Welcome everybody to our city council study session, April 27th.

And we have the shades open today.

We get to look at the beautiful Rochester skyline across the river.

We have three agenda items on our agenda today.

The Rochester Regional Sports Center Stadium and Sports Fields.

And then we have the comprehensive surface water management planal draft and the University of Minnesota Rochester Strategic Growth Plan Preview.

So we will start it off, Mr.

Parrish.

Are you taking the first one?

Yeah, president, members of the council, really appreciate the opportunity to be here.

This is really a culmination of some very significant work that's been taking place over the last five or six months around really meeting the indoor recreation needs of the community, but also looking at our existing and potentially an enhanced partnership with RCTC to meet those needs.

So we really have broken this presentation up into two spaces today.

Jenna Bowman and team will be talking about what we learned about indoor recreation options and needs in the community, building upon previous uh work that's also taken place.

So really appreciate uh Jenna Abby and Brittany's work in this space.

Um also our overall communications team.

So we're gonna go through the results of that, um, which are included for reference in your packet in the presentation for about 10 or so minutes.

Uh, take a pause to answer any questions that you might have and any clarifications or comments, and then transition into a more uh focused conversation around options.

And so I want to just really extend my appreciation uh to a few folks here that have really guided us and shepherded us to where we've gotten today.

Uh we've been meeting with RCTC weekly after the council encouraged the team to think about creative options for meeting our indoor recreation needs.

So, Council President Schobring, Mayor Norton, Councilmember Wall, uh City Administrator's Elms, uh Ben Bolt and myself all of uh spent every Monday morning for an hour and a half or plus or minus uh really trying to think creatively about how we can maximize the opportunities within these partnerships.

We have some exciting concepts to share with you tonight.

Um we'll focus not only on the concepts in terms of the physical evolution of what might be able to happen in these different scenarios, but I don't want to also lose sight of the fact that we have a number of opportunities to just maximize and optimize and reimagine our existing partnerships, including marketing investments that you've all already made.

RCTC has taken a strong uh leadership role and evolving their existing uh programming.

So you see a lot of you know walking and pickleball and uh volleyball, etc.

happening out there that wasn't happening before.

Um just want to continue to you know build on that as well.

Uh I want to emphasize when we get to the concepts portion of the presentation that um these would be further refined through preliminary design, a community working group, and uh have more focused process around that.

All the things you're gonna see here are really like 5% design.

So we need to take another level to refine budget estimates, to refine the programming, to refine the concepts that we would have.

Um, so further due diligence is required there.

I also want to just say uh before we get going, option A, when we get to that this evening, uh likely is more challenging than what we anticipated.

We got some difficult news on Friday uh with that.

Um I'll talk more about that when we get to that point, but just to note um there may be some challenges with option A when we get to that portion of the presentation.

Uh lastly, before I flip it over to the team, um, from a financing perspective.

I know that's also an important part of these projects.

Um, our options for financing also will be refined based on the preliminary direction you provide here this evening.

Um we would project to get that to the council after we get better estimates through preliminary design and through the refinement of the preferred alternative and evolution of the community working group.

So just know that those two items walk together.

Um and we're actively engaged with the city's public financial advisory team, which includes our public finance legal council as well as our financial advisor.

So with that, I'm happy to turn it over to Jenna to uh lead us through what we learned about indoor recreation needs in Rochester.

Awesome.

Thanks, Aaron.

Uh good afternoon, everyone.

Um excited to share what we learned through the engagement process.

Uh, first wanted to thank and highlight uh the other folks who helped with the engagement process.

So we have Abby Lohr, who is a PhD at Mayo.

You might recognize her from the work that was done last fall with the Healthy Community Partnership.

Oh gosh.

Yeah.

And as well as Britney Bohart, who is PhD candidate with Winona State, did I get that right?

And helpful to us.

She had done some work last fall with the RCTC football team with food security.

So great connection there.

And want to acknowledge Ben Bolt, who is with us through all of the process with the community engagement as well.

So with that.

First, starting on as far as our focus with community engagement for this project, it was really seeking to understand what folks would like to see kept changed or created.

So we really focused the engagement on those three areas.

As Aaron indicated, it was very helpful from to be starting from a place of what prior community engagement had been done, specifically understanding the community's interest in eight courts, the walking jogging track, as well as indoor programming.

And I believe you're all aware of this that Parks and Recreation continues to work with community ed on additional engagement.

We are working through that right now.

The last update that I got about a week and a half ago is that we had over a thousand survey responses, which is great.

Again, both the city, Park and Rec as well as community ed was seeking to understand how folks get their information, where they might be feeling like they're light on getting information, and what type of programming do they like with what's offered today and what would they like to see in the future.

We had three public open house events, those were at RCTC, as well as two virtual meetings.

I will say we had lighter attendance both with the open house and the virtual meetings.

Many who attended had indicated that they had taken the survey online.

So I will say that while we always hope to see more engagement in any of the through any of the methods that we do, I do think for those who at least uh seemed interested in the topic that they did participate through that survey.

I say that as well as that I think we had a strong level of promotion with the engagement opportunities, uh great coverage by the press, as you can see, some clips there by way of the media release.

Uh we also worked to get the information out to a variety of community organizations and sports organizations.

The chamber, for example, had shared that information out with members.

Um RCTC also provided the information to their faculty staff and students.

