Clerk Caseel, do you have the sign-in sheets?

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

I find it allegiance to the United States of America.

And you're public relations and for all.

Welcome everybody to our November 3rd, 2025 City Council meeting.

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 this evening.

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

I will be keeping track of time through two methods.

One the red uh timer up on uh to my left, and then the stoplight here.

When it reaches yellow, you have one minute left.

Um I'd also request that each speaker be concise to allow more people to speak during the time period.

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

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

If you have materials for the council, please give them to the city clerk who is to my right to distribute.

You will be invited up in the order in which you signed up.

Please state your name clearly and make sure the clerk has your information if you need follow-up.

We'll start with Grace Pesh.

Hello, Council members.

My name is Grace Pesh.

I live at 1436, 13th Avenue Northwest in Rochester.

Thank you for the leadership that you provide both during times of visible and invisible crises.

I serve as the Vice President of Community Impact at United Way of Southeast Minnesota, and I have the privilege to serve at an organization that has dedicated the last 100 years to responding to the greatest needs across our community.

Since 2001, 211 has been a critical resource for your constituents to get connected to the help they need.

At United Way, we have been remaining engaged in the latest updates related to the shutdown, and now more than ever, our community needs to know about 211.

With the ability to call or text 24-7 and talk with someone in your native language 365 days a year.

In our area alone, 5,000 callers are connected to critical resources each year.

And I ask that you tell your constituents about how 211 can help them.

While today people are preparing to lose access to food resources, tomorrow our community may need something different.

And your staff along with staff at other nonprofits in our community are working hard to keep their information up to date in our database.

And without that up-to-date information, people can get defeated and lost in the system.

She talks to a two-on-one staff member to find and they uncover a few other resources that may help her, from child care assistance to mental health care.

While she called for food, she ended that call with several new opportunities for her and her children.

When we invest in two one-one, we invest in the future of our community.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next up we have Barry Skullnick.

Hi all.

Nice to see everybody.

I'm really talking about two things, but the most important one right now is the Big Sky North Coast Railroad Road, which is I too on the agenda.

And I think it's a shame that Mayo Clinic, which is one of the major institutions for health care in this country doesn't have a railroad where patients can come in.

A railroad usually has a restroom facilities and has a more comfortable ride.

And not everyone can come in by plane.

Some people do want to come in, you know, by train.

And I just think it's extremely important that we have a railroad here because again, we're one of the only major facilities that doesn't have a railroad around.

And it's more comfortable, I think it's more usable.

Also, the Amtrak ridership has gone up not only nationally, but also in Minnesota, both the people getting on the train and off the train at Amtrak has gone up each of the last fiscal years, both in Minnesota and nationally.

So it's a an improving trend, and I I think it's something we should seriously consider doing.

I think it's very, very important to have that.

And even the city of Duluth is trying to get a train up there.

I was researching that too, and they're ahead of us, so I think we should catch up with us.

They don't even have a major medical center there like we do nationally.

I do think we should have it, and I urge you to do that.

And uh the only other thing I was going to mention when it comes to the um the thing with the um air quality meters.

Yes, what's there is something that's happening now, but it's not easily usable for many people.

Uh that's basically my only point there.

I we have to use that because we we have all those installed, and it's very hard to find what you need online.

Anyway, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Uh next up we have uh Martha Grogan.

Good evening, uh Mayor and Council members.

Just really quick.

I also think considering the train is just a great idea.

Um the train was really instrumental in building the Mayo Clinic practice.

There were ambulance medical cars and things like that.

So obviously there would be a lot to consider, but it would be great to have alternate modes of transportation and and people who travel to other countries know how efficiently that can run, and hopefully Amtrak will start to improve.

But it'd be great to have consider having train service to Rochester.

Thank you.

Next we have Virginia Witherspoon.

Uh good evening, Council members and mayor.

I'm Virgin Virginia Witherspoon, and I'm the executive director of Channel One Regional Food Bank located here in Rochester.

And I wanted to quickly speak on two relevant things on your agenda tonight.

First, thank you for considering us for the community development block grant project to help our mobile markets and home delivery across Rochester.

Second, thank you for considering a hundred thousand dollar grant to the food shelf to help us meet the urgent need right now.

There's a lot of news about SNAP, and I wanted to um let you know the latest about what's going on at Channel One.

I keep referring to this accidentally as our pandemic response because it feels like we are back in the pandemic.

On Friday, we're going to be distributing 5,000 boxes of food uh simultaneously across the county with funding from the county, and again, also a partnership with the city because your police will be providing us with traffic control.

And I'm reminded that our mobile markets that we're asking you to keep supporting, those actually started um during COVID when the city granted us funding for a driver, and then it morphed into us using DoorDash with that partnership and doing the deliveries in-house.

So the city and channel one's partnership goes back before before the pandemic, but certainly we learned how to work together during that time and how beneficial it can be when we did partner together.

We were facing a crisis before people will not receive SNAP benefits in a timely manner in November.

They may receive half their SNAP benefits, but no one knows the mechanism for how that's going to happen.

We already had 40%, 44% less food in our food shelf because of cutoff government commodities, and 35% less donated food from corporations because of economic pressure.

We are seeing 10,000 household visits per month.

Since the news on October 21st, that people will not receive SNAP, at least in a timely way.

We're seeing a hundred more visits a day.

The situation is dire, and anything that you can do to support the food shelf in Rochester goes a long way to keeping people fed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Eric Decker.

Hi.

Hi, counsel.

Thanks for your time for this.

First, Matthew 2535, for you were hungry.

And I gave you food.

So I appreciate Virginia's message and encourage all activity toward that.

I'm here to speak as a neighbor and partner in Cutsky Park Association.

And the process on the city's end seems a little stilted, where the developer can do studies and research and meet with 800 members of the community and create a report, the Gell report that has a forward by Patrick Seeb.

And yet when the final product and development, it's scaled down, it's very brief, doesn't have a legend or drawings, it doesn't match what we were told before.

And during that one hour, the neighborhood can give feedback during the neighborhood information meeting, yet there is no requirement or need to do anything with any of that feedback.

It can just be moving on along without any consideration of feedback from the neighborhood.

So as a council, I would strongly recommend taking a look at that process.

And is this a check mark that a developer needs to grit and bear through it, or is this an opportunity to continue engaging with the neighborhood and perhaps look towards solutions that work with everybody's ideals?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Cameron Mullen.

Good evening, Council Mayor.

My name is Kevin Mullen.

I'm the secretary for the Cusky Park Neighborhood Association.

I've come to you today with a dwindling hope and growing frustration.

Um three weeks ago, Mayo did a neighborhood information meeting for their West Logistics Center.

Um, and about two dozen of my neighbors uh showed up to raise questions and concerns and learn more about uh their plans.

Um and after that, we had a few neighbors submit follow-up letters.

Our board also submitted a follow-up letter, and it took about two weeks to get a response.

Uh we're greatly disappointed in that.

Um, from Mayo, we've typically gotten very quick feedback, and um they reiterated during our during their neighbor, excuse me, during the information meeting that this was a continuing conversation and with a two-week delay halfway to their submission deadline.

Uh, we are not confident in that anymore.

Um, that being said, I just want to point out to the city uh the things that we are looking for and improvements in this with hopes that uh you can work with the budget that was recently approved for DMC to help with some of the improvements that need that we think need to be made.

Um, our first point is that the air noise and pollution control for the semis that are coming up through this uh project and into our neighborhood uh has not been properly addressed.

Um the second is that the traffic disruption potential for having those semis specifically uh is a great concern for us.

They mayo says that there's to be up to six semis during peak hours, and that is about 20 uh once every 20 minutes a semi coming in, let alone a semi-leaving.

Um, and then our third priority is um adherence to the Gell guidelines that were presented to us.

We I know that you guys haven't adopted that as an official policy, but we have as a neighborhood because the is a reflection of our voices very important to us to have that extra great space and the transition between us and Mayo.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have uh Trevor Boget Boget.

Oh, sorry, oh it's an R.

Got it.

So good evening, uh council members and mayors.

I do come here just because I want to encourage the city of Rochester to consider adding extra consumer protections to our citizens to protect us against predatory practices regarding self-storage rentals.

I recently moved to this community, and one of the first things I needed to do was just find a storage unit.

As I moved all my things from my previous town to here, I hope to lay down some long-term roots.

I did some quick research online and I found a unit that fit my needs.

I signed up for it and I got my stuff stored.

A few short months later, my rate went up unexpectedly by 84%.

I received no warning of this, no mail, no phone call.

And I know that there are some communities, such as St.

Paul, which do have some extended consumer protections regarding self-storage facilities.

A few protections that I would like the city to consider would be as follows.

Things such as putting a cap on the percentage in which a self-storage facility can be increased on their rent, only allowing one increase within a specified amount of time.

My suggestion would be something such as like six months.

And then also having a statute that ultimately says that the price that they are advertising, such as advertising online, must remain the price that you pay.

Because in my case, even after my 84% increase, they were still advertising the same sized unit online for the price that I had initially started at.

And this is also being this was also not being marketed as a uh as a promotional price.

Ultimately, what I feel their goal is is going to be twofold.

They're either hoping that somebody stores with them as they're moving out of this town, meaning that they are going to be powerless to move to a different unit, or they're just hoping that they're gonna be able to store with somebody who will either have the financial constraints preventing them from moving or just the physical constraints preventing them from moving.

So just a couple of small things would really go a long way just to help in consumers of the city, I think.

So thank you for your time.

Thank you.

That's all I have on the sign in sheet.

If there's anyone else wishing to speak during open comment, please come forward.

Please state your name and you have two minutes.

Uh John Creasel, uh, Mr.

President, members of the council, mayor.

Uh it's kind of a joy to be here in the new really redesign facility.

Uh because I said a little bit earlier, I should have brought my sunglasses.

But uh that said, I didn't plan to talk, but I think I think it's uh regarding the storage facility that happened to me two times in some other storage facilities.

I don't know what the current name of this facility is, but it is certainly not acceptable if somebody has to work within a certain budgetary thing.

I can only say that what happened to me was a storage facility.

It was uh uh it was um sold twice in like six months, and and maybe that's the maybe that's the plan that you can just have a uh arbitrary free and eventually uh people uh at that particular point in time you also had to provide your own insurance, and if you didn't have any insurance, then you had to buy insurance from them, and you had to at a rate that wasn't negotiable.

Um along with what Barry had to say um uh regarding the railroads.

Uh I worked with Matt Dacey a number of years ago.

I'd forgotten about this.

There is a file on it, but Chicago Northwestern used to have uh two, I think there were 1926 Pullman cars that were made to carry ambulatory patients from the Chicago area to Rochester on rails.

Uh that's all documented, and if you'd like to file have a file on it, I'd be happy to get that to you.

Matt and I were working on trying to get one of those train cars restored and put here uh uh next to the Gonda building.

Uh I think one of those train cars is still around, but it was very exciting if you look into what we used to have traveling by rail, because not everyone, and they had nurses with them, uh, rather than let's say by uh helicopter or buses or elsewhere.

Uh uh thank you for your time, and I've got much more to say, but I've run out of time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Creasel.

Uh, we for the entire amount of time we have uh time for maybe one more speaker if anyone wishes to speak.

Seeing no one, I will close the open comment period and ask Clerk Caseel to please call the roll.

Good evening.

Councilmember Keene.

Here, Councilmember Miller, here, Councilmember Wall.

Here, Councilmember Fredericks, here, Councilmember Palmer.

Here, Councilmember Doring.

Here, Council President Schuberg.

Here.

Mayor Norton.

Present.

Thank you.

Uh, next up we have our city administrators report.

Administrator Zelms, please take it away.

Uh thank you, Council President.

Uh, mayor, council members, members of the public.

I just have a couple of things this evening.

I always start the report by thanking all of our teammates for acting with respect, integrity, safety, and excellence, and everything that they do and all the important services that they provide.

So just appreciate all of the great work happening across uh the city.

And a few things to highlight um coming up.

We do have a fun uh activity happening at the library on Thursday, November 6th from 2 to 3 p.m.

Um, an update on what will be um part of the performance list for the Rochester Symphony this year.

So if that's something that you're interested in, um that's free and open to the public at uh the library auditorium downtown.

Also, uh we have forthcoming, and the clicker will not click me, so I will ask for an assist from the clerk's office.

Thank you.

Um a nod to some of our history friends um in the audience.

Um there is going to be uh a film screening that is happening also on Thursday in the evening, 7 to 8:30 p.m.

at the History Center of Olmsted County, um, talking about the tornado that gave rise to Mayo Clinic and the founding of St.

Mary's Hospital.

So that is free for members of um the uh history center, um, five dollars for non-members, um, an opportunity to uh learn more about the community and some of um what occurred here in order to bring us the mail clinic.

And then uh we also did just want to remind people that this is an off-election year for local elections for the city of Rochester.

So it is still important though that you consider that there will be an election year next year.

So we always encourage you in that off year to confirm your voter registration, update your address or any name changes, learn about absentee and early voting options and look at election opportunities in surrounding communities.

So with that, I believe that is all I have this evening.

Thank you.

Next up we have the mayor's report.

Mayor Norton.

Thank you.

I have a pretty uh short report this evening.

I just returned from the U.S.

China Sister Cities conference and had an opportunity to meet with our uh sister city in China, Xian Yang.

Um, and it was uh really wonderful to reconnect and we saw we uh reconfirmed that relationship with an MOU and a ceremony for that.

So uh looking forward to continued uh working with our actual five sister cities that we have.

All of I think almost all, if not all, were started by Mayor Chakazama years ago.

So it's nice to be able to carry on his legacy.

Um there we go.

National Civic League.

Um we are uh announcing that we've had to have a date change because of conflicts.

So uh we are asking that on December 4th you consider coming to RCTC Heinz Center, and it will be open to the public.

It is an opportunity for you to come and give input about how we can run public comment sections, just as you witnessed here, um, and public comment sections at our board and commission meetings where uh residents, volunteers uh work for the city on those meetings, and so uh we're looking for input to do better, and on uh this particular day, they will come and share the results of some of the early work they've done and start talking about uh things we can do different and better here in Rochester with community input.

So please join us on December 4th from 5 30 to 7 30.

There'll be a light dinner at Heinz Center.

Also, uh community walks is something I'm doing this year.

I've done move with the mayor activities since I became mayor seven years ago, and uh so I'm I'm kind of challenging my friends here at the table and those of you in the community uh to join me uh with a little exercise on Wednesday, November 5th this week at 7 a.m.

Um at RCTC's field house.

And it is one of the uh goals that we have is making sure the community understands that RCTC is a community and city tax uh sales tax paid for venue, and it does have open times for the community each and every day.

And so we are going to model that by having a walk at 7 a.m.

in the field house on the track.

There'll be uh Mayo Clinic, I believe, and Olmsted are coming to set up some booths with blood pressure check, and there'll be some information there.

So just come and give an hour of your time before work on Wednesday or Saturday, give up an hour of sleep time, um, nine o'clock on Saturday.

Again, RCTC Field House.

Um would love to have some folks join me.

And lastly, this will advance.

There we go.

Um it's that time of year again.

You may recall we have openings periodically throughout the year for boards and commissions, um, but also at the end of every year, people that have been serving as citizen volunteers, their time is up, if you will, if they've served two terms, typically uh six to eight years, and you would be surprised how many people serve eight, and actually would do more if we let them.

Um, but we do try to have some turnover and give more people opportunities uh to serve.

And so these are a few of the openings that we either have now or will be having as of January 1st.

So if you are interested, we have a citizen advisory on transit, heritage preservation, police policy oversight, public utility board, sustainability and resiliency, that's a youth uh position, and then the zoning board of appeals has three people terming out, and so we could use uh three people in that one.

Um you don't necessarily have to have experience on zoning to do it because you will learn as you go.

That's true of all of these positions, but if you do happen to know anything about zoning, uh it doesn't hurt to have that information either.

So we would we would love to have you be a part of one of our boards and commissions, and that's all I have today.

Thank you, Mayor.

Next up we have uh the order of the agenda, and I have one change to the agenda.

It's under item G2, which is the reconstruction of Center Street East from Zumbro River Bridge to 11th Street Northeast Southeast.

And under that, we have uh listed two public hearings where we'll combine those into one public hearing.

So we will have a combined public improvement hearing and assessment hearing.

However, we will take two votes uh on that item.

So with that, are there any other changes to the order of the agenda?

I'll move approval with the noted changes.

Move by council member Keene, seconded by council member Fredericks.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say nay.

Motion passes.

Moving on to our consent agenda.

I have not received any polled items.

Uh therefore I'd invite a motion to approve the consent agenda.

Move by council member Fredericks.

Second.

Seconded by Councilmember Doring.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say nay.

Consent agenda passes.

We have three public hearings on our agenda this evening.

Um, and before we begin the public hearings, uh, I'll just clarify the process.

It's a little different than our open comment period.

Uh so first staff will introduce or make a presentation on the item, and then if there is an applicant or an applicant representative, they will have up to 10 minutes to discuss the the item, and then I will open the public hearing.

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

Uh however, I still ask folks to be uh concise and brief.

And uh after uh everyone has had their opportunity to speak, I will invite the applicant back up for five minutes to discuss any issues that came up during the public hearing.

And then at that point, I will invite my colleagues here on the dais to ask questions of both the staff and uh the applicant.

So with that, uh we have G1, which is a request to remove properties from the downtown commercial historic district, and we have uh Molly Patterson Lundgren to uh give the staff report.

Thank you, Council President Schubring, Mayor Norton, members of the council, and to ask which button do I press to arrow?

Okay, thank you.

First time here in the chambers after it's been modified.

So yes, tonight we are looking at a request from a property owner, actually, a couple of property owners on 2nd Street Southwest, um, a request to remove the landmark status from their buildings.

Um so the properties that um are in question tonight are 7, 21, and 23 2nd street.

23 2nd Street also has some additional addresses that um that go along with that property, but they're these three different buildings that you see on your screen.

Um the applicant is Capital Ventures LLC, they are the owner of 72nd Street, which is the Olmsted County Bank, Umstead County National Bank and Trust Building, and um they have uh an agreement with the property owners there consideration for purchasing the other two properties up on the screen tonight.

So um their request is to remove all three properties uh from the historic district, and actually um the request is to remove the landmark status from these buildings because they're contributing to the downtown commercial historic district.

That could happen two different ways.

One is to um change the boundary of the historic district, the other is to change the status of these buildings from contributing to non-contributing within the historic district and leave the boundary in place.

You see in the map the boundary district um in the black um hash line, the three buildings are outlined in yellow in green, showing that they're um three contributing buildings to the district.

So um our UDC um incorporates requirements for our preservation um and section 6500 four zero um highlights the methods to either designate or remove designation from a um from a property.

Umsection F talks specifically about um the requirements for removing the property.

There's three different options that a property owner can request um can request this under, and basically the first two A and B are reconsideration of why it was designated to begin with.

So when the city council designated the historic district back in 2024, they found the council found as part of that adoption of that designation was that there was a historic significance of the district, and the district had historic integrity, and as part of that, these three buildings were contributing to the historic district.

The third option to request is under economic hardship.

So really your questions tonight that you're looking at are do the properties still qualify as contributing properties to the historic district under A and B.

And the second question is did the applicant provide evidence to demonstrate an economic hardship to warrant their request.

So just a little bit more under option A, the reconsideration of historic significance.

We have eight different criteria, which a property may be designated as a historic landmark.

And the historic district was designated under one and number eight.

Now, as you think about the historic significance, remember that these properties are considered contributing to that historic significance.

So you're looking not just at the significance and the importance of the district, but how these properties add to that contribute to that historic significance.

This was designated with historic integrity of the historic district as a whole.

And under that criteria for removal of the landmark designation, historic landmark designation.

What the UDC says is that an application must demonstrate with evidence, and then it gives the five different kind of areas of evidence that we're looking for.

So you know, really what we're looking for is an applicant to indicate in their submittal, like what is it?

What is the current level of return of all of the properties that you're requesting being removed from the district or removing that landmark designation?

You know, what are the feasibility feasible alternatives again requesting for all three of the properties that they're that they're making this request under?

So the heritage preservation commission is required by the ordinance.

Just waiting for it to go.

Did make a recommendation to the city council to deny to deny the request.

This is consistent with community development personnel recommendation as well, and recommending that the request be denied, really because there was not evidence provided to support either A or B in terms of something having changed or being different than what was the case when the district was designated just about two years ago.

Our finding of fact number two relates to lack of evidence that really supports the economic hardship.

Certainly they did provide information, but upon reviewing that, um, we just feel that the mark was not made to show that there's an economic hardship as opposed to a project that could be done under the regulations.

And then the third uh finding a fact highlights that there were some uh issues related to property.

There was some flooding that occurred in one of the buildings, and that is um indicated within the material that was submitted, but they really didn't kind of identify how that is not demolition by neglect.

So I think that's just something to be aware of, and um again that's one of the criteria under making the case for economic hardship.

So those are our three findings of facts.

