I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for relationship.

Under God, indivisible liberty of justice for all.

Welcome everybody to our October 20th City Council meeting.

This is our first council meeting in our newly high tech chambers here.

So welcome to the bright lights here.

Bright lights in big city is what we are.

So we open every council meeting with our open comment period.

This is an opportunity for anyone from the public to speak on items that we will not be taking public testimony during a public hearing later in the agenda.

Each uh person has up to two minutes to speak for a total of 20 minutes.

I will be keeping track of time through a couple methods.

One, uh the stop, uh the stoplight here, and then the the uh clock, the red clock below the the uh the clock there on the wall.

Uh and so uh know that I may need to cut you off uh because of limited time.

We want to make sure that others have an opportunity to speak.

I'd also request that each speaker be concise to allow more people to speak, and participants are encouraged to limit comments generally to topics that are within the scope and jurisdiction of the council's ability to affect policy.

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

If you have materials to share with the council, you may give them to the uh city clerk who is on my right, and uh you will now be invited up to speak in the order which you signed up, and we will start with Miss Molly Dennis.

You may have to to uh hit the button there, hit the button on the the mic, and you'll see it'll turn green.

Yep, there you go.

All right.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Molly Dennis.

I'm a permanent resident of Rochester, a parent in a community advocate.

October is national bullying prevention month.

Our civic theater has presented the wonderful presentation of prom, which is a powerful showing of how bullying and ostracism can affect a community.

Many of us in Rochester find it interesting that leaders can easily watch this uh message, but do not in fact look in the mirror themselves at their own behavior.

Examples, Councilmember Doring showed up to my house for National Night Out, all while having threatened me in writing to never speak at a city council meeting.

Mayor Norton blatantly fear mongers using media, which falsely slanders and weaponizes to destroy reputations, and even President Schubring promises that staff will follow up, yet our city continues to erode our public trust by denying to answer simple transparency questions.

For example, how do you spend how many hours a week on city council work?

The fact is limiting public speakers' voices, denying information, and blocking uh the social media feedback are all abusive control tactics used by other governments to silence their residents with the padded platitudes of these veneer tactics of these hoops right here that you are demanded to jump through.

They are all window dressing to hide that the city's false claims that we are authentically wanting public engagement.

We do not want public engagement if we require residents to have to go through extra means to do so.

Integrity matters, transparency is trust.

Please do better.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Jesse.

I just have one name, Jesse.

Is Jesse still here?

Welcome.

Please state your name, and you have two minutes.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

Back in the 1800s, all the poor people had horses and rich people had automobiles.

Today, all the poor people have automobiles and rich people have horses.

I'm talking about money.

This involves with everybody in town, I believe.

How many of you have your cell phone here today?

Come on, nobody's gonna officer, you ain't gonna arrest anybody, are you?

Well, I didn't bring a cell phone in.

Because in the rules, it says no cell phones, tobacco, vapes, and that's being honest, truth and the facts and the principle of it.

I'm not very good at math.

I fail math.

I believe that some of the machines at the ATMs is being compromised, maybe our phones as well.

I have a receipt, but I didn't bring my phone to show you pictures of certain things.

Maybe it has nothing to do with it at the moment.

But I have documented of cash from EBT and food.

If if anybody has a calculator, if I'm correct, 113.85 minus 40 is 7385.

Is that correct?

Yes, sir.

I had a receipt that said 7285.

Where's that dollar going?

That's what I would like to know is it's being taxed.

It's your money.

I'm only using this to get me to get forward more.

This is my maybe second time.

I don't want to tell you about my story.

Thank you, Jesse.

Thank you, Jesse.

Your time is up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh this is our public comment period.

Anyone else wishing to speak, please step forward.

Anyone wishing to speak, please step forward.

Seeing no one, I will close the public uh comment period and uh invite Clerk Caseel to call the roll.

Good evening.

Councilmember Keene.

Here.

Councilmember Miller.

Here.

Councilmember Wall.

Here.

Councilmember Fredericks.

Here.

Councilmember Palmer.

Here.

Councilmember Doring.

Here.

Council President Schuberg.

Here.

Mayor Norton.

Present.

Thank you.

Next up we have the city administrators' report.

Administrator Zelms.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Council President.

Mayor Norton, Councilmembers, members of the public.

I always start off my report by thanking our teammates for acting with respect, integrity, safety, and excellence in everything they do.

And today is no different.

For some of our teammates that are out in the rain today, so really appreciate them being out there.

Also just want to take a moment to thank everyone that worked on the room, especially Jeremiah Bowman from Rochester Public Library who helped us get to this place.

So just great thanks to them, to the city clerk's office, and to our um team in IT for making this a reality.

Also wanted to invite folks tomorrow to Link or Treat.

Um it's a family-friendly Halloween um celebration.

5 to 7 p.m.

2nd Street Southwest at 12th Avenue Southwest.

So it's an opportunity to celebrate the construction and um and have a business forward approach to the construction that's happening in that area for Link Bus Rapid Transit, 5 to 7 p.m.

tomorrow, October 21st.

Um you can find out more on our website.

Um light refreshments and activities, so everyone is welcome to join.

Um also wanted to point out another activity that's forthcoming on this Saturday, October 25th from 9 a.m.

to noon.

Um you can park at Foster Errand Park, 4051 East River Road and be shuttled over to what we're now calling the Transportation Center.

Um but some of you might still know it as the uh Public Works and Transit Operations Center at 4300 East River Road Northeast.

Um, our snow summit is happening, um, which will get you ready for all things snow in the city in a happier way than maybe when it snows the first time and you have to shovel or snowblow.

Also, as uh long with this, it is going to be winter soon, so the seasonal parking requirements will begin on November 1st.

Um, so we have alternate side parking from 2 a.m.

to 3 p.m.

daily.

Um, so folks just need to be aware of that again.

More information at Rochester Mn.gov.

And uh just for folks that are not familiar with that, it's important to just be aware of the alternate side parking on even in odd days.

And before it becomes fully winter, on November 6th, the first Thursday is the next uh Rochester downtown art walk that will happen downtown Rochester.

Lots of folks gather at the chateau, but it's all around downtown.

So Thursday, November 6th, 5 p.m.

to 8 p.m.

You can head out and check that out.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

Next up we have the mayor's report.

Mayor Norton.

Go ahead.

Having a little trouble with my butt, but we'll do this.

Thank you.

And for those who didn't attend last year's snow summit, it was great fun and it's great for little kids.

The adults learned educational stuff that's good for them as parents, but the kids had a great time shoveling fake snow and looking at all the big trucks.

So it really is a family friendly event.

So I just wanted to plug that too.

The first thing is we received notice on October 8th that we have been designated as one of I think five cities in the world as a just serve city, and that is our local Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mormons, have a program, and it's called Just Serve, and they have nominated the City of Rochester.

We participate in their we give volunteer opportunities to them, and they post them for many organizations across town.

And we were being recognized for leading by example in promoting volunteerism, encouraging accessible and community-wide service, supporting partnerships with civic, nonprofit, and faith-based organizations, and demonstrating innovation innovation and consistency in service outreach.

And we will be recognized, and I hope the council members that go to NLC will join me.

We will be recognized at the convention in just a few weeks.

So that was a really nice notice.

They're thrilled for us, and and we appreciate them nominating us.

So that was kind of a new tidbit that I wanted to add.

And another note came I try to mention something about the police department each week, and many of you know that just a week or so ago we inducted 11 new police officers using a special swearing-in ceremony.

It was over at the Arts Center.

There were 11 new officers, eight recruits took their oath of office, and three experienced lateral officers were formally introduced to the department.

RPD has developed explorer, cadet internship, and community service officer programs, which are all in effect here in the community that have been especially valuable for recruitment.

Five of the eight recruits were from one of these feeder programs, which is really great news.

The stuff we're doing pays off, and people are staying in the field and being trained.

So I wanted to share that little tidbit with you.

Every month I share, or every week, every other week, I share one of the uh Rochester visiting visioning outcomes, and one of the out the outcomes I'm sharing this time is on education.

While again, not directly in our under our purview, certainly affects our community.

So the overview of the findings and the highest area under education was that the community feels strongly that we need full funding for Rochester public schools, and they oppose a resource diversion to charter and private schools.

They called for urgent classroom, improved classroom conditions, better infrastructure, more equitable fund distribution, and a demand for transparency and budgeting, also smaller class sizes.

I think that's a perennial from when my children were young.

The second area was access and equity in education.

There's a strong call for equal access to quality education for all children, regardless of background or ability.

The community input highlighted the need to improve early childhood education, ESL, and special education services, and emphasis was also placed on expanding support in underserved areas through better transportation, libraries, and school-based social services.

The third area was quality teachers and instruction.

There's concern for teacher burnout, low pay, and difficulty in retaining qualified educators.

So they are advocating for recruiting top talent, improving professional development, and supporting teacher well-being.

Again, smaller class sizes, relevant curriculum, and personalized instruction were requested.

In higher education and lifelong learning, there was strong support for expanding these options in the community.

Again, one of the issues that came up is the establishment of four-year liberal arts college.

And while we do have a four-year college here, it is focused on our health care careers, which we need.

But there is a call for expanding that liberal arts uh area and degree.

And then also they want to continue to grow RCTC and UMR and hope they offer more degree options and uh want us to maintain partnerships with them for to better fund education and to have a better workforce.

Vocational and career preparation, um, again, strong support for expanding those areas beginning early in a student's academic path.

Uh they were advocates for integrating internships, job shadowing, and real world skills into the curriculum.

One of those will be highlighted just this week as our uh Bloomberg Global Mayor's Challenge is having the pitch night, which is an extension of that.

That's a great example of what the community is asking for.

That will happen this week.

And lastly, gender identity and cultural issues.

The community reveals intense debate over gender policies in schools, just like nationally, with both support and opposition expressed.

Key issues included transgender student accommodations and concern about politically charged or woke content.

Many called for stronger focus on academics and practical life skills over social and ideological topics.

So that concludes the education.

I have a couple more quickies.

I'm gonna go through here.

One is a reminder that we're continuing our building uh local democracy that works for everyone project.

The National Civic League is continuing to take input.

So anyone here today can use the QR code, and there's some out on the table to say what worked, what didn't work, what can we do better at these meetings, city council meetings, as well as any board and commissions that you might participate in.

And on November 6th, the researcher will be here to actually have an in-person round table discussions at the Heinz Center from 5 30 to 7 30.

So we hope folks will participate in that.

And again, a reminder that on uh at the end of this month, I think it's on the 30th, 29th, I'm sorry, October 29th.

Thank you for that.

Um, there will be an all-day education summit.

I believe they have sold out of spaces for the daytime uh activities, but in the evening, uh, this keynote from Dr.

Sood uh will be from uh from 5 to 6 15, and that is open to anyone.

So if you're interested, uh you can register and let them know you'd like to come.

Um it'll be about self-care for those who care for our children and youth.

Just a reminder that we are looking to take uh to visit our sister cities.

There are two in Germany June 12th through June 22nd uh 2026, and uh council president Schubring and I will host that uh adventure.

Um but we will be seeing Mooseburg, which is our sister, our oldest sister city that uh Mayor Chekazama founded at the front end and at the end Munster, the last days.

Um that's our sister city for climate change and and sustainability.

So take a look and give us a call if you want more information.

League of Minnesota Cities is hosting the mayor for a day contest again this year.

We've had winners in the past, so just a reminder if you know any fourth, fifth or sixth graders, encourage them.

Uh they could win a hundred dollars and be recognized at in the Minnesota Cities magazine, which the League of Minnesota Cities puts on.

But it's um you can go to LMC.org for more information.

But it is uh what would you do if you were mayor for a day?

Lastly, Mayor's Mayor's Medal of Honor is we're taking nominations for someone who does something special and uh good for our community in a number of areas and app we're taking applications through October 31st.

And at that time, last year's winners will gather upstairs with me, and we will talk about the nominations and the last year's winners will help select this year's winners.

And uh, it's always a fun event, and as I've said, a little uh it's it's very touching uh what people in this community do for each other in Rochester.

That's all I got.

Thank you, Mayor.

Next up, we have the order of the agenda and just a couple notes.

Uh, we do have other business uh besides the EDA on our other business.

The mayor has an item, and council member Miller also has an item.

Uh so uh with that, I is there a motion to approve the order of the agenda.

So moved.

Moved by councilmember Keene, seconded by council member wall.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed say nay.

Motion passes.

Moving on to our consent agenda.

Councilmember Palmer has pulled items F4 and F6.

And Councilmember Doring has pulled item F5.

Uh the we will discuss these items later under reports and recommendations.

Are there any other items on the consent agenda to poll?

If not, I would uh invite a motion to approve the consent agenda in blocks F1 through F3 and F7 through F20.

So moved by Councilmember Fredericks.

Second seconded by Councilmember Wall.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed say nay.

Motion passes.

Moving on to our public hearings.

We have three public hearings on our agenda this evening.

Uh before we begin the public hearings, it just take a moment to clarify the process by which each uh hearing will happen.

Uh staff will first introduce the item and uh and then if there is an applicant or applicant representative, they will have up to 10 minutes to discuss the item.

At that time, I will open the uh public hearing.

Members of the public each will have five minutes to uh discuss the item.

After that, I will close the public hearing and invite the applicant back up for five minutes rebuttal to discuss any issues that came up during the public hearing.

After that, I'll invite council members to ask questions of both staff and the applicant, and then we will invite an motion and uh move on.

So with that, I will move to our first public hearing.

G1, which is a vacation per uh petition by Russell Clark and uh planning supervisor Ed Caples will present this.

Council President, Mayor Norton, members of the council, good evening.

My name is Ed Caples with Rochester Community Volvement.

Um tonight before you is a request from the property owner to vacate a public utility easement.

The easement requested to be vacated is located within the east 10 feet of lot 12 and lot 13 of the Golden Hill Industrial Add Subdivision, which was platted in 1962.

The easement is generally located 100 feet south of 17th Street Southeast and 540 feet east of 3rd Street Southeast to the east side of 1722 3rd Street Southeast.

The 10 foot wide easement running north to south is approximately 200 feet in length.

All applicable utility providers have reviewed the subject request, and no service providers have provided objection to the proposed vacation.

Currently, there are no existing utilities within the easement.

RPU Electric has indicated they will require a new five-foot wide utility easement running east to west on the south side of lot 13 owned by the applicant.

The easement replacement will need to be recorded prior to the city of Rochester recreation of the vacation resolution removing the existing easement.

Upon establishment of the new easement by the owner, the city will record the vacation resolution.

The development review committee recommends approval of the vacation requests subject to one condition requiring the recordation of the new easement prior to recordation of the vacation resolution.

This concludes my introduction.

Happy to answer any questions after the public hearing.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Caples.

Is uh the applicant or a representative of the applicant here?

If you want to step forward and uh state your name and you have 10 minutes.

Are you are you the applicant?

Okay.

Can you are okay?

We'll call you back after then.

Uh at this point, I will open the public hearing.

Uh this is a public hearing.

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

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

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

Seeing no one, I will uh close the public hearing and uh invite our applicant if uh do you have any final words for us?

Thank you.

Uh uh at this point, uh councilmember Palmer.

Yeah, I'm ready to make a motion.

Go ahead, sir.

Uh adopting a resolution of approving a vacation petition number C D 2024-008 VAC by Russell Clark with one condition for the vacation of public utility easement within lot 12 and lot 13, block two of the Golden Hill Industrial Subdivision.

Second.

Moved by Councilmember Palmer, seconded by Councilmember Keene.

Any more to add, Councilmember?

Well, I'll just say uh Mr.

Clark is in the audience back there, and he is a former um fireman for the city of Rochester and served us greatly.

And he's also um has worked for Clark Concrete and is a great wonderful person.

Great.

Thank you for sharing that.

Uh Councilmember Keene.

Yeah, and just uh you know to for thoroughness.

I did some checking with staff today on where the other east men would be, what uh impacts the neighboring properties and uh everything's been handled correctly, so I'm ready to support this.

All right, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say nay.

Motion passes.

Thank you, Mr.

Clark.

Thank you for your service, and thank you for coming tonight.

Uh next up we have item G2, which is a final plat by uh Creek View Meadows LLC to be known by Creek View Meadows Third.

And uh Mr.

Caples, you're here alone.

Where's your team?

Good evening again.

Uh aka Foscame Development.

Uh Council President, Mayor Norton, members of the council.

Um, the subject request before you is a subdivision of eight acres of land into 25 single family lots located 215 feet east of the intersection of 18th Street Southeast and 37th Avenue Southeast.

The subject property is the third phase of the Creek View Meadows development.

Overall, the approved GDP encompasses 66.7 acres, consisting of 139 single family lots and 46 attached single family lots, and approximately 17.8 acres of undeveloped preserved floodway, flood fringe, and wetland resource areas.

A total of 57 lots have been platted with the first two subdivisions.

The 25 lots proposed for this subdivision will be for single family detached units.

Proposed lots are generally 70 feet by 120 feet in size and 8400 square feet to 23,997 square feet in area.

The proposed subdivision will help assist in addressing the city's shortage of single family housing units.

The proposed low density subdivision development is consistent with both the PTOS comprehensive plan, low density residential land use designation, and the approved Creekview Meadows General Development Plan approved by City Council in 2020.

The development review team recommends approval with three conditions.

Have to answer any questions the council may have.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Caples.

Uh is a the applicant or representative of the applicant here.

Mr.

Tyton, if you would like to step forward and state your name and you have 10 minutes.

President Schubring, members of the Council, Mayor Norton, I'm Bill Twyton with WSE Engineering.

