

And uh I look forward again to these future discussions of how we're looking at the growth of the community and what types of growth bring prosperity to the community that's felt by all residents, um, especially looking at the pressure of that tax levy on individual property owners versus being able to grow in a way that we're able to provide the services, and it's not an additional burden every year on individual homeowners.

So thank you.

I will be supporting this.

Seeing no other council members, is there a motion on this item?

Yeah, I'll adopt a resolution certifying the 2026 preliminary tax levy at 118,284,623, which includes one establishing the preliminary operating and capital budget amount of 663 million 901,470 dollars and establishing Monday, December 1st, 2025 for the public hearing and final adoption uh of the recommended 2026 tax levy and budget operating and capital.

Second uh move by council member Keene, seconded by councilmember Doring.

Any more to add, Councilmember Keene?

No, I I'm listening to uh councilmember Palmer's suggestions, and I know we've gone through some of these same things.

What the there were additional spending at a 2.4% or so.

We we're I thought we gave them a clear hearing and went through the the reasons for the the recommendations came forward.

What we didn't go through is the recommendation uh the ones that came to into staff discussions and didn't get passed there.

So I'm I'm open to the idea of looking at some of these, but uh uh I I wrote it down as I think it's a 1.2 million dollar, 1.3 million dollar challenge to a 109 million dollar budget.

But again, I'm open to having those discussions, but um, I'm looking for the the new ideas.

Councilmember Doring, anything to add?

Any other discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed say nay.

Nay.

Uh motion passes five to two with uh council members uh Fredericks and uh Palmer voting nay.

Moving on, you keep looking like you're moving your hand to speak.

Council member.

Uh moving on to item uh H2, uh, which is uh the renewable energy purchase power purchase agreement.

And we have our director of power resources, Bill Budak to Bill to uh present to us.

And I screwed up your last name, but that's okay.

Give it to me again.

That's okay.

Um uh council president Schubring and um Mayor Norton and Council members.

Um I'm here to to deliver, I think in the last council meeting, uh Tim McCollor was here presenting the plan for uh reaching our 100% net renewable goal.

Um we do have one on the hook.

Um, so we wanted to bring it uh forward tonight um for your approval.

Um again, the power resource plan consists of two parts.

Um there's a reliable capacity piece.

Um and the that's met through firm dispatchable generation and battery storage and demand response.

Um the chart below uh the figures there show the the capacity that we need in Rochester.

That's the peak load.

Um, and it's in the the mid-continental uh independent system operator or MISO system.

We're required to have control over enough resources to deliver that capacity when we need it.

So in the summer, we need close to 300 megawatts.

In the fall, it's closer to 250.

In the winter, it's down around 200.

And then in the spring, it's back up toward about 230.

So as you can see, depending on the season.

So summer really drives like the maximum capacity that we require.

And as you can see, we we've divided this up into existing resources.

So this kind of the solid gray and pink lines are our existing resources.

So you can see the planned resources.

The gray one is 50 megawatts at the Mount Simon station.

The green are what the wind projects provide for capacity.

So as you can see, it's windier in the winter than it is in the summer and fall.

So you get more capacity when you don't need it from the wind.

That's why we need other resources.

So that's why we are we have the blue hashtags.

That's capacity that we'll need to uh contract with going forward.

But it's one step at a time, right?

On the on the right side, you see the renewable energy.

Those show the supplies that we have identified.

They're not all uh contracted, they're not all built.

Um, but uh but the the first step, the first hash uh bar there is the contract we're talking about tonight, Adams.

So this plan, you know, the way we're complying, we are we have been trying to uh adapt to the changes in federal policy.

So we have been trying to take advantage of the tax credits while they're there.

So we have pulled forward um some of this plan um into the the 2026 to 2028 time frame.

So we're contracting for wind before we really need it.

Um but this means it will be there when we need it.

Um and I have to say it's um it's it's been refreshing to get the support both of the council um you know of the RPU uh leadership team on pulling these contracts together because based on the number of changes we've seen in policy as we're trying to nail these uh projects down.