Uh, and then we had a boosted two different boosted social media ads, one about the engagement opportunities and one for the survey.

Uh, you can see either strong impressions or the number of clicks with the folks connecting with that content.

Um, and just under 400 visits to the project website, which is where we hosted all of this information.

So I won't go through slide by slide as Aaron indicated.

This was in the packet, and hopefully you had a chance to look at it.

Um, I will say with our demographic information, fairly similar to what we see with other surveys, just in regards to age, gender, race, ethnicity, um, living situation, um, income, uh, demographics related to disability.

Sorry, I'm remembering I need to go through not my screen.

Uh, as well as how folks identify, um, they could select more than one.

So you're seeing as far as adults, older adults, parents or caregivers, um, and then the numbers in terms of those identifying as RCTC staff, faculty, or students.

So, overall, um, really helpful information in regards to what improvements uh folks think this the facility could benefit from.

I just want to call out um what we're continuing to see kind of across the board, and that has to do with information and awareness.

And I think that's really important for you as decision makers and as policymakers as you think about what do we have in our portfolio of spaces or options today, um, what might we need?

And some of that is what can we close the gap on just in terms of awareness and understanding, um, and how does that maybe coincide with what folks are saying they want.

So I can say anecdotally, one of the couples that stopped by the open house had said they're new to Rochester within the last year or so.

Uh, they frequently use the walking and jogging track to do indoor walking.

Um, as they were connecting with their neighbors who have been in Rochester for eight years, their neighbors were unaware that there was an option for that indoor available to the public at RCTC.

So, while one small example, I think you know, that kind of puts the point of uh that potential information gap and where that might coincide with just a lack of awareness on what we do actually offer.

And by that I mean both the city of Rochester and by way of our partners.

You can see as well, folks and the feedback they provided about what they currently do like about the space.

This is really helpful in the context of what folks find as a level of importance.

The two main ones to highlight, that being the turf within the dome, that was also a very strong one that was mentioned at the in-person engagement, as well as that track use.

Those both at 38% and 36% respectively, with others kind of across the board, but those definitely being strong ones.

Then always a question of when do folks want access.

I imagine this is not a surprise to folks, is the weekday evenings really are a strongly desired time with the morning weekend times, and then kind of shaking out across the weekday and weekends between the afternoons and evenings.

So again, you're seeing here asked in a little different of a way, but still really strong.

530 folks noting what improvements could be made.

This is just about 40% of respondents indicating that better communication about programs could be improved, followed with more space, more drop-in options, etc.

And then when we talk about indoor amenities, you can see the top part of the lines there that being very interested with the light blue, being interested.

So you're seeing expanded fitness, you're seeing indoor pickleball.

We also saw that through the comments, an interest in indoor pickleball, and a variety of other things, be it the indoor playground, rock climbing, et cetera.

So then we also asked specifically about youth and adult programming.

You can see with the youth programming, the largest interest was with open gym or free play.

The 381 respondents just are those that don't have children or that they that did not apply to them, with the next being skills clinics and camps.

For adults, pickleball or court based activities was the strongest at 525 responses, the second being that walking or jogging programs.

And then just as we talk about amenities, and we'll note if you know RCTC and the field house, some of these amenities exist today.

So as Aaron mentioned, just in regards to conversation about amenities or the facility, I would say that's something that as the project engagement team, this is an area that would be especially helpful as we drill down potentially into the future of thinking about the design, thinking about the amenities, you know, what do locker rooms, shower facilities mean to folks.

When you think about seating and lounge areas, how much has changed just in terms of folks using personal devices and internet access?

And so something even like that compared to spaces that might have been designed prior to laptops, cell phones, all of those things that we are using more often today.

And then we asked folks about just their overall experience.

Some open-ended questions, uh responses that came from the RCTC students and faculty in line with the community as well.

And then again, won't go through all of these slides in detail, but we really appreciate the work that Abby and team had done with the Health Rochester Healthy Community Partnership.

They had completed community engagement work by way of a survey back in September and October of last year.

This slide really highlights kind of the key learnings.

204 respondents really are folks aware of the low-cost indoor recreation recreation recreation opportunities, the answer being no, and then some recommendations as to how that could be addressed.

Again, you're seeing the thematic piece there with communication.

These slides go through the demographics, and what I will highlight here is while we had some gaps in terms of demographic information that matches to our community, the work that Abby and team had done really provided us some key insights with folks of diverse racial backgrounds as well as housing.

If you remember the demographics that we had from the survey most recently, those were the majority, majority of respondents were owners compared to the majority of respondents in this surveys were renters.

So again, understanding that as well as uh I think important to note with this slide, I think the biggest takeaway that you can have with this is that in terms of familiarity, you see a lot of green, and that means not at all familiar.

I think the biggest takeaway that you can have with this is that in terms of familiarity, you see a lot of green, and that means not at all familiar.

So I think really taking in of what we have available today and where do we have an opportunity to close the gap, and one of those biggest places uh continues to be information and awareness.

Then when we talk about frequent frequency of use, again, I imagine not surprising if you're looking at the previous slide that if you're not aware of it, you're likely not using it.

Um that juxtaposed to the interest, um, the yellow is not at all interested, blue slightly, red extremely or very interested.

So, again, that piece of kind of the through line there of what awareness do folks have, what are they currently using today?