Any questions for me about this at this point or I think we'll wait until after the public hearing.

Yep.

Thank you, Mr.

Peterson Lundgren.

And uh is the applicant here?

If so, please step forward, state your name, and you have 10 minutes.

Don't mind, I have a presentation that I will be sharing.

So bear with me as I uh try and take over the teams.

Uh no one just use my speaking lessons is really what we'd like to do.

Um good evening, President Schubring, Mayor Norton, and esteemed council.

We appreciate the opportunity to present our request to remove the Olmstead County Bank and Trust.

Could you say your name first, just so we have it on the record?

Thank you.

Um that's okay.

My name is Brian Eney.

Thank you.

I uh represent Capital Ventures.

We appreciate the opportunity to present our request to remove the Olmsted County Bank and Trust, OCB, Oddbills and Brackenridge building from the historic district and status due to economic hardship.

Our goal is to enable a transformative redevelopment that strengthens the downtown while honoring Rochester's heritage.

My it's my understanding that this is a quasi-judicial hearing, meaning your decision must be based solely on the evidence provided in the official packet and presented in this hearing.

We've worked diligently to complete every component of the record.

If there is any criteria you feel is missing, please let us know and we can address it immediately.

Given that we are covering three separate buildings rather than one, we respectfully ask the council to move to extend our presentation time to 20 minutes.

I don't see there's been a motion to extend uh the time to 20 minutes, uh moved by council member Palmer, seconded by councilmember Keene.

Uh any discussion uh seeing none.

Uh Clerk Case Caseel, could you call the roll?

Councilmember Keane.

Aye.

Councilmember Miller.

Aye.

Councilmember Wall.

Aye.

Councilmember Fredericks.

Aye.

Councilmember Palmer.

Aye.

Councilmember Doring.

Aye.

Council President Schoen.

No.

Motion passes six to one.

You have tw you have uh twenty nineteen minutes.

Thank you, President Schupring.

Go ahead.

The historic preservation ordinance defines five criteria for economic hardship.

Importantly, our development team does not currently own two of the three buildings.

Bahia LLC owns the Brackenridge and the Oddfellows since two the early 2010s.

We are exploring acquisition in partnership with them.

The criteria are current level of economic return.

Economic return is inadequate with these buildings.

Uh net revenue.

B current use and feasibility of alternative uses.

Feasibility studies show rehabilitation is uneconomical.

C, estimated market values.

Market values remain remain low unless redeveloped.

D, any additional data to support our claim.

Occupancy and cap rates lag far below market norms, and e evidence of routine maintenance.

Ongoing maintenance demonstrates that hardship is not caused by neglect.

And we will address each criterion in turn.

Right here.

I am sorry, I should have been doing this all along.

That's one.

All right.

Thank you.

Although Bahá'i's investment and our potential acquisition amount is roughly 23.3 million.

Annual gross revenue from 2022 to 2024 ranges only from about 1.19 million to 1.44 million.

Net incomes are negative every year, and cumulative losses across 2022 to 24 exceed 3.1 million.

Cash flows before and after debt service remain negative, and maintenance and depreciation expenses further erode returns.

These figures demonstrate that.

And uh council, we do have documents that we can provide you so you can follow along if you'd like.

Are they in our packets?

So they I did email you this morning.

Uh all the council the information.

However, I don't know if those were able to come through.

Council members, did you receive the information this morning?

Yes, we did.

So each building have significant shows significant limitations.

Excuse me.

Um CB suffers from water infiltration, a failing roof, and outdated mechanical systems.

Renovating it would require major structural and MEP upgrades.

Oddfellows roof is also failing.

It needs MEP upgrades.

Its timber frame and brick facade are sound at two stories, but cannot support additional floors without costly retrofit.

Brackenridge's framing lacks the capacity for vertical expansion, and maintaining the pedestrian corridor complicates any renovation.

Detailed as is analysis of the OCB considered reuse as a dance club, a wedding venue, and a co-working space.

Every scenario generated large annual losses because expenses far exceeded revenues.

Collectively, these facts show adaptive reuse would not yield reasonable returns.

Current values reflect present occupancy, roughly 2.1 million for OCB, 7.8 million for Oddfellows, and $13 million for Brackenridge.

Renovating or continuing current use doesn't materially improve these figures.

By contrast, our proposed redevelopment would raise values to approximately 23.1 million, 34.3 million, and 210 million respectively.

In other words, retaining the existing buildings forfeit hundreds of millions in potential value, whereas redevelopment unlocks significant economic benefits.

Here we compare NOI and the NOI required for a 4% cap rate.

In every year, the NOI is negative, which places it far below the threshold needed for reinvestment.

Current cap rates produce estimated losses averaging 1.85 million annually.

These deficits highlight the severe economic shortfalls relative to market expectations.

These slides put those cap rates in context.

The OCB's cap rate is negative 38.04%.

Oddfellows' cap rate is negative 0.23%, and Brackett Ridges is negative 3%, excuse me, negative 0.38%.

Comparable downtown buildings yield 5.5 to 7%, and BRAC and money market accounts or two-year CDs earn around 3.6 to 4%.

Investors will not commit capital to returns this low, which is why these buildings cannot attract the $5.6 billion in private investment sought by the destination medical center initiative.

Redevelopment is essential to align returns with the DMC's investment goals.

Okay, thank you.

And by delivering diverse housing and activating 2nd Street, it enhances vibrancy downtown.

Our vision marries the old with the new.

The OCB will gain an eight-story edition with 32 luxury condominiums and a high-end cafe or market serving mayo patients and visitors.

The Oddfellows will be capped by a seven-story edition with 42 condominiums, blending history and modern living.

The Bracken Ridge will be replaced by a 20-story building housing approximately 300 hotel rooms and street-level shopping, creating a vibrant hub on 2nd Street.

Throughout, we preserve historic facades where they exist and extend the skyway to improve improve pedestrian connectivity.

The redevelopment delivers clear community benefits.

It creates around 350 construction and permanent jobs.

Housing will be offered across affordable workforce and market rate tiers, welcoming a wide range of residents downtown.

Ground floor retail and entertainment will enliven 2nd Street.

Annual property tax revenue will rise to about $6.9 million, far eclipsing current levels.

The project will also support Mail Clinic's mission, new lodging, and dining options to serve patients and families and added vibrancy.

This helps attract medical professionals to Rochester, reinforcing its standing as a world-class medical hub.

We will enhance the district's vibrancy by marrying old with new.

Historic facades will be preserved and restored, giving them new life.

Affordable workforce and market rate homes will serve a diverse community.

We pledge to collaborate closely with the city on skyway and streetscape improvements, ensuring seamless pedestrian connections and an inviting downtown environment.

This project is a partnership with Rochester, not a unilateral effort.

I'm gonna pass the mic on to John Beatty.

Good evening, Mayor Norton, President Schubring, members of council.

Thank you.

My name's John Beatty.

I'm legal counsel for uh the owners' representatives of uh these properties who've of course submitted this uh application for removal of landmark status.

Brian spoke to economic hardship, Miss Patterson Lundgren uh identified another path as what what is the historical significance of these properties.

And I challenge all of you to think about is this an instance of preservation for preservation's sake.

Uh I submit, and I expect anticipate, in fact, you'll hear from a number of our self-studied local historians, and I I anticipate that they will communicate some stories of significance to you, but really think about those as I'm representing to you tonight that these properties lack meaningful cultural, cultural development, historical connection to our community story.

Uh, these designation uh of these properties in the downtown historic district, which was just over a year ago, these were included as part of the city's original financial district, part of the city's original business district.

I represent to you that's not our community's story.

Administrator Zelms actually pointed out in her report earlier tonight, sometime later this week, there's going to be a showing of a movie, a tornado happened to this community.

We're a medical community.

That's the story that is going to be told.

That's the story that uh folks connect with in this community.

It's not about an original financial district here.

Uh, when we go back to these buildings, and you can look at the the tidbits here.

Uh I don't know anyone that can relate to you historical significance of something important that's happened in these uh places.

They uh diminished, decreased in their uses more than a hundred years ago when it comes to the Oddfellows Club and uh its membership declined all of my lifetime.

That's been a building of transition, dimly lit, you know, here and there uh overturning.

Likewise with the OCB building, uh, and I anticipate that we will uh continue to not hear stories of rich cultural heritage, local significance for these properties.

There are no tours, there's no interpretive signs.

These owners can tell you nobody's knocking on their doors and saying, I want to come in your building and learn all about what happened here some time ago.

That's not the case when it comes to these particular properties.

Really, they're just expensive baubles that we continue to want to maintain.

We we have a romantic notion of these things on 2nd Street.

They look wonderful in our mind's eye, but when it comes to actually maintaining and keeping these things in the status that they are, it's become incredibly expensive and it's impractical.

So we should focus historic preservation where it truly belongs.

I submit to you.

That's on properties that actually tell Rochester's story and don't just spill fill space in our community.

Today I'll point you to a great story in the post bulletin.

Story about the caretakers at the plumber house.

That story is as much about the caretakers as it was about how this community continues to enjoy that space, come out and support that space.

I submit to you as a city.

Almost 10 years ago, you bought the Chateau Theater on Peace Plaza.

That space activated the community.

People came out with stories about the chateau.

People came out with photos, pictures, things that you won't see relative to these projects.

You also know in the last 10 years, someone referred to it as demolition by neglect.

To maintain that property is going to cost the city millions of dollars, just as you've heard from these owners here tonight.

By keeping these properties on the list in the district, you've heard great facts about what we're diverting in terms of potential resources, blocking opportunities for thoughtful redevelopment, redevelopment that better serve our downtown, those who want to live here, want to work here, want to visit here.

Our story, our story, our actual story is one of the best in the world.

We are home to the number one medical institution in the world.

We draw guests, patients, visitors from all over the world to work to play for care.

And this site happens to be just 450 feet from the door of that number one medical institution.

450 feet, probably less than walking across this building here.

How many places in the world have an opportunity to be just 450 feet from the front door of the number one medical institution?

How many places have the number of medical institutions in the world?

Why are we missing?

Why are we limiting that opportunity?

I submit that we should uh we recognize this.

I actually we do know what opportunity exists 500 feet outside Mayo Clinic.

We've committed significant public dollars when we've designated this as the heart of our city.

We've done design, we've done planning years of it, spent on the Peace Plaza there.

As we redesigned, spent massive public dollars on that part of our downtown.

We've embraced that.

Uh but yet for all the public spending, we've been inconsistent in designating buildings that have been dimmed for almost 70 years adjacent to that.

For my lifetime in this community, these buildings have not been filled with any thriving, useful use, such that one would expect 450 feet from Mayo Clinic.

We've underutilized these spaces, and I ask how many generations of Mayo workers, downtown workers, downtown visitors, downtown patients, are we gonna have trudge past these three particular properties to those public spaces to Mayo Clinic that we care so much about?

And maybe I'll ask it this way if you're unable in your mind today to remove the landmark designation, the historic designations from these particular properties.

What then is the city's vision?

What then is your articulable vision to leave these three properties in their condition, designated as landmarks in such a way that our community could actually use them, could identify a thriving use for these uh properties in one of the most important corridors of our community.

So I ask again, let's not do preservation just for the sake of preservation, as these properties do not tell our city's story.

And let's find an opportunity for the properties to enhance our community story to add significant property value, future tax base, and recognize that these properties, unlike others, do not actually carry historical significance.

This really matters.

When we start to put that label on it, it it takes things off the table that would benefit our community.

And I think in this particular instance, our community would be best served by removing these from landmark designation.

I'll show you a couple options.

Uh where one, you could read out redraw the historic district boundary and remove the three, or uh just take it, remove the designation as to uh the three properties in some.

So remove the designation or draw the boundary so that it stops at 2nd Street, only catching those on the south side of 2nd Street Southwest, not these three uh that appear in the original designation.

Thank you for consideration, and please consider removing these from designation.

Thank you.

At this point, I will open.

Oh, you have you do have two two and a half minutes left.

Thank you.

You're gonna use it?

Uh about a minute of it.

Okay, go ahead.

Thank you.

In summary, uh the 2024 financials show the OCB losing 950,000 dollars, the Barackin Ridge losing 39,000, and the Oddfellows losing $13,000.

A combined taxes of about 437,000 and maintenance maintenance costs of nearly one million dollars exceed net income.

Cap rates between negative 38.04% to negative point two three percent, discourage investment and contrast sharply with the 5.5 to 7% returns elsewhere.

By redeveloping, we create 350 jobs, deliver diverse housing, activate 2nd Street, improve Skyway connectivity, and align with DMC and City of Rochester P2S stated goals.

Annual tax revenue will rise to approximately 6.9 million.

So we respectfully ask the council to remove these properties from the historic district and status, not as a contributing or non-contributing building, but allow redevelopment free of restrictions.

Doing so will relieve genuine economic hardship and unlock a transformative project for Rochester's future.

Just so everyone is clear, I want to or I want to make this clear.

Um their facades and some of the internal historic um items.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Mr.

President, uh Mr.

City Attorney, go ahead.

Thank you.

If I may, I just want to be um careful about the record that we're creating with this quasi judicial proceeding.

There was reference earlier to an email that was sent to the council members.

There seemed to be recognition that that email was received, but we haven't entered that email into the record.

It appeared that the appellant was asking that that email and its contents be considered.

Um and if that's the request, we should be putting that email into the into the record.

Uh and I would just also observe I just reading the crowd.

I'm not sure that any of you actually did receive the email that was being referenced, so it may be extra important for us to put that into the record.

Do we need a motion to put that into the record?

No, I don't believe that you do.

Uh Councilmember Keene.

I I I do not think I've received an email today that I can't find it if I did, so I would not want to put anything in the record without knowing what it is.

Yeah, I just looked at my email.

I did not receive it as well.

Yeah, I I checked my inbox quarantine spam did not receive it.

Did anybody receive it?

Councilmember Palmer received it.

Uh Mayor Norton, go ahead.

Um, Councilmember Palmer, did you receive that at the city's email or your personal, which I know you use both, as many of us?

At the city email.

So we should.

And it got filtered into my junk email box.

Are you are you just asking them to provide it to us?

Well, I guess what I'm hearing from the city attorney is that if we've received it, and uh that uh the applicant is looking for us to acknowledge that and put that into the record.

Uh councilmember Keene.

I I I think that was the request.

I would would not like to read that into the record right now since that wasn't part of what I have to do this deliberation.

Mr.

President, if if you're looking for input, I think you do have the discretion to deny that being offered to the body.

Frankly was uh unclear to me how much of his argument may have been intending to reference that document, but the argument can stand on its own.

You're not required to um to receive the document that he's offered.

So uh Mr.

Spindler Craig, would we be advised to make a motion uh saying that uh the uh receipt of that of that document is not across the board to the city council, and therefore we are choosing not to include it in our record, or do we that would be fine.

Is there a motion to that effect?

Councilmember Keene, you are the I'm trying to get my head around a motion to not do something.

I'm I'm struggling here.

If I may, I think I think the other option that you have is to do nothing at this point, and the applicant is the appellant is on notice that most of the body has not received this material.

Very good.

Thank you.

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

And uh reminder, uh members of the public each have five minutes, and I have a list in front of me, and uh after I exhaust the list, I will ask if others uh want to speak.

And uh after I exhaust the list, I will ask if others uh want to speak.

First up is Barry Skolnick.

Oh, I'm just wondering, do we have more time now that they had more time to present it?

Do we double our time for each of the speakers as well?

I mean, fair is fair, and we've had hearings for other people who didn't double their time either.

This is a precedent that's never happened in the council.

All of a sudden someone comes up and you just double the normal format.

I think it's a little improper, actually.

I mean what you did before.

So anyway, just for the record that way.

Um, as far as uh, I think you have a decision to make.

I mean, there's a lot of land around Rochester, a lot of land that's not used.

We can uh we can have more housing.

We can do that.

We don't have to do it on buildings which are clearly in the past have been designated as historical properties.

I know they happen to own it, but the fact is you don't have to put a project everywhere there's a historical pro historical landmark.

And it's to me, it's very close.

To me, it's okay.

Can you hear me?

Yeah, absolutely.

To me, it's kind of upsetting that the that uh that it's even coming up.

These are we've hired people who are historical consultants who are famous for that, who are knowledgeable in that.

They went through and looked at all these properties, and they they they recommended to us, and staff recommends to us that the that these properties are landmarks.

Some of these properties, like the Olmstead Bank, they've been working on coming up with with ownership with with with new ideas about what to do with it.

So of course they're not making money on it because there's nobody in it.

But the but the but the fact is it's still a landmark building, and other uh developers and other owners could probably uh make a good go of it.

So that's my my feeling about it.

The HPC reviewed it at a very long meeting um a few weeks ago, and they recommended unanimously uh that uh that these buildings retain their landmarking because they're they're buildings that are important to the history of Rochester.

They have done nothing to refute that.

There's been no change whatsoever in in any of these buildings since it was reviewed both by the consultants by the council a couple of times and uh on other occasions.

Uh that no one's ever said they weren't worthy of landmarking, so they are definitely historical.

And as far as far as the in my opinion, as far as the economics of it, uh HPC went through it, the staff went through it, and you know, hopefully you'll trust them to some degree.

Um I uh this as far as this idea of the gl uh of only mayo history is worthy of history.

Mayor weren't worked with people.

The people were around them.

Mayor was not the only factor in history in Rochester, they are very important, and they're a very significant hospital.

But these were the streets that people did business on with mail, near mail, and and working for mail.

So the idea that they're not historic.

This is our commercial street where they were working with them, working with the doctors.

So how is it not historically?

Are we limiting ourselves just to the doctor's offices for the history of of the mail clinic?

No.

I mean, that there were things that happened in Rochester and with the mail clinic that were on some other streets other than just mail clinics.

So I think you've got to look at that, and hopefully you'll trust your staff.

If you do away with this, next thing you'll know, you'll have every developer in town running to sort of gut the uh the downtown historic district and say, well, I can make a fortune by building up this area.

Use the land you already have vacant.

I could give you lots of examples of that.

You know, and I there's no reason to take away the few historic monuments we have left, these landmarks that people have worked at and people look at.

Yes, they are people do like being in them.

So I'm hoping you will give us a chance and continue it and well, you know, and still and work with other people to develop these buildings further if the the current owners don't want to do it.

But I don't think that it determines that you should remove them from the uh from the district.

And hopefully you won't do that.

You listen to the HPC again, unanimous vote.

Staff believes in it too.

I I just and I they have not really proven, I mean, they didn't they didn't have a full compliment of people.

They I don't know how actively they've recruited for new people to be in those places.

So of course they don't do a good a good business because it's not fully occupied because they I don't know exactly what they've done.

They've never given us any marketing data about how often they marketed it to other people.

I mean, I I I don't know anything about that, but I certainly think it's worthy of being landmarked and it should continue to be a landmarked.

And I I just think again, think of all the consultants and all the other people and worked on it for many years.

There's no reason to remove this from landmarking, at least that's my opinion.

Anyway, thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr.

Skolnik.

Next up we have Barb Hudson.

Hello, my name is Barb Hudson.

And I wish I could come in with the big guns, like we just saw the presentation with an attorney and an architect and all these people talking finance.

But I represent Rochester citizens.

I represent the people that have voted you into office to talk to us and to act on our benefit, not just economically, but our values as Rochester citizens.

What do we value?

We value our history.

History has no price on it.

And we have a historic preservation commission to help you understand what's important to the community.

It took 13 years to get the downtown historic district landmarked.

I don't know if you're all aware of that.

But it took a very, very long time.

And a lot of people smarter than I am, have looked at it and have determined that it is indeed historically significant.

These buildings have been here for over a hundred years.

They've supplied the Rochester landscape with people with visitors and with vendors and with uh shoppers, and each building has a story.

To have somebody come up here and tell you that it is these buildings are not historically significant is embarrassing.

They are historically significant, they've been deemed that way, and I would hope that the almighty dollar doesn't come and decide your vote.

Every person that is in this historic downtown center is going to want to say, well, we can't afford it.

It's you know, it's economic hardship.

That's the loophole that they're going to use.

We don't want a loophole for the Rochester citizens.

We value our history, and to support tearing down the this history and not making it continue to be a historic district, is not doing your citizens any good at all.

So please understand that this is what our citizens want.

It has vetted as historically significant, and I hope you'll listen to us.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Hudson.

Uh, next we have Martha Grogan.

Good evening again.

One of the main themes that that I think it's important for all of us to recognize is that Rochester, we are a victim of our own success right now.

And it is amazing that we are having the bold forward unbound project.

I know a lot of people are grumbling and say they wish they'd never heard of it, but the the uh the infusion, the building, the changes to Mayo Clinic into our whole economy uh and the amount of money is is staggering and it's unprecedented.

But with that really does come a cost.

Uh and uh we've never seen this type of development in our community, and there probably not too many other places, cities of our size that have seen this.

I do want to highlight for some people in the audience, it wasn't obvious that Mayo Clinic was going to continue to make Rochester uh, you know, really a uh the premier medical facility.