I'm here on behalf of Creek View Meadows ownership tonight to request approval of the final plat.

Uh staff is recommending approval of three conditions.

And I believe they're on page 259 of your packet.

Our client is in agreement with those three conditions, respectfully request your approval of the final plat.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And we'll call you back after the public hearing.

Uh this is a public hearing.

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

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

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

Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing.

Mr.

Toyton, any final words?

Any questions for staff or the applicant?

Uh council member Keene.

Mr.

Caples, I I noticed that the turned it off.

I noticed in the packet that the county has a uh condition, or I guess they have a request that a left turn lane be put on 20th Street Southeast.

Can you speak to that?

Yeah, the uh traffic impact study associated with Creek View Meadows was approved with condition by the county that they um put a left turn lane on the county right-of-way there.

Um there's a development agreement which outlines the um approval of the traffic study and the conditions associated with it.

Um implementation of that turn lane is um a cost for the responsibility of the developer.

Okay.

I I was surprised I didn't see it as a condition.

Yeah, because it is an existing in the development agreement.

City staff didn't find a need to put a condition on the plat itself.

Okay, and I just want to check when the when you say there's an agreement.

Who is the agreement between um the city and the developer?

The development agreement.

Okay, let me try slightly different.

If that doesn't end up happening, what are our recourses?

Well, the development I would look to help from public works on this one, but the development agreement spells out the conditions um associated with the development of the property.

If they aren't meeting the development agreement, there are certain provisions within the DAM which the city can enforce.

Okay, that's it.

Do you want us?

Yeah, good evening, Mayor, President, members of the council.

With any development agreement, we look to the traffic impact study and incorporate any of the conditions of that have been accepted as part of that study.

And in this case, the turn lanes being required by the county will would be included in that development agreement, which is a you know binding between the city and the developer, and um we would hold them to that as part of that.

Okay, that's that that's that makes feel better.

It's I'm just a little confused between it being a county road and a city agreement with the developer, and it doesn't appear the county's a party to it.

That's correct.

We have this many times when we have projects that include county and city streets and um the development agreement is is between the city and the developer.

So we work with the county team as we're reviewing traffic studies, and if there are pieces of the project that touched their um right of way that are incorporated into the um study, we make sure we identify that um within the development agreement so it's codified.

Thank you.

And can I ask the developers representative if that's your understanding?

Uh yes, Mr.

Toyton, can you come to back to the microphone?

Yeah, to answer your question as a part of the development agreement with the city.

The county has asked that that project be incorporated into our work through the city.

Plans have been completed and submitted to the county for the left term.

Good.

And we intend to build that just the way we designed it.

Very good.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Any other questions?

Is there a motion on this item?

I'll move to adopt a resolution, final plat number CD 2025 036 PLAT by Crickview Meadows LLC to be known as Creekview Meadows 3rd, with three conditions for the subdivision of eight acres into 26 residential lots.

Move by Councilmember Keene, seconded by Councilmember Palmer.

Councilmember Keene.

No, I'll just call out that the uh this is uh a lot of housing going in near um where it's uh protected land, and there's a lot of work going on to make sure we um don't end up with uh water trouble in these areas, and I'm glad to see that's going forward.

Uh councilmember Fredericks.

Did a very nice job on the first part of this development, and uh I'm excited to see this second part of it go in.

It uh very nice neighborhood.

Very uh I've just been really surprised how quick it filled up the first part of that division, and I'm excited to see the second.

Any further comments?

All in favor say aye.

Aye, aye.

All opposed say nay.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Uh, next up we have text amendment uh by the city of Rochester, Mr.

Capels.

Oh, he's gonna come to the microphone on this one.

Must be a big important issue.

You got to push the button on the on the microphone there to get your green.

There we go.

Yeah, I paid attention during the uh introduction to it.

Uh good evening, Ed Caples with Rochester Developments, and tonight I'll be bringing forward also the yearly unified development code update.

It's there.

Oh, okay, thank you.

Um, so what is a test amendment?

Simply put, uh a text amendment is an update to the unified development code approved by city council.

And I'll get into it a little bit more on the next slide, but the cadence associated with the UDC updates are yearly.

So this slide might look a little familiar, but essentially the the UDC itself and the yearly UDC updates is a culmination of a decade-long planning initiative going back to the comprehensive plan kickoff in in 2014.

Um moving forward to the adoption of the UDC in September of 2022.

Um, there's a promise by staff to first bring forward a six-month update, and then thereafter yearly updates.

So we did have the original six-month update, and now this is our second yearly update to the unified development code.

Similar to the other themes associated with previous UDC updates, um, really it's surrounding clarity within the document, consistency across requirements, as well as uh a handful of new topics for the city council to consider.

Going back to the um study session back earlier this summer, um, a lot of the slides and a lot of the criteria or a lot of the topics in front of you are similar to then, um, but there are just a handful of new tweaks that city staff has been considering or continuing to revise since that study session.

Um, but the first one there is consistency across the building code and the UDC.

Um, right now there is a discrepancy between the definition of grade in the building code and the UDC, um, an aligning between the two to bring it in or to bring it in alignment with the building.

Um, the second one there has been done in practice, um, but when you have a minimum parking requirement, there are um a number of EV charging stations required and really allowing those EV charging stations to meet the minimum parking requirements.

Um, once again, this has been done in practice but isn't codified within the UDC.

And then the the third one there, based on a study set study session in front of City Council earlier this summer um is update the downtown residential parking requirements and remove them for residential developments.

So these are the proposed new UDC concepts for the city council to consider.

Um you will note that there is not sandwich boards in front of the city council tonight.

Um, city teammates continue to revise and um work with public and private partners to really um bring forward a new proposal for something that works as a pilot program before we implement something within the UDC.

Um, but the first one there for cannabis spacing requirements.

If we can go to the next slide, thank you.

So at the top there is what's currently written within the UDC, um, a thousand feet from the nearest public school parcel, five hundred feet from the nearest public park parcel, which includes trails, and then 500 feet so a similar use regularly used by miners.

The second portion there, you can see what is state statute as well as the model ordinance, which may prohibit a thousand feet from a school, 500 feet from a daycare residential treatment facility or an attraction within a public park that is regularly used by miners, including a playground or athletic field.

The community development recommendation is to align the UDC with the state statute and align it with the model ordinance put out by the state.

Similar to the criteria on the previous page, but updating where cannabis and liquor sales are permitted within the city.

Currently, they are permitted based on the use in the following zoning districts.

But city staff recommend to remove those from the R2X, the R3, and the R4.

So essentially removing them within residential zoning districts.

The next one here has been based on feedback that we've gotten from the development community.

A variety of different projects are required to hold a neighborhood informational meeting, which is essentially an informal meeting put on by the developer to outline what the project is that they're bringing forward.

Once that meeting is held, the applicant has 30 days to submit to community development for you know whatever their proposal may be.

The feedback that we've gotten is just 30 calendar days, is too quick of a turnaround from engineering architectural drawings and whatnot.

So the proposal from Q development would be to increase that to 60 days to give the consultants the applicants and the development community as a whole more time to put their a more thoughtful proposal together.

Next one is as relates to maximum permitted height within the MXS zoning district.

Think of MXS as a light TOD or a baby TOD.

Really, it's uh a zoning district to promote commercial uses as well as a variety of different um transportation options and to increase the permitted height from 36 to 56 feet to support more intense developments really in these targeted corridors.

This is the final one before the council, and this one is a new one based on or from the previous study session, and it's related to freestanding commercial wireless telecommunication towers.

So currently in the UDC, they're only permitted in commercial, agricultural and industrial zoning districts and not permitted in residential zoning districts.

Um recommendation is to increase the permitted height in non-residential zoning districts to 75 feet, as well as permit 65 feet via a conditional use permit approved by the planning commission up to 65 feet.

The applicant does have to demonstrate that functional coverage cannot be provided through other means.

Um the UDC is really heavy on or promotes co-location on existing antennas as well as concealment on existing structures.

Um and really the appear has to show that they cannot provide functional coverage through the other means before you can create a new freestanding CWTS.

Additionally, subject to city council approval, an additional 50 feet would be permitted.

Once again, the previous options, they aren't able to provide functional coverage based on the current text or based on their you know the current existing conditions.

And just a little note there from the APA 2022 equity and zoning policy guide, which speaks to essentially limiting telecommunication towers, um, perpetuates the digital divide and can limit the ability of disadvantaged neighborhoods to access economic opportunities and prevent older adults from assessing needed services.

That does conclude my presentation.

I'm happy to answer any questions after the public hearing.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Caples.

Uh this is a public hearing.

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

This is a public hearing.

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

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

Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing and invite Mr.

Capels uh to return to the podium.

And any closing that.

Words.

Okay.

Uh invite my colleagues to for questions.

Councilmember Keene.

Uh, yeah, on the um change of uh liquor licenses in R2, R3, R4.

Are there any existing businesses that would be impacted by this?

No, there is not.

So if you think back, really it's a it's a result of the change from the LDM to the UDC.

Um the LDM is essentially did not permit them in in residential zoning districts, um, but we kind of tweaked a little bit the classification of res or of classification of um smaller commercial uses to be permitted in R2X, R3, and R4, which explicitly did not allow liquor license in those under the LDM, and essentially that just was not carried over.

Okay, good.

Um on that MXS uh update.

I just want to I understand you know the baby T uh TOD.

Yeah, can you give an example of where one would be?

Yeah, so if you think back to when the um city council had the citywide zoning map update, um there are portions there where we effectively down zone from TOD to MXS, so think of north of the rec center, yeah.

Up its way up to the the former SHOPCO site, south of 16th Street.

Exactly.

Yes, that's MXS.

Okay, all right.

And again, uh the have you had there examples of that 36 feet going to 56 feet where it's uh where someone could see and say, yeah, that's what it looks like.

Other I mean it it just seems like a dramatic increase.

Sure, yeah, and I would I would note that the current TOD um permits Yeah 62.

Yeah, yeah, exactly.

Um so really it's it's more or less a transition from the TOD down to MXS along you know the targeted corridor of the um transit line and Broadway and 16th Street.

And last question or more of a comment and see if I can get a reaction here.

Um it seems like this there's gonna be another thing now that we're giving authority to the planning and zoning to make decisions as opposed to make recommendations.

I'm I'm trying to get comfortable with that.

Uh can you talk about the logic and community development that says that should be there versus that should be at the council?

Sure.

I would say generally speaking, the planning commission is a recommending body.

Um there are a handful of applications which would with which they're the approving body, I think of major modifications, for example, and a handful of conditional use permits.

Um but I would note you know you're referring there to the freestanding CWTS.

Um in the non-residential zoning districts, the planning commission is the approval body for those applications right now.

Um so essentially the the recommendation there is to continue that forward for the um residential zoning districts, but if they're requesting additional height, bringing it forward to the city council.

Yeah, I I'm trying to get comfortable with and when they're the deciding body, is there an escalation to the council or is there correct?

Yes, the applicants or um whomever may appeal the decision made by the planning commission to the city council.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Councilmember Palmer.

Going off what Mr.

Keene's question.

The applicant can go to the city council.

Can the neighborhood go to the city council?

For an appeal?

Yes.

Correct, yes.

Okay, just to be clear on that.

And then on the telecommunications, this is is we didn't have this during our study session.

Is there a need for this that that we have overlapping areas or not have areas that's not covered by cell service?

Yeah, what we've heard from the Bellman community or um from the wireless community effectively is that there are areas in the city of Rochester where they're unable to provide functional coverage based on the standards of the UDC.

I'm uncomfortable with it being in the residential area, and and I know when cell towers first came up at Bailey Heights, they I think sued the city over it.

Um it's it's a different thing when it's in a neighborhood, and so this is new to us, and I don't know why this wasn't brought up with the study session.

Sure, yeah, truthfully, those conversations just didn't take place before or before the study session.

Um I would just note that um the UDC does require them to explore other options or the proposal before you would require them to explore other options, whether that be co-location or um stealth on existing structures.

Um but we see a need or community is a need to provide, you know, in in circumstances where they're not able to provide functional coverage and ability to provide that coverage.

Well, I'm just trying to go off the by memory, but uh like all the high schools have towers on on them, and they're all in residential areas.

I don't know of a residential area that doesn't have cell service.

That's where I'm um I'm questioning.

Sure, yeah.

The the one instance that comes to mind is um kind of off a 20th Street and Marion Road.

Um it's an area where they struggle to provide functional service.

Um, but I think of you know, generally speaking, there's a water tower or an existing antenna where they can co-locate on.

Um in that area, there just isn't functional coverage for to be provided.

Um really what the you or what the proposed update there would be to um to provide an opportunity for them to provide cell coverage in that area.

But they can do that in an industrial or commercial, and that's all Marion Roads, almost all commercial and res industrial, isn't it?

Um I would say there are portions of it where um that are industrial or whatnot, but then you know topography and geography and things of that nature make it difficult to provide I'm gonna keep using the word functional coverage, but um a difficulty to provide cell service in that targeted area.

Well, the city has a parcel that the RPU used to have that's available for sale.

Um put it there.

I'm not entirely familiar with that specific parcel.

Um, but you know, in working with um with the cell providers and and the feedback that we've received, they would have to show that they're unable to provide um on other parcels before they're able to move forward with a new freestanding.

And that would be a staff decision, correct?

You can make that decision.

It doesn't come to city council.

It would go before the planning commission, but if they're a requesting additional height, um that would be before the city council.

Thank you very much.

Yeah, council member Keene.

I just had two clarifications or points I want to make just on the on uh councilmember Palmer's questioning.

Uh it is correct that anybody can appeal a decision back to the council, but I believe it's about a $1,500 fee.

Um, and I've had examples where the where the neighbors couldn't come up and get the thing escalated.

So that's why I worry about when it's on uh an appointed body making decisions that are permanent.

So that that's why I brought up my concern.

Uh the other one, just on the cell tower things.

I again I'm I'm not all up on this, but I believe the industry's changing and the old water tower model isn't where we're going anymore, and it's more of the the telephone poles and it's smaller.

It's you it's and that's where you get into the need to maybe be in residential, where it's not the broadcasting, it's more of the G5 is locally and and very busy.

If you want to add or you just clarify.

Um I I would say well, first off, I'm not an expert in in communications hours, but um the feedback that I've received is that there was an understanding that it was gonna go that way of putting on light poles or whatnot.

Um, but really the there just hasn't been that industrial shift that okay that may have been forecast, and really it's it's more or less um you know, monopoles or whatnot.

Thanks.

Yeah, uh Mr.

Yetzer, go ahead.

Thanks, Council President.

I just wanted to comment on the on the question about the planning commission making decisions and just remind the group that this was discussed at length during the UDC, the first go round, uh, where we handed more decision making authority to the planning commission than was previously allowed under the old zoning ordinance.

And I that that um equity and zoning guide that uh had on the screen.

I just want to note that Don Elliott strongly recommends putting more decisions at the planning commission level, and that that does result in more equitable and consistent decisions than at the city council level, where they tend to turn into more political decisions.

And that may not we may not all agree with that, but that I'm just making the point that that was the discussion at the time, and that's why you see the trend being to put some decisions in the hands of the um of the planning commission with allowance of a of an appeal to the city council or et cetera.

So just to add that context.

You know, it's interesting, uh Mr.

Yetzer.

I used to serve on the planning and zoning commission, and I agreed with that then.

I don't know if I do now.

Councilmember Miller.

Well, building on that point, um, one thing that is not in here beyond the the parking minimum reduction in the downtown zones is uh I'd made a comment about the travel demand management program to date being used to increase parking with planning and zoning approval for two drive-throughs.

Still don't love that.

I would uh love some feedback from my colleagues about how that program.

I'm glad that it's now in the uh developer parking assistance program is a uh point of uh working with developers to better plan travel and parking needs.

But I I'm still a little from a policy perspective perplexed by how it's been applied and its history in the UDC.

So I'll just make that point, and if there's any feedback, welcome it.

Any further discussion on this item?

I I'd be prepared to make a motion.

Uh go ahead, council member.

Two-part motion.

Number one, approving the text amendment number C D 2025 001 TA to amend language in various areas of the unified development code, and number two, direct directing our city attorney to prepare an ordinance for first reading.

Uh moved by council member Keene.

Second uh seconded by councilmember Palmer.

Councilmember Keene, any more to add?

Uh yeah, again, I there are some uh things here.

I think this was good that we do this review and that we try to keep uh you know, we learn through the year and then make those updates on things that we think are changing.

I I uh I I'd like to see it stay stable stable more than that.

Uh on these different points we're talking about with uh uh the appointed versus, and I really do understand the goal of you know the the thought is that the elected uh officials are more uh touched by the political narratives going on.

But in that case, you want to make sure that your planning and zoning reflects um the uh the kind of the value systems of the council and not a s a different group, and that that's a whole different thing to work through.

Councilmember Palmer.

Yes, I'll make an amendment, and I believe I have one um for on the screen so people can read it.

Um give you a chance here to read this.

The only thing I'm gonna add to this at the end of residential treatment facility is I'm gonna add roaming rooming house um on the end of it, and that's uh like a Ronald McDonald house.

And so this is the motion that I'd like to make um right now to um amend the um original motion.

So I gonna motion uh to amend by council member Palmer, seconded by council member uh wall.

Councilmember Palmer.

Yes, and and um just a couple things on this is is it that makes it clearer on the parks, it doesn't say about children playing or whatever.

And the other side of this is is that it should be for for all school parcels, not just public.

And then I added the rooming roaming rooming house only because of the Ronald McDonald House, and and uh right now there is no liquor stores by there, and so it would be a nice place not to have that.

Uh I have a question on that uh for staff or for councilmember Palmer.