What would they like to use?

So you can see the walking jogging uh was the highest uh desired use, uh, the second with swimming, the third with unstructured play, and so forth.

Uh as far as times, just note that there are a lot of there are similarities.

Uh the survey got a little bit more specific in terms of the weekend mornings or afternoons.

Um, but again, the weekday evenings after 5 p.m.

being of greatest interest.

And then uh Abby had also looked at some of the similarities and differences in terms of the primary language spoken at home and the way in which people would like to see or receive information.

I think just important to note that um for those who are speaking in a language other than English as the primary at home, um, text and what app is of greater interest compared to those where English is the primary, that being social media and parks and rec website, where both have interest in printed materials and email.

And if you recall, if you received the presentation from Abby last year out of social media, Instagram had the highest level of interest.

So getting to the overall uh summary, uh you can see what was unique coming out of the fall 2025 survey, that being affordability, uh family and female friendly spaces, multilingual signage and unstructured and flexible spaces.

Uh, what we saw with some key items for the spring, uh, youth sports is a very strong desire as well as usage.

Our pickleball folks would like to continue to see more indoor options, um, but resoundingly too uh that dome and turf are incredibly important to the community.

I will also say um had a conversation with a mom who shared um that indoor soccer in the turf at RCTC right now is vital for her daughter, and that if it was not available, they would be looking at where in the cities would they be headed, and that being that the sport and the ability to play in the winter is such a positive, both for mental health and physical health, that it just to that piece of um one particular example, but um to the youth in our community as well as many other users.

And finally, just to share where we saw the shared themes across both again that weekday evening, uh weekend mornings, improved communication and scheduling, um, increased offerings, thinking about the walking, jogging, as well as uh how we might bring in some circuit training in a flexible way, um, and just as we think about updated facilities or what those facilities may be.

And our overall recommendations, some of these items that Aaron had mentioned, uh consider a community working group as uh this may advance, dive deeper into those amenities, really focus on building greater awareness, uh, as well as looking at opportunities to do some data collection, and that ultimately is to measure success.

So, who were who's using the facilities today, again, what gaps do we have, and then what helps us know if we've been successful.

So, with that, I'll pass it back over to Aaron.

Your Honor, I think this is the point maybe where we pause if you have any questions about what you heard here before we transition to options.

I think the team's happy to take those.

Thank you.

I I think this is helpful, and I appreciate the deeper dive, but I'm still seeing some areas that I'd hope to kind of think about that I am not hearing mentioned or studied.

One is for survey respondents, where in the community are they located, where are they living?

How far are they willing to travel and what transportation options are available?

I appreciate the survey of own versus rent housing, but I think it's also an important consideration to understand what transportation options people have access to that would be limiting or enabling options.

I appreciated the comment that you made, um, Ms.

Bowman about um the importance of turf and indoor space.

But then you said that that family would be willing to travel to the cities.

And that seems like a portion of our community who would travel for access to these amenities, but I also feel like that's taking a broader sense of the market and what may or may not be met.

And I I'm not sensing that we're trying to compete with the cities for that, but provide better access to these amenities within our own area.

So I guess those are kind of my main points, but I'm also hearing this idea that people want more flexible space.

And I know we did the open gem pilot with Rochester Public Schools.

It likely also suffered from communication and programming and other things.

And I'm not necessarily seeing anything in this packet that recommends other potential pilots of space.

I mean, I know we're moving into recommendations of larger investment facilities that would be owned, operated by the city.

But I do wonder if that area of partnership is considered at a smaller scale trial to see what may or may not be actually taken up by the community before we commit to building something on a perhaps um constrained timeframe.

I can start with responding and then pass it to Miss Bowman.

Um maybe Jenna, the thing to think about here is well, we didn't explicitly address that.

We did receive a number of sort of comments from the community as well on a supplemental basis.

I don't recall that being sort of a strong theme in terms of people expressing concern with access or transportation, but I would maybe just defer to Jenna because she may have, you know, had a deeper dive on that and more insights in that space.

But I do think it's a relevant factor for us to consider going forward.

So as we look at preliminary design of options, um some sense of the ecosystem in terms of you know what the transportation options are, um, both conventional and and and non-conventional, uh, we certainly can do that as part of any preliminary design, um, have something that that's the topic for the community working group to further evaluate.

So I think as we look at options in this next phase, um, that's certainly something that we could do a deeper dive on.

But uh, Jenna, do you recall anything?

And I guess to that point, I'm curious about the survey uh potential of understanding do people want one central facility that provides all amenities, or is the priority to have better access to a version, a smaller scale indoor space, but closer to where they live.

Would people I mean, it instead of the conversation of the library recommendation of wanting branches?

People in that survey process consistently were saying I don't feel a connection to downtown, downtown is difficult to access.

I would rather that service be provided closer to me.

Other challenges, but I just wonder about some of the themes that we see emerge in other engagement areas, considering the centralization versus just distributed.

Yeah, I mean, I think uh you could easily presume uh people would love to have these facilities very close to where they are, right?

Um it's just not as efficient to operate within that context and model.

And I think you are seeing sort of a regionalization of of these assets, both for operational efficiency, um, but also so they can have impact and scale that you might expect uh within the community.