There were times when it was thought that we might de-emphasize Rochester and Arizona or Florida might be more prominent.

They're all important, but this was not something to be taken for granted, but it's coming at a big cost.

And I wonder, you know, we really are a city of medical tourism.

We are, but we still have had a vibrant community where people live in neighborhoods, walk to work, have businesses, uh uh not all medical businesses, but I think we're at risk now because the property, every little piece of property that's close in is so valuable.

So you take the boarding house that's next to just right.

This very humble structure that sold for 1.6 million dollars.

It actually provides affordable housing, but now we'll have a luxury uh condominium.

So the whole city is at risk of becoming luxury condominiums.

They're not going to be physical therapists in these close-in housing, and a lot of them will probably be rented to uh mayo patients for short-term and longer term rental.

So we have this huge capital, capital, capital, and he mentioned capital, capital, capital return on investment, and it's it's hard to compete with that.

But the good news is that we do have a heritage preservation program.

The other thing I'll say about the medical tourism, you know about many of you, I'm sure have heard about cities across the world, but especially in Europe, where no one's living in the cities anymore because it's all tourism, and there's a kind of a backlash against that.

And I think we want to still have a community that's not only medical tourism.

And I'm just not sure how many more high-rises we need.

I'm probably getting short of time.

But the good news is that with these opportunities, there's a need for balance.

So I really view you have such an important role to play in that balance in the decisions for our community.

And we have a heritage preservation commission, an ordinance, and the downtown district took years to develop.

Not all of you agree with it, but now it is there.

So to allow these properties to be removed really sets an incredibly dangerous precedent.

And I will say that at the HPC, there was far more detail and detailed discussion about this, and there are very um cut and dry, I would say, uh, or very concrete criteria in the ordinance.

And this applicant is just not meeting those criteria.

So if they are allowed to remove these properties, it puts uh for sure the whole downtown business district at risk.

Any of the individual landmark properties at risk are recently uh uh approved Phil Hill District, it really puts heritage preservation at risk.

That that's really kind of what you're voting on here.

The last thing I'll say is it's not exactly the same, but if you think of national parks and you try to weigh the individual property owner who has a cottage or a hotel, you know, right at an area that might become a national park.

There's no way that you can compete with the potential revenue if you build a big luxury resort.

But part of our responsibility is to preserve natural resources and heritage preservation is part of that.

That's why actually the National Register of Historic Places is part of the National Park Service.

So I think it's kind of similar to those kind of decisions.

And I just hope that you do listen to the HPC, where I would say that this presentation was a little bit more, you know, very much according to the criteria that was discussed by the whole HPC, and this applicant just has not met the criteria in our ordinance in order to have them removed.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Mr.

John Creasel, Mr.

President, members of the council, mayor.

Um throw away most of my notes uh with the presentation that came forth here.

Um as Marb said, I would say I'm gonna I'm gonna be speaking on behalf of the citizens of Rochester that have come before us, the ones that are here today, and those that have lost faith in this at the soul in the city of Rochester that have left this community after their terms of employment were up here, because the soul of Rochester is at stake here.

Um the gentleman that spoke that was trying to point out that there is uh nothing of importance that happened in any of these facilities, is uh uh um rhetoric, uh no substance to it whatsoever.

Uh if you want to uh look into the bowels of the Oddfellows Lodge, uh Charlie Mayo was there, the important movers and shakers that help support blast mixing shops, uh drug stores here in town, lumber yards, they all had membership in the uh odd fellows lodge.

So what he had, what he said was had no substance, in my opinion.

So uh here I also would say is follow the recommendations of the Historic Preservation Commission or get rid of them.

You know, thus far they have come forth to you multiple times, okay, with facilities, and it's it's been unanimous and yet it's been voted down.

You need to look at why you're voting it down.

A project such as this, it makes me think of Gus's project where he used 60, I think it was 60 million or 30 million dollars for project of somebody else's money.

A particular piece of project a project is not worth anything more than it can cash flow.

That went bankrupt, okay.

So if a project such as this took place and went through bankrupt, who does that hurt?

The mail clinic has 32 surface parking lots that have not been built on yet.

We are talking about the east side of Zumbro River that is yet to be built on.

As Barry pointed out, there are many other places to put this facility.

And they certainly it's not gonna be anything that's torn down today, isn't gonna be replaced with something that's affordable.

Certainly not frontline workers.

Think of the frontline workers.

Are they gonna be out like in Idaho at ski areas driving 70 miles to get here?

It is there are people from many walks of life that you must give them your respect.

So cannot earn a reasonable economic return.

This morning, without saying that person's name, I'm gonna say I had a riveting discussion with probably the most important real estate attorney in the city of Rochester.

And that party said, uh, so wait a minute, John, try and explain this to me because I can't understand it.

There's a fee owner of one particular piece of property, another fee owner of another, that want a return on their investment.

Well, what they're asking for is too much to make a project work.

The prices need to come down.

Maybe they go through bankruptcy.

I mean, I wouldn't approve such a project of this whatsoever unless there was a performance bond backed up with the promises that they're making so that in the future those promises are not broken.

So uh uh I and the other citizens of Rochester are insulted by some of the things that took put forth here today.

So it is not your charge to make sure that a private venture gets a return on the investment.

They're all asking for too much money for such a project.

They need to ask for left.

If this happens, then I'll make be the first to make a motion to disband the commission.

You are abusing their time, their expertise.

It has happened in the past, and if it does it now, there'll be more people fleeing this community because they realize the soul has been disbanded.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next up we have Benjamin Zastro.

Good evening, President Schoebring.

I'm Benjamin Zastro.

And while I've interfaced with all of you in my capacity as an association president, chair of the commission, or in my work as partner at Astro and Zastro, I'm here tonight as a citizen sharing my own independent statement.

Uh before I really dive in, I just have to say, wow, what an unusual public hearing this has been.

I'm gonna try and not get pulled into emotional um please here, but it's just very surprising how this is going so far.

That said, uh on September 23rd, 2025, the HPC unanimously agreed with city staff's recommendation that the applicant fell well short of the three required standards in the UDC, section 60.500.040.f.

Specifically, the claims of financial hardship were found to be unsupported by any adequate documentation.

The application contained no information uh as far as the applicant's financial position, which is capital ventures, but had multiple disjointed documents from the prospective seller, Bahia.

Uh that said, uh I feel they don't take the City of Rochester or process seriously.

Uh their financial documents, which are included in your packet, mostly PL sheets, balance sheets, and statements of uh cash flow.

There are 25 pages found on pages 701 and 725 in your agenda packet.

On there, the phrase no assurance is provided on these financial statements, or those that are included now by uh prepared by Smith Schaefer and Associates say substantially and all disclosures required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America are omitted, and no assurance is provided on these financial statements.

In accounting, these phrases indicate that a financial statement lacks standard disclosures and is not subject to an auditor review, meaning the reader cannot rely on it as a complete or accurate representation of the company's financial position.

This is typically the result of a preparation engagement where the accountant has simply assembled the financial data as provided uh by management without verifying it.

Furthermore, all depreciation and amateurization uh reports submitted clearly state that they are for the commercial property located at 100 first AV.

This is visible the upper left corner of pages 726 and 740 of your agenda packets.

This property is entirely unrelated to the application before you.

Furthermore, no proof of routine maintenance or major repairs was submitted with the application as required by Standard 3E.

This is despite the applicant's admission of knowledge concerning burst piping, leaking roofs, and other concerning issues that were known to them over the years.

The architect specifically cites deferred maintenance using that term and how the current owner has fully demolished the interior of the bank building in his own structural report.

This can be found on page 656 of your agenda packet.

The primary concern of the architect is the structural ability to support vertical expansion, and frequently states that the soundness of the structures are suitable to their current use.

Heritage preservation is not concerned with vertical expansion, and therefore current use should be the primary consideration when weighing structural and financial stability of these buildings.

A determination of economic hardship will not be granted to a property owner who has engaged in demolition by neglect.

A property owner shall provide proof of having conducted routine maintenance and necessary major repairs on a designated property to support its continued preservation and demonstrate that demolition by neglect is not the cause of the economic hardship request.

During the HPC public hearing, staff was asked if the applicant was made aware of the cornucopia financial assistance options available, and staff answered yes.

This means that the applicant has chosen to sit by for three rounds of Minnesota Deed Main Street grant funding, the RDA facade improvement grant, and the half million DMC Historic Infrastructure Grant, just like the one you recently approved for 317 South Broadway.

Ultimately, you, the city council, will have to decide in this quasi-judicial setting if our professional city staff is skillful enough in their work to bring a proper recommendation forward, if the officials of the HPC were thorough enough in their two hour deliberations and unanimous recommendation, if the language in your UDC is to be taken seriously, and if the downtown commercial historic districts was worth that decade of study.

To deny these properties from the commercial historic district.

Thank you, President Schubrink.

Thank you, Mr.

Zastro.

Next up we have Jenny or David Tines.

I'm sorry.

Okay, thank you.

Next we have Ahmed Elkit Halef.

Uh good evening.

City Council President and City Council members and the mayor.

That very thing I would like to get a little closer.

Yeah.

Okay.

Just bring it towards you.

There you go.

There we go.

Yeah.

Uh with the respect for all of the people that they have some input in here.

I am also an American citizen, and I am Rochester Citizen.

I was here since 2001.

Uh I happened to work for US Bank downtown.

Rochester.

Now it is vis Alarras.

The same space.

And I am being hired there specifically in order to help the international visitors because they have some financial needs.

They need checking and saving account, something like that.

Some of my clients they developed the relationship with Rochester from regular checking account or saving to being an investor putting money, clean money from overseas into rotister, like 20 million dollars.

This is the owner of Bahia.

I am registered agent for Bahia.

I am a CEO of Bahia, and I would like to share with you here for this guy since he started building his portfolio back in 2011.

He's looking to acquire all the block.

The block that's surrounded by Secondist Street, his plaza, and Ferris Avenue.

He bought Odellow Ferris and he paid cash.

And then he bought abortion of 100 Ferris Avenue, which is like two floors.

Then we finished the borthilio with like 77% of the whole block.

We finished that in September of 2014.

From September 2014, his idea is like to put a very big and significant building in that block.

And here I get with me.

Okay.

And then he owned in this block 77%.

This project is not carried on because the 23% owner, he didn't agree on the offer.

Another investor would like to do the work in the whole block in 2017.

Also, since that time, we are just respecting the history of Rochester.

We like it.

We keep it since 2015.

Sir, if you could speak into the microphone.

Yeah.

We keep we keep the the facade and everything of Raka Ridge and Otfellow.

We keep that.

We respect that.

We respect the history.

Then after like twice or three times trying with the 23% owner to participate in this big project, we decided to do the project in the property that we owned like a hundred percent, which is Odfellow and Bracken Ridge.

And we did like a lot of pre-development meeting with the people in the development there, and here I added our discussion.

It was uh reached the level of SDP application from form an application checklist, the TIR, determination form for uh that is in October 17, 2023.

We are at that level.

October 2023, we are very close, uh, or we are trying to submit the permit in order to do this project.

Okay, we have to have the finance lined up, and we are there until we've been uh addressed or one of our searching, we found C V7, and we partnered with them.

Thank you.

Your time is up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh next up we have Bunny Kato Camp.

Hi, um I'm uh the researcher at the History Center of Omse County, and uh I am here tonight to say that our historic district was uh established, voted on, and approved a long time ago, and uh these buildings are certainly part of that historic district, and they certainly are historic.

And I guess I don't like being uh hearing the lecture of uh of uh what's historic and what isn't, and uh really when we start talking about the tornado and uh you know the the whole beginning of the mail clinic, um there was a tornado in 1883, and uh all the doctors came forward to help uh with the injured, and you can go through every newspaper in Rochester, Minnesota, and you won't find Dr.

Mayo's name listed in any of them.

Um and uh so it uh it's become legend, but um uh you know the male practice as it was right across the street from the Oddfellows building on 2nd Street, and that building that we now, which was called the Ramsey Building, but now we call it the uh massey building, has plaques all over on the outside saying this is where the original mail practice was.

That was the start of the of the so-called mail clinic, and uh when they left uh that building, they moved to the Masonic Lodge, which was across the street from the uh Oddfellows building across First Avenue.

So I mean, uh and Charlie Mayo, as John said, was a member of the of the uh Oddfellows and and so many other noteworthy people in in this uh community, but uh this is definitely historic stuff, and uh it isn't a hop off list, you know, because we don't feel like being on there anymore.

Um it just seems as though maybe they paid too much for the buildings to begin with, but um I think that uh you know the whole thing is ridiculous, and it's uh uh it's sad that we have to come here and uh try to re-legislate or retell the story over and over again of why these buildings are important, and like we're saying, there's a you know, the historic um district is one millionth of the building space in Rochester, Minnesota, where a unsightly building like that could go almost anywhere, but I think it's kind of uh uh interesting too that uh you know they always everybody always wants to have um consultants come to Rochester to tell us what we need, and they pay astronomical amounts of money to have consultants come here, but it's so umusing to listen to the consultants themselves of whom I've talked to many of them many times, and they go, Yeah, this is this is kind of a medical thing, you know, because the United States of America has uh for-profit health care, and you can go to Houston, um anywhere around the country, and they're doing the same thing they're doing here, so it's it's uh uh it's a to me it's a gamble, you know.

What what's gonna happen when you tear down something or remodel something?

There's no guarantee that you're gonna get people to come in there, and uh I've been downtown a zillion times for my whole life, and the whole downtown just sort of empties out as soon as five o'clock comes, particularly on the weekends, but uh uh I just think it taking these buildings or trying to take these buildings off of the historic list is a big mistake, and to my way of thinking, the piss poor condition of these buildings rests directly in the hands of the people that own them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh next we have B Print Hi, I'm Bobby Pritt, and I I'm uh pleased to be here tonight, Mr.

President, Council members, and mayor.

I don't have a lot of novel things to say, but I would like to reiterate some things that were brought up.

Um, and I'll first start by saying that I don't think we've always done the best job preserving our history, and there were a lot of wonderful buildings.

I have been since torn down, and of course, once they're gone, you can't ever get them back.

So now we have this situation where so many people experts have spent countless hours coming together to create our historical downtown commercial district with a full analysis that did show clearly that these were historic buildings, and these three properties that are up for consideration, they are contributing buildings.

So to go and start trying to pluck them out really just voids and dissolves the nature of the district and listening to the gentleman speak about their history or lack thereof, I thought was rather ludicrous and somewhat demeaning to the history of the people that were there in those buildings.

Yes, we are a wonderful medical community, but we're so much more than that.

There were people that lived and worked here and contributed and did business here.

We have so much more history than that.

So I think it would set a dangerous precedent to go in and use something like economic hardship in our historical district, which has been well defined and characterized.

So hopefully you'll take that into consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Britt.

Uh that uh exhausts the list.

If anyone else wishes 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 the applicant back up to uh uh do a three-minute rebuttal.

Thank you, President Schubring.

And uh thank you, members of the community.

I do want to address several things that were brought up.

First off, with the uh the PL and the other um documents, financial documents that we we provided, we did work to split out the 101st building from those documents.

It is listed, and I had the same concern when it was provided to me that it was only for the 101st, and uh I was told specifically that even though it is it lists 101st on the document, it lists underneath on each line item which building it belongs to, the expenses that is I wanted to address the uh types of housing that we intend for this project.

Uh we intend not only affordable housing, but workforce and market rate housing in addition to some luxury condos.

I also wanted to acknowledge that uh the 6-7 was a great joke, by the way.

Um we have looked at the financial grants, and currently they they do not work with what we're going for.

Um we cannot support any type of loans or other financial instruments that are provided by the city as we don't have cash-flowing uh cash-flowing building with the Olmsted County Bank and Trust building.

Uh on that note, our ceiling is leaking.

That is not a joke, and we have had flooding in that building.

With that being said, we immediately, and when I say immediately, I mean I was there the next day to assess the issues in that building and then assist with cleanup.

So we had a firm come out and clean up all of the rotten and uh wet items within the Olmstead County Bank and Trust building.

I want to reiterate that preserving the OCB and the Oddfellows buildings uh is what the stated plan is for these projects.

We do not intend to demo those buildings.

Um, our intent is adaptive reuse.

We do intend to redevelop the Brackenridge site only.

We have had four homeless camps in the OCB building, Olmstead County Bank and Trust, that we've had to break up.

Um these individuals were using drugs and they were creating uh more issues inside of the building that uh frankly shouldn't have been there.

And then tonight at this meeting, we're not deciding on the look of the building or this project.

What we are doing is we are asking for the removal from the district only.

The look of the building can be done at a later meeting and through zoning meetings.

Thank you.

Thank you.

At this point, I will turn to my colleagues uh for questions of staff or the applicant.

Uh Mayor Norton.

I have a couple uh just basic questions, I think.

Um, one of them has to do with a comment that was just made, and I've been thinking about it throughout the evening.

What's the difference between removing a designation and adaptive reuse?

If I heard I've heard twice this evening that we're just going on two of the three buildings, we're just going to modify it.

We're going to keep the structure that's there and add to it or modify it.

That seems to me to be adaptive reuse, which we have been allowing to some extent, although this will have certainly more on top than the others.

And so what's the Miss Woodward point?

Yes, I just want to make a a couple of notes as we're kind of going through this.

One, what is being requested is removal from the historic district.

So any type of normally with if you're maintaining and keeping the building in the historic district, there would be a certificate of appropriateness in terms of what is being done.

If somebody was adaptive reusing and using the existing structure as is, that is allowed.

We don't require and have any requirements for internal.

Um so anything inside that building could be adapted and changed to be able to, let's say if it was an office and you want to make it um make changes to that and make it two offices, all of that would be just allowed as is.

Thank you for that.

And it it it reminds me as we were looking at the picture of the Umstead Bank building that that had come before us before with uh a similar request, which was to keep the building as it is with some modernization for the first floors, but to add to the top of it.

This appears to be taller than that, but it's the same concept.

So could the applicants come forward for those two buildings and just do an adaptive reuse and and ask for an addition on the top and not ask to be removed from the register historic preservation list.

Go ahead, Miss Woodward.

Thank you.

Um so the Olmsted County Bank did receive a certificate of appropriateness to add, I believe, two stories to that building, maybe three.

I'm I'm forgive me if I have that number wrong.

Um that was also done prior to the district being established.

So I would say they were on the list before to be reviewed.

If there was any addition to the buildings that is proposed, and that is generally allowed with like our rehabilitation, it would just need to be what's considered subordinate to the overall structure that is in place in that historic property.

Thank you for that.

And I have just two other things quick.

One is really a statement about um the idea of uh why I have been so supportive of the historic preservation, and part of that had to do with the time when destination medical center was passed, and there was a lot of angst in the community about how would this change our downtown.

And it was said at that time by the people that were presenting the DMC initiative to us that the intention wasn't to dismantle the historic district, that that actually was part of the quaintness and the interest in downtown Rochester.

So I just want to put that out there that as we've moved along over the past 10 years, it was never with the idea that we were going to raise everything and build build new.

It was the idea that we would keep some of that historic district and build around it.

And and we've had those discussions in the past when we've uh talked about other issues related to DMC.

And lastly, I just wanted to mention that I did check my junk files and I did not receive anything from the applicant today.

So while I am not a sitting city council member, I do have VietO authority, and it seems to me that if you're gonna send it to the council, you might want to make sure I have a copy of it too, and I did not receive one.

Councilmember Fredericks.

Oh, I didn't know I raised my hand, but I'll go.

Oh, I said you did.

Uh you may want to turn your mic on too.

A little uh blindsided here.

I was gonna let everybody else speak first.

It's kind of my tradition, but uh history does have a price.

Owners pay for it, and if the owners don't pay for it, almost ultimately ends up with uh taxpayers paying for it because it ends up in our hands and we end up preserving it.

Um I was curious.

Tell me about the 350 jobs.

Tell me about that.

Uh thank you.

Yes, uh, so the 350 jobs would be a mixture of uh jobs for the hospitalities, so the hotel that we'd be installing, and then also uh the construction jobs surrounding the projects the construction jobs surrounding the project.

So those are temporary positions?

They would be temporary, yes, for approximately when we're all done.

What are we looking at for?

That's a good question.

I don't have that figure in front of me.

Okay.

I'm not trying to get you.

No, I understand.

I imagine it would be closer to or approximately about a hundred.

How many permanently living in these in this structure being let's call is it three structures, or would you call it one?

So the project overall has four structures.

Okay.

Well, let me let me think through this.

Um as it stands right now, there's four structures uh that we have in mind for this project.

Um is not inside of this district, but it is right next door, and we have alluded to it several times or mentioned it, uh, and that is the 101st building.

Uh so we would be looking to purchase this building in addition to the odd fellows and the Brackenridge.

And on the 101st site, we would uh also place condos.

So altogether, all of the condos, I believe, and this is an approximate number because I don't have the figure in front of me, but it would be around 360 housing units, I believe.

Do we think more Berkman?

Is that what we're kind of thinking here?