Um if we did not have that support coming into this, we would uh we we would not be where we are today.

So I have to acknowledge the team at RPU and and and everyone in this room for that support.

Um so we're you know, we will uh this first project, the first win is the smaller scale one.

There will be uh two more coming forward soon.

Um, and these allow us to build up a rec balance um by pulling them forward where we can build up that rec balance.

You see that uh the dark line going up.

So up until 2030, we'll be banking those recs um and we'll be able to use them for compliance in 2030 uh and beyond.

Um and that will give it by us some time.

That's the idea.

It's gonna buy us time in order to find other resources and um you know who knows what policy will be like in four years.

Um so this is the the 22 megawatt Adams Wind project is the contract that you have in in uh before you tonight.

Um this project is currently off contract.

Um, it provides about 50,000 megawatt hours per year.

Our full load is about 1.2 million megawatts, so it is a small percentage.

Um, it does have an existing interconnection, and the owner will repower.

Now, contracting for an existing one was a lower cost.

Um, it's existing, so the development risk is not there.

It did not depend on the tax credits in order to um to be economically viable.

Um and it does, you know, it provides some uh diversification of supply.

And this is our um if you if you look at the pricing, um, it does provide a hedge against price increases.

As you can see in 2022 and 2023, market prices were very high.

Um and you can see the yellow dashed line is what uh what the the cost of the power will be from the wind project.

It's basically flat for every megawatt hour that we buy, but the market goes up and down based on supply and demand and what resources are available.

So, but what it does is when prices are high, it definitely is a hedge against um prices going even higher.

Uh when they're lower, it is not a good deal.

So but we don't know where prices are going.

Um so we've locked into the lowest prices we could find.

Um they are taking advantage of the tax credits, and we think that the the risk is worth a reward in this case.

Um so it re it is our first step toward uh the 100% renewable goal is five percent of our energy need.

Um it's locking in pricing.

Um, and then it provides the opportunity to repower uh this project and extend it for another 20 years.

Um the next steps we'll be bringing forward, hopefully in the October 6th meeting.

We're still you know trying to deal with tariffs and and things and in contract language.

Um but but the wind project dive center and at North Hills in Iowa, and together those projects will provide about 60% of our overall power supply.

So with that any questions questions, council member Keene.

Yeah, I I just want to make sure they we use the word like purchase and then tax credits, but we're calling this a purchase agreement.

Can you talk about if this is the RPU like owning versus IPU purchasing?

Yeah, we're we're purchasing the output from a uh wind farm that someone else owns, they own, they operate it, um, and then they sell it just whatever output comes from it goes to us.

So if they don't produce anything, we don't pay them.

But we hope they produce things because we want the renewable energy certificates.

Okay.

And can you talk about how that's different than what we had with Simpa?

So with Simpa, um, they they have um an most of the power from Simpa comes from uh the Sherko plant, the coal plant, and they own a a portion, a stake in that plant.

So you can't get away from something when you own it, right?

You you'd have to find someone else to step into your shoes, which would be difficult to find for Sherco at this point.

Um so that is the difference between that.

We we own the plant and the output and we share the operating risk with um Excel on that that facility.

So that's the difference.

No, that's very good.

And I just I was just trying to, there's a difference between sometimes we're borrowing money and doing these things ourselves.

That's on the makes.

I I just have oversimplified.

I know in the utility world, there's all this PPA and power purchase agreements.

But I mean, I just this example here.

In this case, like when we talk about the batteries when we talk about the um uh the on-demand, we're probably owning and running that ourselves as our utility.

When we're talking about wind, we're doing it slightly different where we have a partner that that's their business and we're getting we're getting the benefits of it.

Yes, but we're not buying it on the open market.

We've committed to a long-term plan for purchasing it.

Yeah, that's right.

And the wind projects are typically further away from Rochester.

It's hard to put a wind farm in the middle of town.