So I think you could expect to see you know, people wanting that proximity, but at the same time, um our ability to deliver that, you know, certainly would be constrained given the level of investment you might want to have, and particularly from the programmatic perspective, having a lot of good programmatic options I think are are better delivered, you know, at a at a common facility.

I think people also put it in context of what exists today.

And you know, you're also benchmarking a little bit off of that.

So if the the notion that the turf is going away, you know, it was taken down last week or the week before and it's not going back up, but for some intervention, you know, that's you know where we're at this moment in time, but it's a regional asset and it's you know available that way.

So again, defer to Jenna on any more of those transportation related themes, but I think mostly people want to prioritize access to the level of amenities.

Um, and then location is a factor, but I don't know that it's the driving factor.

I'd also think you have to think about this in the context of what it means for our overall ecosystem of facilities.

So if we go down the road and we get into options of talking about um, you know, six new gyms, eight new gyms available.

What does that mean for the rec center if pickleball transitions into that facility and all of a sudden Monday through Thursday, most of the winter from seven o'clock on, it's pickleball.

You all of a sudden have more found time at the rec center, and you can reconsider your programming there.

So we also will have to pick that up as we look at the next phase.

How do we optimize other assets with this evaluation?

Yeah, absolutely.

And into that question, council member, I think overall the comment being that there's transportation options.

There was not specific um details or comments provided as to proximity or the type of transportation.

But I think as we were seeing with other projects as well, you know, the multimodal option uh to a level to safely get to and from.

Um so that's what I would say to that.

Um, and and I apologize if my my comment of example um seemed out of reach.

I I was intending to convey uh overall what we heard.

I mean, through a number of conversations uh to Aaron's point, just in regards to how important the dome and turf are into those who are able the level of links they would go to continue to provide those opportunities.

So I think we can anticipate that for those who would not be in that same position to make that same decision, um, who are currently uh benefiting and and appreciating the dome and turf that that um stretches past all of those examples.

Um council member Keene.

Uh thank you.

Yeah.

Um I know we're gonna go through these other options, but uh first I'd like to it really is good for us to get this sort of like survey thing or that attempt to try to reach out and have real input um and not just like antidotal.

So it's really good to see 1500 people doing this.

And I know we did the things reaching out at different events and getting a cross section of it.

So it's good to have that in front of us.

Um at the same time, I I will say that I get really worried when I see that thing about oh, oh, it's a communications problem, because in my time here, there's a lot of those, and we haven't really cracked the nut yet to say, oh, when we have that, here's what we do, and then we solve these communication problems.

Like we get people to show up at things because now they don't throw away the paper that comes in the mail or the signs that are here.

So I I don't feel that when I see something's a communication problem that oh, that's good because we know how to solve those now because I haven't seen that.

Um, the thing that I still go back to in these sort of discussions is that idea of like the original idea of building community assets that can be this economic engine and then value to the community.

Um, and to me, those usually come from those partnerships with things like the soccer programs or the baseball programs or the uh whatever programs, and then figuring out the other partners, our community ed and people like that that can bring people into these things.

Um, but um I'll I'll say I do get worried when I see that um we have the walking thing, we've had it for years, um, but the use is low, and then the people who want us to build new walking things say, I didn't know about the other one.

It just doesn't feel like smart investing if that's what's happening.

Councilmember Doring.

Yeah, I also really appreciate the data as we as we try to make decisions and and frame policy.

Um as things move forward, I would appreciate the community working group also doing a deep dive on on how people are describing affordable.

Um I I'm assuming, and this might be bad for me to assume affordability means something differently to someone who is a homeowner than a renter.

Um, but both groups have listed affordability as a priority for them.

So I would love to hear um how we're using that term, how those different groups are uh applying that term, because ultimately that's going to have to come back if we're if we're talking about public uh uh public dollars going into any sort of facility, uh that might lead to tax levy questions that I want to know operationally how how much we're being asked to subsidized uh subsidize these public spaces.

So I would just encourage the working group to do that as we move forward as well.

I would just say, and one of the things that I've really kind of a drum beat in our uh group that have been meeting with RCTC, I always want to bring us back to the the um the sports and rec ecosystem.

And so what I'm in and looking at the survey results probably for the third time now, what really sticks out to me is information and awareness.

And I know that we uh put 70K into marketing last fall.

I'd like to see, you know, what kind of bump did we see from that?

And is there a visibility campaign that and more than as uh council member Keene talked about more than just communication, but visibility of all of our offerings?

And so I'm really interested in that.

I'm really interested in the ease of scheduling issues that people have and whether there is a uh uh a uh easier scheduling option.

And then as uh as uh others have talked about the partnerships, very interested in what uh what the discussions in the 1000 survey from with community ed, and can that be then brought into this marketing and then uh and then our partnerships and and then to uh Dr.

I mean Dr.

Council member doorings uh he may have a PhD, I'm not sure.

Uh uh as far as accessibility and the uh scholarships, sliding fee schedules, that piece and that ecosystem that parks and rec really trying to change that culture.

So those are the pieces from the survey that I'd really like to see highlighted and have us not lose sight of as we kind of zero in on maybe um specific facilities and RCTC.

If I can just council member to respond, um you may recall we had anticipated um jumping into some uh community engagement to inform some of the areas of uh the marketing communications that we would do with parks and recreation.

We had put a pause on a good majority of that until we we moved through the uh engagement with community ed as that came forward, and we saw that to be a great partnership and kind of asking the community once.