So uh well, I don't see rooming house in this text here.

Are you you're just adding that now?

I just added that.

And it should it should it should read medical rooming house.

Okay.

So my question is uh and this is for cannabis and liquor, correct?

Correct.

So my my question is uh so I know that uh that there are cannabis uh operators who have been certified.

There are some that have been uh through the county's lottery system and have been granted a uh license to and what happens then to those that may have a location at this point.

Are they grandfathered in or are we putting ourselves in a position where uh those that have gotten to this point and we're saying no to them?

Does that put us at risk?

Mr.

Carlson, do you want to take that?

Good evening, Council Brent Carlson, deputy city attorney.

I would say that current existing facilities wouldn't be at risk, but what I would I would caution the council against this amendment.

Um I would just note that I think uh with all due respect that calls council member Palmer's request is inconsistent with what the state statute says.

Um if you want me to go through it, I certainly can.

And I I think city staff, I think we're um we agree to take out um the word public in regards to schools because um public isn't actually in the statute.

Um so I I think we're okay with that.

Um, however, um what city staff is recommending um talks about um an attraction within a public park regularly used by minors, including a playground or ball field.

So essentially what the state statute says is the 500 foot distance is calculated from an attraction at the park.

So that could be a ball field, that could be a playground, that might be a swimming pool, whatever um you could think of as being an attraction.

Okay.

This amendment says the nearest public park parcel, which to me would be defined as you you take whatever the public park parcel is and then you measure out 500 feet.

So if an attraction is on one side of the parcel, um essentially what we're what we're getting back to is close to what we have now.

And I'll leave it at that.

Uh I'm gonna go to Councilmember Keene and then back to you.

Councilmember Keene.

Um, yeah, I I have a little pre-warning of this amendment coming up, and I've been trying to understand it, and I've been trying to understand the state guidelines and what we had before.

And and I do have some concerns with this, and I'll just go through a couple of them.

One is that it is interesting that while we're trying to do the cannabis stuff, we're also restricting liquor more than it has been, um, as if we're running into problems with that, and and I'm not aware of those problems.

Um, and I think we're also restricting the cannabis thing within law, we're not doing anything against what's state allowed, but we're clearly siding of saying like we don't want this here.

Um and but the more most bothersome thing is this idea of adding some confusion to what parks are and parks and trails because the the I mean this is a probably a problem with the way the state law was written, but it talks about parks, but in Rochester, parks are also trails, and all of a sudden we have this trail system that nothing can be by, and I think the staff correctly tried to stay away from those sort of problems.

Um as far as the school stuff, this one again, it it bothers me when we start talking about public schools.

I I sounds like we get the legal recommendation that maybe that's okay, but um when you start talking about schools now, are we gonna say, oh, there's a school of something else, there's somebody that teaches lessons over there.

I just don't want to get caught up in this political fight that's going on in the state that says this.

I know these are the law of the land, but they're not good laws, and I'm afraid we're going to start siding with one of the other.

And I'd rather take the state direction and just follow as best we can what we've done for liquor restrictions in our zoning and let the other sort of health departments and other things take care of their own stuff.

So based on that, I wouldn't be supporting this amendment.

Councilmember Palmer.

Well, first of all, I I don't think that um all schools are lesser than the public schools, and so I think they need the same protection of the schools.

And second of all, parks aren't just the attractions, parks are um quarry hills a huge park, but but it but people go there for different reasons, they don't go there just to play in the dinosaur park.

And I think that that you know, if we don't have anything in the liquor license right now that uh that would affect any of our our our liquor uh establishments, I'm not particularly sure that there's a problem with them.

Um and I think you're trying to insinuate that um I'm against the the the state law and I'm not against the state law.

Um we're here to to enforce the state law and and I agree with it, but I don't think you know taking out the public in the schools, and I don't think um having it near our uh parks um is is a bad thing.

Councilmember Wall.

Thank you.

I I will support I will support this.

Uh I don't necessarily believe that the state has served us well uh over the past couple of years.

That uh they're continually modifying what they uh believe is uh good and true.

Uh and uh we have sought direction from them any number of ways, especially for the League of Minnesota cities, and uh it's really been a disaster from the state uh point of view.

I think that perhaps adding some local uh responsibility, as Mr.

Palmer is suggesting, uh, is good.

Uh are we not having problems uh with liquor or cannabis?

I would say that we probably are that uh a great many of our uh difficulties on the road uh come from DWIs.

A study uh a study published on October 3rd of 2025, uh just a couple of weeks ago, the American College of Surgeons found that nearly 42 percent of fatally fatally injured drivers in Ohio's Montgomery County between 2019 and 2024 tested positive for active THC, the main psychoactive component of cannabis.

I think uh all the uh protections that we can offer to uh our uh youth and citizens are worth consideration.

Co Councilmember Miller?

Sure.

Uh I think this is an interesting discussion, but I'm not inclined to support it tonight because I I don't feel like we have a firm impact of how many parcels would be affected, what the current allowance would be versus what this would do.

And to Councilmember Wall's point.

I feel like from the last maps that I've seen, uh the policy has been it feels like we're pushing the parcels that are allowed farther and farther from the city center, which means that people will be driving should they choose to access a dispensary, and I feel like that's perpetuating a problem that he's identifying of people being forced to drive under the influence or choosing to drive under the influence.

And that's not a policy direction I would support.

So I I'm not inclined to support this tonight.

Um again, I appreciate the discussion, and I think clarifying public versus school is is important, but beyond that, I I would not support this amendment.

Councilmember Fredericks.

Thank you.

Um I will support this amendment.

I I think to I think we have to explain enough to our vulnerable and our youth and people that don't want to be exposed constantly to cannabis, alcohol, different things.

There's enough of it out there.

If we if we restrict the places that these things can be a little bit more than maybe the average said business, I don't see the harm in that.

I haven't seen a ton of good come from alcohol use and drug use.

Uh I've seen it a lot in my family and different things, and uh, you know, I just don't I just think it's okay for these things to be a little more restricted than other things.

So I'm I'm in support of uh Palmer's amendment.

I I I've got one more question.

So uh councilmember Carlson, I mean uh uh city attorney Carlson, you didn't address the rooming house.

And I I'm I'm wondering about is there a definition of a rooming house and do we do we have a maps that show us where those are?

I'm I have concerns similar to councilmember Miller in that we don't really know the scope of where this is, and uh I think it kind of sets us up for more complications going forward.

Good question, uh Council President Shubring.

I'm gonna defer to uh community development director uh Woodward on this one.

Go ahead and Council President.

Uh we do not have a definition for a medical rooming uh facility in our um so that would be a bit challenging for us to one, it's not defined within our UDC.

I think um so that is one item that would need to be defined, so it would be difficult to track or to actually enforce the ordinance.

Thank you.

I I'm also inclined not to support this amendment for those reasons as well as I I think this council, the previous council deferred a lot of its responsibility to the county, and I feel like we're kind of coming in at late in the game and kind of changing the the rules later, and uh a lot of this I think we should have uh dealt with earlier.

Council member uh Palmer Well, I mean, what we we did not give up our zoning requirements to this to the county, did we?

Yeah, uh are you posing that question to Ms.

No, the zoning requirements are still with the city.

Yeah, so we didn't give those away.

And and Mr.

Carlson it it said that uh there was no problem with with with dropping the public school parcel.

Um, you know, the the idea about parks, I mean uh my contention on this is about children and and in keeping you know those facilities away from the children in in I'm sorry, but if you if you are running on a trail in and there's there's liquor sitting all the way around it, um you know, empty bottles and everything, that just isn't what we want for our our community.

So um again, you know, I think this is a reasonable separation requirements, and this is something that the city can do.

Councilmember Fredericks.

Yes, uh sometimes better late than never, I guess is one thing I would say.

And I'll just want to share this.

Uh you know, it's not part of this, but I visited some some friends and people that I care for at a rehab facility.

And right out the front door of the rehab facility was a liquor store, and all the guys had to sit in the foyer and stare at that liquor sign all the time.

And uh they're trying to kick it.

And I just think having having things in the proper place, you know, we see it often for other types of businesses, other businesses in general, where they get bucked hardcore that they can't build in a certain area just because simply people don't want it there.

And you know, I I just don't think there's anything wrong with adding an extra layer of protection for a lot of our different community members.

Councilmember Doring.

I'm inclined not to um vote in favor of this amendment.

I think uh there is not a lot of clarity around the amendment uh as some of my colleagues have shared before.

And I also uh disagree with the argument uh that uh just because a liquor store is located near a trail, there'll be bottles uh appearing on the trail as a frequent user, uh well in the past, um not in the past six months of Rochester Public Trails.

Uh I have come across liquor bottles where there's no liquor store anywhere near them.

So uh that's a um that's a moot point for me in this argument.

So I would be inclined not to support this amendment until we can more clearly uh define what we are actually talking about.

Uh seeing uh no other uh uh members to be uh heard on uh we're voting on the Palmer uh amendment.

Uh clerk case so please call the roll.

Councilmember Keene.

Nay.

Councilmember Miller, nay.

Councilmember Wall.

Aye.

Councilmember Fredericks.

Aye, Councilmember Palmer.

Aye.

Councilmember Doring.

Nay.

Council President Schuberg.

Nay.

Motion fails four to three.

Uh, we are back to we are back to the original amendment.

Uh Councilmember Fredericks.

Are you making a and go ahead?

Please, thank you, President Schubring.

I'd just like to remove the uh remove the word public at a minimum, then please.

Public in front of school making a motion.

Yes.

I'll second that motion.

Uh a motion has been made to remove public from schools and and uh it by council member Fredericks and seconded by Councilmember uh Palmer.

Can you uh bring up that uh how the language is now on the screen?

Is that I know it wasn't one of your slides, but this is what we have at the moment.

If you just give us a minute.

Okay, uh Councilmember Fredericks, speak to your motion.

Thank you.

Uh I do believe the state says school, doesn't say public in front of it, correct?

So we'd just be matching the state.

Yes, I can confirm that the statute does not include the word public.

Perfect.

Any further discussion?

Uh council member Miller.

A question for staff, either city attorney or uh community development to council member Keene's question of is school well defined within the UDC so that that removal of public does not cause a confusion of I am hosting a school in my house.

Kind of are we talking about some sort of registration that defines that or uh school is defined.

Um that's a pretty uh clear definition within the UDC.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Uh that it's on page 293 of the packet, if you're looking for the language as written in the UDC.

And there it is, magically.

Thank you.

Clerk Caseel.

Any further discussion on the removal of where is okay?

I'm not seeing where it is.

Oh, okay.

It's on 22 and 23, correct?

Yep.

There we go.

Okay.

Um seeing no further discussion, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, say nay.

Motion passes.

Uh we're back to the original motion with uh the elimination of public.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say nay.

Motion passes.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for the the great discussion.

Moving on to our uh reports and recommendations.

Uh we'll start with H1, which is a home ownership creation program.

Uh London Brook Ponds recommendation, and we have uh Teryn Eidens who will present this.

Good evening, members of the council, council president, mayor, Tieron Edens with the community development department.

I'm here to bring forward a proposal or request for contribution to the development known as uh London Brook Ponds.

Uh so I'd like to remind you this program is this is being uh recommended through the program that you approve called the homeownership creation program.

Uh since you have recently updated your vision principles, principles and priorities.

I like to show alignment with that in particular.

Uh, this would contribute towards the priority of providing housing access to our community.

Well, as you know, our housing needs assessment was updated, um, and we're still reviewing what those top five priorities are.

Uh but uh it's still rest assured those priorities are still included and listed in the uh report in different ways.

So, particularly the proposal before you uh meets I would make the case for both uh new homeownership opportunities and has the opportunity to provide homeownership options for our households of color.

I think you know we have different barriers as it relates to uh creating or adding to the supply of for sale housing specifically in our community.

We know housing is a continuum and there's many needs, but I'm talking about this one specifically as this program supports that.

Uh we have a large demand that's anticipated for the next 10 years.

Almost 7,000 for sale homes are needed, uh, largely due to our growing population that we anticipate.

Um the the Olmsted County market area has averaging been averaging about 425 single family family homes.

Um, and once upon a time, many of you know this.

We used to more than double that.

So we know that there's a need to contribute towards supply specifically, um, and we know that the cost of construction has gone up more than 50 percent.

So just want to remind you of different barriers and why we've done some why we make recommendations to consider uh supporting more than we typically would um housing creation.

Single family home permits also we're still seeing uh a lighter, I guess, contribution to that on an annual basis.

So uh the last five years we've averaged between 130 and 230 single family permits.

Um I'll talk to you a bit about what we're hearing for applying for this program.

But the point is there's still a need to incentivize the creation of for sale housing.

Um if you'll indulge me with this, just wanted to share a recent example.

Um that was uh presented to me uh at the housing bus tour.

This is annually put on by different community advocates by Southeast Minnesota together.

What you're looking at is actually a model that was created by the University of Minnesota Extension, specifically for a different community otter tail.

So just want to be clear.

This is just an example.

But the point they're trying to make there is talking about different uh housing types and how much economic gain those households provided to the community.

So if you're looking at a single family home, we're assuming a household income of about 150,000 in this community could afford a home of about 350,000.

Uh the construction impact economically just from building that unit in that case was about 520,000.

So that's all the cost, all of the um uh a kind of economic gain just from construction workers being there.

Um, and then once that household occupies the unit in about a year, they contributed about 95,000 to the community, um, and that's not including any labor gains from them getting jobs in the community.

So it's just an interesting example to show when we make a contribution of say $20,000 in a unit just by economic gain that comes back into our community pretty quickly.

Homeownership creation program, I'll talk about how to qualify that, but just a little context.

This program was launched in 2022.

It supported over 450 housing units to date.

Notice I said supported.

I didn't say they've all been built yet, but they've been financially supported.

We have an additional 270 that are under review currently.

And we've allocated about 8.5 million dollars.

Often what you'll find is these developments are leveraging many other funding opportunities, whether it be private, their own equity.

One of them, for example, and this one before you this evening is also leveraging a no interest loan from the no interest construction loan from the coalition of Rochester Area Housing.

All of these different funding mechanisms, we're getting some sort of trade-off, usually in seeing the value of the home go down by the contribution or down payment to the household.

So two that the council have has approved so far include the Westbury subdivision and Prairie Ridge, both providing more than 200 for sale homes in the next uh two to three years.

What is the homeownership creation program?

So, as a reminder, um I'll talk about uh how this is funded in just a moment, but essentially there are two ways to qualify for this.

The intent is to support the creation of four-sale housing.

Um, if you're providing a uh an ask for supporting a large development of more than 50 homes, uh then we will provide an upfront subsidy because we want to incentivize um high volume developments essentially, and the trade-off we're asking for there is that a portion of those units be priced at a cost that is affordable to households, making us a certain wage.

In this case, it's got to be at 115% of the area median income, just so just a little bit over, and that's based on a lot of existing programs that the state offers and in collaboration with our other partners.

So that also gives us the opportunity to recognize wages from year to year, frankly, gives us some flexibility, and that was feedback we got.

So this year it went up and it's 452,800 is that max ceiling price that homes would have to be to kind of be considered uh our affordable units.

Um if you're providing uh a large scale development, we are willing to provide an upfront subsidy and asking for that trade-off of a portion of the units to be priced at a certain amount.

Uh, just as well, if you're if you are proposing less than 50 units, you can then qualify through a reimbursement uh program, which are approved at a staff level, and in that case, every home has to qualify under that sale price, and they're just being reimbursed, right?

So, in that case, they're showing us actual fees they paid to the city.

There's some rules around that, usually has to be in the last couple of years.

Um, and that generally uh gets uh used as a contribution towards a down payment for the household.

So they're being used a little bit differently.

So in this case, we're talking about the first one, an upfront subsidy for a subdivision of 50 units, and I'll talk about that in just a moment.

How are we funding this?

Um, you heard our economic vitality presentation a little bit when you had the sales tax update in September at your study session.

So that is how this is funded through that sales tax bucket.

We're anticipating getting uh collecting up to 50 million dollars in the next 15 or so years, right?

Um, and there were some questions at the study session, I think, with the goal of making sure we're not overspending or overcommitting ourselves in this respect.

So I'll talk about that, but just wanted to give you a reminder of the different buckets and how that funding is being used.

Okay, so specifically for the home ownership creation fund, you can see we allocated about 14 million.

We've if if we if tonight's proposal is approved, we've committed about half of that.

So just so you are aware, we are considering that, and we do anticipate a lot of this funding going towards housing creation specifically.

All right, so the proposal before you is London Brook Subdivision.

It's 54 sale homes.

It is located south of eight and a half street southeast in the homestead acres subdivision in Southeast Rochester.

So is it existing plot of land that is surrounded by development?

Um, all of the homes are going to be priced at or below $350,000.

Uh that's because it's also getting a no-interest loan with the coalition, so they have to agree to that amount.

Um, as you may have seen in the RCA, the developer is also getting leveraging other funding from the state, and therefore uh the households are all going to be income qualifying as well.

Um, so we're we're seeing this as um offering quite a substantial subsidy, not just from the city, but other folks to get the price down to that.

All the homes, as you can see, are attached uh dwellings that are triplexes and twin homes.

Um, and the amount of subsidy requested before you is a million dollars, which is exactly about $20,000 per unit.

Um what is the trade-off?

What are we getting for this?

So we've reviewed their performance, and what we'll see is we're seeing the price be lessened by our contributions and others.

They do agree to a master affordable agreement that was in your packet, and our trade-off there is a couple of things, and we sort of consider that with each development and talk it through with the developer.

