Oh, there it is, finally.

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

I pledge to the United States of America.

Welcome everybody to our uh special December 22nd uh City Council meeting.

Um I will first call on Clerk Caseel to call the roll.

Good evening, Councilmember Keene.

Here.

Councilmember Miller.

Here.

Councilmember Wall.

Here.

Councilmember Fredericks.

Here.

Councilmember Palmer.

Here.

Councilmember Doring.

Here.

Council President Schuebring.

Here.

Mayor Norton.

Present.

Next on our agenda is the order of the agenda.

Are there any changes to the agenda as presented?

Seeing none, is there a motion to approve the agenda?

Moved.

Moved by Councilmember Keene, seconded by Councilmember Palmer.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed say nay.

Next up is our open comment period.

And this is an opportunity for anyone from the public to speak on items on our agenda this evening.

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

So know that I may need to cut you off if uh you reach over the two minutes.

Um because of the limited time, we want to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to speak.

Um because this is a special meeting.

And with that, I am going to call on Mark Brandsford.

And please state your name uh even if I've said it, and I apologize up front if I mispronounce your name.

But yeah, Mark Brandsford, 317, 15th Avenue Southwest.

Council President, Staff Mayor.

Plans were presented as drafts of what could be, not promises of what would be.

This outcome is not accidental.

It is a foreseeable result of the delay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Clark Jones.

Hi, my name is Clark Jones.

I'm the head baseball coach at Rochester Community and Technical College.

I would like to first state publicly for the record that I already have teams lined up and committed to come and play in Rochester during the month of March if this approval of this complex is passed.

You see, after teams come back from their southern trips in early March, they often sit idle until April rolls around when the frost eventually is gone and teams can start playing.

In years past, Rochester and Riverland would host a crossover tournament the last week of March and the first week in April.

The past three years, we have played the crossover tournament twice in Norwalk Iowa and once in Wisconsin Dells, both on turf fields.

Providing a quality tournament experience in Rochester on turf fields during March for us would be a game changer.

It would save us approximately 20 to 30,000 per year.

The coaches in Northern Minnesota are equally excited because for them, traveling to the Dells or to Norwalk is very expensive.

With no other options, they are forced to travel and spend the money.

Have a quality having a quality tournament here in Rochester and experience would also save them thousands of dollars.

From an economic standpoint for businesses here in Rochester, teams would stay in our local hotels, eat in our local restaurants, and frequent our local gas stations and convenience stores.

This would be in the month of March, which isn't even in our busy season for tournaments.

It is also worth noting that with a premier field in Rochester for softball and baseball, it isn't out of the realm of possibilities that we could host tournaments here for our state tournament, the MCAC, Winona States Conference, the NSIC, St.

Mary's Conference, the MIAC, and Lutheran Colleges Conference Tournament, the American Rivers Conference.

Because we have the Rochester Amateur Sports Commission, the chances of us winning these bids for these tournaments would be extremely high as evidence of RCT.

Thank you, Mr.

Jones.

Thank you.

Happy holidays.

Same to you.

Next up we have Christine Erke.

Hi, my name is Christine Erke.

I'm a parent.

I've had three youth athletes.

I've also been employed in the hospitality industry here in Rochester since 1994.

Though I am a Byron resident, my family shops in Rochester and pays sales taxes just like Rochester residents.

The original goal of this facility was to be a local economic development for the hospitality industry, with the additional benefit of the facility being utilized by locals during the week.

The state would not approve spending money for only local recreational elite needs.

I'm also the past president of Rochester Sports and have been involved with that organization for over 20 years.

Every year, we watched other communities invest in itself while we stayed stagnant and fell behind.

Every sports tournament helps with the bottom line and can be the difference between the loss and a profitability.

On a personal side, my family has traveled to many amazing sports facilities in the region, spending money on hotels, gas, and food.

We cherished a weekend where we had a local tournament as it meant more time at home and less money spent.

This facility is needed now for the benefit of the underment of the full community.

I ask that this council move the project forward and stay the course.

Next we have Emma Stip Steeb.

Council President Schuebring, Mayor Norton, and members of the City Council.

My name is Emma Esteb, and I serve as the member engagement director for the Rochester Area Chamber of Commerce.

I'm here tonight to speak on behalf of the Chamber, an organization representing over 1,200 businesses from throughout the Rochester area to encourage you to override the mayor's vetoes related to the regional sports and recreation complex.

The Regional Sports and Recreation Complex is a voter-approved investment designed to strengthen Rochester's economy, address community needs, and strengthen our competitiveness with other communities.

This project builds on our community's role as a regional center and places Rochester in a position to attract visitors through sporting events, tourism, and tournaments.

These activities will not only support the sporting community, but also support local hotels, restaurants, and businesses through new spending, supporting job growth, and producing measurable economic impact in the hospitality and service industry during the weekend, which is a time of lower demand.

Outside of peak usage on the weekend when the facility is generating revenue, the regional sports and recreation complex will also serve as a community asset, offering additional space that can be utilized by residents and local organizations.

Extensive community engagement and market research consistently show that Rochester's outdoor recreation facilities do not meet the standards to attract large sporting tournaments.

The regional sports and recreation complex directly addresses these gaps, expanding access and supporting sports tourism while also being accessible and a benefit to the broader Rochester community.

An asset like this enhances the region's quality of life during a time when recreational opportunities are increasingly important factors for individuals and their families when choosing where to live and work.

This investment aligns squarely with long-term economic development and workforce attraction goals of our community.

We strongly urge the city council to override the mayor's veto on items D1 and D2 and allow the city to move forward with a strategic community investment that will support economic growth, community well-being, and regional competitiveness.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Wyatt Ryan.

Hi, my name is Wyatt, and I've been voting in Rochester for nearly 12 years.

When I voted yes to the sports complex, it included an indoor facility.

This indoor facility was meant to fill the need left behind when the Y closed.

Because the indoor facility is not included, my vote for yes is no longer reflected in this motion moving forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have uh Chris uh Luke and Bill.

Good evening.

My name is Chris Lucanville, and I'm here as a volunteer with Rochester Area La Crosse.

Our organization exists to make lacrosse accessible to kids across Rochester and their surrounding communities, regardless of income level, prior experience with a sport.

And we've worked intentionally to lower barriers, introduce new families to the game, and create a welcoming environment.

One of the significant challenges we face in continuing that mission is a reliable access to dependable outdoor space.