Is that kind of what you're looking at?

Well, that name has been brought up.

Okay.

And you're you're looking at keeping the facades.

Um it looks like on the pictures you have the front of the buildings move back a bit to try and preserve some of the look of what's there still.

Um I I almost think that you know there's so many moving parts in this deal, it's hard to break it all down.

You know, there's there's historical significance big time on the building on the corner, the uh odd fellows building.

There's there's significance on the bank building, the one between them.

I don't know much about it.

I'm not gonna sit here and pretend I do.

Uh personally, I believe in historic preservation.

Uh my wife and I have done it on our own with several buildings in this community, although they don't have the significance of anything like that odd fellows building.

And I do believe having respect for our historic preservation community is important, and I believe it failed there on a zero-seven vote.

Is that correct?

That is correct, yes.

Okay.

Um I may have more questions.

Um did you share that email that you I don't want to make this sound secu uh uh uh accusatory, but this email that was supposedly shared with us, I couldn't find it either, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

I'm not the uh technological guru that some people are, but uh did the staff receive that email too.

When you say staff, can you um all the people that have that bring us these recommendations and so on and so forth within the city?

No, uh the email was sent directly to all the council members.

Okay, and I do want to make a note I don't.

I'm just I I thought you said that was your last question.

I can't it can be.

Okay.

I do want to make a note.

Well, we'll get back to you.

Why don't you just stay there?

Because I do have uh a question for you as well.

So uh I I have a question.

You knew there's a historic district here, and you knew what the guidelines are.

Um why didn't you take the guidelines within the historic district and make a uh development that makes a reasonable case for economic return, also taking into account all the financial incentives that are in place now with the DMC dollars, with uh the uh the other dollars that were cited cited earlier?

That's a good question.

Thank you.

Um do you mind if I finish my statement uh to councilman Friedrichs?

Go ahead.

Okay.

The email that uh was sent out.

We've had issues in the past, including today uh sending the presentation to the members here uh and the city staff.

It we had to try six, seven, eight times, and uh I believe the city clerk can uh I'm gonna stop you right there.

We already made a decision earlier tonight that we are not going to take that into account.

This is kind of a rabbit hole.

We want to talk about the project.

So we've heard your answer on that.

Will you please just address what I asked you?

And then I do have three other council members that have a series of questions for you as well.

Yes, sir.

So we we are with the Olmsted County Bank and Trust building, we have looked to incorporate either the existing COA or um making a amendment to that COA.

Um when we look through the financials, we are unable to make a reasonable economic return.

Meaning when we look at the projections, it is negative.

And it's negative to the magnitude of a million dollars a month.

So the construction cost on at least the Olmstead County Bank and Trust building is far outweighs uh any type of development that could go on to that building uh while maintaining the facade or uh following any of the guidelines, the historic guidelines that have been set in place.

Thank you.

Uh Councilmember Wall.

Thank you.

Just is your question to the Yes?

Yes and yes.

Okay.

Um following up a little bit on what uh you were saying, President Schubring, uh when did uh when did you buy the uh Olmsted County Bill the bank building?

Yes, the uh Olmsted County Bank and Trust Building, also known as the OCB, so we don't have to keep trying to struggle through it, um, was purchased in 2021.

Thank you.

And Ms.

Woodward, uh, what was the status of that building in 2021?

Uh the status, I believe it was listed on our potential list in terms of um being potentially eligible, and at that time the the study was being completed for the historic district.

And were you aware of the fact that it was on the historic potential list uh and a study being completed for historic preservation district?

I was not a part of uh the team until March of this year.

So uh to answer your question, I was not aware of that, sir.

Okay, were the buyers aware of that?

Uh uh could they possibly have not been aware of that?

It is possible that they were not aware of that.

Um and to caveat that uh Mr.

Ahmed, uh he spoke earlier, he is the CEO of uh Baháia, so the other buildings that we're looking to purchase.

He also was unaware that his buildings were on this historic district or uh designated as historic landmark properties until it was brought to his attention by myself in August Boy.

I thought Ms.

Woodward, we've talked uh any number of times leading up to the designation of historic preservation district, that we have been in contact with the owners of those buildings multiple times over years.

Yes, we have reached out to property owners throughout in terms of when they were on lists and sharing that information, and we've also shared all of the um financial information and the incentives that are available and sending that out to property owners as well as email lists.

Okay.

And uh I understand that you didn't know that and uh maybe others didn't.

Uh I find it uh a little bit unusual that uh already owning one property whereby uh you can't make any money given what you'd already paid for it, you're willing to buy two more within the historic preservation district where you're gonna make even less.

Well, why why would a company do that?

That's a great question.

So it is uh our intention to purchase these buildings after they've been removed from the district.

And yet you're claiming economic hardship based on the new purchase price rather than what they might actually be worth in their current state of the historic preservation district.

Uh with the PLs that were provided for the odd villas and the Brackenridge, it does show that there is an economic hardship.

Um both of those um as stated in the presentation that was provided um were negative, I believe 38,000, and these are approximate numbers because I don't have them in front of me, and negative 13,000, if I remember correctly, in 2024.

Um so if these buildings aren't making money by definition, there is some level of economic hardship.

Which is exacerbated by spending a lot of money on them originally, hoping they would be torn down.

Um very difficult for me.

Well, no, I don't that's not a question.

So uh council member Keene.

My my questions for um Ms.

Patterson Lundgren.

Um you've put up the criteria or the findings of facts from the last thing.

There's three findings.

I believe the first one is uh uh nothing contradicts the um city's position on historic preservation.

Uh and then there's a reference to the no data being provided that um makes the full case for economic hardship.

The third criteria is difficult for me to understand.

Um it's uh worded in such a way to um I don't know if if it's a an opinion or a finding of fact.

Uh I know you had a chart on it.

I there it is uh deferred maintenance is I'm trying to understand this is a finding of fact was indicated as an in as information submitted.

So it was turned in.

The finding of fact is that that's what caused the the uh di degregation.

Uh I'm sorry, so um so one of the requirements to show economic hardship is that it cannot be found if um if there is evidence of um demolition by neglect and the application material included the discussion um the mention of deferred maintenance.

Um so whether or not that indicates that it was demolition by neglect, um, that's one of the findings.

But I I'm trying to understand that as uh indicated as a finding of fact.

I thought findings of facts were things you made decisions based on.

This looks like um this could have happened, but we're not stating it, or did the did the decision that that the um historic preservation group said no, we found this to be the case.

I I'm just confused how it's in that.

Yep.

So yes, I think that that's exactly what they said when they adopted that.

Was that um is that they saw that as they saw the deferred maintenance as demolition by neglect?

Um, I think that if the council doesn't see it that way, that's something that you probably don't want to include as fine as a finding of fact.

Yeah, very good.

That's helpful.

Thank you.

Uh uh Councilmember Palmer.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Question for Ms.

Woodward.

So we have the old uh Almston County Bank building.

We have a uh permit, we have an idea that they're gonna do maybe three stories.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

There is an existing certificate of appropriateness for that building that includes the addition of those um additional stories.

So if they did eight stories and they reapplied or in and adjusted their permit, would that would be something that your department would look at?

Um if they wanted to amend the certificate of appropriateness, it would need to go back to the HPC who would have to review it against the design guidelines and the criteria for the that type of addition, and they would have to review it and approve it.

And then that would come back to us.

Um it would only come back to the council if it was appealed.

Okay.

Mr.

City Attorney, I have a question for you.

We have the UEDC, we have a historic preservation part of it, and part of it is this economic um hardship.

Is that not in there?

Yeah, it's in there.

Is that not part of the the UDC?

Good luck.

It is part of the UDC.

So for them, their right to come and ask for that.

That's their right to do that, isn't that correct?

Absolutely.

And the HPC is a committee that looks at just the historic part of this, correct?

Would perhaps be echoing the crowd.

Um, no, that the UDC um criteria can be addressed by the HBC and were addressed by the HBC, including hardship.

Okay.

But they're presenting to us today a hardship, and and we can make the case to either remove it or not remove it based on on the economic hardship, we'd still be following the UDC.

You certainly can.

Thank you.

So back to you.

You own that you you you want to use the um Almston County Bank building.

They already have three uh permit for three.

You want to do eight.

Are you leaving the whole building or are you leaving just the facade?

We would maintain the facade and then we'd maintain other historic elements on the inside of the building.

Okay.

Then you're gonna go to the Breckenridge building, and you're gonna tear that completely down.

Is that your plan?

That is correct.

And then you're gonna go over to the odd fellows and at the odd fellows, are you leaving most of the building or just the facade?

We would leave the um, we would leave the facade and then any of the historical internals um in there as well.

Uh I believe there is woodwork on the second floor.

Uh, it is our intention to leave that as well.

Okay.

And I think Mr.

Wall was asking you, you know, why are you buying buildings if you're not making money?

But but would be I'm just gonna make a guess here, but confirm this.

If you add more stuff to it, you can make money because it's bigger, it's a bigger footprint.

Am I wrong in that?

Uh you are correct.

Uh with volume, we can achieve um making money in economic or reasonable economic return on these investments.

Okay.

Ms.

Woodward, would would they have that ability to leave it in the district and then apply to tear down the Brecken Ridge building and then do leaving the facades in and and building up if that was something they could ask for?

Um, thank you for the question.

If there is a demolition, um that would still require to come back before and recommend removal from the district.

So it it kind of calls into the same process if you are choosing or making that recommendation and application.

The others would also still need to follow the certificate of appropriateness and that review process if they keep them in the district.

So we kept them in the district and they decided that they want to build a high-rise behind them, kind of like what we already approved for Alms County Bank Building, they could do that.

Um so we'd have to look at it against the design guidelines in terms of what is being proposed and whether any addition to an existing historic building generally needs to be subordinate in terms of overall so that it's not towering over the existing structure.

So that is one thing that's taken into account, and I think that's where we've seen with adding on to other buildings that sometimes that can be challenging since some of these are only two three-story buildings.

Can I clarify something that uh council member Palmer said?

So he said we approved the uh Umstead County Bank building, but that was prior to the historic district.

So that in effect, in my mind, would make that approval null null and void.

Is that correct?

So there is an existing certificate of appropriateness.

Um it is not null and void, it was approved, and we have had that reviewed um talking to legal in terms of that approval would stand as of today, even though the district came into into effect after that approval was already in place.

Thank you.

So that gives you that option if you wanted to to leave it in the district and rebuild a tower above and see if you can get the appropriateness for that.

Is that is that's because there's a you're not coming in to tear the the the buildings down, you're not trying to flatten everything.

Is that correct?

We do not want to flatten everything.

Can I can I clarify something for you?

Um I appreciate that.

So we did approach the HPC at the same time as when we went in front of them to request removal of these buildings from the district.

We also requested a COA on the design of these buildings at that time, and that was denied as well.

So it is not I don't have faith that if we went back to the HBC that we would have a different result.

Is that they the HPC is already denied that?

Uh the applicant reviewed, um, I'm sorry, the HBC reviewed what the applicant submitted and they reviewed it against the criteria for certificate of appropriateness, and it was denied, and the applicant chose not to appeal that decision.

And can they still appeal it?

Um the time period has expired in terms of the appeal process.

Okay.

So back to to clear clearing the whole block and building a new building or saving the facades on these two buildings.

Is there a cost difference?

There is a uh significant cost difference.

Um it is to the magnitude of approximately fifty dollars per square foot, um, which as we as we start to scale the building can be very very expensive.

Uh for instance, if we uh try to maintain the facade of the the Bracken Ridge, um, we would be looking at if you don't mind, I'm gonna do a little bit of math, it's gonna be approximate.

While you're doing your math, are you wrapping up, counselor?

No, not really.

You're not no.

Okay, we do have two other council members that are after you.

Um if we may have to start doing timing on our council members if um I'm going to go to another council member, council member Palmer, as he's doing that.

Councilmember Miller.

Sure, just a couple of questions.

Um so it came up about the certificate of appropriateness.

You chose not to appeal that.

Um so a question for staff should we approve the action requested by the applicant tonight?

How would uh potential development proceed from there?

Um thank you for the question.

Uh it would depend on two different ways.

If you removed and changed the boundary of the historic district, then it would go through a regular entitlement process and it would not be reviewed by the HPC.

Um and if you left them with the boundary and made them non-contributing, they would still need to be reviewed by the HPC.

So in effect anything with that.

So we've been shown drawings, renderings, but there's there's no legal if we were to approve the requested action.

That project is is in no way bound by any of what we've been shown, correct?

That is correct.

They still need to follow the underlying zoning and all of the and go through the entitlement process.

Okay, thank you.

Do you have your answer for council member Palmer?

Yes, I do.

Okay, why don't you do that?

And then Councilmember Palmer, you have the floor.

It would be to the magnitude of uh 20 million dollars if we were to save the Bracken Ridge's facade.

Just that that follows and that would just be for the Brackenridge.

Okay, thank you.

I'm done.

Oh, you are done.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Councilmember Doring.

Yeah, I'm uh it seems to me that we are being asked to make a decision uh uh based on a promise of a project that hasn't gone through proper permitting or approval to remove historic properties from uh a historic district.

So I'm just looking at our city attorney to talk about the quasi-judicial nature of this decision.

Um because right now we've been made no guarantees that this project that we're asked essentially being asked to make a decision based on uh actually is exists or will come into fruition thank you, Councilmember Dorring, Council members mayor Norton.

Um you are asking an important question, probably what has already been acknowledged through Councilmember Miller's questions is that um your decision tonight does not lock in any sort of project going forward.

Um what is a bit unique here is that the economic hardship criteria set out through the UDC is fairly broad.

So it really does invite an applicant and appellant to be making an argument about alternative uses of a site.

Um so arguably the presentation to you this evening of other ideas, big projects, big ideas, um, is appropriate, is consistent with what the UDC criteria uh contemplate.

Um but yes, back to your original point.

Um depending on the decision tonight, uh it certainly doesn't lock in that project, that idea, that concept.

And then for Miss Woodward, is there any uh way um I've heard promises from the developer about maintaining facades, maintaining historical integrity from interior interiors of uh a couple of these buildings.

Uh, can we make conditions of removal of historical properties with proposed developments that have not been approved uh to maintain those facades and those historical components uh that have been promised to us tonight as conditions of uh future development?

So if you are choosing to remove these from the historic district and change the boundary, um there is really no way to kind of add those conditions, it's really not recommended.

I think it's looking at the issue before you and the findings of fact in terms of what the decision is.

Yeah, so that's what I was looking for.

Uh uh clarification that there's no guarantee that those historical aspects will be preserved in in a future development.

If we choose to remove these these buildings from the the historical district, if if you choose to remove them from the historic district, there would be no requirement in terms of any of those.

Um it would not go need to go back to the HPC if you move the boundary and remove them from the historic district for them to review or make any of those um things come to fruition.

Okay, thank you.

I've got a question uh getting back to uh um a issue that council member Keene brought up, the deferred maintenance, which actually is in their stabilal stability report, it specifically addresses deferred maintenance in your report that you submitted.

But my question is to staff is uh so when it comes to deferred maintenance or the the uh the phrase demolition by neglect.

Do we have any uh any enforcing mechanisms in the city to uh watch these 27 buildings that we have in our historic district for deferred maintenance for uh for uh demolition by neglect?

So so in general, we are kind of reactive.

We often receive complaints or questions about an existing building, and then in that regard, it would go to our building department who would go out and evaluate and look at the building.

So we would take it as a complaint and we would go out and do that investigation and look at a building in that regard, right?

And reach out to the property owner and ask questions.

So it's an incumbent on members of the public to be watchful of the district and the buildings and yes, that is correct, and we do get those um on occasionally and we will follow through on those.

Thank you.

Uh councilmember Miller.

So following up on that, uh, has have any of these buildings been um inspected recently by building maintenance, or when would be the last time?

I am not aware of the most recent time that anyone from the building department was in any of them.

I would have to check with them.

Okay.

Uh have staff evaluated any of the alternative uses shown in the presentation tonight.

Um we did review the materials that were provided.

We also weren't provided a pro forma, so it was kind of difficult to evaluate what was being proposed versus kind of the UDC criteria of being able to reuse them as is.

So it's fair to say uh staff have not found uh those to be sufficient to meet the economic hardship as as would be the findings recommended.

No, we did not find that, and I think all of some of the structural reports that were mentioned also said that the buildings could be reused as is, and so that also really tied into that criteria as well.

Thank you.

Councilmember Fredericks.

Yes, thank you.

Um did you provide all of this financial information to the historic preservation committee?

We provided uh some of the financial information, uh, and then we had lessons learned uh while we were or after rather after the HPC meeting, um, where we decided to provide additional information, and then we did put that into our slideshow.

Thank you.

Is there a motion on this item?

I'll make a motion to council member Keane.

Yeah, I'll make a motion adopting a resolution denying the request for historic landmark removal from properties at seven second street southwest, 21 2nd Street Southwest, and 23 2nd Street Southwest.

Is there a second?

Second.

Uh motion made by Councilmember Keene and uh seconded by Councilmember Wall.

Uh Councilmember Keene, you have the floor.

Thank you.

Um I guess I'm I'm not surprised to see a request like this in front of us.

Uh sir.

If you want to stay up here, you're fine, but if you want to go back, whichever way.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

Um I'm not surprised to see this.

If you follow our voting records, um you'll notice that the downtown historic district was approved in 2024 by on a four to three vote, and three of the no votes are still on the council.

So it it's not doesn't surprise me that uh the district will get tested.

Um but uh from my um but the district was established in 2024, and those are the laws that we're dealing with tonight.

Those that that is what's on the books.

Um and uh you've got these concepts, and this is all in our ordinance.

This idea of these three different ways of getting things um to uh addressed uh reconsideration of historic significance, reconsideration of integrity, and economic hardship.

Um I came to this public hearing understanding the quasi-judicial nature of our work, um, and that means we have to focus on these criteria and and make judgments based on the laws and the data put in front of us.

Uh, this is not like legislative where we get to say, you know what, I think it'd be better.

This is really being in a judicial framework.

Um the complexity, part of the complexity comes here is we have one request with three properties, and they basically tried to make uh criteria on all three of the other ones.

So we have this three by three matrix.

Uh the one that stuck out most to me was uh the economic hardship.

Um now there's their stated defined documents needed to demonstrate economic hardship, the difficulty of getting to agreements on evaluations, agreeing on judgments on what is a hardship versus a loss versus a missed opportunity to maximize land values.

Is a missed opportunity the same as a hardship?

Um what happens when an appropriate use does not maximize uh property values?

Is that a hardship as defined by the ordinance?

I don't think it is.

Um I I've kind of struggled through this one because I I um struggle through the whole private property and the historic preservation thing, and I think this is gonna take time to meld.

Um but um when I look at my job as far as looking at the ordinance on the books, what the laws are and what the data put in front of us is, I I can't sub I I can so I will support denying the the petition council member Palmer.

Thank you.

Um I I think the case for economic hardship has been made.

I don't think the case has been made for um deferred maintenance or econom for deferred um neglect.

So I am I'm not sure that that's something that you want to put in there, but we have already.

I think you also have to remember that we've already approved at the Walmart County Bank Building, in addition to it.

That's I think three stories.

So for me, obviously I'm not gonna be voting for this motion based on the economic hardship and in that I have not seen proof that there's been uh uh neglect on the building.

So that would be what I'm gonna vote for.

Anything for council member Keene, go ahead.

Yeah, Councilmember Palmer reminds me of important fact.

I would the finding of fact I would have is one and two.

I would not include three as part of my find uh what I would consider the motion and what the finding of facts are for that motion.

Is that acceptable to you, Councilmember Wall, as the second term?

So it's a finding of facts one and two.

Any further discussion on this?

All in favor say aye.

Hi.

Opposed say nay.

Nay.

Uh motion passes six to one with uh councilmember Palmer in voting nay.

Uh we will take a um eight-minute break.

Six to seven oh that's what I think that means take your seat.

Oh, it's full right.

All right, folks.

If you can please take your seats.

We are please uh refrain from speaking.

Also, I'm gonna say if folks can make sure that their uh cell phones are off.

The sound system in this room is extremely sensitive, the new state of the art sound system.

And so uh when cell phones come go off, the the sound really reverberates through throughout.

So uh watch that.

Uh we are moving on to item G2, which is reconstruction of Center Street East from the Zumbro River Bridge to 11th Avenue Northeast Southeast.

And our presenter for this is Amy Kurofsky.

Take it away, Miss Krowski.

Thank you.

Um good evening.

I am Amy Kriaski and can you get a little closer to the mic?

It moves.

There you go.

Certainly.

All right, good evening, Mayor, Council President, members of the council.

Uh, we are here tonight holding two public hearings concurrently for Center Street.

Uh this is like you said, from the Zumbro River Bridge to 11th Avenue East.

Uh, this project has been in front of council before.

Uh previous council actions include approving a contract for design with SEH, approval of the geometric layout, um, and most recently the acceptance of the feasibility report and setting the project hearings for tonight.