And in this case, we're restricting the resale uh of the price for five years, and we're restricting the ability to rent the home for 10 years.

So in this case, the agency is called build wealth, and that is essentially their goal, right?

For households to build wealth, thus leading to some of those uh, I guess, specific points.

Uh council member Miller.

Yep.

Quick question about the last slide.

Uh so I see a lot of criteria, but I don't see what size are these units proposed to be in square footage.

That's a good question that I should know off the top of my head.

And I guess here's my question.

So I in the Maxfield study, there's talk about declining family size.

These are three and four bedrooms.

Can you talk about the sort of what we're incentivizing here and who and how this project relates to the needs identified there in light of declining household size on average?

Yeah, thanks for asking that question.

These are in ideally smaller products in nature since they're attached to three or four bedrooms.

We're getting 50 units in this amount of land.

Uh so they're not necessarily designed for the larger families, but they're also not small, I think would be the case.

My understanding and talking to the builder is a lot of this is intended to be potential first-time homeowner opportunities.

Uh, we're not providing contribution towards this, but there's also an 11-unit apartment building, um, and that will also be income or rent restricted, I should say, and that's an opportunity as the builder sees it for folks to move up.

Um, so in my opinion, we're addressing the needs of the report for providing more uh a smaller dense option, which there is a demand for multi-family for sale products as well.

So we're adding diversity in that way, perhaps not through larger homes, but in different ways.

Okay, so these would be smaller homes, approximately 2,000 square feet.

They're less than 2,000 square feet, but we can make sure we get to that information, and I'm willing to bet Brent will have it when he comes up as well.

Just pointing out if one of the two could look there, our floor plans starting on page 324 of your packet.

Okay.

Uh Councilmember Keene.

Uh yeah, I just a slight confusion on my part.

The million dollars I thought came from 50 units times 20,000 per, and then you keep saying approximately 20,000.

I don't know why that would be approximate.

Isn't that what we the limit of what we give?

Yes, it is the limit of what we get.

Um, the reason I say that not in this case, but in other cases, we're saying the total we're gonna give you is uh is up to 20,000 per unit, but in some cases they might want to stack it so that perhaps 40 units get 60,000 and the rest don't get anything.

That's not what's happening in this case.

They're showing all 20,000, all 350,000 or less.

Okay, and there are like business controls that they get that after they've it's it's not like upfront money.

Let's let me make that clarification.

So thanks for asking that question.

So next I was gonna show you the council action requested, but let me first clarify something.

So the ask before you this evening is to contribute one million dollars uh from our economic vitality sales tax funding.

This would be an upfront subsidy.

Um, and what we're asking for as the trade-off is seeing the home value being reduced by as much as our contribution.

The agreement spells out payment milestones and things they have to achieve, and there are certain clawback requirements that they don't meet our requirements and have to pay back funds later this evening.

You will get you getting a separate action uh for tax increment financing assistance, which happens to be the same exact amount of a million dollars, and that is different, um, and that is not paid to the household until the home is sold.

That goes directly to the household.

Um, but what might be confusing is we do upfront that using sales tax funding, but it will get paid back essentially through collect as we would collect the tax increment.

So that's different, and in that case, households do have to income qualify to get that benefit.

Okay.

So they are totally different.

You can approve one and not the other tonight, they're not interdependent, um, and they have different rules around them.

Does that make sense?

It does.

I let me ask it slightly different.

Do you feel like we have the right business controls in place uh that we're not giving out money that we can't claw back if if our if our requirements aren't met?

Yes, we have a lot of language spelled out of what those repayment requirements are if they don't meet our conditions or are not built.

So, yes, I would think um the vetting we've done shows that we have good clawback requirements.

Okay, thank you.

Councilmember Palmer.

If I remember correctly on this project, there's a daycare also going on that we're not participating in.

Correct.

Which is kind of unique for that whole area.

Correct.

And then also in that area, we have the homes too.

We have our first home houses.

We've got um two of those done.

We have two being built for the first homes program.

Is that that is also correct?

And they're a good partner of ours, aren't they?

That's correct.

Okay.

I have a question.

Uh kind going back to the tally of our economic vitality fund.

So this is a million.

You mentioned eight million.

Is that our annual what we're talking to me about how we're getting to where our limit is, yes.

Yeah, thanks for asking that question.

That's what's been committed, not necessarily paid.

We committed around a little over four million for both the Westbury as well as the Prairie Ridge subdivision.

We've also we also anticipate some funding from the reimbursement that haven't been built yet.

So none of that has been paid.

So we are tracking that in considering how much we're collecting, and when we anticipate that funding returning as we make these decisions.

That makes sense.

Got it.

Yep.

Thank you.

Other questions?

Were you done with your presentation?

Uh oh, uh Ms.

Woodward.

Go ahead.

I just wanted to note that the units are about 1,500 square feet.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That concludes my presentation.

I thought so.

I thought we got a sneak peek of that QA page.

Uh other questions, council members.

Is there a motion on this?

I'll move to adopt a resolution approving the contribution of $1 million to the London Brook Ponds development to support the creation of 50 for sale homes via the homeownership creation program.

Second.

Move by Councilmember Keene, seconded by Councilmember Dorring.

Councilmember Keene.

Uh no.

Good discussion, and I appreciate the kind of the cadence of the way these have been coming forward lately.

Thank you.

Councilmember Palmer.

I just want to point out that it is this sales tax extension money that we're using for this, and that's a great thing.

Yeah, thank you.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed say nay.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Ms.

Terrence.

And next up we have our secondary firm natural gas supply agreement for West Side and Energy Station.

Mr.

McCullough.

Thank you.

I am not Mr.

Bill Bullock.

He's not here this evening.

I'm taking Bill's place tonight.

Good evening, Council President, Mayor, Council members.

Here before you tonight is an action to uh agree with the RPU board for authorizing a 10-year contract amendment to our gas contract that supplies to the Westside Energy Station.

Just have a couple brief slides to frame what this decision is, what it is actually in front of you.

About three years ago, the MISO market changed its rules, and now we have to accredit our unit on a seasonal basis.

So the ability to run in the winter months became increasingly important for the Westside Energy Station.

It currently is supplied with what's called uh interruptible gas.

So we bid in on a daily basis for volumes for tomorrow.

That is sometimes not available, and we have not procured firm supply, either firm gas or secondary firm gas.

These are higher tiers of service.

It's the type of gas service that we have at the Silver Lake plant that supports steam operations as firm gas.

So before you is an amendment to our West Side uh contract that would move us to the secondary firm tier that makes gas more available during times of shortage, tip shortage, typically winter months.

It doesn't commit us to any specific volumes of gas, it just makes gas more available to us at the times of most critical need.

And to tell you kind of a unique real situation that happened, if you rewind to just about uh a year and a half ago, January of uh year and three quarters ago, almost two years ago, January 15th.

Uh, this was a cold snap here in Rochester.

Um, and for about a five-day period, right over the Martin Luther King holiday, um, there's a cold snap and the gas company called what's called an SOL.

Um, it is what you would think, but it doesn't mean the same words there.

Um, it means that gas is in short supply and only given to those who have firm gas service.

So we had to take an outage on our West Side station.

It did not run during those times.

Um, it's important for us to run during critical time so we can maintain our accreditation.

We've actually lost some accredited value of the West Side generating station by not having gas available in this previous season.

So now that we're two years into this uh seasonal construct, we believe it's time to move into the next tier of gas supply to maintain the value of this plant as it was originally built to be accredited for capacity for peak times as a peaking plant.

Um, and it's also important.

This is a curve that overlays both those outages and wind output during that time.

There are times during cold snaps that wind is very available.

There are also times during cold snaps that wind is not.

That's why these units like West Side Energy Station are important to maintain availability, and this secondary firm supply contract would help us do that.

It has an incremental cost, if you've seen from the attachment, it's uh less roughly less than a dollar, depending on the season adder to what we would normally purchase for gas.

So it really is cost neutral to the utility on the cost of gas because we recover the cost of running from the market.

It will have the net effect of actually running a little bit fewer hours overall.

So the net effect will be less gas usage because the higher dispatch cost of the unit will mean it gets called into the market less hours, but those hours that it is called into the market will be the critical hours that means that we maintain accreditation.

So unless there's further questions, I would uh turn it back to you all.

Um this has already been in front of the RPU board as a recommendation that's brought before you since this is a multi-year long-term contract that it seeds the RPU board's authority to let contracts and so with this 10-year amendment to the gas contract.

Um I'll pause and take any questions.

Any questions?

Councilmember Keene.

Yeah, I'll get just through my participation in the RPU board.

I just want to give a feel here that this these can be complex things to try to get your head around with the way the markets are made, um, and even this idea of primary versus secondary.

But I mean, I've come to the conclusion that this is a form of hedging and a form of protecting us in these special situations, and the cost is minimal.

And I and I've supported it at the RPU board, and I plan to support it here tonight.

Is there a motion?

Uh Councilmember Miller.

Just a question.

Uh from a greenhouse gas emissions perspective, how does this compare with the alternatives?

Primary firm gas, interruptible gas, others.

I know you said that this would likely cause the plant to run less often.

Yep.

So compared to a firm gas situation, although we may pay for firm gas, the unit may not be called to run.

And so we would end up spending more dollars to secure volumes that we don't actually buy with no additional runtime, so it's neutral compared to a firm gas compared to the uh spot gas, what we call or the intermittent supply that we're currently on.

Um, it's probably slightly less greenhouse gas emissions over time since the units would technically run less at a slightly higher cost compared to the other alternatives of other forms of storage that are in your uh request for council action of putting in LNG storage, liquefied natural gas.

I would say that largely has more greenhouse gas emissions.

So if you're looking at this through a greenhouse gas emissions lens, this is I think the lowest emissions option of those alternatives.

Thank you.

Yep.

Councilmember Keene.

Considering where we're at, I'd like to make a motion to adopt the resolution authorizing the transaction uh confirmation for secondary firm natural gas supply with constellation, new new energy, uh gas division LLC.

Second, move by council member Keene, seconded by council member Palmer, Councilmember Keene.

No, I just appreciate the RPU staff looking at this sort of thing, and this is kind of part of the business looking ahead.

What what what are the unlikely but possible things to happen and how how do we protect ourselves in those situations?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed say nay.

Motion passes.

Moving on to uh enterprise resource planning recommendation.

Uh, Mr.

Parrish.

Uh Mayor President, members of the council, good evening.

Uh, really glad to be here tonight to talk about the first phase of our ERP conversation.

Um, what we're doing here tonight is requesting uh council authorization to finalize an agreement for future approval with HCL SAP.

HCL is the implementer, SAP is the software provider for a new uh fully integrated enterprise uh resource software program.

And so uh want to go through a little bit of that tonight.

Um, realize that this is the the first step for the council.

Um, if you approve this, we would then bring back a recommendation for you to consider a final agreement that we ultimately negotiate.

Um, just a little bit of context on what an ERP system is.

Um, really, this is sort of the bread and butter of how we do our organizational business.

It flows all of our accounting, all of our finance, um, our human resource information systems, all of our payroll, um, so critical functions that really just make our organization work.

Um, we have a really unique and unprecedented opportunity to bring all a variety of different systems that are just disparate together today.

Um, it's really unusual and fortunate and a great opportunity for us that our software is nearing end of life, RPU software is nearing end of life.

You have another a number of other items that are uh also kind of at that end of life, Steve.

So this is just a great opportunity to think about that.

Um I would say a couple of benefits just to highlight for the council's um understanding of this topic.

Um, at the end of the day, um, we would achieve if we are successful in moving this project forward, and these are challenging projects.

Software conversions are extremely challenging to the team, to the organization, to the budget.

Um, but uh at the end of the day, I think this is something that we ultimately need to do despite some of those challenges to achieve a fully integrated platform.

Right now, the city and RPU are on different systems, so our back and forth is just challenged and strained.

This provides the opportunity uh to bring all that together.

We steward a significant amount of resources for the community.

We have over 535 million dollars in 2024 payables.

At any given time, we have 1200 to 1800 people that we are accountable for payroll and other services for.

And so, you know, keeping track of all that is very substantial.

And you know, our annual payroll in 24 was 102 million dollars.

And so we needed a robust um progressive system that can ultimately help us to manage the the resources that have been provided.

Um, I'd also just say I think it gives us the opportunity to streamline and be more efficient with the way we do service delivery, the way we deliver transformative transformative capital projects.

Um, it gives us a good single point of information where a lot of our budget information can flow through, and um ultimately uh a lot of process improvement internally that we uh can achieve with that.

Probably a big deal uh and can't be understated here is this gives us the opportunity to minimize security risk.

So, as you know, um you've seen it locally, you've seen it in other Minnesota cities.

Um, we are an on-premises-based system, so that means we maintain servers with this software on it.

Um, that creates vulnerability.

Um, this would move uh our systems to the cloud and uh really give us an opportunity to be more uh cyber secure.

Not perfect, but and I also just say we have had three successfully defended attempts to access our data.

So I want to give a lot of credit to the RPU and city IT teams for that.

We carry great cyber security insurance coverage because no one wants to be in the you know situation that others have had to be in in our state.

Um, but it's all of our worst day, week, month, and year if we have that happen.

So this is a good opportunity to buffer, and this software really then walks us into the um new age in terms of what can we do with artificial intelligence and how can we utilize that across our system to enhance planning.

Uh, I want to just stop for a minute.

Uh, myself and general manager Tim McCullough are gonna just give you a little bit of insight into what are we doing right now?

Um, and then we'll go on to you know what the requirements were, as well as uh discuss the recommendation for you all.

Um, we as a city have been on a program called JD Edwards for our ER ERP system since 1999.

Um, in technology time, that's a long time.

Um I actually have a son who got engaged last week who was not born when we adopted this software.

Um, and I think we're all probably having a really good time downloading songs off of Napster at 56k internet speeds that took about a half an hour to get a song downloaded.

Things have changed.

Um, it's a significantly new environment.

Um, but you know, we are we're in a spot where we ultimately have to think about what are we gonna do moving forward.

Uh JDE is projected end of life 2035.

Now that sounds like a long time, um, but at the end of the day, it's a declining support model as you walk out to 2035.

We're already experiencing challenges with sort of core business infrastructure and updates to the system that challenge our ability to do legal compliance and any number of other things.

Um, and I liken it to VCRs, right?

At some point, you can find someone to work on a VCR right now, but there's not a lot of people going into that, and same thing with software over time, less people are going to be going into supporting, fixing and wanting to work on JDE because not really going anywhere for them.

So the talent is not going toward this technology, it's moving away from and retiring out of the system.

We also have a number of significant uh pieces of software that we bolt on to our current um JDE enterprise resource system.

So if you think about it, it's like having a car with a you know a frame of a you know a Hyundai, uh a Volkswagen you know, engine, you know, maybe there's you know Honda headlights, like it's just stuff you you can make work, but it all bolts together, it's not fully integrated and seamless, and we have some gaps right now.

We have some things we're not doing.

We've dealt developed internal manual types of processes for things like our budget and other important things that we have.

So that's kind of where we're at today.

Um, we want to give you that for RPU because they have an equally important decision to make here, and um, we will move forward and just talk to you a little bit about the next steps in a minute, but if they want to come up, I guess you don't in the same uh scale of time.

I was not yet an adult when RPU went into its current world of the enterprise resource planning.

We've been on the SAP platform since January of 1998.

That was my graduation year from high school.

SAP is currently our backbone of operations and has been over that 25-year period plus for RPU.

It handles all of our operations, not our only our core financials, our fleet, our timesheets, our materials management, all these components that go into our work orders and manages the entire business of RPU for both electric and water.

It is one of eight core systems that we maintain at RPU, and it really is the central planning function of all of RPU.

We have been for a very long time in a best of breed solution, as uh uh Aaron has mentioned there as well, where we have pieces that we tend to bolt on to these core systems.

This is a key opportunity to maintain a best in suite type solution to keep all of this under one roof, not only for RPU, but broadly for the city operations as well.

Um this is, I think, a once-in-a-generation opportunity for us as well with RPU.

We are at year 27 on SAP.

It's facing uh what is called end of support, standard support in 2027.

There likely will be a future beyond 2027, but it goes into another tier of support beyond 2027.

Um we do know that SAP is one of the market leaders in the utilities space.

They hold more than two-thirds of the market related to ERPs, especially with electric utilities of a similar size and nature to RPU.

Although we may not be the same scale as in Excel Energy here in Minnesota, we do all of the same functions with power generation, transmission, distribution, and so it takes a software of this nature to help us run our operations.

Um, and Excel in Minnesota is one of the SAP customers here as well.

So, this opportunity for us to join together and move forward onto a one solution gives us a key opportunity to join into the city with budgeting payroll and human capital type solutions, which currently are really maintained in duplicate so that we can do the work of RPU.

It's also happening at the city level.

Our payroll, our city employees at RPU are also inside of JDE.

And so this is uh JD Edwards.

This is an opportunity to bring those two worlds together and have this single source uh for all of our functions.

Um we we did look at all the alternatives.

Um Aaron will get into it in just a moment, talking about the alternatives, but some of those alternatives did not meet the full requirements of RPU, and some of those alternatives required splitting our world into multiple core systems, including standing up a full enterprise asset management system that today is inside of SAP.

So we're um uh strongly in lockstep with our um full the full city view here and to join and do a common ERP at this point in the future.

All right, uh I really appreciate that, Tim.

And I just want to acknowledge some of the other people on the team.

Uh Carl Hunter is our project manager in IT.

He's done an amazing job sort of walking this through, and then we have uh Mark Mack.

Mark and you're the one that folks maybe don't know.

But uh Mark has been uh working with us since uh 2022 on developing our requirements.