Minnesota weather is unpredictable and challenges with field quality, especially in our primary spring season, often leads to cancellations, challenging schedules for parents, and missed opportunities for kids.

Turf fields provide a safer, more consistent surface that allows practices and games to happen even when conditions are less than ideal.

Lacrosse has grown rapidly in Rochester because kids can join at almost any age, and the sport builds on skills many already have from hockey, soccer, and basketball.

As participation grows, field access has quickly become a primary factor, limiting both day-to-day programming and what we can offer beyond that.

With additional turf space, Rochester would not only better support local youth sports, but also have the opportunity to host more games and small regional events.

And these are opportunities to bring families in from surrounding communities, support local businesses, and help keep Rochester competitive as a youth sports destination rather than pushing families to travel elsewhere.

From the perspective of Rochester area lacrosse, increased access to high quality multi-use turf fields would make a meaningful difference for accessibility, growth, and long-term community impact for lacrosse in the broader youth sports ecosystem in Rochester.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next we have Tom Hexham.

Good evening.

I'm Tom Hexel.

I've got a conflict of interest.

I represented Seneca on the uh sale of the property to the city on this event.

But I'm not going to talk about who I think you should vote for or not vote for.

I just want to bring up some things in the past that maybe some of you who aren't from Rochester aren't aware of.

I grew up here and came back and went to work from the University of Iowa in 77.

We're short of fields.

Uh short of baseball diamonds, short of volleyball, basketball, any indoor courts ever since then.

I mean, when George Thompson and I played men's power A volleyball at the Y, and then we go to all the grade schools, and then we'd go to all traveling YMCAs.

We have been short of inside space ever since then.

And I give the mayor credit.

I mean we need everything that her people are asking for, and we need more of it.

But I think more importantly, the city of Rochester.

We need to think bigger.

This is a 40 billion dollar industry.

There are only two industries that we aren't.

Uh that are really dominating in my commercial industrial business are AI, uh storage, and uh youth sports.

So let's let's take a uh uh the high road like everybody is, and let's look at what else we can do to expand every venue we can.

I mean, what compliments the mail clinic and healthy living and our entire mission, sports medicine, more than athletics.

And and uh all the events that everybody's asking for.

So somehow, as a group, and you guys are better at it than I am.

You can figure out how to expand the sports commission, like Ed Haruska and Ben Bolt and uh Mike Nigber.

We love to be devil Mike, but Mike is a guy that gets things together.

Thank you, Mr.

Hexham.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Wade Fenski.

Good evening.

Uh Councilmember uh President Schubring, uh, Mayor Norton, uh, members of the city council.

My name is Wade Fenski, and I serve as a board member on the Rochester Area Chamber of Commerce.

And as you guys know, uh that Emma said before, we service over 1,200 businesses uh in our region.

I'm here tonight to urge the council to override mayor's veto uh relating to the regional sports and recreational complex.

As you know, this project represents a voter-approved investment in Rochester's future.

At its core, the regional sports and recreational complex is about strengthening our local economy, addressing community needs, and ensuring Rochester remains competitive with peer communities.

As a regional hub, Rochester is well positioned to host tournaments, sporting events, and visitors only if we have the facilities to do so.

The economic benefits of this complex extend well beyond athletics.

Events and tournaments bring visitors to stay at local hotels, dine and restaurants, and obviously shop at our area businesses.

That activity creates jobs and generates meaningful economic impact, particularly for the hospitality and service sectors, uh, but it also uh helps at many other levels as well.

Significant community input and market analysis have shown that Rochester's current outdoor recreational infrastructure falls short of what is needed to attract large-scale sporting events.

The regional sports and recreational complex uh complex directly addresses those shortcomings while remaining accessible and beneficial to the broader community.

Uh for these reasons, uh I also want to make sure we understand that the project like this aligns with Rochester's long-term long-term economic development goals and strengthens our position as a community where people want to live, they want to work, and they also want to invest.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask the city council to override the mayor's vetoes on items D1, D2, and allow important community of that investment to move forward.

Thank you, guys.

Thank you.

Next we have Wade Beavins.

My name is Wade Beavers, a longtime resident of the community.

Been fortunate to have participated and been part of this community and youth sports here in Rochester in leadership roles.

My professional life has allowed me to get behind the scenes of these operations.

I'm a professional, I'm a financial partner at Ventura Sports Group, which owns both private and public partnership sports programs from Texas to Missouri.

I say these things not only to give you an understanding, but to tell you this is my first rodeo, and I've seen these how these play out.

I can provide you analysis of how the city of Carmel, Indiana, was once a gassed-up town before the development of its great park sports complex.

The project has become a boon to both the community sports programs and the businesses, as growth and hospitality, dining, and entertainment has made it a mecca for prosperity.

It is now claimed to be the dubious honor of being a roundabout capital of the United States, if only we can aspire to be that tile.

To the council who plan to vote yes for this project, I commend you on your forward thinking because obtaining and fulfilling this complex is the first step in what Rochester needs to maintain to be a place of opportunity for the youth in the region, for the community to expand to be more than the medical destination.

Closer to home, Blaine, Minnesota and Norwalk, Iowa have doubled down on these initiatives, and the financials are not a drag of the city budgets, but are proving to expand additional commercial tax revenues and bring in outreach of over one million people alone in 2025 for the Norwalk complex alone.

To the council members who are cheapish about this project, I respect the decisions you have to make and the repercussions that come along with it.

I challenge you to look beyond the white noise that is thrown around in the social stratosphere.

Understand that this is the first step in what Rochester can do beyond fields, creating a regional focal point that makes this community a better place to live and prosper.

A vote of yes will make that happen.

Next we have Pat Sexton.

Evening everybody, Pat Sexton, Rochester Area Builders.

Um RAB represents nearly 400 construction-related businesses in Southeast Minnesota from home builders to remodelers and commercial builders.

Our members build your homes, your apartments, your office buildings, and retail spaces.

And our members are proud to help bring the regional sports center to life.

We want Rochester to remain a vibrant and attractive place for families and businesses.

Mayo Clinic provides those world-class jobs, but a healthy community also needs amenities like restaurants, entertainment, and top-tier recreational facilities.

In 2023, Rochester residents voted to tax ourselves and extend the local sales tax, allocating 65 million for a regional sports and recreation complex.

This project was designed to host large tournaments, drawing visitors from across the Midwest, boosting weekend wholetal occupants occupancy, and local spending.