Um I would say as we learn more about what that data tells us, and now having this opportunity to overlay both with what uh Rochester Healthy Community Partnerships learned last fall as well as what we saw learned this spring.

I think we'll be in a great position to utilize that as we invest the majority of remaining funds yet this year.

Um, I would say in the spots that we have made some investment, um we're still seeing exactly what that return is looking like.

I imagine I'm saying what most of you know, which is uh it takes a little bit for that to stick for some folks, but the fact that we are present and marketing that today and building those partnerships, I think will serve us well moving forward.

Thank you.

Continue.

All right.

Um, as we talked about earlier, we've already partnered significantly on the RCTC campus.

We've made a number of sales tax investments, both in the dome, the sports center.

Um, we operate the fields that are on that site, and so uh a lot of existing collaboration again that we're trying to optimize.

As I mentioned before, option A.

Um, if you can see on this uh diagram, that would be uh, you know, the dome is item one, the existing field house slash Rochester Sports Center is building two, uh, area three and the red would be an addition to that facility.

Um, and then obviously a number of site improvements.

This option really contemplated reinvesting in the sports center, uh, the dome and trying to preserve that, but also build more capacity into the indoor recreation ecosystem.

Uh the challenge that came up last Friday is is at one point in time RCTC has utilized state bonds in this facility.

And based on that, the longest that they could uh do a ground lease for, which we would need a ground lease for any of these investments on the campus to secure the financing.

Um, the longest they could do a ground lease around this area in red would be 15 years.

And so if you're starting to talk about spending upwards of 55 million dollars to secure a ground lease, um less than 50 years.

We've actually been talking about 75.

Um, there's been a lot of conversation in that space on what the right number is.

Without state approval at the legislature this session, they can only go 30 years.

Um so there is some active work happening in that space that would at least allow us the opportunity to negotiate to 50.

Um, but on this particular site, 15 is the number, and that just doesn't seem tenable.

So I'm not gonna go deep with you on this option, but realize a lot of our conversations have centered around the term of the ground lease um as well as uh priority scheduling and operations and third-party operators and and so on.

So not gonna go through the details of that, but uh option A was an initial idea.

Um, and these represent all the additional investments.

The addition was about 40 million, um, and then the balance of the investments, really what it went into the existing assets uh to preserve the dome for continued use and for preserving the existing sports center for longer term use in the community.

Council member, uh council member Palmer.

What wasn't building one and building two paid for by our sales tax dollars?

They were partially paid for by our sales tax dollars.

So what percentage?

Um, I don't know off the top of my head to be honest with you, substantially for the dome, but not 100%.

Um, and significantly for I can go all the way back to the first slide here, but significantly for the uh sports center, but not 100%.

And then again, later on, they did some reinvestment with state bond proceeds, which kind of put us in this lower duration situation.

But fair point.

We've invested substantially in that.

Maybe the point I didn't say uh the thing I didn't say is with our current operations in the sports center, we are entitled to have public use after five o'clock in that facility.

They obviously continue to allow walking and running in there and other community programming that they're doing.

Um, but on a rental basis, uh, folks are allowed to use it after five, and there's a number of folks that obviously do that.

Um, and then the dome is run as a peer enterprise.

So uh they do tend to lease that from like four to six, and then your two other prime hours of the evening are available for community use.

So um, but again, substantial sales tax investments over a couple different periods of time, and I'm happy to walk back or get more information for you.

But um, I'd say the majority of the investment was from local sales tax.

So if we have a sales tax, how can they bond against our sales tax, or how did they tie that up?

Or is that we didn't know, or it's not in the contract?

What yeah?

So uh they they utilize that for some improvement to the building.

So the state is given what's called higher asset education funding.

Um, some of that flowed down into this building as they operated.

And I mean, we could retrospect these agreements and what we invested versus what we ultimately retained for utilization or how long our partnerships were in these spaces, but you know, really it's an exercise in looking forward in terms of what we can accomplish there.

Um, but if you're just in its maybe just to add some clarity when these initial investments happened, whether that was on the sports center, so building two um or building one, which is the football field and dome.

Those in all of the agreements that we have, even when in the initial agreements for construction, it was always intended that RCTC would own those and in perpetuity would be responsible for maintaining so in their maintenance in their perpetuity.

They haven't they have invested some heaper bonding dollars into the sports center, and we're trying to understand do they have those same constraints on the field and bubble or not.

So they own these facilities, we have access to the facilities.

We've had significant investment in the initial facilities, but they have the ongoing obligation as the owner of the facilities to continue to invest in them, and it's part of those investments.

They've used some of the state bonding dollars in the sports center field house.

So option B is an RCTC, all of these options have the potential to be partnerships with RCTC.

So option B would say we're gonna preserve the existing dome, operate the dome, do an expansion similar to the expansion we were talking about in option A.

Uh, four courts, and again, trying to meet the programming needs that were articulated in our engagement.

Um that could lend itself to more standalone operations.

Operations were of a strong thread of our conversation and different perspectives on wanting to retain operations as they were versus evolving to a third-party operating model.

Um, but this is a also a $55 million project.

It would still have to have the dome uh be a five-month dome because they run their outdoor football seasons, etc.

on the stadium as they do today.

Um, so compared to option C, which is a year-round dome, this would still be a seasonal dome.