He's with the government finance officers association.

They have a research division that basically what Mark does is he goes around and helps communities develop requirements and go through the RFP and bidding process for ERP systems.

So we've been we're very well served with the GFOA and Mark in particular.

I think he's done an excellent job helping us do something that none of us does day to day.

So I want to acknowledge that and many others as well have participated.

I just want to just say we started this journey in 2022, um, really trying to not just look at you know what are we gonna do for software replacement, but really thinking about what do we need as well as what are our process improvement opportunities.

So we spent a lot of time on that, became aware of the opportunity to potentially align with RPU, so took a little break on the city conversation, deferred to the RPU requirements development, and then this last summer we had a very robust uh selection process.

So I'm not gonna go through every piece of that.

Um I think we've talked generally about what this software can do.

Uh the next three slides really cover that, but again, core core systems for us and and just reinforcing what what uh General Manager McCullough said, um, the work management, the asset management piece that RPU that's critical to detailing out for you know 30, 40, 50 years worth of what you want to do from a maintenance perspective on an asset is well served with SAP.

Um, and it is a standalone integrated solution, and that was really a deciding factor.

We had a couple of things going into this.

One, how can we be achieve an integrated solution?

And two, how can we you know meet a few of these core requirements?

Um this is just a summary of uh you know one set of requirements.

Uh I also say our uh our HR folks are are just enthusiastic about this.

It's maybe the biggest gap in our current uh technology and system.

Uh we have a number of just challenging things, uh even something small, it seems like a small thing, like you can't effective date something.

Um, anything that requires you to look back in terms of retro pay or whatever, there's just a ton of manual calculation that ends up happening uh based on that.

So again, not going to read all this stuff to you, but uh a number of significant requirements and things being accomplished.

Um so after receiving proposals, um bringing a number of folks here for you know, weeks worth of demos.

Uh we worked uh more specifically with AST, which is an implementer for an Oracle product, uh, and HCL, um, which is the implementer for SAP, which is ultimately the recommended product.

Uh, based on uh you know the initial evaluation, these are the criteria that we rated um the different proposals against.

Um, so you can see sort of the weight and the different elements that were looked at uh by the team uh of the core reviewers uh within this project.

Uh you can see that about nine were oriented toward HCL for uh AST, and uh there's a two uh that couldn't couldn't think uh think about one or the other, so it's a tie.

Um so we do have the a core group of people that you know were thinking that this was the best option moving forward, and this is how that scoring broke out over the categories that you saw earlier.

Uh recommendation again moving forward with HCL and SAP and developing an agreement with them uh for the council and RPU board to review, and uh really just trying to find that alignment and again work management, just not to understand understate it, work and asset management for RPU just wasn't going to be effectively met with the ASD and Oracle proposal.

I think they could have met our requirements in many, many other areas and um terms of you know finance and HR and some of those other things, but you know, that work management piece was really a kind of a key key piece of the conversation.

Uh one vendor, one Rochester.

So again, trying to bring all this under one roof.

Uh go through all that.

Uh and I'm gonna focus more on the 25% contingency scenario, um, just to give you sort of the outer edge of the financial conversation as opposed to walking through the 10%.

I think we're having a fairly robust conversation at the staff level on you know what uh what the right contingency amount is, and this would come forward to you with the recommendation on the final agreement.

Um, but as we've experienced software projects, you know, can have escalation.

Um, you don't want to pre-ordain or predestine that escalation, but at the same time you want to be ready for it.

Um we have notable examples with the city where uh we weren't prepared, and you know, it ultimately ended up uh not meeting expectations.

So uh we're trying to be thoughtful about that.

Uh overall, the uh two-year implementation costs for the city portion of this, so I'm not gonna focus in on the RPU portion.

You know, the RPU board will have that conversation.

Um, that is estimated with a 25% contingency at 12.9 million dollars.

Uh, we have previously budgeted in the CIP 6.2 million, and so we have to cover this gap.

And um the gap is got a number of items there, um, some additional enterprise funds.

Um we had some CIP items that we're looking to allocate here.

Um, the bigger items are reprioritizing a portion of the 27 budget, so that'll be something we would have to take up next year and uh look for opportunities to to streamline in that space, and then potentially looking at the use of reserves, and we'll have a better sense of where we're trending there in the next few months as far as you know how's the year end shaping up here, what's our general fund reserve situation looking like, where are other reserve opportunities, um, but at the end of the day, we would have to look for something uh in that space.

And I feel like we have the opportunity to do that.

Um then I think the question ultimately is you know, this is not an if but a win type of conversation, and so uh if we don't do it today, and we'll talk a little bit about that in a minute, like what happens if we decide not to proceed tonight.

Um, you know, we would have to you know ultimately sort of recalibrate.

But this is a working recommendation on the finance.

I'd also just say when you get into years three, four, and five, you know, there are annual costs uh you know that you have with a product like this, so that's where software is going and software as a service, SAS.

I think we used that term in our presentation, and there are annual costs, and we would be sort of fixing those here at about 1.4 million dollars uh on average over those next three years, but that's what we could be expected to pay after our implementation and data conversion and all the things you'd expect that we have to do to get recreated and new software.

But that's what we could be expected to pay after our implementation and data conversion and all the things you'd expect that we have to do to get recreated and new software.

So what happens if we don't do this?

Um it's always you know a conversation.

Every agenda item you have, you have that opportunity to consider what happens if you don't do this.

Um we we have the opportunity to try to continue to navigate JDE to end of life to 2035.

Um I would say you would probably needing to be re revisiting this conversation in about four years.

I don't think you can wait six, but you know, four to six years is what's you know in the presentation.

You would have to be converted, you know, in that period of time.

Um in the meantime, I think we we feel like there are security challenges, we feel like there are uh support challenges that will incur during that time.

Um, but those are risks you know that we would have to take, you know, based on you know this this option, and we would have to you know continue to live with and navigate our existing staffing inefficiencies.

So, you know, we've been sort of delaying the need as we've grown in staffing and budget and process and you know, all the things that go into managing a city, thinking you know, with the idea that we're moving toward this, um, but at some point, you know, we can't continue to live within an inefficient system.

Uh we for sure a driver on this on the city side um is the fact that Kronos, which is our timekeeping system, so everyone who enters their time cards into our system, um, that is end of life in 27.

So we would instead of having that served through the ERP system, we would have to you know go ahead and do the upgrade in Kronos or UKG, which is you know basically Kronos, uh, which is what we have now.

Um the team would spend six to twelve months doing that conversion.

Uh your cost would be you know 120,000 plus or minus.

So in the context of this, not super significant, um, and then we'd be paying about 400,000 in annual costs.

Now, when we go back though, um, we have timekeeping in this ERP recommendation, whether we went with Oracle or SAP, you know, we either have to say, well, we're gonna bolt on this system to the the one you'd select in the future, or you'd have to redo all that work, you know, again.

So that'd be something we'd have to manage.

And again, uh security conversations, uh, we we probably missed the moment.

Um, if we don't do this now, we probably miss the moment where RPU has to make a decision on moving forward with SAP in terms of how it meets their work management needs, and we probably do something the timekeeping space, and then we have a revisitation of this item um in that 2930, you know, type of time frame.

Uh so and I think we just continue to live in the system we have and and hope it hope it works as best we can.

So with that, um I'm here to answer questions.

We have great teammates that are here to answer questions.

I also want to acknowledge uh uh Lacey on the HR team and Brian and Finance, who is also done just an amazing amount of work on this as well here, too.

So thank you, Mr.

Parish.

Thank you, Mr.

McCullough.

Uh I've got a couple questions basically on the kind of one, I mean, integration and across our systems is a great idea.

Can you talk a little bit more about the efficiencies that you see that you foresee for once the integration happens?

And and you didn't really talk about the timeline as far as like how long is it going to take if we make this decision to the training and uh uh so what but once we get to where our staff is up on it and RPU staff is integrated with us, what are the efficiencies and synergies that that you expect to to for us to see uh as we move move forward with this, and then what are some of the hurdles that you uh may expect given that there are two systems now.

Yeah, council president, I think that's a great question.

So, from a timing perspective, it you know, if we start the conversion in January, February of next year, um we would need to be converted at least in part um in into 27, particularly with the payroll elements, you know, given our timekeeping situation.

Um, so generally speaking, it's a you know a couple year conversion for both both entities, and uh given RPU's experience with SAP, they would be kind of leading um, and then we would come next.

But uh so we can give you more information on schedule, but it's roughly you know that time frame.

Um, I think from an efficiency perspective, I I think this question was sort of asked, but um earlier.

But I I don't know that you're gonna see like dollar efficiencies necessarily, right?

I mean, I think you're gonna see a lot of productivity enhancement.

Um, we just do a lot of manual processes behind the scenes.

So um again, if you have a labor contract you settle for 109 firefighters or something, um you know, you come back, you do retro pay, you you're entering 109 manual calculations, and the more the further you gotta go back, the more substantial that is, and there's you know different rates, and if it crosses over a year, that's a whole nother thing.

So there's just a bunch of by not being able to effective date items, there's just a ton of manual work.

So I think you're gonna have productivity efficiency, you know, that happens with people.

Um, I think with this the asset management systems, you have the better ability to maintain and steward your resources.

So, you know, hopefully you're not surprised, you know, by items and you know, that preventative maintenance pays off in the long term.

I think we're looking to have that application in play with our fleet as well.

So I think certainly being better stewards, I think you know, it can be more cost efficient in the long view.

Um, I'm gonna if the team has any other items, feel free to come on up, guys, and add in the I'll just speak to a couple of efficiencies that we expect on the RPU side of this as well.

The people are the core of our city business, they're also the core of the RPU business, and that is one of the key efficiencies since the HR processes are run in the JD Edwards system.

We have to fully duplicate all of those in the SAP system because people are the core of what we do.

So we're gonna gain incredible efficiencies on the human capital side of this.

We actually run a human capital module in SAP today, but it's only for a small piece of what we do because we run with the city on everything else.

So pulling those together will eliminate a lot of the manual processes, a lot of the forms.

The we're still doing a lot of things on paper because of the two systems not integrated together today.

It allows us to bring all of that under one roof together.

Councilmember Wall.

Thank you.

Um can we necessarily assume that in five years it will be more expensive with the highly volatile uh uh area of electronics software, AI uh possibilities of efficiencies that would actually reduce cost?

I have yet to ever see the costs go down.

Um, you have in computers, uh yeah, and hardware.

I mean, I I guess historically I have not seen the software costs go down.

I like your thinking.

Um, I think it would be great.

I just I couldn't project to you that that's gonna happen.

Yeah, I I just don't necessarily want to think that it's going to go up.

Um without at least questioning uh where we might be in five years.

Uh if we made a change now, uh when uh do you think the next council would uh face some of the same decisions if it's been 25 years since we did the the last major change?

Yeah, I I mean we've talked about this internally.

I mean, you're making it a you know, uh some we'll say a 15-year decision.

Some people would say 10, some people say 20.

But if you're making this kind of upfront implementation um adjustment and converting all your data, I mean I think you're in a 10 to 15 year window for sure.

But Mark, do you have any other up there on point or yes?

Mark Mark Mack, it's my actual name.

Um so I'm with the uh government finance officers association, and I sit in the research and consulting center, and we actually do research in addition to obviously coming out and kind of helping cities out directly.

And so one of the things that we actually look pretty closely at is the time horizon for these types of systems, and so it's about a 20-year investment, 15 to 20 year investment.

I think the benefit of the SAS model or the software as a service is it's an evergreen model.

So in the past, when the server was in the basement of City Hall, right?

It was physical infrastructure hardware in your basement on site, and so you had to maintain that.

So you had to hire a database administrator, a bunch of physical you know, human beings to kind of keep that that going.

You know, um Christmas Eve, somebody has to be there, make sure the server is cool or warm or whatever the case, maybe there's a lot of sort of additional costs that set outside of the actual software and the hardware.

Um service model, it's a subscription.

So it would be akin to um Netflix, right?

Where the videos are up, they're available.

I log in, I have access to the entire subscription as long as I pay that subscription fee.

And so the benefit of that is that as software changes and it's changes so fast, the city is no longer challenged in trying to be essentially a software firm to keep up with all the changes.

The software company is now saying we'll take on that responsibility.

Um, we'll make sure you're up to date.

You have the latest, the greatest um artificial intelligence, whatever the case may be, whatever the cutting edge technology is, they're gonna sort of maintain um that software stack uh for the city and make sure you all have access to it through the subscription model.

Thank you.

I have one more question.

Uh I've been a part of two uh major transfers of data from one system to another uh in the past 20 years, and both uh were miserable, which required a great deal more physical uh work by people than we anticipated.

That's leads to the question.

Uh are we getting any any kind of uh guarantee from the chosen providers that will assist in data transfer so that uh we don't have city employees on Christmas Eve typing in something or other to ensure that we're going to meet the next year's challenges?

Yeah, Consumer Wall, that's a great question.

So I would say on two fronts.

We we have in the implementing team is assigned a number of folks, I think over a hundred, you know, potential people working on this conversion.

Um I'd also say uh we have planned within the numbers you're seeing the implementation numbers you're seeing, some ability to backfill for the teammates that are going to have to be more point on developing the processes in the new system and making sure they work for Rochester.

Um, so there is some of that embedded into the peaking point of this project.

Um, and then I don't know if there's other comments.

Council member.

Um, great question.

Can you identify yourself?

Sir Carl Hunter, IT supervisor, project manager on this project.

Uh council president, Mayor Norton, members of the council.

Uh we do have a service provided by the implementer that they recommend, specifically going from the current SAP system to the modern system.

It's kind of a plug and play.

Uh IT are expected to, in this example, load the truck.

So we take the data of our existing systems, plop it into their tool, and then that helps put it into the modern tool.

We do have another system to help ensure data accuracy, but qualification of the data, verifying that it's accurate, will be a group project by everybody in the business, not just IT.

Um, my team has assisted in moving a sell of data a few times, uh, moving it into our the cloud environment that we have today off-prem from before, and we also help move the county data when they used to share a system with us.

Uh we help load their data into their cloud product too.

So it's a common activity that we do in IT.

Uh, we're well prepared for it with our lovely implementers who are also on the call.

Uh council member Frederick.

Oh, yeah.

So I'm just kind of curious.

What point what at what point did you say, hey, we need to do something?

Something happened.

Was it you two visiting?

Are obviously departments visiting.

What happened that's like, hey, we need to should probably look at doing something right now.

Yeah, so when we first came to the council in 2022 with the GFOA contract, I mean, that was when we started to say at some point, you know, we're gonna be end of life, end of service.

Um, I think that was the you know the main time.

Uh, I'd say from for some teammates' perspective, um, 10 years before that, uh, just as it wasn't meeting their needs, and then of course we have some other teammates that are just real happy in the current system.

Um, but yeah, a couple of years ago, 2022 is when we were you know talking about it most significantly and actually budgeting for the project.

Councilman, uh Mr.

McCullough, were you gonna add something?

One point to that as well.

RPU's been on a similar trajectory, recognizing 27 as an end of extended support.

So we've been budgeting for this over the last two cycles, seeing our aligned CIPs together created the opportunity for us to look at a joint solution together.

I think this is a great example of planning across the whole organization.

If we were to do these independently in the future, we would not have the cost efficiency of getting into a single system.

We would have a long-term integration between two systems, and so it is uh I think because many major software systems that are on premise are moving to the cloud, both of us are running to the end of our on-premise, so it gives us the opportunity to assess that together.

So we've been on this road for about five years, I would say, recognizing that it takes a long runway to plan for the end of life for these systems, and we're the stars are aligning up here.

Time to get married, yeah.

Yeah, it is it is a lot like uh uh joining taking long-term vows for sure.

Councilmember Palmer, thank you.

Somebody mentioned Netflix, and I don't know if they realize that Netflix raises their prices almost every other week.

So um, I'm not particularly sure I like that.

But um, since it sounds like it's so easy to do, and everything's gonna go smoothly with this, and we're gonna save efficiencies.

Why do I need to have 25% contingency?

Why not 10%?

Yeah, I mean, uh obviously, you know, we're we're trying to plan for the the best and and the worst all at the same time, right?

I mean, we're gonna try to deliver the best, but you know, we we are still in a point where we're negotiating the contract.

Um, you're still at a point where you know you think you've understood the level of data conversion per councilman walls comment, but you know, you there's still due diligence to be done here.

Um so I I think we're just trying to uh manage expectations.

The council, you know, is obviously expressed a strong desire for us to be on budget uh for these projects.

Um so we're not trying to undersell you here either in terms of what the potential costs might be.

I think that was a driving factor for us as well.

But but I mean to under sell if you just have a 25% contingency, then what the heck?

I mean, if you have 10% and it it it holds them.

If I go to the mechanic and say to them, you know, I'm willing to spend this, but I you know I can spend another 25%.

Guess what they do?

I have no idea how that works.

Really?

Okay, let me explain it to you.

Uh I would just say I to put it in construction terms here.

I I mean we're at 20% design, and so having a 25% contingency at 25% design isn't probably unrealistic.

Well, I prefer 10.

So I was one of the fortunate people that was worked with the Acello program when it first started.

So that was a long time ago.

How'd that go for you?

Yeah, not well at all.

And so part of the problem you learn on that is is that um you have systems, and if you have people who are stuck in their system in in because they're they're selling us this program that's the bug and play, and then all of a sudden you say, Yeah, but you know, on Thursdays, you know, Andy likes to take off, and you know, geez, we we can't do that, and yeah, we don't like working Saturdays.

I mean, I mean the pug a plug and play one, you know, and that's great.