The facility will, of course, also be available for locals during weekdays and non-tournament times, just like Ram Arena and Mayo Civic Center.

And just to give the most obvious analogy, the World Juniors played last night at Rec Center.

After the greatest hockey players, young hockey players on the planet played, my group of old timers played.

So it was available for world-class athletes and uh me.

I also serve on the Rochester Sports Foundation Board.

The foundation was an early and vocal supporter of the project and remains firmly committed to its success.

While no project is perfect, and we provided our constructive input, the big picture is clear.

Rochester needs this facility to stay competitive.

For a few of those opponents, uh, they seem to miss two key points.

First, sports tourism brings new money into our economy.

Visitors spend a lot of money on hotels, restaurants, and shopping, and those places are owned by Rochester residents and they employ Rochester residents, and they complement the impact the clinic patients have.

Second, if your goal is more recreational space for local residents, canceling this project will eliminate the very thing they claim they want, which doesn't seem to make much sense.

Cities choose their future, and some like Minneapolis or St.

Paul see population decline.

We hope you will do the right thing, and I trust you will to support the override of the mayor's vetoes.

Thank you.

At this point, we are at our 20 minutes.

Uh on our uh list we have 10 additional speakers.

I would uh invite uh uh my colleagues to offer an a motion to suspend the rules to allow these 10 speakers to also speak.

Second, moved by councilmember Miller and seconded by Councilmember Doring.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Poe say nay.

Next up we have Joseph LaForge.

Joseph LaForge, 15-year resident of Ward 4, uh President, Council members, mayor, city team mitz.

Um I'm here to express staunch opposition to the current iteration of this program.

Uh recent media reports uh asserting some groundswell of excitement have frankly made me question whether the decision makers are living in the same city as the common people.

Well, I fully understand the legislative mandate for now to spend this money on this project.

Taxing regressively to fund an outdoor complex in Minnesota on the fringes of town seems to be short-sighted.

I ask that you not cancel but simply pause and re-evaluate this project so that something can be built with community re-engagement that will provide equitable and fair access to all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Mike Vance.

Mayor, Council members, thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight.

My name is Mike Vance, and I've lived in Rochester for about 20 years.

I grew up in Saginaw, Michigan, and later chose to make Rochester my home because of the quality of life this city offers.

I found a place where parks, trails, and recreation are truly part of the community fabric.

I bike and rollerblade Rochester's trail system.

I've played volleyball and softball at McQuillen.

I've skated at Graham, saw my boys learned to swim at the rec center.

And starting in 2005, I spent about 10 years playing men's amateur baseball for the Rochester Roadrunners here in town.

When I had kids, my connection to sports shifted from player to coach.

I've coached almost 50 youth teams in Rochester the last 10 years across Minnesota Rush Soccer, ROHA hockey, and RIBA baseball.

Through those experiences, I wanted to give back in a deeper way.

And in the fall of 2019, I joined the Rochester Youth Baseball Association board.

Since then I've served as the K-2 director, helped create and lead the Southern Mini House League, served as president from 2021 to 2023, and remain an active board member.

Through this connection, I was asked to participate in the community design and feedback group for this project.

Through this planning, I came to realize that the baseball community is not the lone benefactor of this facility.

Soccer, lacrosse, pickleball, basketball, trail riders, and families of all ages will benefit.

As you might imagine, sports have been one of the primary ways my family has built friendships, found community, and stayed connected to Rochester.

Because of that, I speak tonight in strong support of improving Rochester sports footprint.

I also want to acknowledge and respect the voices of those who feel this project isn't what they voted for because it does not yet include indoor facilities.

I understand that concern.

Indoor facilities are absolutely part of the long-term vision for the site, and this project is what lays the groundwork for infrastructure access and future investment to make that next phase possible.

I believe I speak for everyone when I say indoor sports facilities remain a community need.

Sports and recreation complex is an investment in youth community connection, and I urge you to move forward and strengthen our team by overriding the VTO.

Thank you.

Next, we have Stephen Shaw.

Good evening.

Sorry.

Council members, Council President Schubring, and Mayor Norton.

I want to introduce myself to start off.

I'm Stephen Shaw.

I live in Northeast Rochester.

I work in Rochester.

I've lived here for a number of years now.

And I believe that I am advocating for a lot of voices of people, other residents who I've spoken to in person, as well as a lot of comments I've seen online that are unfortunately against this proposal.

This is difficult to get up after many people have already gotten up and said that they're, you know, that this is a benefit to them.

I I certainly believe that it is a big benefit to a portion of the community here, but with this huge 65 million dollar cost, I think there needs to be more of a community piece to this.

And that this can be something again, as others have said, um, that we can all the whole community be a proud of.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Shaw.

Next we have AJ Copino.

Pretty close.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you.

I'm AJ Colapinto.

It's too cold to play pickleball.

I would love to be playing pickleball right now, but even if we fund this project, it'll still be too cold to play pickleball.

I'm just a normal community leader.

I run the city's riding group.

I host the biggest monthly queer event.

And I do a bunch of other things.

That means I meet a lot of people right when they move to the city, and they usually ask me what there is to do.

And I'd love to tell them, let's go play some pickleball.

But even if we fund this, it'll still be too cold to play pickleball.

Yes, there's other things that are being built, like baseball and lacrosse, but those aren't an easy pick up and play thing that I can just meet someone and say, let's start doing this.

That's something that's only for a very specific type of person that's already very invested in that.

So even if this facility is supposed to be a mixture of local and regional use, well, if the local use is that half the year I can play pickleball, and that's pretty much it.

I don't think it's really serving the local use.

So I please ask, do not override the veto.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Ed Ruska.

Good evening.

Ed Ruska.

Um, it's good to be back in the council chambers, as you may know.

Um, I spent 16 years in your seats as council um ward one council member and chose not to run again in 2018.

Uh since then, I have um been the director of the Rochester Sports Foundation, which is a local nonprofit to support the development of sports facilities for a stronger community.

We have never received one dollar of city money at any time.

We are self-funded with one goal, which is to create a better quality of life for the Rochester citizens.

We have assisted the city in any way through this project as requested.

I got three quick points.

One, I was the one who was asked by the city to present at the state capitol in 2022 to support the city's request to reauthorize the half percent sales tax.

The bill was presented to the state officials and approved with four projects, including, and I quote from the bill, 65 million dollars plus associated bonding cost for a regional sports and recreation complex.