So yeah, so we um we don't have the operating personnel to you know to manage that either.

So it is a more efficient contract structure to do a power purchase agreement.

And similarly, we we're going out to the finance markets when we were going to build Mount Sinai and things, but in this case, there the our partner is taking on the capital, and we're our real thing is our commitment for the next 30 years to or the next 20 years to purchase.

Yeah, to buy the yeah, buy that power in a 25-year agreement.

Yeah, very good.

Thank you.

Okay.

Anything else?

Councilmember Miller.

Yeah, thank you.

I you know, having the tax levy discussion before this and now talking about uh recs and hedging, and I'm not sure that we've gotten any clearer on what we're doing for the average person.

But you mentioned uh people aren't necessarily sure where prices are going.

But would it be fair if you were to bet that prices on electricity no matter the form are going up?

Yes, the price of everything is going up.

Yeah, and so if we're looking at a contract that's guaranteeing the price of a power for 25 years, I mean that's simply what what we're doing here, right?

We're we're choosing a good price and guaranteeing that for the long term.

Yeah.

So I just I think that that's uh something that's good for the community to hear.

Yeah.

And I would also just um clarify that there are a lot of types of recs, right?

And we could go out and buy recs and say and and do nothing else and say we're 100% renewable.

But I think it's it's important to say this is a commitment beyond doing that.

Yeah.

Correct.

Yes.

So with this wind project, if we were not investing here, there's not a guarantee that this would come online, renewable energy.

We're buying.

We're we're we're one of the factors of this getting online.

Yeah, they would not be able to finance this project if they didn't have a long-term contract with a credible um, weird.

So would it be fair to say that we are taking action as a community to put renewable energy into the into the market?

Yes.

Okay.

So I look forward to supporting this.

And I just wanted to clarify those things because I think there are a lot of ways to be 100% renewable, and some of them are purely accounting games.

And this is not, in my opinion, what we're doing here.

And I just want to be clear where where we are there.

And again, I I think you know, looking at the cost of power, I wish that there were cheap power.

Yeah.

And I wish I I think everybody in every community, whether an investor-owned utility or a municipal utility wishes the power were cheaper.

And that's just not something that it seems to me that's that's available anymore.

Yeah, inflation has affected everything.

And it's mostly in the cost of building these things as opposed to the cost of the fuel, because fuel is free on wind.

So I appreciate the presentation, and I I look forward to supporting this.

And I just say that over the course, I know this is a conversation with the RPU board as well, but how we um communicate our goals of emissions reductions and putting renewable energy onto the sort of broader network and the grid, I think is important to um beyond just the 100% renewable language, which sometimes can be very confusing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Palmer.

Kind of going back on what Mr.

Miller just was saying.

Um, so if RPU didn't do this, this uh wind farm would go away.

Is that uh the the take on it?

Because to me, if if it's such a great deal, why if we pass on that, why wouldn't somebody else pick it up?

No, someone else would pick it up.

Oh, okay.

Yeah.

Well, I would face the sound of it that that all of a sudden this wouldn't power wouldn't be available.

The ones that aren't built yet, this is a little different because it's it's an existing wind farm.

Um that's a big risk, and that's what gets its tax credits.

And and and but if if we didn't buy it, someone else would probably buy it, and then that still would be on the on the on the market though that way.

Yeah.

Um the the other question I have is is SEMPA is done with us with 2030, or we're done with them, but we're buying this wind power early, and so there's a cost to us that we're not using this this energy.

We're we're getting some credit.

Is that what I'm yeah, we'll settle it in the market.

So we'll we're basically selling it into the market at whatever the market price sub-leasing it.

Subleasing, yeah, yeah.

On an hourly basis, yeah.

Okay.

And and and I'm obviously I I agree with this, and and I'm glad that we're doing it.

And and I appreciate RPU stepping up and and letting us know ahead of time what was going on.

And um, but if I remember right five years ago, electricity use went down.

Um, and and no one ever predicted that.