So this project has been identified in the city's capital improvement plan for construction in 2026.

Um, the identified funding sources are special assessments, utility reserves, and municipal state aid funds.

Because of the special assessments, um, and following Minnesota State Statute Chapter 429.

Uh, we are required to hold both an improvement hearing and an assessment hearing.

So uh the project improvements include reconstruction of the urban roadway.

Uh the approved layout was two 10-foot uh concrete travel lanes with curb and gutter, a cycle track on the north side of the road, um sidewalk on both sides, as well as a mini roundabout at 11th Avenue.

So the project will replace the existing utilities, uh storm water, sanitary sewer, uh water main, as well as the private services within the right-of-way.

Uh the city staff has published notices in the post bulletin.

Uh mailers were sent to the affected property owners, um, as well as created the assessment role, which is on file uh with the city clerk and also attached to tonight's packet.

Uh the assessment role was prepared in accordance with our city's assessment policy adopted in 2022.

Uh part of that policy, 25 percent of the uh quantum or qualifying street reconstruction items are assessed to the abutting property owners, as well as the water service lines are being charged at the fee identified in the city's fee schedule.

So that will be the 2026 fee schedule.

So uh tonight, two actions are being requested.

Uh the first uh ordering of the improvements and authorize the prep preparation of plans and specification.

Um I just did want to make a note here that this does require supermajority, so four-fifths of the council.

Uh the second action requested would be um adoption of a resolution levying the proposed assessments against the benefited properties.

Also, um I wanted to acknowledge there was some emails circulating today stemming from the east side neighborhood.

Uh they were they reached out regarding tree removals.

So these tree removals, the ones we're showing at our second open house.

We had tree removal identified with an X and then a circle with some that were potentially in danger as our design progressed.

So currently where the plans stand, uh 26 trees are being removed to accommodate utility and safety improvements of this, only three that are being removed directly because they are in the clear zone or the buffer zone of the cycle track.

So roughly about half of the trees that exist today will remain.

And then the project will strategically plant new trees.

So in the future, hopefully, services won't impact them and need to be removed.

So with that, I guess I recommend Council President opening of both hearings together, but in the end, taking action separately, and then following the hearing, I'll be available for any questions.

Thank you.

And I will do just that.

At this point, I will open up a public hearing on the public improvement and uh the assessment on uh this uh item.

I do have a list, and the first name on the list is Kevin Fleming.

Good evening, City Council members.

My name is Kevin Fleming.

I live at 511 East Center.

My wife and I are property owners there, we've been there 30 some years.

Uh couple questions.

I understand that I want to make sure because I'm stupid about how city council operates.

This is the assessment hearing.

It is, yes.

And just so you're clear, you you can ask all your questions.

We won't have staff answer them until after the public hearing.

I understand that.

Um so part of my problem is number one.

We got this letter today at noon about this meeting and about this assessment.

And what it said on the second page is no appeal may be taken as to the amount of any assessment adopted unless a written objection is signed by the property when filed with the city clerk prior to the assessment hearing.

I only heard about it today at noon.

Luckily, my wife was home because I would have gotten the mail at 6 when I usually come home.

I had to leave work early to come here.

So what I would say is that counts as defective notice.

Number two, we also own the properties at 515 and 519.

No notice.

So again, there's three cases of defective notice.

They weren't given 10 days.

We weren't given time to object to this assessment, which is supposed to be in your hands before this meeting.

So we couldn't do it physically, not possible.

Um the second thing is this project is not local improvement, meaning not for the neighborhood.

Center Street is not a major artery.

Um, I think it's called a secondary artery.

I'm not sure, but it's not a simple neighborhood street like 6th Street or 7th Street, which mostly just is neighborhood use and occasional people going by.

This is used by many, many people all day, every day traveling through getting downtown or uh going east to the prison to Olmstead County uh hospital.

So it's not a it's not a local improvement.

This is for the city at large, and we're being asked to treat it as if it's a local improvement.

And so my understanding by uh what is it, burns versus city of Minneapolis?

The assessment can't exceed the increase in market value caused by the improvement.

So that street was not read not done, not redone just very long ago.

It wasn't too long ago that that whole street was repaved, and many mains were replaced.

So there's no need for the mains to be replaced.

They're going to be replaced because you have gotten some money to be able to make this bike path and narrow the street.

There was no need for improvement.

This is a desire to improve it.

It's a desire to do so, even though the street was perfectly functional and does not need repaving, doesn't need new water mains.

So we benefit nothing from that, nothing.

They're going to do it, and they're saying, Well, you benefit by X amount.

What I haven't seen here was what are the calculations that they came to that said my property value is going to increase by because I was sent a bill for 5,000 bucks times three, really 16,000, 17,000 that I'm gonna have to pay for this.

My property values are not gonna increase 17,000 from this.

They're not, there's no way it could.

Plus, there's nothing on here so far that has told me what property is going to be taken.

So some of the notices said some piece of my property is going to go away for this, and that they will pay me.

And there's a 90-day taking, or they'll just say, We propose we're gonna give you this much money based on the current assessment for that property value plus 15% of whatever they make.

Um that's going to decrease my property value because it's going to be a smaller property.

It's not going to increase it by that much.

So by that Burns versus City of Minneapolis, the assessment can't exceed the increase in market value caused by the improvement.

There's no there's been no demonstration that my property value will increase by 5,000 bucks.

This is not it's not going to happen, not in that neighborhood.

We've been trying to sell those three properties for a long time, partly because of this kind of thing.

Frankly, I want to leave for the same reason that this previous group was saying Rochester doesn't support historic neighborhoods, doesn't restrict support historic buildings.

We have a house that was built in 1898.

It's gonna go away.

I know it's gonna be gone.

So what I would submit to you is that there has been improper notification, so defective notice that the that the property values aren't going to increase by what my assessment is, and the assessment is way too high.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Fleming.

Uh, next we have uh Kara Ongyu.

Okay.

Yeah.

Sorry for messing up your name.

No, that's okay.

My name is Kaya Ingvey.

I live at 623 East Center Street.

Um I am these these are my friends and colleagues.

I am a member of the East Side Neighborhood Association board.

Um, and these folks standing behind me are in support of what I'm saying today.

So we don't want to take additional time, and so I'm I'm sort of acting spokesperson for our our crew.

Um before we talk reconstruction, I just want everyone to think about what sense of place means to them because really what I'm submitting to you on behalf of everybody else is about a sense of place.

Um part of my story and what this means to me is that I I rented in the same location since 2019, and in 2022 I had the opportunity to purchase it.

So when one's considering where where do I put down my roots, right?

It's a it's a thoughtful thing.

And one of the things that really came to the forefront for me it was my walk to into downtown and back home every day.

And what I liked about that, and what I continue to like about that is the tree-lined streets that are mature and that provide a canopy, and this is now a rare thing in Minnesota, right?

And so I'm from Hopkins, Minnesota originally.

We've lost a lot of trees to Dutch Elm.

Um, it changed it shifts and changes the character of a neighborhood when the trees go.

Um back to the proposal.

Um we got 26 trees.

It sounds like a small number, right?

I and I guess I would submit that it's not about the numbers so much as it is about the impact.

And this is a significant loss for us.

Um it threatens our sense of place, and I would ask uh that ENA, like what we talk about and what we've asked for as a representation of where we are is put the trees up, put the geese up, put the cemetery flag or cemetery welcome center in a recent art installation we did.

And it's kind of an aspect of our identity.

So we understand the need to grow and we support thoughtful development, right?

That makes sense.

We're all for that.

I think what we're asking for today is a collaboration to explore alternatives that would work for all, not just us and not just the the city.

Um, I understand this the safety concerns.

I understand we understand the safety concerns as well as the the bike lane.

Um it sounds like there are um other models being tried across the city.

The 11th Avenue West Street is a good example.

I might be getting that wrong.

11th Avenue Northwest and Southwest, thank you.

Um, is a good example where uh the street has been sort of preserved, but they've also preserved um trees as well.

And with that, I'll yield my time.

Thank you.

Uh next we have Bunny Kettlecamp.

Hi, I'm Sean Kettlecamp.

I live at 232 7th Avenue Southeast.

I'm in the East Side neighborhood.

I live just a few blocks from 11th Avenue.

I go for walks all the time up in that particular neighborhood, and I don't see any reason to take out the street and make it different from what it is right now.

Um, because uh, you know, you have the you know, the the of course the driving lanes and the sidewalks and everything, but uh uh there's already a bike path that goes right in front of the cemetery and right behind the houses there on the north side of um center street, and it goes all the way out to uh um this quarry hill.

I was gonna say the state hospital, but that's not there anymore either.

But um the bike path is already there, they don't need to put another bike path in, they don't need to widen the street, they don't need to cut down the trees, they don't need to ruin the whole um place.

That's the what they need in that neighborhood is already there, and uh uh and it comes downtown, it goes under the um bridge, and you can go you can go everywhere on it.

And the city already paid for it and paid a lot for it, and it's very usable, and it's very wonderful.

And uh really um that not only going out to Quarry Hill, as I said, you can go everywhere on that bike path.

And uh, so it goes under the Center Street Bridge, and uh you can go downtown, you can go everywhere.

So there's no need to rip up Center Street and uh pay uh you know millions of dollars for something that we don't need.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh this is a public hearing.

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

Hi again, uh Barry Skolnick.

I just have a quick question actually, um, which is if you do get rid of all those trees, I I do want to maintain the tree canopy in Rochester, and I do agree we seem to be losing it.

I'm just wondering if somebody could say if they're gonna plant trees somewhere else or do something to preserve the tree canopy because I am worried about constantly losing trees, and I've seen it happen with some Mayo Clinic projects too, like the Baldwin building where they took out 10 trees and never replaced them.

So I'm I'm just trying to find out if can you ask the staff, will you replace the trees?

And what is do they keep track of the overall tree canopy in given neighborhoods in the city to try to keep it at least stable as opposed to losing it?

Thank you.

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 uh I will go back to uh our staff and uh and ask a few of the questions that were brought up.

Uh and starting with the last one regarding the trees overall, we do have a city forestry plan, correct?

And uh does that give us an end inventory of the trees and kind of what the net hopefully increase that we have across the city, and and are there more specific neighborhoods that are addressed in that plan.

Well, I can speak to Center Street, and I don't know if someone with parks can speak to the overall um tree inventory.

Um I do know that they do track individual boulevard trees within a system.

Uh this tracks the health and condition of the trees.

Um, as far as a reconstruction project, we do work with the forester and we evaluate tree health as well as um these uh the project uh we try to weigh each and balance out you know design as well as um saving what we can as far as uh replanting the tree canopy and establishing we uh tried to replant at a minimum of a one to one for replacement, and sometimes we're even as high as a two to one on the replacement.

Thank you.

I also could you address the questions uh brought up by Mr.

Fleming in particular, whether or not uh his attendance at this assessment hearing does constitute notice for he and his properties.

Uh I can browse I can help with that one.

Uh mayor president, members of the council.

Uh so the objection to any assessment needs to occur in writing before the hearing, or the individual needs to attend the hearing and make notification.

So what I would want him to do if you want would like to object is leave his name and his property addresses that he owns with our city clerk.

So that is it is on file.

You can either do it in advance of the hearing or at the hearing in person.

So any anyone in addition that would like to do that, uh we would want to get that uh documented with our city clerk.

Ums case will thank you.

Thank you.

Uh council member Fredericks.

All right, here we go.

Were the notices sent out last minute?

No, um, I mean, I can't say that 100% certain.

I know the clerk's office.

I had message was looking into that, but um the request was made on 911 to have them put in the mail on 915.

Okay, and um uh a couple other questions then.

Um by is there like a set parameter like when they're supposed to be noticed before something like this?

Thank you.

Uh yes, that's in uh the 429.

I believe it is two weeks.

Okay.

Um he said he got them at one of his residences only.

Would it be possible that the city knew they were all three his, so they just sent to his homestead?

So our mailers are um sent to the addresses on file with uh Ohmstead County property records.

You got a rough mail, man.

Okay.

Uh 20.

I I was a little conflicting here.

26 trees are removed, mature trees.

There's more than 26 trees, are 52 trees on that street.

26 mature trees were are gonna be removed uh as projected here.

And there's 26 left.

Is that what you're saying?

Yes.

Okay, and is there you say immature trees, less than mature trees that are being left?

Yes, I do have the specifics broke down by diameter, but I I did not trees are gonna be left.

26 total, so there's only mature trees on the street.

Well, no, because uh parks went through and planted some additional last year.

That's what I'm asking.

Yeah, does a small tree not count as a tree?

It does count as a tree.

Okay.

All right.

I'm just trying to lighten it up a little bit here just to kind of ask, because it sounds like there's only 52 trees on this segment of center street, and there's only gonna be 26 left.

Yeah, that would be pretty barren.

Okay.

So I was just kind of wondering how many total are gonna be there when this project is done, and there's only gonna be 26 mature, is what I'm hearing.

Yeah, I I like I mentioned uh for a reconstruction project, we try to replace that a one-to-one.

So I would say at the end a minimum of 52.

Okay, all right.

Uh you can go to somebody else, come back to me.

Council member uh Palmer.

Thank you.

Um this happens to us all the time if people don't get notification.

I know there's a cost to it, but but I think we need to change the way we do it and have a registered mail so that people can't say to us that they didn't get it.

And I get why people don't get them because it's looks like junk mail and they throw it away.

Um is there a reason, Mr.

Dorowski that we can't do that?

The statute does not require the certified mail, so we've never used that for projects.

However, we we could there's a cost, obviously.

There's a city city um statute, so we could change that ourselves.

We could if the council uh had the desire to make sure any of these notifications were certified mail again.

There will be a cost to the projects.

Um there's assessment here in in my understanding, and I'm not a lawyer, but but we can't assess more than what we can increase the value.

Is that a true statement?

That is a that is a true statement.

So the assessment needs to be equal to the benefit or less than than what the benefit will be to the property.

However, as we've talked through with past assessments over the years, there's no obligation for us to prove benefit uh as at the beginning of the project and do an appraisal.

We have done benefit appraisals on past projects.

What we learned was that it's based on the value of the property, uh, the benefit.

We scaled our total assessment amounts way back.

So as you heard, 25% of the street is being assessed.

The city's paying for the other 75% of the roadway improvements, and as as a result of that, you know, the numbers and that are going out to individual properties have come way down from um years past with the new policy that the council adopted uh in 22-2022.

Um I would also note that we aren't assessing for the the water main, the sanitary sewer main, the storm sewer, um, and just giving us some of the the the questions that andor comments that came up.

The water mains from 1887, so it's a hundred and almost 140 years old sanitary sewers early 1900s, they're not in condition that we would want to keep them.

They they they need to be reconstructed.

So I just want to make that clear to the council.

So on the assessment, the county owns the buildings on that on that.

Are they paying for any of the assessment?

They are, and if we had a city parcel, we would be paying an assessment as well.

Okay.

Um I looked at the uh dollar amount, and one of them is in the city reserve.

You're taking $13,000 out.

Is that makes sense?

That's uh one of the funding sources that the council provides to us in the CIP annually for street reconstruction.

So we're utilizing the street reconstruction funds with this project.

And then the water mean is 1.3 million dollars, which is higher than the sewer.

Is is this is that common based on our uh bids received in 2025, water main has um increased significantly in cost.

Are we using plastic or are we using um cast or ductile?

Uh ductile iron.

Why aren't we using um plastic?

A good question for RPU water.

Um, I do know that they are considering use of PVC water main, and they are looking at piloting a project.

Okay.

So I'm gonna go to the trees.

As far as the assessment goes, and you drive down the street and you got a beautiful canopy of trees.

I can't believe that you're tearing down half the trees that that the value of those properties are going to increase.

Um I guess that's a statement.

So my question to you is if I'm a developer and I'm buying, I'm tearing trees down off a boulevard.

I have to pay a dollar amount, not just replace the tree.

Are we doing that or are we doing something special for the city?

So the city is not paying the canopy fee loss you're describing.

We are replacing trees.

So why wouldn't you pay the the I mean if it's good for the developer?

Why isn't it good for the city?

There's there hasn't been a policy where you know we're we're doing projects as we're removing trees that we're paying the canopy loss fee.

We've in lieu of that, we're planting more trees at a ratio of one to one or higher, as Amy noted up to as many as two times.

Well, I've been on that street quite a bit.

I mean, there's some huge trees, and you know, if I go and I go buy a hundred dollar tree and throw it in the boulevard and say one for one, that's not one for one.

Yeah, I I would acknowledge that trees are uh common theme when we do projects.

We did three uh assessment projects a couple years ago, and trees came up at I think every one of those hearings, and and we worked through it.

Uh we were able to avoid some of the removals of the trees.

Some of it is we really won't know until we find that utility service that we're replacing to the home, and and many times the records might show it's under the tree, but as we get out in the field, we work with our team to try to avoid it.

But again, until we open up that street and understand where everything is, um, we just don't know.

So we have to plan for it occurring.

It may not.

But we know where all the water shutoffs are.

We do, so we have a pretty good idea, but I do recall even on this, I think the 7th Avenue project, we were able to avoid a tree or two because the services weren't exactly where they were mapped.

Okay, so one of the people mentioned that that the cycle track is going to go in.

You're taking trees out for the cycle track, and 50 yards to the back there, there's a nice bike path.

Why is it necessary to be redundant?

I'll I'll continue with this one.

I think you recall when we were here presenting the geometric layout to you.

We we've kind of litigated this discussion around what the the preferred geometry was.

Um the active transportation plan, it shows a you know dedicated facilities really from Martin Luther King Park all the way to Miracle Mile along Center Street.

That path uh along the railroad, it really doesn't provide that direct connection that people who um maybe aren't just out recreating, but they depend on uh a bike for transportation.

And um, you know, as we presented the project and the feedback we heard uh at the different open houses, that's you know what the council elected to to go with was the on-street two-way cycle track protected behind the curb.

My last question, we've got a roundabout, and this is part of the roundabout as part of this discussion.

Is that correct?

The roundabout it was in the approved geometric layout as well.

And that one person's commented about that.

So I'm assuming all the neighbors love the roundabout.

Well, I think we've been through the roundabout conversations over over the years, and um what we learn is initially with roundabouts about 33 percent kind of on average like them, and then when the project's done, it goes up to about 70 percent, and people appreciate them and understand the value and the safety of them.

Okay, thank you.

Councilmember Keene.

Uh yeah, thank you.

Um I I struggle with this one a little bit and says the the leading um uh narrative says all of the things uh this was a priority for all of the utilities and the and the street cover.

It wasn't driven as an RPU project or as a street project.

Everyone agreed this needed to be done.

Yes, this was identified in uh the street section of the CIP, however, um it was due to uh buy-in on all the utilities in the aging infrastructure.

Okay, there usually is like one like the water mains are bad on this street and the public works has to go along because of the one dig policy, and other times it's the public works saying this one's our next priority, and this seems like the odd case where everybody agrees.

Yeah, this is a um street-led priority, however, it also aligned with other um utilities priorities, both why.

Yeah, we're talking about water uh services that are 140 years old.

Right.

Um, 1887 install, however, you know, we have water main installed in the 60s that have many more breaks.

Yeah.

Okay, interesting.

Um, I I did want to get that just that it is this is like there's no question this needs to be done.

It's not like we're um finding work for ourselves, or it's it's not like the street on the top looks great, it's just we've got to do it because of the sewers in trouble in this area.

It seems like it's a consensus project.

As far as um assessments, you mentioned that it's only 25% of the street project.

The utilities pay their own way.

Um I I want to understand this though, this idea of like uh um if you're doing assessments on Broadway versus this street that's uh I I don't know if the right word is a collector or uh arterial.

Um do we have different assessment methods for all roads?

No, they all follow the same policy.

That that yeah, I I mean that's what I'm I'm trying to get to the point is we don't do them differently because this is arterial.

We don't do them differently because uh you know someone lives on a call de sac and we want them to pay more.

We do it the same consistently, and it had it has test gone through this test of uh the valuation.

Has have we I'll take that one.

No, we have we we have not done a benefit appraisal.

It doesn't require we do that per the statute.

So it's my understanding when we made the change back and I think it was 2019, uh that we we went we basically backed off what we what we used to use, that this one we thought this this method and these percentages were more defendable than what we had before.

That's correct.

And it's based on property valuations.

And has anybody through the through the uh challenge assessment thing taken us further to to get them to get it tested?

We have not since the uh policy changed.

Okay, all right.

We have had some people object, but it's never made its way to to district court.

Okay.

I I want I wanted to make this point because I think I understand it that we do it the same no matter if you live on an arterial, and I I really appreciate that consistency.

I don't want it to be one way in commercial property and a different way in residential.

Councilmember Frederick.

Thank you, President.

Uh Ms.

Kriowski.

Um so the need comes in on this project.

That's basically piggyback on Pat Pat Mr.

Keene down here.

Uh the need for this project just comes in in just continuing to provide reliable services.

Is that what I'm hearing?

It's just we're at we're at the end of our rope, so to speak, with our services.