Um, but you get the proximity to the uh existing recreation center.

Uh so again, approximately 55 million dollars uh for that.

Um we have the potential to operate that as a city.

Um I think uh you know, public rental in the field house would continue till after five.

So with our current agreement, we still preserve that opportunity.

Um RCTC would continue to have the capital costs with the field house, operating costs with the field house, and then we retain future responsibility for any capital and operating in the dome and the expansion.

Um with uh with this, some of the things that we have to think through is RCTC and the dome still prefers schedule priority to six o'clock.

So really we are talking about two prime hours of evening availability.

So back to what you know, Ms.

Bowman's presentation earlier.

Most of our desire for you know, community utilization is in the evening.

Um, we would have to continue to discuss around that.

And again, if we can't get up to 50 years of a ground lease in order to put that around this particular property, spending 55 million dollars um without securing your investment long term would probably put us in about the same situation we're at today, where we made significant investments and we don't have something to sort of attach to and have a longer term perspective in.

Um, so I think that's a challenge.

There's also other challenges with potential termination of you know, if we get a license or easement for parking, sometimes those tend to be shorter duration, but they're important to make the facilities work.

So, you know, we need to have that legislative approval to make anything work.

Um, I this applies to anything you're talking about right now.

If we'd say we're gonna wait a year, construction escalation is in the five to 10% category, so we lose two and a half to five million dollars of purchasing power every year we wait on these types of uh decisions.

So that also is a factor.

Mint state board would have to approve this, uh, but those key are the key terms.

Duration of the ground lease, I think it has to be at least 50 years.

Um that's down from 75, which we've been talking about, but um, we'd have to get legislation to accomplish that.

Um moving on to the year-round dome uh concept.

Um those slides are in a different order than what I have here.

Um moving on to the year-round dome concept.

Um this could be on the RCTC property, it could be on the South site, so where the existing regional sports and rec complex is.

This is as placed on the regional sports and rec complex.

If you think about the current RCTC dome, that's about 100,000 square feet.

Um, this has the potential to be 200 to 250,000 square feet.

Um, it is year-round.

So if you know there's a number of domes in the Twin Cities area that are year-round domes, we had a great conversation with the team in West St.

Paul around the operations of their facility.

Um, it seems like they have a lot of uh you know good synergy there.

I think this really uh this option really does uh meet a lot of the programmatic needs you talked about in terms of a more space for more flexible options, more city-driven programming.

Um, you have a full-size turf soccer field, so you preserve the turf, not for five months, for 12 months here.

You have a foundation around the facility, so it stays inflated year round.

The dome is insulated.

So, right now, our current condition, if it gets to be about zero degrees, it might be 35, 40 degrees in the facility.

Um, this allows for 68 to 72 degree temperatures in the winter.

Um, we've done some preliminary analysis on utility costs and expense.

Um, you know, we look at electrification of the system in order to tie into RCTC's renewable or our RPU's renewable transition in 2030.

But as you can see, um, if you look, there's six basketball courts or multi-purpose courts.

You could also put two of those in the blue.

Uh that just does didn't show through the right way in the presentation to have kind of a flexible transition zone that you could program for we'll call it more informal community programming.

But if you were running a big tournament, you could flip those into two courts.

Uh, the area in blue also would be for seating as well as indoor play and indoor play area.

So I think you have a lot of options, and then on the right, um, you have a lot of options for pickleball, indoor pickleball, which you know that's a well-utilized uh thing in the community and certainly showed up well in the responses.

So just a lot of programmable space here.

Um so just wanted to kind of outline that idea.

We feel like we could do that project on the South site for approximately 55 million dollars.

Now, if we would have made that decision as a standalone decision, I just want to know both this and the RCTC sites.

The way you get to 55 million on these is by the fact that the land is not costing you anything because you've already invested in that.

You've already invested in the site improvements and utilities and roads in order to make these things work.

And so, you know, if you would have done this as a standalone project before, it would have been much more expensive than 55 million over 65 million.

So we are trying to take advantage of existing investments with this idea.

Um, in our conversations with RCTC, um, a lot of the options for site placement have been sort of ruled out.

Um, so you know, we are trying to navigate that and have further conversations with them, and that we'll talk more about that during the recommendation.

But you can just see some of what you know, the indoor concepts could look like there.

There's the dome that was done in Makato, similar idea.

Um, just again, looking at the summary here, I talked through most of this.

This could roll into a standalone operated facility, or it could roll into the regional sports and rec complex governance model.

Um we have a very high level again, just initial due diligence that very much is subject to further design, but a utilities estimate of 350,000 annually and other operating costs that are you know, we'll call it non-staffing operating costs at 145,000.

Um again, we think this option really does align strongly and is consistent with the original indoor concept that we talked about.

Most of those programmatic are there, but it also gives us the opportunity to preserve the turf space, which is you know shown to be important in an evolution since our original conversations in this space.

Is if we are going to do this on the regional sports and recreation complex site, we would need to make a decision by about June 1st.

So at your June 1st city council meeting, um, we would need to have something from you all that said, please make these adjustments to the site because the parking isn't in the right place for this right now.

Um, as you can see on the the diagram, I'll just back that up.

Uh the the parking isn't exactly on the right place for that.

Um we would have to shift some of the utilities before you know they get too far into the grading.