If we have our systems down that matches their programs, and like Mr.

Wall, I've gone through hell with with some of these software um conversions that just you know it's longer, it's more expensive, and um, you know, it doesn't do what we really wanted it to do.

You you bring up an amazing point, and we've been trying to um relay this to our team.

Like our main goal is to live within the core functionality of the software and adapt to it, not have it adapt to us.

Now, there's always a thing, and you know, sometimes it's even you all like you are used to seeing a report in a certain way, and you know, we have to find a way to replicate that.

But um, our core, like like getting onto one system was a core idea.

A core idea is also that we want to use the core functionality to the maximum extent possible and not have to do you know the custom work that you're talking about.

So again, there's my 25% contingency.

So that's what I'm bothered by.

Councilmember Keene.

Uh yeah, it can't it's almost like a follow-on to what council member Palmer's talking about.

Usually the software comes with implied process inside of it.

Um, and that's the question whether though we it's part of our work getting to this point, been like, yes, those processes work for us, or those processes work for us, but there's major cultural change that comes with that.

I think the answer to that is yes.

Yeah.

Um to both.

Um you definitely will have folks that want to default to this is the way I do it right now, this is my workflow.

Um, and and we have to rethink around that.

We have a lot of rethinking to do.

Part of the benefit of the GFOA process is they they identified a number of things for us to change and think about on the front end um in order for us to be successful in this project.

Um now we have to do it and live it and implement it that way.

Okay.

Yeah, I mean, I want to acknowledge this is uh a major step, and I think you guys have treated it as such.

I know there's been different events like like those full week and um bringing people in to use what they would be in, trying to get those scoring things going on.

Uh I I went went through one of these at IBM where we we did a lot of that scoring that, but what happened was people wanted to do their job the way they were doing it.

Um and they and that idea of that process in there was a hard thing to overcome.

Um I've watched it too too at the mail clinic now in the last I I'm amazed how well the mail clinic's done going to Epic, because that was a major, not new software, it was a cultural change to how they're how they were doing their business.

And done done well, we'll get these benefits, done poorly, and there'll be a lot of upset professionals, but planners, and then also I you know, the ones I work about is the operational people.

So hopefully we've done our due diligence up front.

Yeah, and I would also just stack on to that and say um SAP, one of the distinctives that they also had is you know, we did ask for how are you gonna support change management?

Because a lot of this is really is it's software, but it is change management and working with people.

Yeah, and I think they have a very uh robust and well thought of approach to that as well.

Good, good to hear.

Come on, go ahead.

Oh, do you have one more question?

Just on the I, you know, when I see the word enterprise resource planning, I think of it as planning and budgeting, um, those sort of more um executive functions.

But I I think I want to I think I'm hearing that this is also our operations software to a great extent.

This is how we like uh our it's it's not just our professional or our finance people doing budget, it's it's our payroll people, it's our um the it's it's the fine finance techs in in our P R RPU.

It's it's everybody using these things.

Yes, Councilmember Miller.

So I guess to a question that's come up in a variety of ways.

What how do we trust the implementer?

Can you talk a little bit more about not just the product but who is implementing it, who we're working with, and their experience.

I know it's partly in the supplemental, but I feel like this gets to the points that both Councilmember Palmer and Councilmember Keene are raising.

Yeah, I'm gonna I'll preface it and then I'm gonna invite Carl and Mark up to to talk it through a little bit more.

But you know, part of the process also is sort of a deep evaluation of you know the implementer and and the software, and I mean, from one positive perspective, we have a great sort of reference in the fact that RPU is currently using a different version of the same product, right?

And so, you know, they've got that um to think about.

Um we again have had the opportunity to learn more.

We spent a week, you know, with the the software provider and the implementer trying to understand their methodology and approach and how they you know are gonna best support us in this transition.

Um so I think from that perspective, uh due diligence that we've done, but I'd like to maybe hear from these folks to go a little bit deeper on that.

Uh one of the main reasons is when we check references and that's a deep part trying to compare someone to this project where you have a city and a utility coming together.

It's kind of unique.

Uh so the part that made us trust a lot with HCL, and that's the whole selection committee, is they brought in a reference of Tacoma, Washington, and they're a joint uh city of about our size with utility that does the same scope of work that our utility does.

And so we got to talk directly with them with their project and their implementation team is who we met with, and they'll be joining our project if selected.

And follow-up question, how long ago was Tacoma's uh implementation of SAP?

I believe they go live.

Oh, so there's no phone a friend.

David, you want to take that one.

Yes, sir.

Um my name is Brandon Kong.

I'm with ACO.

So the push down, the city and the RP and the utility went live about eight years ago.

And currently we are upgrading the city of Tacoma to the latest S4, and we are going live exactly 30 days from now.

Thank you.

For the upgrade.

Thank you.

Uh Councilmember Fredericks.

Wall and Miller are doing a good job of getting my questions answered.

We're we're good.

Uh councilmember Keene.

I'd I'd like to make a motion.

Go ahead.

That uh adopt a resolution authorizing the finalization of the agreement for future city council approval with SAP and HCL for enterprise resource software.

Second.

Uh move by council member keen and seconded by council member miller.

Councilmember Keene, any more to add?

Yeah, just again, for those listening again on some of the questions about the financials and all that.

Those are coming in the future.

We're not making those decisions tonight.

We're moved like I I think that analogy of we're 20% done and we've got more to go.

Um, and we'll see where those things come out.

But I mean, if you go through our our uh request for council action and look at the financials on this, this is this is a pretty major step.

And those are the upfront things that we're committing ourselves to with software of the services, it becomes uh an ongoing uh expense.

Councilmember Miller, anything to add.

I guess I'd just add, I mean, thinking about the long term of the city, it feels like this decision needs to happen at some point that there is a need for integration and not taking action on this opportunity.

Feels like we push that on disjointed timelines well into the future to become the problem of future council, future administrations, and I don't want to do that to our whoever comes after us, and so I think it's an opportunity that is unique to this timing.

So I I know there's still much to be gained, but I I see the the utility in moving forward.

Uh Mayor Norton uh two things.

One, I would say I'm a little I'm I was shocked actually to find the price was twice what we had expected.

Um having just gone through budgeting and know how tight money is, that there's not more concern about that and how we're gonna pay for this moving ahead bothers me a little bit, but I understand software is expensive and everybody says it's gonna be cheaper and it'll be better and it'll be faster, and it always costs more than whatever we were doing before.

But that's been the history of technology since the day it started.

So we have that.

So I just want to raise that concern.

Um, and I do agree with councilmember Palmer's concern about contingencies.

It it and this goes back to and um it shows how old I am.

But when I served in the school board, we always put a 10% contingency in.

And it when we raise it to 20, we're spending more money on all of our projects.

That's just a fact.

I would like us to do a better job being true to what the project actually costs and putting in that 10% buffer and not putting in 20, assuming that we're gonna go over budget and spending it.

So it's philosophical more than anything else, but I think it is causing us to have projects that can run more than we want them to just because the money's been budgeted and they can have a place to come get it.

Thank you, Mayor.

I I'll just add one.

I I do think the timing is right for this.

I think there's a window of opportunity that we have that we should take for uh as councilmember Miller said, future councils.

Uh I agree that the contingency is high, and uh I just want to reiterate what councilmember Palmer and others and the mayor have said that you know we really don't want you going into that contingency very much, if at all.

So uh with that, uh all in favor say aye.

All opposed say nay.

Motion passes.

We will take a seven minute break.

Thank you.

Pass.

That might be a new thing, uh next.

All right, we're gonna get everybody here.

What's that?

I didn't do that.

It just happened.

All right, we're gonna move on to uh item H4, which is applications to the Mayor's Alliance Action Fund to End Child Hunger and to the U.S.

Conference of Mayors Healthy and Sustainable Communities Grant.

Uh Mayor Norton.

Thank you.

Um we've been applying, we've applied for uh uh one of these grants twice before, before we had the policy of all grants needing to come through the council.

So this is uh kind of came upon us, and they said, oops, you need to get this before the council.

So we did quickly.

Um the deadlines are within the next week or so for both of these.

Um the uh the other one is new this year.

We pass, and that's the um mayor's alliance to end childhood hunger grant.

That is new this year, and we passed the round one and we're allowed to go to round two for the application.

So we would like to submit applications to both of these.

There's no city funds or staff utilized for either uh the one for the to end childhood hunger is to uh close a gap that I've been working with a couple nonprofits to do for the last two years already.

Uh, we want to extend it to all five community schools this year, and uh that's with the Southeast Minnesota Food Rescue uh group.

So Lisa Schutz with April Seuter are working on that grant for uh the community and the second one for the U.S.

Conference of Mayors Healthy and Sustainable Communities Grant is uh the village co-op is working to move their Tuesday farmers market that is currently behind the history center to another uh public place in town and expand uh that those cultural food markets.

So those are the two grants.

Um and I hope I have your approval.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh any questions?

Councilmember Wall.

Mayor, are these uh Mayor?

Are these highly competitive grants and are we more likely to receive them because of your experience with them?

I wish I could say yes.

Um they are competitive, yes, they are competitive, but they have a finite number because it's the U.S.

conference of mayor, mayors, so those are cities of with mayors over 30, 30,000, which is not as many as you would think, a thousand or whatever.

And so it's whoever applies for the grants.

I've applied a couple times.

We haven't won.

We've done different variety of things, so maybe it's our turn on that one.

The other one is brand new, and it is uh a relatively small uh group of people that belong to this group.

So um they have they're gonna give out 12 grants.

There could be more than 12 applicants, of course.

Um, but uh it it is I made it through the first round with my concept, and now we're applying for the grant, and we'll just give it our best.

But it it will um as you know if you're watching the news at all, um, that SNAP and the food banks and there's and WIC are all under fire right now, and our in fact we had emergency meeting today about it with some of the nonprofits in town.

And so it feels good to be able to be trying to bring some funding in to help close some of those gaps for our folks um that are food insecure.

Thank you.

Councilmember Keene.

Yeah, I I want to ask either our director of finance, uh, Mr.

Anderson or or city administrator.

I mean, I want to be able to support these, but I want to also make sure we have the wherewithal to correctly accept them if we are granted and we have ways of keeping track of them.

Is this kind of a known thing, or is this something that we're we could uh we could do incorrectly?

Um council president, council member keen.

Um I believe what we've done in the past, depending on the size of the grant.

So for one of them it's less than 50,000, you would do a micro contract with that entity, making sure that they're responsible for whatever the reporting requirements are and whatever the grant requirements are, um, and also the public purpose test.

I mean, although there wouldn't be city funds going towards us, as Mayor Norton mentioned.

Um it's a fairly simple process.

It's similar, it would be kind of a similar agreement to what happened when the um city council authorized some funding for the school district.

It's just it agreement that sort of binds them to meet those requirements.

Um and so for the larger one, I probably if you got between 50.

Well, if you got 200,000, it would probably be coming back to the city council for authorization for whatever that agreement.

Administrator's is your mic on?

It is.

Oh, I think maybe you're not close enough.

Um we're not hearing it on this side of the table.

I don't know.

Is that better?

Yes.

Okay.

I thought we could be farther away, but I guess that's not true.

So we would do some sort of a service agreement with whatever entity um was able to uh if if either of these grants were successful, um, which would either go through a microcontact project process if it's 50,000 or less, or it would come to the city council on a future consent agenda.

Very good.

So again, staff is it would you would not only support but would have the the like the process in place if they came through.

That's what I was looking for.

Thank you.

Is there a motion on this item?

Um yeah, I'll make a two-part motion.

One uh approving an application of the mayor's alliance action fund to end child hunger and provide a healthy snacks to four community schools, and part two approving an application to the U.S.

Conference of Mayors Healthy and Sustainable Communities Grant to improve the environment and health and wellness for the nation's children, families, and neighborhoods and cities in the range of 50,000 up to 250,000.

Second.

Move by Councilmember Keene, seconded by Councilmember Doring.

Anything more to add, Councilmember?

Yeah, I the only the the worry I have with things like this is that we don't have the structural acceptance.

So I I I feel better knowing that there's there's like examples of how we would do this and how they would come to bear in our community.

And and I commend the mayor and her mayor's office for like looking for these things and being in uh being connected enough to get have a chance for our community to be able to get these funds.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say nay.

Motion passes.

Moving on to uh uh H5, former F4, which is our 2026 city council calendar.

Uh councilmember Palmer.

Yes, I'll make a motion to approve adopting the 2026 calendar of regular meetings for the common council of the city of Rochester, Minnesota.

Second.

Any further discussion?

Yes, I'm gonna make a motion to amend my uh motion.

Okay, go ahead.

Okay, it's the cleanest way to do it.

Um, um not everybody um looks at our calendar and plans, and some people expect us not to be working on the fifth Monday of a month.

Um, some people expect us to be the first and third of every month or the Wednesday after a meeting.

So I'm going to make the motion to drop June 29th, which is a fifth Monday, drop the 14th of or December 14th, because this is second Monday of the of that month, and add July 6th, um, which is the first Monday of July, and drop the 13th uh meeting.

Okay, um our screen is alternate 2026 calendar.

That's your amendment, council member.

Correct.

Okay.

No, it's not.

Is that correct?

Okay.

So based on your feedback, we try to prepare a visual.

I believe that's is what your feedback intended.

That is correct.

You did a great job.

Thank you.

I don't think so.

Second.

Okay.

No, there's no I see the okay.

The the amendment has been seconded.

Councilmember Palmer, can you again slower tell us what you are proposing to change on what's in our packet?

Yeah.

So this year the calendar got changed, and and for some odd reason I wasn't paying it close enough attention.

And so you make plans.

And so I know other people in the community make plans going, okay.

I have something come to the city council.

Um we don't have a meeting on the fifth Monday, which has been our tradition, and so that's why I'm saying we drop those those fifth Mondays.

And then you hold for just a minute.

Uh Clerk so can you put up what's in our packet so then when as council member Palmer is going through his proposed changes on the amendment, we're seeing the calendar that we have in front of us.

That's one we do both side by side.

Okay, I've got it in front of me now.

Okay, so if people I'll walk you through it.

So let's go to June 29th.

That's a Monday one.

On my alternate, it says that we're off.

But but we're scheduled to be on.

And so I'd like us to remove that one.

And now you go down to July.

July 6th is the first Monday of the month.

We're at the 13th, then we have the 20th.

And so I think the 13th is the second Monday.

So let's do the sixth Monday of July, which is the first Monday of the month.

No, this is set at first.

Okay, okay.

Let him let him finish what is that that's it.

Okay.

Yeah.

All right.

Now we have Councilmember Miller.

So my question is, are you proposing eliminating or changing any of the regular council meetings or just removing study sessions?

Uh study sessions, and then the July 6th one, adding that as our regular meeting and dropping the 13th of July.

Okay.

Council council member, may I ask a question?

Go ahead go ahead, Administrator Zell.

Would you drop the 13th or would you make that a study session?

I'd make that a study session.

That that's our regular schedule.

That's why I'm so as you look at this calendar that that they have up there now.

That reflects what my intention is on my motion.

Okay, I'm just gonna one I I'm not gonna address all of it.

Well, maybe I will.

Okay, my concern is primarily July 6th, which is the Monday after a holiday.

And so for us to uh have that as a regular council meeting, I think that might be problematic.

Um, and then um I guess I don't have a lot of concerns with the others, although I guess in a general sense, uh that I think it's easier to if we have it scheduled as a study session and we don't need it to cancel it as opposed to if we do have.

I mean, I know we have a backup of a of uh a lot of items and issues that come before us on study sessions and they do seem to be packed.

That uh that it's easier to if we don't have that to to free it up than it is to say, hey, we're we need to add another study session.

So with that, I think council member miller had his hand up.

Sure.

I I just I guess also have the concern with the alternate that we would only have one meeting in December.

And I I would share council president Schubring's concern that cutting the meetings ahead of time, cutting the available study session time now versus adopting our schedule should it not come to a full agenda.

I just wouldn't want to presume that we won't need those times given how much we've had on our agendas and even filling reports and recommendations on many regular council meetings this year.

Councilmember Palmer.

So in December this year, we only have one meeting.

And so we only have one business meeting, don't we?

One and eight.

Council president, council member Palmer.

We have two, we have December 1st and December 8th.

We often have had two, at least since my tenure here.

I know sometimes we tried to cancel the second one, but almost always we've had something that couldn't wait until January.

So that is why we keep the second one, but we try to make it a light meeting, and you do have two regular meetings scheduled in December 2025, December 1st and December 8th.

Other comments, uh Mayor Norton.

So I'm I tend to be in agreement um with uh having them on the first and the third Monday and being able to count on that.

I I think that is a best practice for certain.

Um and I personally don't see any reason why it isn't the first and third in December either.

Um I'm struggling with is the fifth um taking off the study sessions.

A when I first became mayor, we had study sessions every Wednesday, even on days we had meetings in the evening.

We went from three to five, and we took a dinner break, and then we came back at six or seven, I think then, and went until midnight, whatever too often.

And so we were down to two, and it makes me very nervous to drop the one the other one because we have people come to us saying I'd like to present to the council, or when can I speak to the council?

And we're like, well, you can come for two minutes at the beginning of the meeting, or if it's a board and commission, or if it's someone who has a longer report that's maybe not a staff member, but that's a community member that wants to share something, we don't have enough days to do it because our we have had very full study sessions, and so I prefer the option of keeping that study session on the fifth and getting rid of it if we don't need it, rather than not having it there and having to then try to get people who weren't planning on being in town to a meeting.

The other point that I'll make is if on you can see it on in September.

It used to be practice that if the first Monday, and I'm thinking of July when someone is wanting to have a long weekend there.