This was later approved by the council and the voters.

And uh to reroute these funds for anything other than that would simply not be right.

Two, uh the original plans were based on a complex that was built in in Bentendorf, Iowa, called the TBK Bank Betplex.

This indoor outdoor facility had just was just completed at a cost of 55 about 55 to 60 million dollars.

Voted uh following the voter approval, uh the city hired uh team, hired city team and the hired consultants worked on a plan, accumulated feedback from local users and data collected and supported the final plan, which is the most financial response responsible.

I credit the city team for adjusting the initial plan to be the best overall in the best overall in interest of the community.

And as I said earlier, I sat in your chairs.

I lived through many tough decisions.

I get the pressure you deal with.

I I was early in my days.

I was with a council member Mac Evans, and he said, Ed, you know what, in this job, he said, you got people that are your friends, and you got people that used to be your friends.

And I lived that for a lot of years.

So I understand what you guys are living with, but don't let the vocal uh minority uh impact the uh the your position on this.

The thing is, thank you, Mr.

Ruska.

The silent majority is counting counting on you.

I would like to thank Council President Schubring, Councilmember Fredericks, Councilmember Wall, Councilmember Keene, and Councilmember Palmer for your strong leadership.

Thank you in moving the project forward to support hard work, the hard work of the staff.

Thank you.

Thank you for the extra time.

Next up, we have uh Marshall uh Barents.

Hi.

Good evening, Council members, Mayor Norton, and all support staff.

I want to thank you for your amazing service to our amazing community.

My name is Marshall Barons, and I'm the incoming director of the Rochester Sports Foundation, as well as a longtime sports official as well as staunch advocate of our hospitality partners.

First, this project represents a meaningful and measurable economic benefit to our local business community.

Sports tourism has a well-documented history as an economic driver, generating significant visiting spending on lodging, dining, retail, and services.

These benefits accrue directly to the Rochester-based hospitality small business owners who also live, work, and invest in this community.

This model has been proven effective in other areas of the country as well as within our state.

Especially serve the climate.

It can be utilized in an outdoor fashion for well over eight months out of the year.

Second, the sports complex provides an important community benefit by expanding access to high quality facilities for local youth sports organizations.

This ensures Rochester families can participate locally rather than traveling to other communities, keeping both participation and spending local.

Finally, regarding location, the proximity to major highways, as well as linking it to the game haven park, provides a broad community attractant and impact.

Third, it is important to emphasize that this project has had a clearly defined scope.

It was, has, and is currently described as a regional sports complex designed and budgeted as such.

I do completely understand the drastic importance of local and community sports facilities, but this was never framed as that.

Finally, significant public and private funds have already been invested in the planning, design, and early stage development.

A pause at this stage is not cost neutral.

Delays will only introduce additional costs, not to mention continued inflation and materials alone.

From a business and fiscal responsibility standpoint, advancing this project.

Thank you, Mr.

I appreciate the time.

Thank you.

Next, we have Chris Terry.

Chris had to leave for an emergency.

Okay.

Sorry to hear that.

Uh Laurel Shatte.

Shot.

Shot.

Hello, Laurel Schott, Director of Sales and Marketing for the Empire Hotel Group.

Thank you for having me.

Um 35 years in the hospitality uh community here in Rochesters.

Five years with uh experience Rochester, formerly Rochester Convention Visitors Bureau, and an original member of the planning committee for the sports center and advocate.

Um we all know Mail Clinic is the largest umployer in Rochester.

The second is our hospitality community.

And um our recharge, our research has supported that many of as many have said that Rochester needs this facility to be competitive in attracting sports groups to Rochester.

We've lost significant business because of it.

I could name them all, but I don't have time.

Um our hospitality community needs this project to move forward.

Um, this outdoor facility is a great avenue to start, and I fully anticipate and hope that the indoor indoor facility will come next.

So please override this veto, please.

Next we have Brad Trahan.

Good evening, Councilman President Schubert, members of the City Council and City Staff, Brad Traham, Ward Five Palmer.

I'm here tonight to respectfully ask this council overturn the Mayor Norton's veto of the Salvation Army funding and do so with the same decisive 7-0 vote that passed this measure originally.

The Salvation Army is a wonderful organization that serves countless individuals and families in our community, especially during times of need.

I also want to add that the downtown Dazzle feel the magic of the season, winter light of parade, will always be proud to donate proceeds after expenses to the Salvation Army.

That commitment is unwavering.

Our second annual downtown Dazzle just a few weeks back was a resounding success for our community.

Thank you to our 60 float units, 70 plus volunteers, and generous sponsors.

Thank you, Councilmember Palmer, for your comments a few weeks back.

Yes, safety is critically important.

I'm not happy to report we had a safe parade.

I'd also like to sincerely thank city staff, the police department, fire department, city clerk's office, public works, and parks and rec.

You helped make downtown Dazzle a success.

We saw kids screaming with excitement, neighbors having bonfires, adults smiling from ear to ear, and downtown businesses bustling and glide with the turnout.

Thank you to those who decorated downtown Rochester, a job well done.

While our 25,000 2500 donations is less than we'd like, many people don't are surprised to learn their local expenses were $16,000, including $498 paid to the city for parking meters on a Saturday when media are free to the public.

Contrary to what you may have been told, the Dazzle received no grant funding from any organization.

The DAZL was driven by community members and was and was sponsored by local businesses.

Those are the facts.

Please overturn this unnecessary Salvation Army veto with a 7-0 vote that you did originally.

In closing, I wish the city council, the city staff, and the entire Rochester community a Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy, and blessed new year.

Thank you and feel the magic.

Thank you, Mr.

Trahan.

Next we have uh Jane Shellum.

Hi, excuse me.

I'm Jane Shellham.

I live in Ward 2 in Rochester.

Lived here most of my life.

Um I would like to thank Mayor Norton for raising the concerns of the Rochester voters about this project and encourage the council not to override her veto.

Um I did vote in favor of this project.

I think that Rochester really needs recreational facilities.

I think it gives a lot to our quality of life.

I think it's important for all generations.

However, I voted for this based on the information that was available to the time.

And I just like to share what was shared publicly by the Rochester Sports Foundation.

It was a proposed 90-acre outdoor complex and 125,000 square foot indoor complex.

And to quote, the estimated cost of the facility is $65 million.

No new increase to taxes will be needed as this project will be funded by an extension of the Rochester local option sales tax.