Is the use of electricity still going down?

So I think the the biggest factor in reduction in electricity has been the LED light bulb.

Um, so that really led to long-term downturn in electric use.

But now we're talking about people putting in heat pumps, um, people buying electric vehicles, um, data centers going in.

So electric use after years of of decreasing is suddenly on the uprise again.

But no one predicted that it would be going down on 10 years ago.

They wouldn't have said that electrical use was going to be dropping.

Um, I think they typically get the forecast wrong, but they eventually caught up.

So in the last the most recent years, they've been keep assuming that the the things get more are more efficient.

And and and that that's scary when you say the forecasts were wrong because you're gonna tell me that this forecast is right on and wonderful, and every forecast is wrong.

Okay.

It's just a house.

Yeah, this is making sure we have diversification and that we we understand the risk and we're able to contain it through a number of scenarios.

And in SEMPA, when we went into that agreement was a great wonderful idea.

It just out it's you it's outlived its usefulness for us, and I'm looking forward to us doing 2030.

I think municipal electrical is the way to go, and it serves our customers the best that we can.

And that's really what it's city council's here to do is do that.

So um again, I appreciate your your efforts to educate us on this.

Um not easy.

Um item.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there a motion on this item?

I'd like to move to adopt a resolution authorizing the city to enter into a wind energy purchase agreement uh by and through Rochester Public Utilities for the restore renewables atoms wind project.

Second, and move by council member Keene, seconded by council member Miller.

Councilmember Keene, any more to add?

Yeah, I just think most times that I've been in these discussions between being RPU for the last couple of years, just as a citizen trying to understand this, and also as this council, we do get caught up sometimes, and council member Miller tries to bring up the racks.

I I'd like to leave that off the table and really talk about what we're doing to you know protect rates and reliability and these sort of things in our community because we have this we're we're not just on a mission to say uh no matter what it costs, we're gonna get uh um net zero greenhouse gases.

And this this is what we're struggling with to find these things in this dramatically changing world between um, you know, you talk about the the cost of everything because it's not just the city of Rochester or XL competing for this energy now.

There's a bunch of new players in the field trying to purchase what's available, and it's changing the markets.

Um, and the whole um the whole uh regulation regulatory environment is difficult to understand right now, too.

But uh just looking at this on its face, um, I I would say there is a nominal risk with locking in prices in 2027.

But to me, to me and to the professionals that we've been working with say these are good bets to be making, not just for you know for the environment and for the long term, but for the cost for the citizens of Rochester.

This is these are reasonable, responsible hedges that we're taking on.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say nay.

Motion passes.

Thank you very much.

Moving on to H3, which is designating the office of the city clerk to administer and regulate administrative citations and enforcement.

This is an item polled by council member Wall.

Councilmember Wall.

Thank you.

I uh move to table F7 until such time as the city has opportunity to communicate with, to seek feedback from, and to answer questions from licensees who uh potentially will be affected by this item.

Second, uh there's been a motion made by council member Wall and uh uh seconded by councilmember Palmer.

Councilmember Wall.

Yes.

Uh I I'm not I don't believe that there's any urgency uh to this particular item.

And I've had two uh um people with licenses in the community approach me with just some confusion as to what this might mean in terms of their appeal processes in terms of judicial versus administrative uh uh actions, uh, the levels of fines that could be levied.

There's just uh enough discomfort on their part and mine that uh I think that we can clear that up before we make this uh administrative change at the council level.

Uh I see Mr.

Cartwright has come to the microphone.

Can you give us maybe uh kind of a brief uh outline of uh the uh the item and then uh address the urgency that uh whether or not there's urgency to uh to pass this this evening?

Certainly.

The item itself, which is allowing the office of the city clerk to write citations, is in pairing with the already existing chapter one-two.

And if you look at the chapter itself, you'll notice that there are several license types which already exist, which are already accounted for in ordinance in regards to administrative citations, alcohol and gambling, gambling itself exclusively, sewer, dangerous dogs, etc.

etc.