Um so those two items, you know, would be cost savings or adjustments we need to make now so we don't incur significant additional future costs to make that adjustment.

If you decided that you want to just do them to preserve the option, you can do that.

You just might end up with kind of a funny parking orientation because you but for that you would have this very significant middle space that would have been reserved for the building, and the relationship to the existing uh fields wouldn't be as strong.

So, with that, our working recommendation uh really is to uh pursue an RCTC focused option, um, which could be option B or option C.

Um, to do that, we need the legislation for 50 years.

Uh we need agreements that are generally acceptable to recommend to you and the RCT or the mid state board by May 25th.

We have drafts of those agreements that we've been doing to walk with the partnership, they would need to be modified, of course.

Um and then we would bring back to the council a working project budget approach to financing um after we did more preliminary design, you know, on the option.

Uh, and then if we don't have an RCTC option by the 25th of May, um, we would on your June 1st meeting bring you an option to uh adjust the South site um to preserve the option to do that, and then begin the design process uh there ultimately.

So with that, I'm happy to stand for any questions that the council has.

Council member Fredericks.

Thank you.

I'm a I'm a fan of one if you can get a 50-year lease because I like the option to have programming tied in with the volleyball center.

They're both on that side for a court type uh venue.

Uh and I just I guess I'm a fan of traditional construction.

Uh the next question I have the question that's just an opinion.

But the question I have is the fabric on that dome.

How what's the what's the life on that?

Uh approximately 20 years.

20 years, and what's the replacement cost in that each 20 years?

Yeah, so on the existing uh site, I think we're like carrying a number of like 1.6 million, Zach, if I remember that right.

Um, this is bigger.

So every 20 years you do have a cost.

Now you have a cost of about double would be the cost.

I think so.

Yeah, I think that's fair.

And then you but you also have every 30 years to replace a roof or you know, name the name name the thing with traditional construction.

Um at least I hope not.

I mean, honestly, like a civic center is more the the library with replacement was like upwards of two million dollars, and that's a much smaller footprint, obviously, that we're talking about here.

So two compared to 38, those are pretty I mean you're saying 3.8 to do that right now plus 10 percent a year.

Yeah, I mean there is some there's some differential for sure.

Yeah, but I would also say some of the wear and tear on these uh from the teardown uh put up, there's a lot of uh challenges with that and a lot of wear and tear that's unnecessary, is particularly with the way they're stored.

So but agree you would have to think about the idea in 20 years that you would need to replace that.

Well, and this one would stay in place, it won't be coming down each going back up and all that.

Okay, just yeah, I just want to weigh that out.

I'm not trying to poke holes in it.

Yeah, no.

Councilmember Palmer.

Well, I'm just gonna say to Mr.

Frederick, we've done two million dollar roofs in about four different we've done two million dollar roofs in about four different spots in Rochester already.

So um the building across the street, that building over there in the rec center, and so um I I have some problems with this only because of the of being burnt once is kind of a hard way to move ahead.

And and you said at least once we're at five percent design.

Um you given us a dollar amount of 55 million.

I mean, are we at 110 million?

Are we why why do you think 55 million is going to do it when last time it didn't?

Yeah, I mean, I obviously I I want to manage expectations here, you know, realizing sometimes uh the construction estimates miss, and sometimes you want to do more than what we've talked about here.

And that's always part of the conversation in terms of you know what the design process yields, like there may be scope beyond what we talked about here.

Um, and there just may be things that come up.

So I have some level of confidence.

It's not like you know, we did work with you know some construction management teams, you know, to generate the initial numbers, but we're also sort of designing to a budget here.

Um, and I think you're gonna scale your project to the budget versus the alternative.

I mean, I think that's the approach we've taken to date.

But if you came and said we really need to have 300,000 square feet because of ABC and D, just a different conversation.

So that's why we were trying to manage expectations there.

I mean, literally got burnt from the last consultant that told us we could do this all, and and we're sitting here um with people telling us, well, I saw this and I saw this and I saw this, and now I'm seeing pictures of eight or ten uh pickleball courts, and for some reason we do six, we're gonna hear about it, or we're gonna have eight basketball courts, or we're gonna hear about it.

You know, and the last consultant I always use the example of said the land was a one million dollars and it turned out to be five.

So you understand where I'm a little leery on on what we're doing here and in and what we're trying to do.

Um I appreciate the RCTC um information, but to me, it doesn't seem like it's it's a um a deal that's worth going if we've worked on it since last April.

Um we've been in negotiations with them.

And um, you know, if this is a site we own and and put it out there and do that would be, I think your better bet because I'll go back to RCTC and their marketing.

It's it's been absolutely not working for us in it, and that's very difficult.

Yeah, maybe just one thing um to add to Councilmember Palmer's comments, and I appreciate um, you know, we've all have a lot of uh emotional energy wrapped up in into this project, and you know, there's certain things that haven't gone how we wanted them to, right?

Um, but I would also say some of the bigger risk areas on the south side in particular are are accommodated for here already.

We we know what the land acquisition price was.

That's accommodated for in the existing project budget.

We we have a good sense of the geotechnical situation on that site.

Um we are moving ahead with all the site design, which is where a lot of your challenges come up.

The grading's accounted for.

We were making that pad ready already.

So um we have gotten consultation and estimates from a dome manufacturer for the fabric, which is a large portion of this project cost.