I think we're all disappointed to find out that we can't for 65 million dollars build what we had hoped.

But I do think that it's important to look at all of the needs.

And if you're going to pivot so much from what was promised publicly to the voters, that it should go back to the voters.

It sounds like it has a lot of support.

That shouldn't be a problem, but I don't think it's really right to change so drastically, knowing that everybody wants the indoor facility as well, and we don't have the money for it.

And I know we're hoping there's an angel investor, but I gotta tell you, I just don't think that's going to happen.

So I encourage not to override the veto, just to take a step back and look at other options to meet the recreational needs of the community and the region.

Thanks.

Thank you, Ms.

Shellum.

And that concludes our open comment period, and we will move on to uh reports and recommendations.

Our first item D1 is contract award.

Uh Rochester Sports and Recreation Complex, project number J2870.

Uh, this item was adopted at the December 8th City Council meeting and was subsequently vetoed by Mayor Norton.

The veto automatically places this item back on our agenda for a reconsideration to override a veto.

The item must pass with a supermajority of the body voting I 5, regardless of quorum.

The item may not be considered may only be considered as it was passed.

No amendments may be made.

At this point, I will uh ask Mayor Norton to say some words.

Thank you.

I did prepare a few comments, and I'm just going to read from those in order to just be succinct and say what I need to say.

I've already written the veto message, and this is just complimentary to that.

Using the mayor's veto power is an action is not an action taken lightly.

Only 12 of the thousands of items that have come before me in my seven years as mayor have been vetoed.

I disagree with actions by the council on occasion, but know it's important to pick my battles based on the importance of the issue and the impact on the community.

The community response to this particular veto has been resoundingly positive, and I'm grateful for all the feedback I've received.

This project has been fraught with concerns from the start.

A council member noted last week that, and I quote, the mayor has been unsupportive of this project since its inception, unquote.

And that is true.

What follows is the reasons for my objections.

When the staff initiated the need for the sales tax renewal, I raised concerns about the public input that should be done for a renewal, as was our past practice.

I also questioned the choice of a regional sports facility, because we already had one, and there was no information about a location, what sports or amenities would be included, and I was struck by the $65 million price tag without knowing the answer to those questions.

For those reasons, I let them know that I did not support bringing that item forward, but it was brought forward to the City Council anyway.

Because of the lack of specificity and details, I continued to have concerns even after the council adopted the four-part sales tax extension as part of their legislative agenda.

When it failed to pass the legislature that first year, I again requested public engagement prior to returning to the legislature, and even requested the removal of that project as of one of as one of the four items for sales tax spending.

When that did not happen, I stepped back and I did not lobby for its passage at the legislature that session.

When it did pass the legislature and the staff prepared for the public vote, I once again requested public engagement to determine what sport, what location, and what activities the community wanted in this project.

The engagement informing the community of the upcoming referendum showed pictures of indoor facilities and a variety of sports and amenities, all while asking them for input about what they wanted.

My request to separate the sports facility from the other projects in the referendum failed, and the staff moved forward with the vote.

It passed the public by 43% with 43% of the vote.

But the project had still not been defined.

Sadly, based on community response and feedback, the project and location brought before us at the last meeting do not meet the desires and expectations of our voters and what their left their yes vote intended.

I want to acknowledge that several of us have been working on meeting the community desire for an indoor indoor venue through discussions with RCTC at our local current regional sports complex.

I'm hopeful we might get to an agreement in the coming year, but we are early in discussions with multiple levels of negotiations and approvals still ahead.

To summarize, I believe my veto represents the community's desires.

The project before you is not a year-around, community-focused, indoor-outdoor, and economically viable sports and recreation facility, and that is what the community thought they were voting for.

I ask that you uphold my veto so that we might spend the next year or as long as it takes, working to do additional community engagement to build on a year-round indoor facility with the components desired by the community.

Thank you, Mayor.

And thank you all for being here and sharing your thoughts and concerns.

I know this community well, and I know that as reasonable and thoughtful people, we each bring our own perspectives and may reach different conclusions.

I also know that we can do this respectfully, as we have tonight.

From my perspective, this starts with the vote just two years ago, where 53% of our citizens voted to use a portion of a half-cent sales tax for quote a sports and recreational complex in the amount not to six exceed $65 million.

That's what the ballot measure said.

That's the all of it.

There are very few, if any other issues that come to this council where the voters have voted this is what we want.

For me, it's hard to get past a popular vote.

What's up for interpretation and decisions by this council is how that sports complex is built, operated, and what's in it.

Two things I know from that vote, and I was not sitting up here two years ago.

I was with you folks there.

The first thing is that it was to be a regional economic driver using sports tourism to make it fiscally sustainable.

Second, that expectations were set through renderings and words that it would include an indoor facility with with robust community access.

In February, we were presented with what we can deliver for $65 million.

And it didn't include an indoor facility.

Have we, as the city, admitted that we set unrealistic expectations?

I admit it.

It was a mistake and needs to be righted.

I can tell you that since that financial reality was sp splashed in our faces, this council and the mayor and the city staff have been listening to you and working to find a way to make it right and meet those expectations for an indoor facility.

Personally, I have made it my top job to seek a solution to this, as well as bring better balance to community access through all of our parks and facilities.

In that wider effort, we're identifying gaps in access for our underserved youth, examining our contracts with sports clubs and associations to ensure more low-income free scholarships and sliding fee options, putting dollars behind marketing our parks and rec sites to bring better visibility to the city's offerings.

At our last meeting, this council voted unanimously to commit $80,000 to work directly with the school district's community ed for better coordinated youth offerings.

And finally, on October 6th, two months ago, we voted unanimously to enter into a formal agreement with RCTC to work towards meeting those needs for indoor sports and rec space for the community.

At that meeting, Mayor, you said, I quote, we've all been struggling with this sports complex in different ways because of the feedback that we've been getting from the community.

This agreement with RCTC is giving us an opportunity to meet everyone's needs.

It allows us to move forward with the economic development portion.

It allows us to have the discussion to potentially solve the problem of how we get that indoor space that the community told us they wanted and thought they voted for.

This is a win-win situation.

That was October 6th.

And for the past eight weeks, we have been in weekly discussions with RCTC.

Mayor, you are there holding our feet to the fire as you are tonight, and I thank you for that.

We are progressing expeditiously and productively to reach agreement on an expanded indoor facility in partnership with our community college earlier rather than later.