Those license types are managed by the office of the city clerk today.

What we cannot do under the current writing of the ordinance is issue any citations for those license types.

One-two already allows for citations to be written, it is already codified into law.

The resolution that's before you today formally allows under, I believe it is one-two-three, wherein there are different entities allowed by the city council to issue citations, community service officers, police officers, uh, the city administrator and the common council to extend that provision to the office of the city clerk.

Similar provisions have been extended for example to parks when they do their administrative citations for tall graphs and weeds.

They've been extended to the public works department when they do their citations for snow removal.

And so what the office of the city clerk is essentially asking is for similar consideration to be made to us to allow us to write citations when we see those violations.

If you'll give me just two more minutes, I want to very briefly talk about judicial elements because I think there's been a little bit of confusion here.

The city of Rochester is the orbiter and the issuer of licenses.

This is not a judicial process.

You do not go through the criminal court process for suspensions, revocations, probations of your licenses.

You go through the city of Rochester, whether that avenue is yourselves, the full common council or an administrative hearing officer, it is something that goes through municipal governance, should a ruling be determined through that process and an appeal made outside.

So let's say the city council body were to allow the revocation of a license, then the judicial process could come into being.

But for all processes before that, it all happens in-house.

So again, with the citation process, that would remain in-house.

So the intent here is just a little bit of cleanup and a little bit of efficacy.

Thank you.

Councilmember Keene?

A couple questions.

One is I think there was a question about the is there anything imminent about this change right now, or this is just good hygiene that we should do this to make any more efficient clerk's office, or is there a reason to do this before December when something happens?

The immediacy element of it is similar to any time when we basically needed to get this done.

You can certainly table this, we can certainly engage with the community about it.

But I think the fundamental question that I would have here is the ordinance is already written.

The ordinance already exists.

So, and I would certainly look for council direction.

What exactly is the engagement that we are looking for?

Are we engaging the community to ask the question whether the overarching body that already issues the licenses should have the authority to issue citations, or should that remain with community service officers?

So I guess in that particular instance, I would just want guidance on exactly what a town hall would look like and what questions the office of the city clerk is asking about this.

Other questions, Council uh Mayor Norton?

Yes, I'm just looking for clarity.

So you're you're not changing the fact that people are getting the citation.

It is just who is issuing it, whether it be the CS, the community service officer, the CSO, or your office.

Thank you for that question.

I think the issue at play, honestly, here is on a question of ownership.

Because the office of the city clerk are the subject matter experts on a lot of our license types, when alcohol and gambling, for example, potentially has a violation, when let's say uh a vending cart has a violation, it really is our office that typically is taking action on this, but we do not have the tools to use a citation process.

Community service officers, primarily are doing traffic tickets, etc.

etc.

Police officers really are wanting to operate on the streets and handle heavier crimes.

So that's that's the intent here.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh I see council member Wall is next, but I'm going to ask uh Councilmember Wall if he can clarify if we table this item, what do you want to see uh before it comes back to the council?

And do you have a time frame for tabling the item?

Yes, thank you.

Uh I I don't dispute a word that Mr.

Cartwright has offered to us.

Thank you.

Uh, I do believe it's good governance to uh try and be in communication with the people uh for whom these differences either are perceived or real to them in terms of uh uh how the viability of their businesses, even up to and including uh the potential loss of a business.

Obviously, that's an extreme case.

Uh the citation would have to be quite uh quite a problem.

As far as a timeline, uh I don't have a timeline.

I think it's more up to the clerk's office in terms of an ability to uh help address some of the questions uh amongst the licensees in the community, so that uh we can move together.

Thank you.

Any further discussion on this?

Uh Mr.

Cartwright, go ahead.

Just one final point I want to make about um some of the logistics.

Thank you for that clarification, by the way.

So one-two is very narrow, it really talks and deals with citations.

When you get into some of that particularly concerning element, the revocation of a license, the suspension of a license, typically the governing ordinances of those particular license types come into play in terms of them having to go through the appeal process here in front of the city council.