I'm fine with the sixth personally, but if other people have long holidays, we typically would move it to the Wednesday.

That the rule was the council had the chambers on Mondays and Wednesdays, and if some for some reason you couldn't meet on a Monday or you had to call a special meeting, you had the council chambers on Wednesday.

That's that was our time.

Tuesday and Thursday are for the county to use these chambers primarily.

So I I guess I'm so I'm saying a couple things here.

First and third, yes.

If you can't do the first and it can move to the Wednesday, that would be a better option than moving it down to a study session day and keeping our study sessions days the second, fourth, and fifth, and canceling the fifth if we have no meeting.

Councilmember Fredericks.

Thank you.

Um I rush to second and support uh council member Palmer because I like consistency, and I I agree the community expects us to have a council meeting on the first and the third uh Monday of each month.

I like to stay the close to that as possible, obviously with the caveat of if it's a holiday, we move to a Wednesday.

I don't see any reasons when something lands close to a holiday, it's not a holiday.

We can meet on a Monday if Christmas lands on Saturday or Fourth of July lands on a Saturday or a Sunday, even for that matter.

We had we took an obligation to represent our community, stay consistent, be transparent, all those things.

Um we're not, you know, we're asked to to do a study session the third are the second and the fourth Monday.

Same thing.

I think we should stay consistent to that.

And I do like the idea of the fifth one being open because it's just a couple reprieves we get during the year to uh maybe do something with our family, what have you, a little bit selfishly.

I have Mondays off, so it's kind of nice to have a day off.

So but I do like to stay consistent, and you know, we took an obligation to to do this job and to to do it well, and that and I think a big part of that is is staying consistent with our times.

Council member Wall.

Thank you.

Uh I evaluated the calendar, and uh there are almost always four fifth Mondays in a in a year, except when uh the first of the it's like January 1 or something, then there could be five possibly.

So I I wondered uh uh why the 29th of June was identified as a possible study session when August 31st and November 30th were not identified as possible study sessions.

I can't always gonna take that.

I can answer that.

Um so when we were looking at making possibly July 4th weekend a longer weekend, um, and then you would have had off that week of July uh 6th.

So we didn't want to eliminate a study session, so I see um we moved July 13th as a regular meeting, and then we pushed the study session back a week to the June 29th.

So it would have kept the same amount of meetings for the year, it just kind of shifted them around.

Okay, I see that council member Palmer.

Yeah, I'll amend my motion to add December 21st as the second meeting of December that makes it easier.

No, there's no second, no discussion.

Yes.

Uh further discussion on the previous council council member Palmer's previous uh amendment, which is in front of us on the screens.

There's a second to the alternate here.

Councilmember Fredericks.

Yeah, yeah.

We're back on the one on the screen.

Yeah, it so let me just try to say my thing.

I the one on the screen, I have tried to so I can make sure I understand.

I've got four different actions.

There is a drop of a June 29th study, there's a change of uh a business meeting from the thirteenth to the sixth, there's an ad of a study session on July 13th, and there's a drop of a business meeting on the 14th.

That's correct, yes.

So that that is a good summary of what we're at.

Okay, and that the motion is all four of those, not like one or two of them.

Correct.

Okay.

So I'll you know, I I've got a slightly different reading in here.

I I do like the consistency, but I I also appreciate the staff's looking at the 6th of July for a business meeting, and they might be looking at saying there's everybody coming back that day, but my view is they're looking at the days leading up to it and how difficult it'll be to prepare that agenda between vacations and holidays and things, and when would that agenda get out?

So I can kind of appreciate how they came to the 13th.

Um, I was looking again it the other option there is the eighth, but it doesn't meet the the need for the consistency as far as the drop of the 14th or June 29th.

Again, it's inconsistent with the discussion we're having here because the 14th, it's appears at least the last couple years I remember we've had that um second second meeting in June.

And when we didn't, we can decide not to have it because we don't have any business for it.

So um I from where I'm at right now, I I understand the consistency.

Um as far as saying you know we committed to this, we're actually dropping more work in this amendment than we are adding.

Um so I I guess I I can't find my way clear to to supporting it at this point.

Uh uh Clerk Kay, so could you take the roll on the amendment?

Council President Schubrink, may I just mention one thing?

Go ahead, uh Mr.

Carlson.

I would just mention uh in regards to the the July 6th.

Um, because I'm the lawyer in the room, I'm reading what the charter says, um, and it does say that one regular meeting of the common council shall be held on the first Monday of each calendar month.

So I just wanted to provide that input.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh all right.

Are we uh are we ready to vote on the amendment?

Councilmember Keene.

Nay.

Councilmember Miller.

Nay.

Councilmember Wall.

I'd like to pick and choose uh we'll have that opportunity after this vote.

I guess I will say aye.

Councilmember Fredericks.

I councilmember Palmer.

Aye.

Councilmember Doring.

Nay.

Council President Schuberg.

Nay.

So we're back to the original uh calendar that uh that Clerk Caseel uh put on our packet.

Are there any uh Mayor Norton?

Um I'm wondering if I I'm not sure of the timing if there's a rush on getting this done, but given the discussion here, because as some of us were saying, I think I heard two or three different people saying some of the changes made sense and some of them didn't.

If there were if there would be any interest in entertaining more time to consider the the input that you heard here before just approving it this evening, uh councilmember Palmer.

Well, uh I think you know if you have your a city attorney telling you the July 6th is the first Monday, and you should probably follow your charter.

Um, I'll make my amendment that we have a meeting on July 6th and the 13th become this the July 13th one becomes a study session.

Is there a second?

Second, uh moved and seconded uh discussion on the July 6th, the switch to July July 6th and 13th.

Yes.

Uh I did you raise your hand council member?

Councilmember Palmer's motion.

Well, he he explained it.

Go ahead.

Councilmember Keene.

I I want a clarification from Mr.

Carlson.

I heard you say that the charter says we have to have a meeting on a Monday, but I heard Councilmember Palmer say it has to be the first Monday.

Can you clarify that?

Yeah, it the charter section 5.03 says I'm just gonna read it.

One regular meeting of the common council shall be held on the first Monday in each calendar month.

And then it goes on to say unless any such first Monday shall be a legal holiday, in which event it shall be held at the same hour and place on the day following, or on any day uh that's convenient for the council.

Okay.

So my interpretation is is as discussed before the sixth is not a legal holiday, therefore the charter would require the council to have a meeting on that day.

Okay.

Uh councilmember Miller, I think is next.

And then council member Wall.

I I guess I would just ask staff, perhaps administrators alms to address Councilmember Keene's concern about preparation for that meeting with the holiday and is that a doable change.

Um council council president, council member miller.

I would say I would say that that is doable.

So how we actually prepare your packet is that um all of those items are going to be due on Monday the 29th of June.

And so then we go through the review process.

So that review is happening as early sometime as Friday, the Friday before.

Um so I for some people it might be problematic, but there's an opportunity for for most of those things to be prepared well in advance if it's something that people know are couple of.

I think that sounds good, and I appreciate Councilmember Palmer's close reading of the charter and making this suggestion.

Councilmember Wall.

I'm wondering if Mr.

Palmer would consider a friendly amendment to his amendment and to uh drop the 29th, given Clerk Caseel's rationale for having added a study session in uh June since we had reduced to one in July.

Now that we're going back to the uh regular cadence in July, that means June would look more like the other five five uh Monday months like August and uh November.

Uh that was that was a just point of order.

That was a motion doesn't have a second yet.

No, yeah, and what I will do is I uh so that was offered as a friendly amendment, so that will be offered to both the mover and the seconder.

If they agree to that, then it it becomes part of the motion.

I'd accept that.

Uh who was the seconder?

Okay, so I thought I was, but that's okay.

So you you had a friendly amendment.

So it is now part of the uh the proposal.

So we have uh in front of us uh July 6th as a regular council meeting, July 13th as a study session, and removing July or June 29th.

Correct that is the amendment before us.

Any further discussion?

I I yeah, just point of order.

I I didn't hear that in the amendment.

I heard the friendly amendment was to remove the 29th because we're having June 6th.

I didn't hear add the 13th.

So that was in the original motion.

That was part of the original motion.

It was part of the original that got voted down.

No, the second amendment.

Second the I'm I'm trying to keep track of my scorecard, and I didn't get that one marked down.

Okay, yes.

We're just switched, we're flipping July.

The the amendment that uh council member Palmer and uh Councilmember Wall put forward is to flip the July 6th and 13th.

So and then council member wall offered a friendly amendment to remove uh study session on the 29th, which was accepted.

So that's where we stand.

Is everyone clear on that?

Any further discussion on this?

Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed say nay.

Motion passes.

So now we are calendar.

Uh we are at moving the amended calendar.

The amendment calendar.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say nay.

We have a calendar for 2026.

Thank you.

Let's move to uh I think the next one is yours also, Mr.

Five F.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh yes, I'm lost.

My here it is.

Uh H 6, which is the Office of Justice Programs, Community Based Violence in uh intervention and prevention initiative grant program pulled by Councilmember Doring.

Councilmember Doring.

I asked that this be pulled for two reasons.

The first one is in the uh adopting resolution language.

It appeared to deviate from our current practice of approving an application, then that action coming back to council for an acceptance, and then into entering into the grant agreement.

So I think that that question has been answered.

And how some federal grants target marginalized communities in this country.

And I was concerned about looking at the language for this particular grant and whether it uh aligned with our diversity, equity, and inclusion commitment statement and with the Minnesota Human Rights Act, especially in regards to transgendered individuals.

So sent that uh memorandum on to uh city administration as well as our city attorney's office for uh explanations of why my reading might be incorrect.

Um and I wanted to offer them a opportunity to share their that rationale uh publicly um so members of the transgendered community could continue to feel like Rochester is a welcome place for them to reside.

Attorney Carlson, are you gonna take this one?

Sure.

I can um uh start off here.

So um and uh council member during if it's okay, I'll just read the response that we provided to to you so that the entire council has it.

Um I would just point out that uh the city is not involved in any of the actual regulatory activities that seem to be addressed by the language of the Bondi statement.

The city does not regulate the use of restrooms in any way that would be reasonably viewed as violating the memo.

Lastly, the statement of the Bondi language referenced below states that jurisdictions should affirm sex based sex-based boundaries.

This language does not require the city to take any action or regulation or pronouncement that could be viewed as contrary to the Minnesota Human Rights Act or the Council's inclusion commitment.

At the end of the day, our position would be that the city organization does not engage in any regulation that would constitute a violation of the Bondi memo.

Thank you.

Councilmember Doring, uh you mentioned the first part that you are do you want to make an amended version of the uh the item that yeah, I plan to not support this item, so I am not willing to make that motion.

Okay, Councilmember Keene.

Yeah, I would like to make a motion adopting a resolution authorizing the Rochester Police Department to apply for, accept, and enter into grant agreement with the United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance for a fiscal year 2025 Office of Justice Programs, Community Based Violence Intervention and Prevention Initiative.

Uh moved by Councilmember Keene.

Is there a second?

Second.

Seconded by Councilmember uh Fredericks.

Uh go ahead, Councilmember Keene.

Yeah, I appreciate the risks that uh we could potentially be taking on uh with uh some of these uh federal things right now, but I again I've had some of these things earlier in the year, and I find that um again the way we do business in the city of Rochester, we're not f in violation of these sort of uh orders, and based on that, I I think these sort of uh funding opportunities are something that I'm I appreciate that our police department goes after I'm gonna offer an amendment to this to the point that uh council member Doring uh mentioned up front, which was I think we have an added protection if we we uh allowed the police department to apply for the grant and then as we do with many other grants that once the uh if we are awarded that grant that it comes back to us and then we are able to see the contract itself and uh be reassured that it aligns with our uh our uh missions when it comes to uh ensuring that all members of our community are uh are protected.

Second that uh motion made by council member Schubring and seconded by Council uh member Palmer.

Uh any further discussion, council member uh Miller.

I I feel comfortable supporting the motion as amended as well.

Uh and I guess just for RPD folks in the audience, I am curious about ongoing cost implications.

Should we receive this grant, uh particularly for the UAVs and docking stations and license plate readers, because while software is a component we can turn on and off, it feels like those are fixed costs of installing them, and then we'll have ongoing costs that would likely continue beyond the grant period.

So I'd love more information should this grant be awarded to us and then brought back for review.

So I I would be happy to support the amendment.

Councilmember Keene.

Yeah, I again I I'm trying to rate these things down here, and I'm not keeping up.

I I I did not think your statement was in the form of an amendment.

It was uh it was a concept that we should make sure we bring it back.

Can someone restate this as an like uh an amendment that would strike accept and enter into you want me to restate it?

Uh council member or call it.

Yeah, they're also did you did you get the verbiage?

It's on there.

Oh, there we go.

Uh we believe that you were referencing the amended resolution.

So the language here would be authorization to apply for a grant with the U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance for the 2025 Office of Justice Programs Community Based Violence Intervention and Prevention Initiative.

No, just apply.

Just apply is a part of the resolution.

Okay.

It's there.

Got it.

Council member.

Uh when you say it's there, I I yeah, tell me.

I I heard you make a statement.

Okay, let me let me clarify my statement.

My statement was that uh like we do with a lot of grants to apply that we will uh we will apply for it, and then if and when we are awarded the grant, uh RPD will come back to us and and then we will see the contract, and then we will then uh make that decision to approve it.

Very good.

Now what what your amendment was is take out the take out the accept and enter into the grant grant agreement.

Exactly.

Perfect.

Mayor, Mayor Norton.

Yeah, I think this is a great way to to move ahead with this, and I understand the concerns there.

I I've raised these questions on past federal grants, and I just want to remind the body, and I know it's uncomfortable to talk about, but the fact is every federal grant that we take, these rules apply to, and we have been assured time and again by our legal counsel that we are doing nothing in the city of Rochester that violates the law.

I will say we I think it's wise for us to reexamine because the law continues to change daily, and at some point should it change to the point that the grant language comes back and is not acceptable.

It is our job as elected officials and you know, our staff to make recommendations to use caution when we sign off on those things.

But it's not just this grant.

I just you know it is really uncomfortable to talk about this, but it is every grant, and it's hundreds of millions of dollars that are uh would be affected um should the federal government continue to take actions that move us in a direction that we're not comfortable with.

I'm comfortable knowing that our legal council is giving us the thumbs up that we are on the right track and doing the right thing in the city of Rochester at this time.

So uh Councilmember Doring.

Yeah, thank you for for those uh words, Mayor Norton.

I I appreciate that.

And I I will not be supporting uh I will not be supporting this resolution, and it's uh not a statement uh uh about the Rochester police department at all.

Uh it is more uh out of concern for uh the many constituents who have in who are members of the LGBTQIA plus community, especially those who uh are transgendered who uh continue to call me and say uh they are frightened uh about oversteps.

And um I um I assured them uh through conversations over the course of the past week uh that I would be looking out for their best interests.

So I don't view uh participating in this particular grant uh application process as being in their best interest.

So I'm going to uh not be voting for this resolution.

So on the table is the amendment uh to uh to the resolution, which is to uh to uh have uh allow application and then if awarded it will come back to us.

All in favor say aye.

Aye uh oppose say nay.

Uh passes six to one.

We're to the uh uh the original uh motion uh by councilmember keen.

Any further discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Uppose say nay.

Uh motion passes six to one.

Uh councilmember Doring in uh voting yay.

Thank you.

Um moving on to uh H7, former F6, which is the Bloomberg Harvard uh fellow host city grant application, uh Councilmember Palmer.

Yeah, I'm I'm not gonna be supporting this, and I don't think that should be a surprise to anybody.

Um when we go out for these grants like this, and then they come back with somebody, and then we say after they leave, well, we have to fill this position.

Um the three things that are on there, I think if if we don't have those three items that they're gonna be working on figured out already, I'd be disappointed.

So I will not be um supporting this um request.

Uh uh Deputy Administrator Steinhauser, can you give us a brief uh briefing on uh this item?

There we go.

Sure.

Thank you, Council President Schubring, uh Cindy Steinhauser, Deputy State Administrator.

Uh so uh what we're proposing with this application is that we would bring a limited term to a year, it's only a two-year program to come on and do analysis around really what's happening in terms of all of the rapid growth, not only with both forward and bound, but with the private investment that continues to happen, the investment that we're making in public infrastructure is we know that um as we're doing public and private improvements that there are there are going to be an increase in service delivery.

We've got more public realm improvements going in, some going in not just below ground in terms of increased capacity, but above ground enhanced um improvements beyond our typical streetscape, for example.

And so um it's under doing having this person do some analysis of what our future state will look like, not only in terms of um increase of service delivery that's needed, but also doing um analysis around increased uh future revenue and it's not just property tax, but um you know uh hotel motel tax um and how we might better align resources both on the revenue side and um to the service delivery that we have to have.

So for example, um if after the end of this we say we've got X number of more public realm spaces and green space, does that mean we need to bring on two more park maintenance people?

And what would that look like?

What's the revenue to support the growth that's happening um in uh Rochester?

So this person is to help us understand.

If you recall from City Administrator Zelms um budget message and many messages, while we have grown um uh in service areas somewhere between 17 and 200 percent, um staffing models have grown like 11 percent, I think it is.

It's 17.

17 percent.

So if you can uh visualize that graphic, what that's the analysis that we're doing.

What does it mean in terms of a future state of resources that would be coming as a result of this growth, and what's the service delivery to um that needs to be sustained for uh to reflect that growth?

Thank you, Ms.

Steinhauser.

I will be supporting this.