Yeah, both utilities and street are nearing their uh end of their useful life.

Okay, and that that that's basically what I really wanted to kind of get nailed down because you know, obviously this is my ward, and I have heard a lot of pushback about the project the roundabout uh uh Mr.

Dabrowski didn't want to go down that road tonight.

I picked up on, but uh and the trees obviously we we got an outcry on the trees, so we need to be very sensitive to that with this project.

So that's all I got.

Seeing no one else uh wishing to be heard, is there a motion on this item?

Oh yeah, on the first item, which is the um the improvements and preparation of plans.

I'll make a motion to adopt a resolution ordering the improvements and preparation of plans for the reconstruction of Center Street East from Zumbro River Bridge to 11th Avenue, Northeast, Southeast.

Project number J 7348.

Moved by Councilmember Keene, seconded by Councilmember Miller.

Anything more to add, Councilmember Keene.

No, I'll I mean I just um these ones are painful because I do feel these are the these are the kind of neighborhoods that people really like adopt and really treat as their own.

It's not just a place they live or a neighborhood, it's really more of a lifestyle.

And I really I I feel for the changes that are going on around them.

Uh the tree canopy is important.

I I'm trying to look ahead and saying I I hope as works out many times the changes aren't as disruptive and as they seem before you start them.

And I I hope it works out that way.

But um, I think we have to maintain our our services and our utilities and our streets, and I'm glad we're able to do that.

I don't want to be in the communities where they're not doing that.

Councilmember Palmer.

Well, uh yeah, the the tree canopy bothers me that we make developers um abide by one in the in the city doesn't.

And and I think from an appraisal perspective, um, as I go down that street, I'm gonna lose all these great mature trees and all the shade.

Um I'm not getting the same benefit.

So to me, if we could, I would rather see us take that that dollar amount that they're using for the tree developers that pay and and use that to knock down the assessment for these people because they are gonna lose that.

Um but I'm not sure I I'm I would get a second on my motion, so I'll move on.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye, aye opposed say nay, nay.

Uh motion passes five to two with council member Fredericks and Councilmember Palmer voting nay.

Moving on to item G3, which is our 2026.

Is that correct?

That's that kind.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Thank you, folks.

Uh uh, is there a motion to adopt a resolution uh levying the proposed assessments?

No one wants to move.

I'll I'll uh move to a uh adopt resolution levying the proposed assessments related to the reconstruction of center street east from the Zumbra Bridge to 11th Avenue Northeast Southeast Project number J 7348.

Okay, move by council member Keene, seconded by council member Miller.

Uh all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Poe say nay.

Nay Councilmember uh Palmer, did you vote?

Yeah, I you did.

Okay.

Uh uh motion passes six to one with council member Fredericks voting nay.

Thank you for that correction.

Moving on, uh G3, which is 2026 community development block grant allocations.

I saw Brett in the audience saying no to he was giving me a warning.

You got you have said something before that.

So uh Mr.

Sven V take it away.

Good evening, Council President, Councilmember's Mayor Norton, Brent Sven B community element.

I'm here.

You I'm here before the council this evening.

If you remember, I was back before you guys on September 22nd, and I asked you to open up the public comment period on the 2026 annual action plan.

So tonight I'm gonna ask you to see if there's anybody who has any public comments in the evening, and then close the public comment period and then adopt the 2026 annual action plan for the community development block grant program.

So I do have a presentation, which basically is the same presentation I presented back on September 22nd.

I guess it's a little slow.

Um basically the the city is a entitlement community, and we receive annual funds through HUD for the block grant program.

The goals of the program are to provide decent safe sanitary housing, provide a suitable living environment, and to expand technology opportunities.

The program is set up to use primary for the benefit of lower moderate income individuals, and we do have to meet one of three national objectives of the program.

The HUD also requires that the community put together a um annual action plan which provide the community with how the city intends to meet the strategic needs and goals identified in the consolidated plan, which is a five-year plan.

The city recently adopted a new consolidated plan for 2025 through 2029.

The strategic priorities listed in that consolidated plan consists of access to affordable housing, access to public services, non-housing community development, planning administration, and furly furly for housing.

Here's a timeline for the 2026 CBG funding.

It actually started back in July 18th.

We're in a notice that was put out for 2026 application.

Those application windows closed on August 18th, and then on September 3rd, we had a steering committee to review the applications and made the recommendation on those programs to fund with 2026 funding.

So from September 4th to September 11th, we drafted the 2026 annual action plan.

Came before the council on September 22nd asking you to open the public comment period on the plan.

Other ways to engage the community more in the comment period.

Then I'm here before the council on November 3rd asking you to close the public hearing and adopt the programs for the 2026 funding.

When the city put out the no notice of funding availability, it was seeking applications for public service activities.

We received 11 applications totaling about 254,000 with the notion that we can spend no more than 15% of our block grant funding on public service activities, which equals about 101% or 101,000, assuming that we receive similar dollar amount in CBG funding that we received in 2025.

Back in 2020, the based on direction of the city council, um, we directed staff to look at a new way of allocating CBG funds.

So we did go out and look at what other communities do when they allocate their CBG funding.

So we found out that some communities have steering committees that would review applications, score them, and make the recommendation of funding for their CBG program.

We had seven members on the steering committee.

Um four members were teammates from the city, and then three members were people that were not employed by the city.

We do have a scoring rubric that we use when we score these applications.

Um the applications give points in timeliness, project effectiveness, priorities, and previously funded.

So you can see before you in the slide, those are the same programs that I presented to the council back in September for the 2026 CBG allocation.

Um keep in mind that we typically do not receive our funding until late in the year.

Um, this year we received our 2025 funding just last month, so we would anticipate receiving our 2026 funding sometime in late September, early October, probably.

So for a total of about $826,000.

Again, this is the timeline again.

So action before you this evening, um, take any further comments from the public here this evening, close the public hearing, and then adopt the resolution your packet approving the 2026 annual action plan.

Thank you, Mr.

Sven V.

At this point, 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 at this time, I will close the public hearing, unlike I tried to do a couple months back, and invite Mr.

Sven V back up to answer questions from council members.

Councilmember Palmer.

Thank you.

Um, I have a question on the family services Rochester 1.

Um, we don't get any information, all we have is this.

Is it top secret or or is it a reason we don't get that information?

No, it was in the our RCA.

There's a link to the annual action plan, and the actual action plan spells out all the information or all the programs and what the program is and what their funds are.

I couldn't find it.

So can you give me a brief what are we doing housekeeping for?

Um they have a program where they want to expand into um basically housekeeping services for um seniors.

So they will go to these people's homes and help them with housekeeping items and stuff at their at the residence.

Well, that kind of is is opposite of what we're kind of trying to do is to get people who are in the senior housing to move into senior housing and move into other housing.

So why do we want to keep seniors in their home?

Because it that is one of our strategic priorities is access to affordable housing.

So in many cases, this is very affordable for these um senior population or community to make remaining their housing that they currently have.

And and I guess from a housing perspective, we're trying to get them out of a two-story, four-bedroom house and get them into a one or two-bedroom slab on grade to make it safer for them and stuff.

And so that that just seems to be a conflict.

Yeah, but not every single, not every senior lives in a two-story house.

Some live in ramblers that are single story ramblers.

And most of the ramblers have basements and in their utilities are downstairs and and they don't want to fall down the stairs.

So I'm and I'm it's an opinion.

I've just asked a question.

I understood.

Yep.

You want a motion?

Oh, uh, is there a motion on this?

Councilmember Palmer.

Yeah, I'll make a motion adopt a resolution approving the 2026 annual action plan as required by the United States Department of Housing Urban Development for the receipt of community development block grant C D B G funds.

Second.

Moved by Councilmember Palmer, seconded by Councilmember Doring.

Any more to add?

Yes, I'm gonna make a motion to admend my uh motion and to take 20,000 dollars and give it to the Salvation Army for security and rental assistance and for that to come out of our Catholic charities um donation.

Uh move by uh an amendment moved by councilmember Palmer is there second.

I'll second it.

Seconded by council member uh Fredericks.

Do you want to speak to your amendment?

Yes, I would.

Um last year, Catholic charities wanted a little bit more money, and we decided to give them five thousand dollars in um they were able to fundraise for that and get that taken care of.

The need for the salvation army is is a couple fold, but one of them is um they have a dental and medical um uh facility, and they need some help with the security at night for their staff and their volunteers um to be secure, and they're gonna have to hire some some some um people to help them with that.

The other one is is the rental assistance, and that was ten thousand dollars that they had asked for.

And for me, the the the idea is if rental assistance and talking to the majors from two majors ago was that was their number one need.

Their number one need is to keep people in their house.

If they have a blip, they have a car repair, they have medical repair, they can help out in and fund that, and they do that every month.

Um, the county does it like once, and then so they run out of money, they stop.

But the salvation army has a has a monthly um ability to do that, and they don't allow you to use it more than once.

And so to me, that makes sense and and fills the need that uh um the city council has for helping out with um housing.

I uh Mr.

Svenve or other staff, uh is there uh so Salvation Army asked for 10,000.

Is there any reason why we that we can't give them funds uh under the under the guidelines of the block grant program?

I don't think there isn't a reason why we can't give them the 10,000 dollars.

They they ask for if the council wishes to do that, um, because I think those they can if they have to show us that they're expanding their services for those dollars because that's the existing program that they have, so we have to quantify it as in their application.

They they made it with it would allow them to expand their their services, correct?

Okay, council member keen.

Yeah, again, I I know we did some we work over this past year to change a little bit of you know, we had a committee get together, uh they came up with criteria for how they did this.

There's some things about like looking at uh timelines, there's things about whether people have gotten awards before, and I just don't find it to be good government for us to come and change their recommendations uh here and not have all the information they had.

Um, so I would not be supporting the motion.

Any further discussion?

Councilmember Wall.

Mr.

Palmer can Mr.

Palmer, could you say uh why is the Salvation Army didn't ask for assistance in the security?

The the reason I was told is that they're in the middle of having new majors come into town and they didn't realize that this program was there.

Um so that's the reason that wasn't asked, and it was a big important thing.

Yeah, I think the dental and the um medical is a uh service that not a lot of salvation armies do, and I don't think they quite understood all that the process was so um Jerry Williams reached out to me and said, you know, we need to we as a board we need to have that taken care of, and can you help us with that?

I said I would bring it up.

Um last year, you know, we did the the the Catholic charities one and rearranged that we're leaving them five thousand dollars so next year they can ask for the same amount of money, we're not giving them zero.

Does that answer your question, Mr.

Wall?

Yes, and uh could you also in uh your own mind explain how it is that the 20,000 dollars might be less uh hurtful uh on Catholic charities part and how they might be able to replace the money than Salvation Army trying to find the 20,000?

Well, my understanding is is that last year when we did this at one time we gave them 75,000 dollars in um they were able to find the money for that.

And and to me, I think it's it's a philosophical question is do you want to prevent homelessness or do you want to take care of them once they're homeless?

And to me, it's an overriding thing to do that council member keen.

Yeah, again, I I'll just want to point out that I actually personally give money to the Salvation Army.

I think they do great stuff.

I I just find this to be inappropriate government to be having a group do these sort of recommendations, go through all the criteria, and us just whimsically without anyone knowing about it, throw out new ideas and change things up.

And I again I I hope we don't support this.

Councilmember Palmer, can you repeat your uh amendment, please?

Yeah, motion to add $20,000 to the Salvation Army for Security and Rental Assance, uh and in um taking that um out of the um Catholic Charities award uh roll call of council member Wall in sympathy with what Mr.

Keene is saying, uh Mr.

Svenby, could you address kind of the uh the uh point system and then how rigorous that is in uh uh arriving at recommendations?

Yeah, that was really arrived at by the steering committee based on the rubrics that they have again regarding timeliness, project effectiveness.

I mean, I I I will say all projects scored fairly close in the rubrics, um, but it was a matter of discussions between the committee members of who they can over the recommendations.

So I would like to note that I believe the year that the funds were on their website as we're speaking.

It looks like I'm sorry, is there someone on the council?

Can you please mute the considered present are they muted?

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr.

I will say that the year that um the funds were taken from Catholic charities down to five thousand dollars.

I'll believe that's here that the city also gave Catholic charities money from the contingency accounts because they were lacking funding.

So any further discussion.

Uh Councilmember Miller.

I'll just have my comment that I I don't plan to support the amendment.

Uh I I'll I'll note we have uh disability advocate affording housing affordable housing advocate on the steering committee from the community, and uh rental assistance was the the request from the Society and Army Security was not.

I feel like again, these projects were evaluated.

There will be another opportunity and other funding sources.

Should this be an emergent need?

I don't plan to support this clerk key.

So can you call the role on the amendment?

Councilmember Keene.

Nay.

Councilmember Miller.

Nay.

Councilmember Wall.

Aye.

Councilmember Fredericks.

Aye.

Councilmember Palmer.

Aye.

Councilmember Doring.

Nay.

Council President Schuberg.

Nay.

We're back.

Oh it's four four to three.

Fails.

Thank you.

Um we're back to the original um motion.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed say nay.

Nay.

Motion passes six to one with council member uh Palmer voting nay.

Um thank you.

Moving on to our reports and recommendations.

We have the library master plan here uh to hear from our uh library director, Karen Lenty.

Thank you.

Council President Schubring, Mayor Norton, members of council, administrator Zellens.

Thank you for having us here to talk about the library master plan.

This has been a year plus um making endeavor, and um it was adopted by the library board in August of this year.

There's a slight delay in the there we go.

Um this is a long-range planning document.

It's meant to be visionary.

Um again, it was approved at the August 2025 meeting.

It does take into consideration the end of life for the bookmobile, um, which is um set for end of life in 2027, and it does address the accessibility concerns and some of the deferred maintenance issues.

Uh, for the longest time we have been um campaigning and advocating for space at the library.

Um there are some significant challenges really with the layout of the building.

That was uh one of the key findings that we had in this library master plan study.

Um we also have noticed the shifting change in usage where we have folks who are using digital, and um there is a split between digital and physical.

Um in 2023, we did meet with uh city council.

We had a joint study session with the library board and city council at that meeting at the end.

Uh there were a lot of ideas for solutions.

There uh was not a clear direction for myself for the rest of my team or for the library board.

Meanwhile, we have this ongoing disparity when it comes to library cardholders.

What you see here is a map of Olmsted County.

The darker greens indicate more library cards per household.

The two highlighted census tracts are at the ends of the spectrum.

So you'll see uh the Kelly Green uh census track has the highest very consistently for the last five years, had the highest number of card holders in that census track.

Um, whereas that orange census track has a low number of cardholders.

Um, 35% of households in Olmsted County have a library card.

But again, you see that disparity.

We have some high end and some on the low end.

Um we tend to see a higher number of households in higher income census tracts and a lower number of cards and uh households with library cards in those lower income census tracts, except when it comes to the two census tracks very closest to the library.

We have those two that are lower income census tracts, but we have higher than the median for the number of folks with library cards.

Uh knowing that we needed to make improvements in and also make sure that um library core library services are really accessible to everyone.

We came to council in the 2024-2025 budget cycle asking to do this study.

And uh the intent all along for the library board has really been to uh partner more closely with city council.

So uh in early 2024, we came uh to the council to approve the RFP.

Uh MSR Architects was selected for the study in August of 2024.

The work began.

Uh we came back here in the spring of this year uh with MS Architects to present to council, where we got feedback to inform the quantitative survey, and that quantitative survey was conducted in May and June of this year.

We also, as part of this process, had a lot of um other engagement that has been happening prior to coming before you in the spring of this year.

Uh there were some community visioning sessions that happened.

There were some stakeholder interviews, which some of you participated in, um, and then a community co-design cohort started in December of last year.

Um, as part of this um this work, we did take the quantitative survey back to the community co-designers because we were hearing some um different key areas of concern from the community co-designers that then uh compared to the folks that were participating in the community visioning sessions.

So we refined the survey um again with council input and then also with the community co-designers.

The row um the survey responses were really really high.

Uh 4517 total responses to this survey.

Uh, we tend to get a high response rate to library surveys.

Um in oftentimes two or three times more than other city surveys.

Library users like to fill out a survey.

Um, but this number actually was much higher than we anticipated.

Out of the responses, 47% indicate that they use the library once a month.

Remember earlier I said about 35% of households in Olmstead County have library cards, but we know that we have some households that or census tracts where that's higher.

But you also don't need a library card to come and use the library.

This number, the 47%, it actually aligns with what the national community survey found a couple of years ago.

The 2024 National Community Survey also found that 47% of residents use the library once a month or more.

Out of all of the responses, 88% agree that there is value in having library services and resources in the community.

Additionally, there's just overall strong support for the library.

There was some feedback that folks are surprised, no matter how much we communicate, how much we do marketing and outreach.

Folks are surprised about all of the offerings at the library.

And as the city has grown across all of our community groups, there was a lot of interest in branch libraries.

73% of respondents said that they would support additional funding for the library, even if it meant an increase in taxes.

Additionally, 73% of survey respondents had comments on things that we could do to improve the building.

There was a little appetite for a big major expansion or major major renovation of the building, but there was a lot of comments about improvements that could be made.

One thing to point out is out of those 4,517 responses, we had over 600 responses from non-users.

Those are folks who have never used the library or who have not used the library within the last year.

Recommendations from all of the research from again those visioning sessions, community co-design, the quantitative survey, and those stakeholder interviews came into four different buckets, and you heard these earlier when we uh when MSR presented to you in the spring, that there were really four areas operations, identity, leadership, and facilities.

The first three are really more about things that we can change procedurally or operationally.

And some of those things include entering into our strategic planning process where we really know that we're going to be taking some sorry, this it's very hard to get this slide to advance.

Thank you.

The strategic planning process is something that we're about to enter into, and that's going to help us refine where we should be placing our energy.

And we anticipate that a lot of the goals and tactics that come out of that strategic planning process are things primarily budget neutral for that for those three areas.

One example is increasing the amount of partnerships that we do, and this is something that we've already started doing.

So just very recently we started a partnership with Spark and with History Center of Olmsted County, where if you have a library card, you can actually check out a pass to Spark or to the History Center.

Those are super new and really popular.

We've been doing those with state park passes for a while now, and so we've transferred this to those opportunities as well.

But our consultants really are pushing us to do even more of that.

And so we we anticipate doing a lot more of that through this strategic planning process.

The fourth bucket is really in that facilities realm.

The recommendations here include three separate pilots.

And then recommendations for renovating the downtown library with a user-centered focus.

So the first pilot is the two free hours of parking.

This one, thanks to our amazing friends and foundation who provide us with two to 300,000 dollars in support because they're amazing.

This one will be happening in 2026.

The proposal is to validate the second hour so that folks can either stay longer if they're already using the library, or it's also meant to encourage folks who maybe see parking as a barrier to try coming down and actually using the library and parking and navigating it.

Um and admin and other downtown partners to talk about ways that we can collaborate again, partner more and really highlight what everyone's doing downtown, whether it's um RDA events or highlighting the ParkEasy downtown campaign.

Um just encourage people again to come downtown and then also to get information.

Um is it really a barrier?

Does it make a difference in those census tracks and the cardholders that we have by census track, or um is it not a solution that really works well and and moves the needle in that respect?

The next recommendation was to do um holds pickup at partner locations.

Uh, this would involve purchasing an outreach van and also reallocating some staff.

Um I think there's some really fun ways that we could be partnering here.

Um, an example that we heard from another library is a senior center where uh they take the materials to the senior center, and folks who are already going to the senior center and and don't want to travel to their library, they pick up their items at that senior center.

So there are a lot of opportunities and we really think that this could partner well actually with the next couple of pilot or the other pilot, the satellite pilot to extend the life of the bookmobile potentially.

Um the one that you probably had heard the most media buzz about uh and that we've gotten the most comments at the desk about is um this pilot to offer um satellite locations to do a 12-month pilot of offering um satellites in the northwest part of town and in the southeast part of town.

Um again, both of these areas have lower card holder saturation rates.

They have areas or pockets of the community where we're not seeing that same usage of the library.

Um more than half of survey respondents expressed interest in satellite locations.

Folks were actually asked to select three options for services outside of downtown.

The top choice was um smaller satellite locations, um, the second one being the holds pickup, and then the third one being more opportunities to attend programs outside of downtown.

Those folks who were specifically interested in satellite locations, really were looking for the library on a smaller scale.

So instead of a bank of internet computers, think one or two internet computers, a small collection, and then space to do smaller programming.

It wouldn't be another library auditorium in another part of town, it would be everything really on a smaller scale.

The survey that demonstrated that folks were interested in um in satellite locations, but they were even more interested if they live further away from the downtown corridor, which makes sense, is pretty logical.

Um folks were even more interested in attending programs though, if they were outside of downtown.

So again, 50% of folks overall in the survey were more likely to participate in programs if they were not downtown.

But when we looked at the survey results by folks living five or more miles away from downtown, that jumped to 62%.

This map shows where our current bookmobile stops are.

So all of those little flags are bookmobile stops.