Are we there yet?

No.

Is it a sure thing?

No.

If not, RCTC will explore alternatives.

Do we always get everything we want wrapped in a nice bow?

No.

But I assure you that this council and city staff are committed to making this happen.

I ask you all to continue to hold our feet to the fire.

If you want expanded community access to indoor basketball, pickleball, a running track and performance and community space, keep pushing.

I also call on my colleagues and city staff to continue to reach out to you, our community, on what residents want to see in that space.

At this point, uh is there a motion?

Councilmember Palmer.

I'll make a motion.

One, authorizing an amendment number one guaranteed minimum maximum price GMP in the amount of 27 million 978,635 dollars to Knutson construction for the Rochester Sports and Recreation Complex project number J2870 and authorized in a budget of 24,207087 for the city and CMAR purchase of tax exempt materials for the Rochester Sports Recreation Complex project number J2870 and authorizing staff to look for value engineering and additional funding opportunities to add back into the project selected deducts and add also alternatives up to the $65 million allocation and authorizing interim financing the amount of $1,772,000 from the economic vitality fund to cover the purchase of 50% of the road utilities grading, et cetera, serving the South Remnant lots to allow additional addition of the recommended alternatives indeed deducts.

Second motion made by Councilmember Palmer and seconded by Councilmember Fredericks.

Councilmember Palmer.

Anything more?

No, I think that you said it well and I do appreciate your leadership on the RCTC.

I think that's an important asset that we're looking at.

I think it's an opportunity.

Um, as you know, I believe that the RCTC campus in the college is an asset for Rochester.

And um I think what you said was well said, and I I agree with you.

Councilmember Fredericks.

I thank you, President Schoen.

Uh well said.

You did a nice job on that.

So I'll be echoing some of the things you say here, but I got a few things written out.

The sales tax extension was first in the works at the city level more than three years ago.

It was presented to the state legislator nearly three years ago with four separate projects, which has been stated tonight already.

The only one at issue today is the sports complex.

The wording behind the project presented to the legislature said regional and community sports complex.

There was no mention of indoor facilities.

The House did not have a hearing on the measure.

The Senate did, in a bill sponsored by Senator Nelson and co-sponsored by Senator Bolden.

The bill specified regional, community, and recreational complex.

Again, there is no mention of indoor facilities.

Ultimately, the bill was not voted on, but the sales tax measure was rolled into a larger tax bill, HF 1938 and passed by the House and Senate, signed by the governor.

The wording in the bill is sports and recreation complex.

Again, there is no mention of indoor facilities.

Next, this went to the voters of Rochester, November 23.

The city hired consultants.

We know they're always 100% accurate.

The city hired consultants and provided an estimate of the sports complex at $65 million to build an indoor and outdoor facility.

And I believe anybody on the building commission out there that Mr.

Sexton got up and talked when I could have told him there's no way in heck that was going to cover everything.

I mean, so back to it.

Provide an estimate of sports complex at $65 million to build an indoor and outdoor sports facility.

The renderings were provided for an indoor sports complex in the information the city provided to voters.

That aspect is unfortunate.

Both that are paid consultants gave us such a shockingly poor estimate.

The voters are led to believe indoor facilities would be part of the initial initial $65 million sports complex.

The voters passed the sales tax extension by $54% to 46% margin, which was also stated already.

The words on the vote, again, sports and recreation complex.

Once again, there is no mention of indoor facilities.

Once passed, be claimed clear that the overall cost of the sports complex was about $120 million.

And you can probably bet more than that.

The city should be getting a refund for what we paid consultants for the original estimate.

Building a sports complex that includes all the desired amenities is not possible for $65 million.

Choices needed to be made.

This council has been focused on the sports complex all year with votes going on, the direction of the sports complex, purchase of the site, and then the approval of contracts.

The idea that this project has been rushed makes no sense to me.

The city's council gets feedback from the public in many ways, not just open comment at meetings like this one.

While everyone prefer the sports complex include indoor facilities from the beginning, the strongest overall public opinion is that the sports complex is that it's not property taxes that be raised in order to operate the facility.

After research, what makes most sense regionally for a sports complex that can potentially be operationally self-sufficient, city staff presented a plan with phase one outdoor facilities, concentrating on baseball and softball fields.

Baseball and softball have the highest potential of drawing tournaments, which will support the sports complex and make a positive economic impact on the local economy.

Expending expanding the city's pickleball courts and the two rectangular fields helps facilitate and expand upon its community use baseball and softball use.

The $65 million can only be used to construct the sports complex.

So the public feedback is as to how this money could be better used, is not something the city council can legally act on.

The voters charged us to build a sports and recreation facility.

It's up to the city council how we do that.

But the choices to do to do it was already made before I was on the council.

The $65 million cannot be used for operations on the sports complex either.

Which gets me back to key criteria.

The sports complex needs to have no property taxes used towards operation.

Well, I understand the objections of the public on the current design.

I have not heard another option proposed that wouldn't require substantial funding from property taxes.

An indoor facility on its own will require us to increase property taxes.

The mayor raises concerns about the location.

She did not veto the city council's vote to acquire the land, nor vote to annex it into the city.

We have purchased and owned the Southeast land already, and there will be opportunities for development adjacent to land required for the sports complex.

The mayor says the sports complex was intended to be community focused.

Looking back at what was presented, it was always presented as a regional facility that would draw tournaments with community use at other times of the week.

I fully support the efforts to partner with RCTC.

Very good work on that.

Mayor and President Schoebring to expand an indoor sports and recreation opportunity to our community.

But there's no reason to delay the construction of the sports facility in order for those efforts with RCTC to fully materialize.

So in conclusion, while it'd be nice to have a 16 $5 million sports complex that does everything that isn't possible with this budget.

I will vote in favor of the outdoor sports complex.

Seeing no other uh discussion, Clerk Case of please call the roll.

Councilmember Keene.

Uh point of order.

This is in the vote is to approve the footnich.

The vote is not to over yes, and we are voting on the contract award.

And so and I is in support of Council Member Councilmember Palmer's motion.

Aye.

Councilmember Miller.

Nay.

Councilmember Wall.

I.

Councilmember Fredericks.

Aye.

Councilmember Palmer.

Aye.

Councilmember Doring.

Nay.

Council President Schoebrain.

Aye.

Motion passes five to two.

Next up we have D2, which is uh the Rochester Sports and Recreation Complex operator agreement.