I I think it shows forward thinking, it it shows really uh a staff that's looking to find the unknowns that we know that uh that Rochester is changing that uh the bold forward unbound program is going to change our downtown area in ways that we don't even know.

So resources that are going to help us uh get better knowledge and prepare us for that is uh valuable information.

And if there are gaps that are discovered during that process, it will come back to us as a council to make those decisions uh on whether or not we uh move forward with uh with additional sustainable uh staffing.

Councilmember Wall.

Thank you.

Uh in your narrative, Miss Steinhauser, you were even uh more uh prescribed in terms of a job description that this person would accomplish.

Um we believe that we can find a defined two-year body of work to address Mr.

Palmer's concern that uh we would not necessarily be looking to extend that position.

Turned off.

Uh yes, that is correct.

I I think this is that um upfront up front analysis.

Um, but we uh we operate in under the high performance organization model.

I think it's the kind of jump start to analysis that we can then take internally to the existing team and think about what how we implement uh further analyze and and implement any recommendations that come out of that analysis.

And if as council president shoe bring indicated, we would bring those forward to you as well as updates.

But yes, definitely.

So I presume these candidates come from a broad range of uh interests uh since there's a many programs from which they would graduate.

Do we actually interview people?

Uh do we ensure that this person has uh interest specifically in that job description as opposed to public transportation or utilities?

Yes.

So first we have to be selected as a host community.

That's the first that's the first hurdle.

Umce once we are selected as a host community, then it's a co-interview process, right?

We interview the the the um graduates that are coming out of their master's program or graduate level program, and they interview us.

Is there a good match in terms of their skills with what we're looking for?

And are we good a good match in terms of um the kind of challenging initiative that they want to work on in a community they want to be located in?

Thank you.

Councilmember Miller.

I actually like to make a motion uh approving the recommendation of submittal of a 2026 Bloomberg Harvard fellow host city grant application to host a full-time Bloomberg Harvard Fellow.

A move by Councilmember Miller.

Is there a second?

I will second it.

Okay.

Uh just to add a little bit, I appreciate Ms.

Steinhauser bringing up the the 17% growth in staff as we look at 200 to 300 percent growth in other areas, and I do worry about the development pattern that that creates an inequity in our ability to manage some of that growth.

So I think this is a great opportunity that can be scoped to a two-year program.

Personally, I was impressed with uh Mr.

Metz coming in and as a former participant in this program for a different area and what he was able to bring forward in two years that did not uh turn into a full-time position replacement for him.

So I I'm looking forward to supporting this.

Councilmember Keene.

Oh, nothing to add.

Uh I'm sorry, nothing to add.

Oh, okay.

Councilmember Palmer.

Thank you.

Um I I believe the last Harvard person we had, we have a uh a person going to be hired for next year already budgeted for.

So um that's one of my fears.

The other thing that bothers me on this is that the tails and and when we do projects, we need to be asking about the tails because if it's going to cost us more money down the long run, we should know about that when we approve it, and not have somebody come and for two years and tell us, well, maybe this is gonna happen.

Yeah, I get frustrated when I hear, you know, um, boy, this is the percentage of people we have, and this is what we need to do.

We're not taking in examples of of uh we have new software we just approved.

Oh, things are gonna work better with that.

We have computers, um, we we have we have um cell phones.

Things have advanced so much, and so if you compare things from the 1960s to today and go, oh geez, we've only grown this much.

That's not an equal apple to apple description.

Um we've made investments.

We made investments in the 311 system, and in and we did that to make it a more efficient system, so we should be saving money.

And so if it's not just saving money, it's saving staff.

And so it's not a one-to-one that that oh geez, in 1960 we had this many people, and uh boy, now we have this.

And um, you know, it just gets to be frustrating.

Uh uh seeing no other comments, uh uh there's a motion to uh approve uh submittal of the 2026 Bloomberg Harvard fellow host city grant application.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed say nay, uh it sounds like a five to two vote, is that correct?

Uh with council member uh Fredericks and uh Palmer voting nay.

Moving on to our ordinance first readings.

Uh go ahead, Mr.

City Assistant City Attorney, acting city attorney for this evening, Mr.

Brett Carlson.

Good evening, Council President Schubring, Mayor Norton, Council members.

There are two first ratings this evening.

Item J one, an ordinance of the Rochester City Code approving the renaming of roadway section of 36th Street Northwest, located south of 37th Street Northwest, between 21st Avenue Northwest and 22nd Avenue Northwest within rolling greens third edition to 22nd Avenue Northwest.

Item J two.

An ordinance repealing in whole and replacing with the new chapter 8-11 of Title VII of the Rochester Code of Ordinances related relating to special events.

There is one second reading this evening.

Item K1, 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.

Is there a motion on this item?

So moved by Councilmember Palmer.

Second.

Seconded by Councilmember Doring.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed say nay.

Motion passes.

Moving on to other business.

First up is the Rochester Economic Development Authority.

I will recess the council.

And we will move into the opposed say nay.

We are back into the city council meeting.

And is there a motion to adopt the findings of the EDA meeting?

So move.

Move by Councilmember Wall, seconded by Councilmember Fredericks.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed say nay.

Motion passes.

We have two more items under other business.

I would.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I brought this issue up a couple times here in the process because it became clear as we were getting close to setting the levy that council member compensation had not was not part of the budget.

And so in looking at the data and talking with the uh administrator Zelms and knowing we're very late in the the budget setting, we we have not set the budget yet, but we have set the max levy.

Um I'm making this suggestion after having watched a very painful uh past action of this body before most of you, but not all of you were elected.

When uh it was it was determined that we had waited a very long time in adjusting council member salaries and they needed to be increased.

And it was a large increase uh based on benchmarking against the average median income percents of that for council members, the president, the mayor.

It was very painful for the board, but they did it.

It was the right thing to do, and they did it.

Um and so now here we are after having made some adjustments in 2022 to do the benchmarking.

Um we have not uh touched this topic again, and since that time we have had cost of living increases just as we rightly addressed for our employees every year with um what I call COLA, but here we call a general wage increase, which is just kind of uh keeping up with the cost of inflation for our employees.

Uh and we have not done so for uh the elected officials.

And the problem with that is I and I know and I will just acknowledge right now, having served in three different bodies, it is a very painful thing to do to discuss one's own salary.

But when you're an elected official, it is what you have to do.

There is not another alternative.

And I think we have been remiss in not putting a cola in, and we are going to find ourselves or another council a year or two down the line, as we are now four years out of sync with the GWI or COLA without having done a colour.

We're already out of sync four years, and I'm not suggesting we make up those four years at all.

But what I am saying is it's time to stop allowing this trend to continue.

So knowing that the budget was already set and doing a lot of talking and thinking, I would my proposal would be a cost neutral, uh, no impact to the budget for 2026, um, taking $19,000 out of the mayor's initiative fund and applying that toward the GWI that the city has chosen to give all, you know, everyone in union contracts and you know, other for other things.

We use the GWI rather than a COLA.

Um, and just apply it to that for 2026.

So no budget impact at all, won't affect the levy.

So no budget impact at all, won't affect the levy, it will just come out of my uh mayor's initiative and go toward those.

It's $19,000 for the uh eight elected officials, so it's a very de minimis amount of money that we're talking about here.

But again, we're we're doing it after four years of having not done it.

That's fine.

But what I would like to also suggest in talking with um administrator Zelms is that we not continue to ignore this and that we look at using the GWI or a COLA amount.

But I think they perf the staff would prefer GWI, yeah.

Um, as as uh, and I think it would be three percent for next year to have that incorporated into the 2027 budget.

Um, and whether that I think that's maybe for a uh discussion for another day, but whether the three percent and the adjustment to the salaries would have to would come again out of the mayor's salary in the next year, or whether you choose to, you know, if we have more revenue coming in than expected, or you know, we don't know what next year's budget's gonna bring.

Um you will have a time where you will make some adjustments to that budget, and you could um adjust where that three percent GWI would come from in 2027.

So that is my hope that you will accept that and that you know we can move ahead and not ignore uh council member salaries, and again, I'm just gonna acknowledge I know it's difficult to discuss this.

I know many of you are very comfortable uncomfortable.

Um, but it's what has to be done in in public office in order to not find ourselves in that position where we have such a discrepancy that it needs to jump.

And I will just say the school districts and counties deal with this as well.

I believe the county did a 10% increase for their elected officials this year.

I'm not proposing that, you know, the making up for lost time thing.

I'm just saying let's do the GWI this year, take it out of my salary, and then adjust the 2027 budget.

Not to take it out of your salary, but your salary budget out of my uh what do we call it?

The mayor's initiatives budget line item.

Thank you, Mayor.

One, I I really appreciate your courage in bringing this forward to us.

I agree with you that we do need to be transparent about our uh salaries.

We are paid, we do work for the city and uh we uh make huge decisions for the city.

Uh so I appreciate that.

And I uh in my role here, I will not have a problem taking a vote on our salary on an annual basis.

So I do appreciate uh putting this on the table.

Uh I uh your initial proposal I will support if uh if there are other council members that support that.

I think the the process would be if there's a support here kind of from uh a uh a sense that uh administrator Zelms gets and then it will come back to us if that um mayor's proposal happens.

Uh I am uh I I also do support really putting this on the table uh transparently uh for our 2027 budget and moving moving that uh through the process uh that uh we have on an annual basis.

Uh councilmember Fredericks.

Thank you.

Um I guess in my mind, we're kind of a little bit late in the budgeting process for this year and such.

I I do believe the the cost of living increase each year is more like four percent.

Is that correct?

Uh council president, council member Fredericks, it changes every year.

It's not consistent.

Um the the current general wage increase trend for 2026 is four percent.

The current general wage increase trend for 2027 is three percent, and okay vacillates between usually two and four percent.

So I guess to keep it simple, would it make sense to just forgo it for the year and just say next year, whatever the average would be, just have that set that that would be the average increase each year and just be done with it.

Administrators helps council president, council member Fredericks, it really is up to the body.

I would just clarify a couple things that would happen.

I heard perhaps incorrectly two different things being said, one by the mayor, change the 2026, then I heard council president say you would support changing 2027.

Then I'm hearing you suggest that it would be an average of the two, but we know what the general wage increase is, usually a year or two in advance.

We have typically three-year contracts in order to predict it and project it in the budget.

We would need to know that.

And the reason that it hasn't come up is because when that last 2022 compensation adjustment happened, the motion said make no future salary changes unless directed by council during a future year budget discussion.

That's why I haven't been bringing it up.

Um there are any number of ways that you could do that.

But what would actually happen if you made a change for the 2026 budget is that we would remove those dollars from the initiative line item, transfer them appropriate as necessary to the salary line item within the council business unit and within the mayor's business unit.

That would need to happen before December 1st when you're voting on this, and we would be preparing an ordinance for the consent agenda and first read on December 1st, and then you would have a second read of that ordinance in January.

So there is a process every single year.

You would need to be approving an ordinance with the set dollar amounts for the salary, regardless of what you index it to.

If it's the general wage increase, that seems like it would align very similarly to the rest of the compensation budget.

Um, but it's really up to the city council how you would want to do that.

And I just want to clarify there are a number of steps that would need to happen between now and December 1st.

If you if you feel like you want to change the 2026 budget, council member Palmer.

Well, um, we did discuss this in the spring and the fall of this year in the tax levy's been set already, and so I am not in favor of changing that.

I'm not afraid to talk about the wages.

And if we want to bring it up in in next spring and in and uh when we're talking about the budget, I'd be fine with that.

Um again, I will go back to what Ms.

Elms just said was that we didn't ignore it.

It was a council vote that said that um, you know, we'll let you know when we want to have a raise.

So I don't see the necessity to do it now.

I don't see the emergency.

I'm a little inquisitive if if you've got this much money left in your mayor's initiative fund, why don't we just don't leave that in the in the budget and and just not use it?

Um and so I would not be in favor of of doing this.

I this is the first I've heard about it tonight, and um, and so I I'm I'm not in favor of doing this.

Councilmember Miller.

Yeah, I'll just echo uh council president Schubring's comments on the mayor's.

I I do really appreciate her bringing this forward.

I I agree that it's kind of an awkward process, but it is the one we live within.

And um I I would be remiss to not look to our peers at Olmsted County on the board of commissioners, and they went through a process in 2023, I believe, to look at peers, set a process and move this forward.

I'll admit as a new council member to council uh member Palmer's point.

I I wasn't so aware of council member Keene's past motion to freeze conversation about it in a way.

Um, so I think it's it's an opportunity I'll support moving uh forward a regular process.

I think the general wage increase makes sense, and I would support the mayor's uh recommendation and moving her budget for the 2026 year to keep it budget neutral, but not push it out another year.

Other council members, anyone else want to be heard on this item.

I just need to clarify that I'm hearing two people support changing the 2026 budget.

That's all I've heard.

But I've heard more people support talking about 2027.

So with two people that vote the read I have as well.

Uh council member Doring.

I would also support um modifying the 2026 and then exploring a process going forward in 2027.

So accepting the mayor's um suggestion.

And I'm still not hearing a majority.

Yep.

So I just want to make sure people are clear that that's anyone else want to be heard on this item.

Uh council member Wall.

I think it's only fair uh to weigh in and uh the mayor and I have talked about it.

I I think that she makes a very compelling case, and I think thank her.

Uh it does make me very uncomfortable.

Uh these have been really difficult uh conversations through my entire uh career as well.

Uh much easier for me to advocate for staff members uh than for myself.

Um I think that we'll always be able to uh talk about uh what's the best use of $19,000, uh, whether that's compensating um uh council members or uh offering $20,000 to a new home or buying software for $24 million or that's gonna take a little while to get there from 19,000.

Uh so I I am just really uncomfortable.

I'd be more comfortable, I think, uh, working toward 27 and making it part of the regular budgeting process.

Councilmember Keene.

Yeah, again, I've been in some of these other discussions and and the the I I guess I I think we've missed the vote in 2026 that we're to the end of the budgeting thing.

Um, and I don't feel comfortable supporting it.

Um as far as like this general discussion of salary, you know, it everyone's in a different place here.

Like these jobs usually this is more of a philosophic thing for me.

That do you do you want to make these the kind of jobs that people who are independently wealthy can come and do for a while because they don't need the income, or do you want to have it to be something that somebody who does need to have a primary or secondary income in a home can take on a job like this because you want those sort of diverse voices?

That's what it's more about to me, and then trying to keep trying to keep it to be, you know, we tried to do the AMI thing.

Um the the point is though, with the kind of public trust we have here, we we are not able to by law do something that says like just make it automatic or anything like that.

We have to, you know, like talk to the public and then put our hands up and vote and vote vote for it against it.

And it's and um I I guess when I think of it trying to tie it to something like GWI and be able to do it, it's the three and four percent.

That that's the easier stuff to do.

It's what we did back in 2019 when we said we are making 40 percent of what the county is, or you know, 10 percent of what the city is doing the same thing, and it was a major change, and it's a major upheaval to the community.

It's not it's a it's a real trustbreaker when you start talking about you were making you know 22,000 and now you're at 51,000, something like that.

So I'm sensitive to this.

Um I'm sensitive to the budget process, but um my record has been to try to do these things but do them more reasonably.

And right now for the 2026 thing, I'm I'm not there.

Okay, uh Mayor Norton.

Yeah, just for the record, I really resent I'm I'm really having to tamp my emotions down now.

Being accused of a financial trick was inappropriate language.

What I was doing was offering up my budget, and as you can see, I've been applying for grants so that I can do the things that I think are important for this community every year.

And so I offered up $19,000 from my budget in order to do the right thing.

It was not an accounting trick, and I really do not appreciate that language, Councilmember Keene.

Councilmember Keene.

Yeah, again, I didn't put I didn't direct this at the mayor that at all.

This is what I think of when I when we present the budget to the city and talk about we did we used to talk about doing something like we raise the salaries, but we didn't charge you anything.

That to me sounds like an accounting trick.

That's what I wanted to stay away from.

Uh I think we've covered this topic.

I think Administrator Zelms uh understands the sentiment of the council, and so we will move on.

Uh Councilmember Miller.

Thank you.

Mine will be fairly quick.

Uh I believe all of us received an email from the League of Minnesota Cities uh advocacy lead, and there are opportunities with the National League of Cities to participate in federal advocacy committees through application.

Applications are limited per committee to one application per member city of which we are one.

I would like to apply for the transportation and infrastructure services committee, which deals with federal advocacy on transportation funding, innovation, and um just engaging with our federal partners and our transportation needs is uh council member uh Palmer.

I I would support that yeah, I I would be supportive of that.

I I guess just for historic sake, I I participated in that committee for the League of Minnesota's or for the National League of Cities back in, I think it's 21 and 22.

Uh question for administrators do we do we support council member miller's application or I'm I'm Council President Um Council members.

I don't believe you need to take any formal action.

I think he just wanted to make you aware in case somebody else was planning to apply for that same committee.

You can only have one application per member, which means per city.

So just to clarify, uh so uh we can only have one council member serve on a committee or the the transportation committee is the transportation committee if there was another committee that someone was interested in.

If other council members are interested in other committees, got it.

Okay.

I'll just add the process is somewhat simple.

Uh it's through the National League of Cities um website and applications are open until December 2nd.

Good luck.

Uh Councilmember Wall.

And we're looking forward to you bringing home many dollars.

Councilmember Fredericks.

I applaud your willingness to continue to get involved, Coach Miller.

Uh good job.

All right.

Is there a motion to adjourn?

So move second move by council member Palmer, seconded by council member miller.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed say nay.

We are adjourned.

I appreciate that.

No, I'll see if my right.

No, I think I have more control.

I don't think I don't, I think that you keep the best time to do.