Um, like I mentioned before, the bookmobile is nearing its end of life.

A like for like replacement is $650,000.

Um, all of those bookmobile stops except for I think four fit within those circles.

So those circles are they are random spots, a random dot in northwest, a random dot in southeast, um, and then four mile radius around those dots.

So if you look at where the downtown location is and where potentially a northwest satellite or a southeast satellite, those all encompass and cover where the bookmobile stops currently are.

The only ones that do not fit within those circles are IOTA, Byron, um, and um in Orinoco, two stops up in Orinoco.

Can I ask a question about the the pins?

Is there any um what do the colors of the pins?

Is that greater usage or does it no?

It it is not greater usage.

Um it might be the week that they are on in the schedule.

I can give that back to you.

Go ahead.

All right, so the next recommendations are all about the building.

Um there are three levels of recommendations for um building improvements.

Um, but the first ones are the ones that I really wanted to focus on.

These are strictly about improving access.

These improvements include reconfiguring staff spaces to allow for an ADA ramp at our staff entrance right now.

It is stairs to get into the building at that staff entrance.

Uh, new larger public elevators, and also rebuilding that grand staircase around the elevators.

There are also some recommendations for reconverting space back to public use and renovating the bathrooms and creating a sensory room.

So you'll see most of those are happening on the first floor.

The second floor, the only um the two small areas, one is reconverting that back to public space, the second just indicates the elevators and the staircase.

Again, there are three levels.

The sh the first short-term recommendations from MSR was to improve access and make those changes to the building.

Uh that would not have an operational cost, um, just the um the um capital improvement cost.

The midterm um recommendations from MSR are really about improving the user experience.

Those really focus on shifting staff space to provide more public space and to provide more study spaces.

We continually uh are turning folks away from our study spaces, um, and we just continue to see that number rise, even though we have a limit on our study spaces for two hours at a time.

We are constantly turning folks away.

Um, another part of the midterm uh recommendations also involves renovating the teen space.

The long-term or community wish list items, um, those are top of the scale.

Those would include additional operational costs.

Um it calls for creating a new entrance on the second floor in the current skyway.

It also calls for adding a third floor edition with accessible rooftop.

Um already we are seeing that you know, this is a living document.

There are some things that we we are continuing to see this as a visionary document, but also one that needs to be living with current times.

So the initial version that was in your packet, that timeline has already been something that needed to be adjusted.

Our goal is to throughout all of these um projects to continue is to continue to leverage the Friends and Foundation and the community support, um, which we tend to get, as you can see by the room.

Um also um it's important to note that any suggested implementation, everything will need to come back before council, and that is something that the library board um acknowledges.

Like I said earlier, we want to um we will be actually implementing the parking pilot in 2026, thanks to our friends and foundation.

Um for the satellite pilot, MSR recommends again leveraging Friends and Foundation and seeking grants.

Um item not in the timeline is the outreach vehicle for holds pickup at partner locations.

Um with the bookmobile ending um it really nearing its end of life.

There is an opportunity for us to explore a smaller bookmobile or an outreach van, um, especially during the satellite project, because that will be necessary to make the satellite project work.

Um but as you can see, all of these things have already changed from the original plan as presented to to the library board.

So now I'm going to turn it over to Dr.

Steve Vall, the vice president of the library board.

I've I've really been asked to come in and pitch hit this late in the in the game.

But um good evening, uh Council President Schubring, Mayor Norton, members of the Council Administrator Zones.

As Karen said, my name is Steve Ball.

I'm the vice president of the library board right now.

And they gave me a script here, which of course I'm gonna go off of because I've never been good at scripts.

But they were she's done a good job of really talking about the planning and the community engagement that we've gone so far to do this, you know, create the library master plan.

And the board is approved in August.

It addresses both our accessibility and deferred maintenance concerns, and it's really meant to be a visionary document and aspirational, move us forward.

Uh I do want to make sure I say thanks to the foundation, the friends, and Karen and her team for all the work they've done on behalf of the board and in this public environment.

Um as Karen mentioned, this plan factors in the issue about the bookmobile, which you just spoke about, and really gives us an aspirational document to move forward as far as expanding services for our community.

So see if I can get it to go to the next uh oh, look at that.

Oh, I went back.

Oh, there you go.

That's where we want to be.

So uh as the library board, we want to ask on behalf of the community work we represent here is that you would adopt the library master plan as presented, and then uh we it says are welcoming questions, but I'm gonna direct them all back to Karen probably.

Great, thank you, Dr.

Ball.

Uh questions from council members.

I can uh I can start Karen if you uh Ms.

Lentke, if you could step forward.

I I'm uh very excited about the idea of raising the library's profile throughout the community, and so the satellite um proposals really sound like a an exciting opportunity to do that.

I know when you were here earlier, we had some discussion on the the satellites and partnering with storefronts and uh retail operations, coffee shops.

Uh have you thought more about what these satellite operations will look like and the partnership opportunities?

Yeah, absolutely.

Um and that's why you see that very wide range of cost estimates because it really does depend on uh you know where can we find a really good um advantageous partnership?

And um our first hurdle, of course, is having um the the blessing of the council to be moving forward.

Um but even just last week presenting at the cradle to career summit, I had a couple of folks um from different organizations coming up to me and saying, ooh, that's we'd like to partner.

So um I think um So can I ask a more specific question?

Yes.

Do you see the partnerships model being at the lower end of that cost uh bar that you showed?

Yeah, um yeah, absolutely.

I mean, it really all depends on on again what kind of space we can find.

If we can find a space that's um easily modified to be a satellite location, um if we have somebody who's wanting to maybe drive more traffic to their um their strip mall or their their area that they want to you know provide us a low cost lease.

I mean it it it really depends.

Um and then if there are other you know entities or other um city projects that we can be part of, those all of those, you know, we're we're open for all types of partnership opportunities.

Well follow up and and to my question earlier with the the pins in the in the map there.

Do you have information on where the bookmobile is the most popular?

What and is that a part of your targeting as far as satellites so that so that you're kind of getting this uh uh already built in base of customers that then build on is that yeah, so part of the model that you're interestingly enough.

Uh, when we did our hours survey in 2021, and we asked folks how do you get to the bookmobile?

76% drive to the bookmobile.

So we thought really we were um for years we've we've contended that we're we're able to meet people where they are, and I I do think there's there's a small pocket that walk to the bookmobile, take their bikes to the bookmobile.

Um, but we did find that a lot of people do drive to the bookmobile, so I can I can get that data of which spots are the busiest.

Um, but again, some folks are driving to those spots, and that would take that that data exists where we can map where those folks are coming from to get to those stops.

Thank you.

Councilmember Palmer.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate that.

If I understand this correctly, the survey had a third about a third of the residents have a library card, yet 40% of the survey use the library, they use the library once a month.

It appears to me that you're not really surveying the community.

Am I wrong on that?

So when I said the 35% of folks have library cards, that is based on our census data that we have with our software that maps where folks are located.

The survey responses, 47% of folks said they have used the library within the last month.

Doesn't necessarily mean they use their library card to borrow something.

It could mean they came to a public forum or they came to an event, or they um you know just came and sat in the library.

This was not a scientific survey.

We didn't send it out to the residents and say 5,000 residents respond.

This was surveys from the library and then online.

This was distributed both online.

Uh we did do a targeted mailer to non-library card holders to non-users, which is why we had a higher return rate on our non-users than we normally do.

So did that go to all the residents in Rochester or no.

So we targeted those low census tracks.

Uh postcard mailer went out to about 5,000 households in those low low cardholder census tracks.

And in what was the response rate on those?

5,000.

On so non-users total, we had over 600 non-users.

We had 600 people who aren't using.

Okay.

Um, I've got a lot of questions, so I I gotta be quick here other shut down.

Um I'm not gonna shut you down.

The um the pilot for the free parking, if something doesn't add up to me because if we have 156,000 a year, $3,000 per week, that means you've got a thousand people you think are gonna use this paid parking.

Is is that what you're thinking?

So say that again.

Well, you gotta basically you're saying a thousand people are gonna need that second hour to stay at the library.

Um how do you come up with that or why?

That seems high.

So we looked at the number of people visiting the library.

We don't have data on how long exactly people stay.

Um, so they could be staying an hour, they could be staying four or five hours.

So we we absolutely don't have that data, and we had to estimate based on the number of visitors, so we can see our door count.

Um, and we know that half of the folks that visit the library visit during the hours where there are paid um where if you stay longer than an hour, you would have to pay.

Um, and then the other half of folks visit the library after 401 p.m.

on the evenings and uh or on the weekends.

Okay, so when I so we we did our best guesstimates, yes.

So when I read about the satellite locations, I'm not particularly sure that I read that that it's an overwhelming need for a satellite locations.

And in um it sounds like to me that you you're telling me that we should use a bookmobile that costs six hundred thousand dollars to replace, which I'm assuming you've been putting money away to to replace that.

Um, in in the the high number is five million dollars for a um um uh a satellite location.

So why wouldn't I just buy two of the bookmills and save myself a lot of money?

Well, I think what we found in the survey with that there that was what folks rank that fourth, fifth.

Uh they rank that at the lower end.

Um a bookmobile is great, it can deliver materials.

Um folks love the people that are working on the bookmobile.

It is very different than being in a library and using a library.

You can't um come in to the bookmobile and print off your whatever document that you have to have printed, and then you have to fax.

You can't do that on the bookmobile.

Um, you can't come to a story time.

But you but you could you could put a printer in a bookmobile.

Potentially.

Okay.

Um in part of your construction costs, and in in I don't understand why you need a bigger elevator.

I mean, do you have so many people going on the elevator that they're waiting?

That was feedback that we had from folks with accessibility issues, so folks using larger wheelchairs, which is is a comment that we'd received.

Um, but in um communications with the community co-designers who were talking to their networks who are also folks using wheelchairs or mobility devices, strollers, um, they found it to be very small.

Um, it is ADA accessible to 1995 standards, but the feedback that we got in the um in that research.

Well, just my knowledge that rebuilding stairs, you still had stairs, you're still going to have stairs, an elevator, you had an elevator, you still have an elevator.

So the the question that I have is is also is that you have 25 million dollars of cost with a short-term, midterm, and long term combined, but none of this is reflected in the 26 or 27 budget.

So you're gonna come to us in 28 and say, hey, we're trying to do something.

Is that your plan?

Absolutely, yeah.

I mean, I I will be very honest that there will be additional asks, and those additional asks would come before council, just like they always do.

But not until after 2028.

Correct, because we've already um this has been a bugaboo of mine, and we've talked about this before.

I look at other libraries, and and I look at the five the Fargo library, about the same size as Rochester.

Their cost per resident is half of what Rochester's is.

Um we are $85 per person for resident.

We're twice as much as they are.

We're higher than Duluth, St.

Paul, Cedar Rapids.

Um, our Sunday hours, uh, Rochester's eight hours.

Um, half of them are closed on Sundays, and half of them are open four hours.

So you know, you know, why are we spending more than 25% more than the other cities in the area?

So I believe our cost per capita is closer to 65.

Um you have a 10.5 million dollar budget, and you got 122,971 population.

Our library service area is 159,000 plus.

Okay.

So it's I think that breaks down to 65.

Um, and I know we've had this.

And that's still that's still the highest number that we have.

And I I know we've had this conversation.

Um, we do um our our library does pay well compared to some other libraries.

We do negotiate, we have um bargaining contracts, so the assistant um administrative assistant at the library is going to make the same as an administrative assistant in other parts of the city, as folks know.

Um, we do have competition with a very large employer in the community, and even we uh that is where we will lose employees to.

So if a librarian um doesn't um wants to move on from our library, they they definitely have another place to find a job.

So to stay competitive, we um we do have of course 73 percent of our budget is um in staffing.

So um I understand that.

So last of my questions is is so this is a report.

You want us to say yes, we read the report, but you don't expect us to be funding any of this at this point.

I'm here, and I think the the um our board vice president uh was clear in that we are asking council to adopt, and by adopt the weight of that is support, and um that this is the way that we will be moving forward.

Thank you.

Thank you, council member.

Just to to one of council member Palmer's points regarding satellites versus uh bookmobiles, there's value to both.

I think it's a completely different experience where in a satellite uh storefront you can sit down at a table, have a cup of coffee, read a book as opposed to going into a bookmobile and getting materials as just one operation.

So just to point out, I don't think it's worth four million dollars.

Councilmember Wall.

Thank you.

Uh following up on Councilmember Palmer's question about 28.

I am uh really pretty impressed that uh you believe you have the leverage to fund this plan until 2028 through friends and and grants and gifts.

Uh you're pretty confident in that positivity is my number one strength.

Uh we do we are really really fortunate to have a very supportive Friends in Foundation.

Um we've been saying, I mean, they've been you know saving money for the the rainy day, like that the there has been a building fund um you know started because there has been this this idea in the future of of needing um needing solutions um and wanting to serve the community well um and and so we do feel very very good that we do have some good community support again, both with our friends and our foundation.

I mean, already they the amount of support they provide for our collection is significant.

Every year they give again between two and three hundred thousand dollars to support our collection and programming, and that's been something that they've done for foundation since 1996, the Friends of the Library since uh 1949.

I hope I got that you're right.

And then looking a little farther along in the timeline, uh you have uh nine million dollars of an 11.7 million dollars uh coming out of capital funding needs.

Have you worked with the city to see if that kind of works within the levy, the CIP, the however that's going to blend with all of the other projects uh in the city?

I think first is we didn't want to put the cart before the horse.

So the first um item of business was to come before council and to again ask that council adopt uh the the master plan.

Could I could I add to that?

Yeah, please not forecasted in any of your five-year CIP that you have, six-year CIP that you have looked at.

So this would be either in addition to that or you would be doing different projects.

And as I would remind you, right now the levy uh annually is about nine million dollars of capital improvement projects.

So a four million dollar capital improvement project is not insignificant.

And then uh my last point uh and you have used the word three times now uh and uh Palmer brought it up as well.

Uh and we had communication earlier today about uh that word.

It makes sense uh to me to have a board adopt a plan for uh the particular unit of government.

It makes little sense uh to me to have the council adopt some other plan for some other unit, since that's not something that uh we uh uh govern, even though we provide funding for uh adoption uh does connote uh approval.

I'm wondering if uh adoption as well uh encumbers future councils to looking more favorably upon a plan, even though all the stuff will have to come back.

I mean, clearly we're not going to add nine million dollars to anything without the council have uh wrestling deeply with that.

Uh in true library fashion.

I borrowed this idea from the parks master plan that was adopted by council, I believe, in 2015.

In 2015, that also has caused some problems.

Yep.

Uh uh on the council level.

Uh and in 2024, when we received the same language, we altered it and we did not adopt uh in uh another uh area of government, instead received the report and allowed uh this unit of government uh at the city level to uh conduct its business as best they see fit.

And uh of course, when funding is needed, needs to come back then uh for funding sources.

So uh I'm I'm very excited about a library with forward thinking that's really looking to uh how are we going to serve the public in the future not excited about uh the council adopting this report?

I would love to receive it, but not adopt it.

Councilmember Keene.

Uh yeah, thank you.

Um I've watched some of the plans over the years and was involved in the January 2024 meeting and watched things before that.

I was surprised when I looked at the physical um changes to the building that there wasn't a second floor entrance.

We've talked about that before that as you come in off the that is in that community wish list, so it is part of those long-term community wish list items.

Yes.

I did not make the I mean when you're looking at the physical structure.

Can you talk about that as a trade-off that you wanted you you want A, B, and C, and you just can't get to fund C or how how did that happen?

Yeah, I think really um focusing on those accessibility issues has been a big concern, making sure that folks can utilize the um the um elevator and and feel comfortable if you're again using a mobility device.

Um the restrooms, we currently do not have um adequate restrooms for um folks who are needing changing tables.

Um we struggle.

Uh we know we have a lot of folks who are caregivers of adults, and um, you know, the the latest in public spaces is having large changing tables for adults as well as for children.

Um so those were really big priorities.

No, I I mentioned it because I because it does show some fiscal constraint that we were doing trade-offs.

We weren't just saying uh master plan, let's put everything in there.

Um I I was uh also aware and have been at uh uh Northwest Fire Station where we have a book box, and we sort of I I guess I'll call it a pilot, but it's about three years now.

Yeah, um it is is it something that we've learned from that this works?

We've learned that it works a little bit, but not as much as we thought.

I mean, how do we bring that in and say when we start talking about satellites or drop offs at 125?

What's what what works with this stuff and what doesn't?

Yeah, and I think that's really why the consultants really recommended piloting and not um going all in on anything.

It's very much a prototyping plan.

Uh with the book box, what we learned is uh initially we did targeted mailers to those census tracts to the folks living in that area.

The book box is located in very close to that orange um census track.

And we saw a little blip after we did this investment in marketing and a little slight increase in the number of cardholders, and then it's just returned back to uh very very soon, maybe six uh nine months afterwards, return back to those um lower levels.

So I think folks liked the novelty of it, but didn't necessarily use it all the time.

Um, in fact, we were getting the the checkouts were so few.

Um, I want to say 1,100 all of 2024, 1,100 total checkouts when you're talking about um for physical items over a million items that check out of the the main library.

Um it really we ended up changing it a little bit so that now um you can see it in the catalog when you're searching for an item.

Uh we had kept it hidden so that folks who were living near it could access those items and it wasn't confusing for users.

Um, but we think this is now highlighting that there are some new fresh items that if you're really dying for that book, you'll make the drive to go to the book box.

Um, but it didn't really meet the goal that we had intended, which was to um provide a service again in that underserved census track, it it really did uh short blip for a minute, and that was it.

There wasn't that sustained relationship with the library and library services.

Okay.

Well, I hope we're learning from those things and trying to figure out when we do the next thing we know that that that's different.

Um, thank you.

Councilmember Fredericks.

Thanks, President.

Uh concise as possible here.

Did the survey participants state why they're so much more likely to participate at a satellite location activities than downtown?

They didn't that was not a question that we asked, no.

So there could be a variety of reasons.

Mm-hmm.

I'd be interested to know what those are.

And uh so we're we're clear.

Do the elevators still meet code?

They they do, yes.

Great.

And then why rebuild a staircase?

That would be to make way for the larger because the the staircase right now wraps around the actual elevator, so in order to make it bigger, there would need to be a this there would need to be adjustments made to the staircase.

Sounds great.

How much is in your rainy day fund?

In our rainy day fund is our building fund is very small.

It's about 112,000.

Oh no, I'll I believe what you're referencing is their total reserve for the life.

Oh, our total reserve.

We mentioned the rainy day fund they had.

That's what I think.

So we have a building fund that's about 112,000.

Um, but for our reserves, which is necessary to provide funding should our um our levy should our monies not be collected, and we need to be able to pay all of the um operating costs of operating the library.

Um that one is sitting, I don't know this one.

I'm gonna look at Brian.

Well, we'll you'll get back to it.

Yes, I can get back to you on that number.

Absolutely.

Councilmember Miller.

Thank you.

And I just want to acknowledge how proactive you and your team and the Rochester Public Library Board have been in communicating to us.

I feel like I I received a good overview of this report in advance of the meeting.

I guess my my question is to this broader project of bringing together an integrated city organization, which I know is a big project to reduce silos.

Is one way to read this report that growing a city to the size of 57 square miles is an expensive project that we're seeing the cost of services to provide to a spread-out population is just more expensive than it would have been how we planned originally to provide a single downtown service?

I would say a lot has changed.

I am not a community development expert, but I would say a lot has changed.

And um, in providing services, there is, you know, when you have folks further away, the data shows that um folks living further away, especially in the lower income areas, it there is a barrier for whatever reason that is.

Um there could be multitude of reasons, uh, whether it's um some of the feedback that we've gotten in the community co-design sessions where people didn't feel safe coming downtown, they were they hadn't used the ramp and they were feeling insecure about it.

But then we have other folks who use the ramps and come downtown and utilize the library and live further away that may live, you know, clear at the edges of town up by Gibbs and come down to the library.

So that is not really answering your question.

I apologize.

I appreciate you bringing up community development because that was going to be my next question is how does community development weigh in on the implementation of this plan?

Obviously, the planning to succeed comprehensive plan talks about primary transportation networks, which is getting at access to services, among other things.

So how does that inform where pilot locations are tried?

Um talking about transportation as access, cost, et cetera.

Yes, I will be bugging community development a lot.

Okay, because I I I look at the satellite locations and I I don't want to nitpick things, but I just noticed that the Southeast Circle contains only two flags, which are almost already contained by the downtown location.

And I just want to make sure that like we're trying um piloting.

So I I like that piloting is a primary feature of this plan.

I like that data collection is a primary feature of this plan.

So whether adopt, receive, I I I can be open to that conversation.

But I I just want to see us um understand the cost of development and understand a way back because we've just also I would be remiss to mention that we're evaluating service cuts for our bus service, and that's another place where we see the cost of development and the way we've we've developed over decades coming home to now how do we pay for those?