And uh this item also was adopted at our December 8th meeting and uh subsequently vetoed by Mayor Norton.

As I said earlier, the veto uh places this uh on our agenda to override a veto, the item must pass with the supermajority of the body, five members, uh, and the item may only be considered as it was passed.

Mayor Norton.

Yes, I didn't write anything up about this.

Um the group has made it clear they're going to move ahead, and you will need some sort of uh pro um uh operator.

Um, I wasn't convinced that the uh operators uh pro forma and budget um were clear enough uh to support uh but I just ask that you um again take more time to do more research and uphold my veto.

Thank you, Mayor Norton.

Is there a motion on this item?

Go ahead, Councilmember Fredericks.

Thank you, President Schobering.

I make a motion to support Rochester Sports and Recreation Complex Operator Agreement approving the Rochester Sports and Recreation Complex Opera Agreement with Sports Academy.

Is there a second?

Is there a second?

Second.

Um motion made by council member Frederick, seconded by council member wall.

Councilmember Fredericks, any more to add?

I need someone to operate it.

Councilmember Wall.

Nothing.

Uh Clerk Case Councilmember Doring.

Uh I'm going to make it clear that I am not going to vote for this particular operator.

Um the operator was uh afforded the opportunity to present a more flushed out uh performer, especially with the change of scope uh that is needed to bring this project in under that 65 million uh dollar budget.

I was quite offended uh that the operator didn't do more due diligence and prepare um prepare um more accurate financials.

Um I was underwhelmed, and that makes me highly concerned about uh the operations of the facility.

So I will not be supporting awarding this contract.

Councilmember Miller.

I'll just add I I think we've heard a lot of timelines tonight.

Um one of the other pieces, though, when this new council came in, as we talked about inclusive decision making and inclusive growth management as both a foundational principle and a strategic priority.

I feel like that's a real tension with this project.

And I also asked this operator a question.

I said, you know, imagine that your financial projections don't come to fruition.

What risk do you carry with this project?

And they told me reputational.

They told all of us reputational on the record.

And I don't think that's enough risk for an operator in a project where the six the city is on the hook for 65 million dollars for a complex that we are acknowledging that we don't want to operate ourselves, that we want to contract out.

And so I don't have anything much to add beyond that.

I will not be supporting this.

I hope that it is successful, but I have major concerns.

Clerk Caseau, please call the roll.

Councilmember Keene.

Aye.

Councilmember Miller.

Nay.

Councilmember Wall.

Aye.

Councilmember Fredericks.

Aye.

Councilmember Palmer.

Aye.

Councilmember Doring.

Nay.

Council President Schuberg.

Aye.

Motion carries five to two.

Next we have item D3, which is the council initiated action allocating funds for Salvation Army security needs and rental assistance program.

Uh this item was adopted at our December 1st council meeting.

Uh and uh the mayor subsequently uh vetoed that item.

And as I said earlier, to override a veto, the item must pass with the supermajority of the body and can only be uh uh considered as passed.

Mayor Norton.

Thank you.

Again, I'm going to read comments just to be concise.

And again, my uh veto letter explained in more detail my position.

But let me be very clear.

The veto of item D3 is based on several technical factors and is not a reflection of the policies, practices, or needs of the Salvation Army of Rochester.

I have been and continue to be a strong supporter of their excellent work.

The veto reflects my continued concern for good policymaking, solid processes, and improving practices to assure good governance and decision making.

For starters, there is no need for the city to spend funds on security for Salvation Army as their corporate offers office is doing this for them.

You all received a note on Friday, the council did, outlining the visit that the Rochester police department made to the Salvation Army on Thursday over the safety and security issues.

You may recall that I asked at the last at that December 1st meeting whether the RPD had been involved with the Salvation Army, and I did not receive an answer.

I found out after the meeting that they had not, and subsequently requested that a meeting occur.

It did.

The chief of police and his team went over and met with Salvation Army, and that was a very successful meeting, with RPD proposing more visibility and assistance while Salvation Army Corporate agreed to hire a private security firm to escort volunteers and staff to their cars.

The technical issue I objected to related to language suggesting that there are council initiated that there was a council-initiated action requesting staff to, and I quote, bring back language to address the issues of rental assistance and building security.

Rather than follow that policy and procedure, a motion for immediate action was forwarded without staff bringing back language for discussion, amendment, and approval.

What appeared to be a suggested action for the next meeting was instead acted upon, causing confusion among some council members and the public.

While one might argue that the city councilmen can do anything they want, it is best practice to follow the policy and procedures that you have adopted so that full understanding and debate can occur, especially prior to spending tax dollars.

Regarding the need for emergency rental and mortgage assistance, we already have means for addressing housing needs through the federal CDBG funding.

Um and we have just expanded the grant program under the Office of Chow Matella to address equity needs.

I question why we are not referring requests such as was given to Councilmember Palmer by a Salvation Army board member to those resources first rather than the dangerous path of cherry picking council members' favorite nonprofit projects rather than prioritizing needs for funding with a uniform and fair procedure.

We all value and support the hundreds of marvelous nonprofits in Rochester, and we need a fair and level playing field for spending our resources.

Given the note from the attorney that in his legal opinion, it is his legal opinion that we can give funds to nonprofits if the expense is for a public purpose and he believes that private security meets the public purpose standard.

I will remove that concern from my veto request and let it stand on the three remaining issues.

Security, it has already been covered by SA Corporate, Salvation Army Corporate, and the Rochester Police Department.

Two, the need for better and consistent public procedures.

And if an RCA is and if there is interest in moving an RCA forward at the next meeting to support rental assistance through available sources, I would ask that you consider those first, but through the use of contingency funds, if those are not available or appropriate, I would be happy to help.

I have already offered that help to Councilmember Palmer and others in getting an RCA ready for the next meeting.

And until that time, I'm going to ask for your support of the veto due to the language and the other issues that I raised.

Councilmember Palmer.

Yeah, I'll make a motion that we uphold the um council initiative action that we took on December 8th.

Motion made by Councilmember Palmer.

Is there a second?

Second.

Point of order.

Again, in the other two things we did, we just revoted the other thing.

This one we're going to make the vote about overriding the veto, or are we going to revote and see if we override the veto?

Councilmember Keene.

So I um the motion should be uh stated in the form of that as it is on our agenda.

It uh really has nothing to do with the veto.

The veto really basically took those items away.

So we are now uh voting on this like it's in front of us for the first time.