So that's part one.

Part two of the consideration for one-two, again, speaking frankly from a logistical standpoint, is and I'm happy to reach out to businesses, but the businesses that currently are licensed with the office of the city clerk, frankly speaking, are not our problem.

They typically are wanting to adhere to city ordinances.

We have tools in our toolkit, probationary measures, suspension measures, writing letters of warnings.

We know who they are.

I can reach out and talk to them and send out a communication and certainly have a town hall.

The main prong of problem are businesses that do not, will not, and have very little interest in obtaining licensure and do not feel that there is a valid methodology that the city can implement to gain their willful compliance outside of going through a process that does, to the point of I think some of the people that are concerned, involve criminal courts for matters that might be disproportionate for the level of offense that the city has concerns about.

So, Mr.

Cartwright, uh if we were to table this item this evening, uh what would uh you see the city clerk's office doing uh in in the interim and uh as far as reaching out to businesses and uh what kind of time frame would you see this coming back to us?

I would reach out to all of the licensed businesses that would be impacted by one-two.

Um I would inform them about the movement towards an administrative fine process.

I would likely have forums that would be organized just to get general feedback from those businesses that could potentially be affected.

And once those forms have occurred, we would likely bring this back as again a consent agenda resolution.

So I can't speak 100% to timelines, but I would imagine sometime maybe in November or December.

Uh Councilmember Miller.

So I appreciate the concern uh for my colleagues.

I guess I'm curious about the alternative action where if people have questions, um why they're not just calling you so you can clarify that the ordinance exists and provide additional information as needed.

Because it's my understanding that in our August um 18th meeting, I believe that we we took the more substantive change to add additional license types to the administrative fine process.

And tonight we would be taking a more minor approach, um, really uh organizational approach to give the city clerk's office the ability to as the department most engaged in that process, have additional oversight of the the streamlining the logistics, so to speak.

That's correct change tonight that would um raise my my feeling that we need to set up a bunch of forums.

Um that probably at costs at some cost that um you know people have other remedies to get clarification and give feedback.

Councilmember Wall.

Thank you, Councilmember Miller.

Uh, people do reach out.

In fact, one of the two people that I spoke to uh had a 30-minute conversation with Mr.

Cartwright today.

So uh and that was reported to me.

Uh people are seeking to uh try and be better informed.

Councilmember Keene.

Um I I'm watching this and I saw this on our agenda, and uh, outside of the clerk's office and what the I almost think of this as more of a uh a closed office efficiency to you don't have to reach out to other groups, but it does remind me of a thing that I'm trying to deal with, and that's the fact that we have other administrative rules like our zoning rules that we don't have any citation capability for.

And I know I've worked before with uh community development of saying like, how come our only recourse is to go to district court?

And the answer is because we don't have uh administration, we don't have that we well, I shouldn't say we don't have we have decided not to have the ability to do fines or citations, because if you do, you have the extra added weight of having to have a uh uh like a court thing or a judge on staff that can hear these.

And outside of just what we're talking about with the clerk's office, I I'm I'm gonna kind of open this up a little bit to staff to say, is there a reason that some areas in the city, like tall grass or like snow removal, have the ability to charge and fine in other areas like zoning infractions and um other zoning enforcement that happens through our community development group, their only recourse is to take someone to court.

Mr.

Spindler Craig, that sounds like a legal question.

Thank you, Councilmember Keene, Councilmembers Mayor Norton.

Um, it is in part a legal question.

Um, it's also a question that Mr.

Cartwright is probably in a good position to answer as well.

Part of the nuance that that council member Keene is is identifying is the difference between administrative citations and criminal citations, and some level of statutory limitation on a municipality's ability to utilize an administrative citation process.

It's not carte blanche where we just get to decide um what types of offenses we can handle on our own outside of the criminal process.

So as you correctly identified, there has been discussion in the past about whether it could make sense, would make sense to use um permissible administrative citation process on in some of these other subject areas.