And I think this is telling us a similar story, and obviously library services are very important for the community, but how we take a different route to getting people closer to the services that the city provides and understanding how we prioritize building additional density and access to those services is is important too, and how we continue forward.

Yeah, and as you say that it makes me think about how we really invested in digital because there is that ease of access for digital, um, and we've had additional money spent on our digital collection.

Whenever we dump money into digital, it just gets used more and more.

Um we actually now we spend um about what we did on our physical collection, about what we did in 2015 because we have to make these hard choices and we have this demand.

Um digital is great because you don't have to shelve it, you don't have to, but there is a maintenance, there's a maintenance for for those items, and we don't own them the same way that we own physical materials.

So in some cases, we purchase a title and we get to use it 26 checkouts, and then we have to buy it again.

So um, so I'm I'm glad you said that because I do think there's a lot of our our funding that we are spending in that digital space in particular.

Um if if folks were able to access the physical materials, would they be accessing them more and differently if they were closer to where they live?

And final point about integrated projects is is just again the BRT project is coming online in this near term and contemplates additional transportation access, lowers the cost, um high frequency service, and also talks about accessibility with level boarding, wider doors, making sure that everyone can use that.

And so I would love to see how we move forward with the accessibility improvements to the downtown building, too, is understanding the the opportunity to have uh hate to use the word synergy, but uh a complementary effect to other projects that are in place.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Councilmember Keene.

I I would like to get a motion on the table.

I'd like to move a move to receive and adopt the 2025 library master plan.

Uh motion made by council member Keene.

Is there a second?

Second, seconded by councilmember Miller.

Councilmember Keene, you have the floor.

Thank you.

Uh yeah, these these master plans are tricky things.

Um while we do not make explicit spending and project approvals, they carry the aspirations of the of the organization and values looking out a decade or more.

Um done well, they can lay out a vision for projects and asset protection uh and even mission changes in uh over direct over a certain amount of time.

Um what master plans what they address is important, that's what we're talking about.

I I want to put out it's important what they don't say.

Um, this plan does not compliment contemplate major new space investments in downtown.

Um this plan confirms our current location.

Um this and it contemplates reasonable location investments as opposed to major renovations and expansions.

Um I think we should take note of all that what it doesn't say too.

We've had this discussion on receive versus adopt, and and it is tricky too because as the uh as your board VP says, this is an aspirational document.

Um it is I think it's wrong for the council to just receive and not adopt this and leave the live the library board to try to figure out what they should be doing, and then us nix it because of financials.

Uh at the same time, there is we have to fit the library into the financials of the city, and that's that's our responsibility.

But I think you do see uh I mean I my thing is that I think the library board has come a long way to understanding the the financial constraints and the physical space they live in and how we can go forward best in this new world.

Um so I want to be supportive tonight and um and move move ahead council member Wall.

I'll move to amend the motion by uh eliminating the words and adopt.

Second uh amendment made by Councilmember Wall, seconded by Councilmember Palmer, Councilmember Wall.

Go.

Uh I I have already uh expressed my uh opinion and Mr.

Keene expressed his way to differ.

Councilmember Palmer.

Well, I um I'm sorry, Councilmember he's the seconder, so that's why I would take first.

Okay, so age four view.

Go for it.

I I I agree with Mr.

Wall that that adopt it makes sense.

I understand your your program.

Uh to me, if if you would I look at the 41st Street um fire station and you have your book book deposit, whatever you have there.

If you'd be working with the fire stations all around that are are located all around town, I think that would be exciting, and I don't know why we can't work together those.

Um and I think you and I had this discussion about um the last director that we had who didn't want any branches, and if we did have a branch, she wanted everything to be there.

She wanted an auditorium, she wanted the book, she wanted everything.

And I know that you've taken a different view, and I appreciate that.

And I do appreciate what you're doing.

I might I don't want to be critical, but um, I am being critical, I guess.

So um, but but I I I think the moment that we had we we take this and we oh geez, this is a great plan, and a year from now they could come back to us and say, yeah, but it says here you accepted it, and and and that's happened to us so many different times.

Um, and as Ms.

Elms pointed out, there's really nothing in the Capitol budget for another five or six years.

So I don't want to make false hopes for the library or library board to think that, oh geez, we have hope because they adopted and accepted and in and promised us.

And and so I agree with Mr.

Wall.

Councilmember Fredericks.

Thank you, President.

I'm fine with receiving the plan tonight.

I'm opposed to adopting a plan that calls for spending that we can't afford.

If the library can pilot programs without additional funds from the city, that's great.

But I am not ready to adopt a plan with so much spending.

I'll weigh in.

I I thought that uh councilmember Keene made a great point about really stepping in with the library board.

I think I think it is a forward thinking plan.

It's visionary, it has creative ideas in it, it is well thought out, and I think I'm willing to jump in with the library board and with the uh the library leadership on uh trying to realize that uh uh plan.

Uh I also am a realist, and I know that that uh the funding will come back to us in uh every single time.

And uh I don't think there's any shy members of this council.

I don't know that there have ever been any uh in the past, and if we want to say no, we'll say no.

So uh I'm willing to take that leap.

Uh uh clerk Caso, can you take the role on the on the amendment?

Councilmember Keene.

Nay.

Councilmember Miller, nay, councilmember Wall.

Aye.

Councilmember Fredericks.

Aye.

Councilmember Palmer.

Aye.

Councilmember Doring.

Nay.

Council President Schub.

Nay.

Motion fails, four to three.

Uh back to the original motion to accept and adopt or receive and adopt.

Uh any further discussion.

Hearing none, uh Clerk Case I'll take the role again.

Councilmember Keene.

Aye.

Councilmember Miller.

Aye.

Councilmember Wall.

Nay.

Councilmember Fredericks.

Councilmember Palmer.

Nay.

Councilmember Doring.

Aye.

Council President Schuebrain.

Aye.

Motion passes four to three.

Thank you.

Moving on to our council initiated actions.

Uh we have uh first uh allocating funds for food support.

Councilmember Doring.

Yeah, I'm gonna be really brief.

Uh as we heard from uh Miss Uh Witherspoon earlier this evening about uh the crisis uh that we are facing with SNAP and wick cuts in our nation due to federal uh legislation, right?

So um the county board has done remarkable work in stepping forward uh to provide 200,000 dollars to Channel One uh to provide food boxes and the um intent of this uh CIA is to provide an additional 100,000 dollars uh to supplement um the intent of the county's work uh not to necessarily mirror the same program that the county is doing but also uh to uh lift up uh or answer their challenge to um step into the game to support members of our community uh whose uh food support will be um diminished by those cuts.

I'm very well aware uh that uh recent uh uh recent rulings by uh federal courts are are reinstituting some of those uh those funds, but even uh with uh the reinstitution of those funds, I think that the need in our community is going to be great because those funds aren't going to be restored to 100%.

So uh that's why I brought forward this CIA.

Thank you, Councilmember Doring.

Councilmember Wall.

And I really appreciate uh Councilmember Doring uh initiating this uh perhaps uh uh partially in response to what the county is doing.

Uh I think that uh we have uh not just uh a good fiscal responsibility to the city of Rochester and residents, but a moral responsibility as well.

And uh just yesterday uh in tens of thousands of churches across the country, an appointed uh lesson uh said uh uh blessed are those who are hunger, who hunger for they will be filled.

And uh when we have the resources, I think we need to step in and uh offer some of those resources back to those who are most vulnerable in our community.

Councilmember Palmer.

Well, I appreciate bringing it up and I do support it, but I also want to point out that there'll be helping out uh federal workers who are working without any wages, and um we need to help out all of our our our people in Rochester.

So I fully support this.

Councilmember Fredericks.

Yes, I fully support it as well, too.

It's nice to have something that we can all look at each other and agree on tonight.

Uh so I know this is a council initiated action, but there is a resolution in our packet, and so we can accept that resolution.

So is there a motion to uh yeah?

I will move to allocate 100,000 from the contingency fund to supplement the cost of Channel 1 to supply food and formula uh to residents who may lose federal benefits in November of 2025.

City funding will align with and enhance the intent of Olmsted County processes already underway.

Uh motion made by council member Doring and seconded by Councilmember Fredericks.

Uh Councilmember Doring.

I want to make uh my colleagues uh aware that it is my intent if this motion passes that I will then um go forward to um put forward the draft uh the draft agreement that is presented in our packet as well uh to allocate those funds uh in a time yeah that will be uh what you're saying is you will have a follow-up both.

I will, yes, thank you.

Okay.

Um all in favor of the motion that is in front of us put it.

What uh Mayor Norton, go ahead.

Sorry.

I just want to make sure this is written in such a way uh because it's who may lose federal benefits.

How does that relate to what uh council member Palmer said?

And I have that same concern.

Having been one of those persons who didn't get a paycheck years ago, um, that it will also help people who aren't getting federal benefits, they're getting a federal paycheck.

Is there is that clear enough that it would apply to both parties?

Administrators Elms, you know.

Council President Mayor Norton, I will attempt to answer this.

Uh just based on reading a lot of the information that had come out today.

One of the things that would um still be viable based on the Department of Justice agreeing with the court ruling for um partial benefits is new applications for SNAP benefits.

So there could be people that are applying for SNAP benefits throughout November who would be utilizing these services.

Um but they would still only be eligible for the partial payments.

They may also be other I would just say the range of services that channel one is providing throughout the community are currently not just staff eligible beneficiaries.

It also is other um individuals within the community who have needs to meet, and it is very like likely that their overall system of food is going to be challenged.

So without additional funding, I could stop if you'd like to.

I actually I think deputy administrator parish may have some additional information.

Your Honor, the draft agreement that's the uh purpose and funding source, there's language that says these funds shall be used to supplement costs associated with supplying food and infant formula to Rochester residents who may be affected by the interruption of federal assistance programs due to a federal government shutdown.

So I mean it is sort of in that in that space.

Um but you certainly could when you enter the dates into the better blank there, you could say that are just impacted by the federal government shutdown and drop the assistance piece.

But at the end of the day, as administrator Zelda was saying, I think we're collaborating with Channel One Foods uh food shelf.

I think you know, trying to give them some deference here.

I mean, there's obviously more need than resources, so there's gonna have to be some prioritization.

And if I could just figure out that's that's my concern is there is gonna there is greater need than there are resources, and I don't want us to think we're doing something and then have it say no, this language in the action says federal people losing federal benefits, and then they will not be eligible for it.

And I want to make sure that we're clear in our language so that we don't have a problem later.

So I while I appreciate uh administrator parrish's comment about uh what the second amendment says, the first one doesn't say that.

So I just I just want to make sure we're doing it right.

That's my point.

And just to be clear, if this passes, then uh council member Doring will have a second that is speaks to the specifics that can be tweaked.

All I would say is the current motion does not address directly with this hundred thousand dollars federal employees who are not being paid, but the broader range of service what I'm trying to articulate is the broader range of services that are already being provided by Channel One still exists within the community in a very challenged way, but that so ancillary to this, there should still be some ancillary benefit to what council member Palmer has shared, but not directly with this motion that specifically identifies supply food and formula to residents who may lose federal benefits.

Okay.

Uh Councilmember Doring, uh, as the mover of this is there any adjustments that you want to make dependent on your second or council member Fredericks accepting them as well.

Uh or are you thinking?

Okay.

You know, while you're thinking, uh, we've had a request from staff to take a very mini break.

So I'm gonna uh have us take a four-minute break as uh that happens and something over here happens.

He's been added on us.

Okay, we're gonna uh council member Doring.

Yeah, I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm gonna change uh the motion to read the cost of channel one to supply food and formula to residents who may be affected by the federal shutdown in November 2025.

Uh is that acceptable to you, uh Councilmember Fredericks as a seconder of the motion.

Of course.

Okay, any further discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say nay.

Motion passes unanimously.

Councilmember Doring.

I move to enter into a service agreement uh with channel one uh to disperse uh 100,000 dollars uh for uh food assistance with the first disbursement happening uh $50,000 happening on uh November 5th, and the second disbursement of $50,000 happening on November 19th.

Second.

Moved by Councilmember Doring and seconded by council member uh Keene.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say nay.

Motion passes.

Uh we're going to go to uh attorney Spindler Craig uh as uh uh we have some issues with G2.

That's correct, Mr.

President.

Thank you.

We do need some uh correction on item G2, the first vote.

Uh we do realize that um the vote on that matter was five to two, which means that it didn't pass.

Um the staff report was correct that that needs a four-fifths majority in order to pass.

Um so we do need to clarify on the initial vote that that matter did not pass.

We do understand from council member Palmer uh that he is requesting a motion to reconsider uh that matter, and he is in a position to do that.

Okay, council member Palmer.

Go ahead.

I'll make a motion to reconsider uh G2.

Second.

Uh any uh motion made by uh council member Palmer, seconded by council member keen.

Councilmember Palmer.

Yeah, and it it is brought up to us um that this was a change, and and I guess I'm basing it on it's hard for me because these big trees are being being torn down and checking wrecking this neighborhood.

Um putting a cycle track is not what I really think is appropriate.

Um, but since we were on the winning side, we're the only ones that can reconsider it.

And um, and so you know that's the reason I'm I'm willing to to reconsider this.

The other thing is that the people who left here knew that they had lost, and so um it doesn't really change anything.

So um I will I will change my vote.

Councilmember Keene.

I get just a point of order.

Do we need to vote on the motion to reconsider?

Yes.

Okay, two votes, please.

Okay.

So uh I'll call the question.

So the question has could been called to uh on the motion to reconsider.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay, any opposed say nay.

Motion passes.

Uh councilmember Palmer.

Do you want to make a motion?

Yeah, um I can make the motion.

Thank you.

Make the motion.

Does the motion have to be made by uh by someone voting in opposition?

No, it doesn't.

Okay.

I'll make a motion to adopt a resolution.

Uh ordering the improvements and preparation of plans for the reconstruction of Center Street East from the Sunbro River Bridge to 11th Avenue, uh, northeast southeast project number J 7348.

Second.

A motion made by Councilmember Keene, seconded by Councilmember Palmer, Councilmember Keene.

Any more to add nothing to add?

Councilmember Fredericks.

Yes, it does become a little easier to talk with an empty room for me.

So I just I just want to say, you know, as in every I think the city does a great job of being sensitive to our neighborhoods and doing what's best for the greater good of the whole community.

Uh I just want to be just go on record to say be sensitive to the needs of this street.

There was a lot of opposition to the project here and on 6th Street as well.

Uh close neighborhoods to each other, some of the same people here tonight.

Um, I just want to be sensitive to them as they butt up to a very busy part of town, a lot of traffic.

The benefit to them on that on that street is going to be reliable services, which is foremost, but the benefit to the everybody else using that street is much greater than it is to them.

I mean, as far as traffic, um so on and so forth.

So uh I I actually agree with the gentleman that is in here tonight that's like they proved the benefit to me.

I have good I have good water service right now.

I have everything I need sewer.

So I I did agree with the gentleman that stood in here tonight.

Uh obviously, I I don't expect to uh to prevail, you know, change a whole bunch, but I just want to make sure we're sensitive to the people in that area on center street, as well as six clerk case so call the roll.

Councilmember Keene.

Aye, council member Miller, aye, council member Wall.

Aye, Councilmember Fredericks, Councilmember Palmer.

Aye, Councilmember Doring.

Aye, Council President Schubring.

Aye.

Thank you.

Thank you, your honor.

Moving uh back to our uh council initiated actions.

We have our second uh council initiated action, big sky north coast corridor route analysis.

Councilmember Miller.

Thank you.

I will try to be brief.

I think this requires a bit of background, and unfortunately, I believe we still have one of the representatives from the passenger rail authority on our line.

Should there be any questions tonight?

Earlier this year, um there was a finalization of an Amtrak daily long distance service study report to Congress in January.

And the North, the Big Sky North Coast Corridor, formerly the North Coast Hiawatha route was one of the 15 routes identified by the Federal Railroad Administration as preferred for restoration or establishment.

The Big Sky North Coast Corridor, this route in question is the only new long distance route in the nation included in the FRA's corridor identification development program in this corridor across the eight states.

The Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority, whose representative is on the line, is the federal sponsor of the Big Sky North Coast corridor, and they are at a point of nearing uh entry into step two, which is includes analyses of alternative routes within the overall corridor.

Turns out that Rochester, Minnesota is the largest metropolitan area on existing railroad right-of-way connected to that overall corridor that is not included in the analysis currently of alternative routes.

So I am proposing after conversation with their team with partners at DMC that we issue a resolution or we consider issuing a resolution uh later this month to ask them to study as an alternative route an alignment that connects Rochester.

This is not committing any city funds, it is asking just a process that is already in motion at the federal level to consider what an alignment through Rochester could look like to look at feasibility and to um uh commit to engaging in those planning efforts with the corridor uh passenger rail authority.

I I'm grateful to Councilmember Keene for taking the time to study this with me and um come to the conclusion that this is us just asking for consideration of an alternative analysis, and um it's it's one of those things that I feel like it's speak now or forever hold our peace, and as we heard from three commenters tonight, there is a desire in the community uh to consider how rail might be one of the modes of transportation connection to Rochester to Mayo Clinic and through our our our area as it once was and is continues to show in redevelopment of rail that um demand is outpacing expectations and I think it we would be um well served to opt into a process that could ultimately bring uh rail connection back to Rochester.

Councilmember Palmer Yeah, I have difficulty with it because the simple fact that we have Almstead County as our rail authority for us in um they did that when he had the DME going through, so I don't believe that we have the authority really as a city.

I think we've already given that to Almstead County and they do uh meet once a year.

I think that they um should be the ones that would make that recommendation, not the city.

Councilmember Miller.

Could the city attorney weigh in on that statement maybe I can try?

Um I think only to say that um yes, by statute, um they are the county is the designated rail authority.

Um presumably that does not preclude the city from stating an opinion or encouragement.

And it is is it likely that should that process move forward and they study an alternative route that that authority or the county authority would be involved?

Absolutely, yes.

Well, what I'm saying is that Palmer we don't have that authority that we've already given it to the county, and you know, it's not one thing to say we like rail.

I mean, I like rail, I've ridden Amtrak plenty of times.

But uh if we've already given that authority to Almstead County, we really not don't have that authority to even if suggest this.

And so I would be very, very uncomfortable not working with our our rail um people at Almstead County.

I don't know why we just don't ask them.

Mayor Norton.

Well, this is an issue that came up um in a slightly different way earlier this year.

Rail is being studied.

If we want to be at all at the table, we need to let them know that we are at least interested in the research and how we might fit into that.

The time will come later for decisions, and the rail authority absolutely will be involved at that point.

And I don't think there's any reason they couldn't be involved either, but I would hope that the city of Rochester for the reasons that have been stated, um, would take a position in it and at least explore this.

So I'm supportive.

Uh so are we uh uh um who am I gonna go to?

Uh either clerk case or attorney uh Spindler Craig.

Do we take a vote on a CIA on this or are we being given information?

I'm uh unclear.

I know on the last one we did Sure, Council President.

I think we usually do take a vote, and I think what what we anticipated is that if you vote uh in favor, we would return with a resolution uh at a future meeting.

Got it.

Is there a motion?

So I'll make a motion that we uh direct staff to prepare a resolution to bring back to us for our November 17th 2025 council meeting.

I'll second.

Moved by Councilmember Miller, seconded by Councilmember Keene.

Anything more to add, Councilmember Miller?

I I will be supporting this as well.

I look at it and say it's really raising our hand at a national level and saying, hey, uh if you're going to uh run a rail line from Chicago to Montana and you're going across the state of Wisconsin, uh it's there's a the largest metropolitan area in uh second largest in the state, uh a few miles uh west of uh the Mississippi River, and you may want to catch that city into your route.

And so it's just raising our hand, getting on in the radar, and uh uh I I hear some commitment to working with the county on on this uh and uh we'll see where it goes.

Councilmember Wall.

Will there be opportunity in the uh ensuing two weeks for our city uh uh people to visit with the county counterparts uh uh before we bring a resolution back?

Just seem like good partnership, Your Honor.

We we certainly could forward on the resolution later.

Thank you.

Uh your honor, uh we certainly could forward that on for the county's consideration and awareness prior to the November 17th meeting.

Okay.

Uh council member can we also check to see if it's legal for us to do that?

Uh we have a rail authority.

Uh we certainly can evaluate that more.

I'm pretty confident we have the ability to submit a resolution of support.

Um we're not taking like a formal action, it's just more of an indication of interest, but we can certainly review that further.

Thank you.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Uppose say nay.

Motion passes.

Is that unanimous?

Okay.

Uh thank you.

Uh ordinance first readings.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Item J one and ordinance amending section two-one-two of chapter two-one of title two of the Rochester Code of Ordinances establishing fees and charges for licenses, permits, permits, services, and other charges provided by the City of Rochester.

Thank you, Attorney Spindler Craig.

Is there a motion to adjourn?

So move.

Uh moved by council member Wall.

Second.

Seconded by Councilmember Keene.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Oh say nay.

We are adjourned.

Thank you.

What if I had an item of other