Is that how you stated your correct uh so that's how I understood what we should do.

I I thought we motion was to override.

No, no, I apologize if that was what I said.

Okay, thank you.

So look can we have the motion in front of me?

We can if the city clerk would read that motion for us, um, that would be helpful.

So is that okay?

Uh go ahead, Clerk Caseau.

Could you read the motion?

So the motion, councilmember Palmer made was the item that was listed on the December uh first agenda, which would be um item D three right now, considering the council initiated action requesting the city council allocate $20,000 from contingency funds to the Salvation Army to support security needs for their dental and medical programs and for their rental assistance program.

The motion has been made by council member Palmer.

Is there a second?

Second.

Seconded by Councilmember Fredericks.

Councilmember Palmer, you have the floor.

Um November 17th, we were sent a letter.

I was sent a letter about the security concerns at the Salvation Army.

Um, in basically what we're talking about is the dental and the health clinic, and how do we support that?

And and the city council took that and voted on that.

And it was a seven to nothing vote.

Um, and so the questions of some of the things that the mayor has brought up.

Um we received an email yesterday, and I'm gonna read a little bit of the email from the city attorney.

Um, and it was in summary, my view is that the expenditure approved by the council on December 1st, executed via the service agreement to assure that the funds are used for intended purposes is legally defensible.

He also says in there what the public good is of this project and activities with public purpose is one of the the things that we have to look at in activities with public purpose is public health, public safety, general welfare and security, which obviously our motion did cover all those.

The other thing that was in there is that um public safety of volunteers providing free medical and dental care to indignant individuals and rental assistance for individuals of risk of losing the housing and becoming unsheltered, based on the council December um first 2025 approval, city staff intended to enter into a service agreement with the Salvation Army, especially trying to use the funds for those two efforts.

So as our our city attorney has said in writing that um those are um items that are well within the means of the city council to do.

And with the letter that was in the packet from the Salvation Army talking about both the rental assistance program and the um rental assistance in the security of the health and and dental clinic, and the fact that that um you know seven of us voted for this at that time.

I find that um uh we need to affirm that that's what we want to do.

Councilmember Fredericks.

Yeah.

Thank you, President Schuebrink.

Yeah thank you President Schubrink um in an early meeting we you we used contingency funds to support Channel one with their short shortcomings they had and now we're voting to uh support the salvation army with some shortcomings that they have and I see no difference between the two uh the mayor did not vote veto the channel one funding but vetoed the salvation army and I supported both of those actions and still do the mayor is concerned about a slippery slope with this funding I believe we made it clear this is a one-time action it sure certainly does not obligate us to take future actions there may the mayor raises concerns about safety issues downtown I fully agree with her broader action is needed and I welcome any ideas on those fronts but that doesn't prevent us from taking action here the volunteers providing important services at the Salvation Army deserve their safety I thank councilmember Palmer and Councilmember Doran for bringing this to us any further discussion council member keen yeah I I'll just make a couple points here um I voted in favor of the Salvation Army council council initiated action back on December 1st because I understood the need um I voiced concern at that meeting on the process and how we were going about it and the fact that the CIA was written one way and then the motion was came came to us a different way but after all that I did vote in favor of it um there have been discussions since on the vote on both the legality and also is the is it the best practice of how we should be making uh public spending decisions um I've come to the conclusion that it is was a legal action that we took it wasn't that it was illegal but I don't think it followed our best practice and it did set us up for spending money with without the right uh guardrails around us um uh my peers make the case that you know we did something similar with um channel one but then there are things when there are more of emergency things but we also have another case in our history where two years ago we had a similar thing for uh a gospel thing then it was something that should we fund it but what we ended up doing was saying we wanted to look into this and the staff came back with a method of doing it and I thought that's where we're gonna be going that night and then we took a change by the way the the motion was worded um I my vote tonight I plan to uphold the veto uh it but it should not be interpreted as a vote against the real needs at the Salvation Army if the veto is upheld I expect that we will have this issue in front of us again and go about it in a more um uh uh objective way councilmember Palmer well the mayor mentioned the C D BG money and and the reason for them not applying for it was because their majors were gone um they were changing majors and we didn't have that opportunity for them as far as going to the fund that Mr Keene is talking about that's not available to them at that for that type of a program um as far as the CIA goes if you don't like the process then ask the city council we can change the the process but the need is there the need is great and um I don't think at this time of the year that that the not um uh funding this at 2000 dollars when you have over six hundred thousand dollars in the contingency fund um is is um not correct councilmember miller yeah I appreciate the mayor bringing up this item because I did have some reservations tonight that we voted for it and I felt like our discussion was cut short by an a call for um a roll call vote and following that meeting I received uh a text message from uh leader at another local nonprofit who said did I miss a chance to apply for funding and so I think that these do matter what we what actions we take as as CIAs and I would argue that the Channel 1 funding was very different.

We were responding to a federal change in food assistance and so while I do agree that there is great need at the Salvation Army I would like to see a process come back to us as written in the original CIA that approval of the CIA would not finalize a project or allocate funds but would direct staff to prioritize research and planning efforts and return to the council with recommendations.

So I would support an action like that but I do plan to vote in favor of upholding the mayor's veto and I share count councilmember keen's comments on that I will uh I also will uh vote to uphold the mayor's veto on this item and encourage uh councilmember palmer and council member Doring and uh mayor norton to uh to clean up the language on this and bring it back to us on uh January 5th and hope we have an uh unanimous vote at that time clerk case could you call the roll council member keen nay councilmember miller nay council member wall I council member frederic aye council member palmer aye council member doring aye council president shoeburn nay so that motion fails uh is a four three to vote that motion did not have a supermajority vote thank you next up uh we will go into closed session we have an executive session pursuant to Minnesota statute 13 D point zero five subdivision three B

Aye.

Council President Schubern.

Nay.

So that motion.

Fails.

Uh is a 4-3 vote.

So that motion did not have a supermajority vote.

Thank you.

Next up uh we will go into closed session.

We have an executive session pursuant to Minnesota Statute 13 D point zero five subdivision three B.

This council will adjourn to a closed session to discuss a litigation matter.

Molly Dennis versus City of Rochester et al.

At this point, is there a motion to adjourn to close session?

So move.

Moved by Councilmember Wall.

Second second.

Seconded by Councilmember Miller.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed say nay.

We are adjourned.

We will meet back.

And my mic went off.