Certainly something that can be uh um an ongoing discussion or or reconsideration and and Mr.

Cartwright may have some additional insights on that.

If I could just first, I mean, I I understand what you're saying that I'm really not trying to take zoning infractions into the criminal courts.

I'm talking about the way we do snow removal and long grass that we do allow parks and we allow uh public works to both uh like fine people for their infractions and escalate the fines if they continues, where we don't allow that in our zoning thing.

So I'm not sure if I'm framing it correctly, but any in insights.

Uh council member okay.

Uh I'm gonna ask for a little order here because I was ready to recognize council member Palmer.

If you want to be recognized after a member of the staff has answered the question, please look to the council president and then I will recognize you.

So thank you.

Uh council member, are you looking for another answer?

Um, I I th I thought the attorney was asking Mr.

Cartwright to respond, but I don't think he I don't think that's gonna happen.

Councilmember Palmer.

Thank you.

My question is for the city attorney.

If I remember correctly, weeds and and those items are are are put up against the property and the property owner, if that's correct.

Correct.

And and part of the problem with with zoning in and from a building code perspective is I have to have the person's real name.

I have to have their birth date, and those are sometimes hard to obtain.

Is that not correct?

That is sometimes a challenge.

But those are requirements.

Yes, or I mean you have to be it has to be Sean Charles Palmer, can't just be Shawnee.

I'm as an example.

True, my grandma.

Okay.

So I mean, so that's kind of the problem that we have when we go to the citation part of it.

And and I do understand why Mr.

Wall made the made it.

So I appreciate your answer.

Any further uh discussion on this councilman uh uh administrators elms.

Um council president, I just want to point out for the record that one of the things that Mr.

Cartwright suggested was that this would come back on a future meeting on consent.

However, if the motion is to table, you have a section on your agenda that in order to remove something off of the table, you have to put it in the tabled items, remove it from the tabled items, and then move forward with commencing to discuss it again.

Typically, in a situation like this, we would move to continue to either a date certain or continue.

I just want to point that out.

The tabling and continuing are a little bit different than what I think was getting discussed here.

So uh I would uh recommend to the clerk's office that this go, if this were to pass the the motion that this go on the tabled items and it will stay there until you're ready to address it again.

Is that how we would do that, Clerk uh Caseel from a parliamentary procedure?

From that perspective, then we would need a motion to take it off the table in order to bring it back.

But if we continue it, then we could bring it back when Mr.

Cartwright was ready to bring it back.

Is that work for you, Councilmember Wall, if this motion were to pass I think either works.

It is no problem to make a motion to bring something off the table.

It's a simply a council action.

So just for clarity, we would not put it on tabled items until we were ready to ask you to take it off of the table.

Which would then be two actions on that evening to take it off of the table in order to be able to discuss the actual item.

Just clarifying that's how that works.

Uh go ahead, council member Wall.

Which I think makes more sense because it gives more leeway to uh the clerk's office in terms of being able to do the work necessary to uh bring information back to us that will make it successful.

Okay.

Uh so there's a motion on the on the floor to table item uh G uh H3, the former um F7.

Uh all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Uh any opposed say nay.

Uh motion passes five to two with council members miller and during voting nay.

Moving on to thank you.

Moving on to uh ordinance first readings.

Go ahead, Mr.

Spindler Craig.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

There's one first reading item J1, an ordinance annexing to the city of Rochester approximately 120 acres of land located southwest of the intersection of country club road and 45th Avenue Southwest.

Moving on to the second reading, item K1, an ordinance amending section 1-2-3 of chapter 1-2 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances relating to administrative enforcement procedures.

Our motion approval.

Moved by Councilmember Keene.

Is there second?

Second.

Seconded by Councilmember Miller.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, say nay.

Thank you.

Moving on to other business.

We are now going to uh recess to a meeting of the Rochester Economic Development Authority.

Any other business now?

Seeing none, is there a motion to adjourn?