Um, so we're we're not you know, we're coming to this with some level of rigor, but again, I just you know, I can't manage if evolution of the project and or you know, the price of concrete gets crazy because this is a fairly concrete intensive exercise for the foundation.

So those that that's your big variable here, but a lot of the things we normally um have challenges on projects, we're clear of those on the south side at least.

So so our um the Rochester Athletic Club has a dome.

You play tennis in that dome.

Um, they don't air condition it, so it's a little warm in the summertime, playable, but they don't they only have space heaters.

They're not they're not the temperature isn't 72 degrees or 68 degrees.

Why do you think that we need to be at this?

I mean, if you're gonna be there to participate and you're inside, why why do we need to have that high utility bill?

I mean, I think that's something we can certainly evaluate.

Um, you know, you can always manage your temperature control, but the you know, there's moisture issues you have to deal with on this site, and you have to keep it inflated somehow too.

That's part of the process and how what kind of area you're using for that.

Um, but certainly, you know, we can evaluate that as we move along.

But they're not, I mean, these are utility-intensive exercises, but it's not appreciably different than some of the indoor facilities we have either.

If you look at we can do that benchmarking for you as we move forward, um, but any of the indoor facilities at all of this scale are gonna be in this space.

So thank you.

Councilmember Miller.

Sure.

I I appreciate hearing from staff on this, but uh and the process where we discussed this.

We specifically directed council president Schubert and Councilmember Wall and the mayor to work on this process as well as a an extension of our council conversation.

And so I haven't yet heard from either of them on these options, and I'm curious their perspective from a few angles, the partnership opportunity with RCTC and how this project has evolved from perhaps in an initial concept to these recommendations and how your perspective in that process has been.

Sure, I can start uh and uh what I would say is, and it's uh I'll be very transparent.

It has been uh kind of up and down discussions that we've had, and we've gotten some positive feedback, and then we've gotten some kind of barriers that have happened.

The way I look at it is I know that we can do a better job of uh bringing access to the RCTC site.

We have a stake in that uh uh facility and the ground and the and the ball fields around it.

So bringing greater visibility, greater marketing to that facility to make sure that it uh it uh is maximizing its potential and uh and helping reduce the current deficit that uh that RCTC incurs.

So bringing greater attention to that facility, as I said earlier, the entire ecosystem is important as far as partnerships.

Then with the options, as Mr.

Parrish said, uh option A, we got kind of kind of a no on that one just a day or two ago.

We all got it at the same time.

So that one is not as much of an option.

The what I call the Uber dome, it's between do we find a site on the RCTC campus that will accommodate a 50-year ground lease.

That is one option, and then there's the the Southern option.

And and one of the questions that I have, and uh because these this is fast moving, is what are the the cost differences between putting it on the RCTC site and putting it on the uh Southern sites and what are those cost benefits?

Are there benefits?

Transportation is a key piece to it, uh location is a key piece to it.

So that's where I'm at on it.

Uh and uh I'll I'll let council member Wall give his thoughts.

Yeah, thank you, and thank you, uh Mr.

Miller.

Uh having had a front row seat uh for uh five and a half months, uh first I would offer commendations uh to Mr.

Parrish and Mr.

Bolt and Administrator Zelms for the hard work that they have put in on behalf of the staff uh and providing innovation, uh trying to find different iteration after iteration after iteration after iteration uh for consideration uh with uh RCTC officials.

I certainly commend Council President Schobring and May Norton for their personal conversations that they have had with RCTC leaders with Minnesota State Board members, and uh there was one more.

Oh, and with legislators uh that would seek to help move this uh project forward on the uh RCTC campus.

Uh we have run into those barriers uh repeatedly, and I continually have uh uh pushed the mantra that we need willing partners in whatever we do.

Uh I think that our most willing partners are the people of uh Rochester who desperately want uh some of this indoor, especially winter uh space, uh, that uh we as a council need to move forward in a way that will uh truly be able to answer in a way that will make it efficient and uh not present so many barriers for us uh both now and into the future.

So I I perceive that is where we are going as this uh group of uh five or six uh city officials that have been meeting with four or five RCTC folk uh week in and week out.

Um I appreciate that uh we need a great deal more community involvement and and costs and uh assessment of uh funding funding uh for this that is uh to come, as has been promised by Mr.

Parish.

Um we have uh covered uh so much ground uh and I think that we are headed toward a more certain future because we have been able to eliminate so many pieces of this puzzle uh in the past five and a half months of uh incessant meeting.

We took Christmas off what what he said.

Thank you, council member.

If I may, as a follow-up to that, uh you brought up the idea of a willing partner.

Uh, do you feel like there is a lack of willingness on the part of RCTC?

And the only reason I ask that is because I agree, and that's the sense that I got in some way reviewing these slides.

And I'll I'll just note we have another higher ed partner in the room who mentions recreation in their presentation.

And I just wonder in this broader conversation, what is the right long-term partnership?

And it sounds like there are quite some challenges with the RCTC structure of land.

And it seems like maybe I'm reading into this, but there seem to be more challenges than opportunities in these ground lease terms and the governance structures, and perhaps even the willingness.

I'll I'll just note that I don't see any RCTC representatives, and unless I'm mistaken in the audience today.

And I wonder if either of you might speak more to that.

Council More.

I'd love to.

Uh uh actually, uh that that has been uh suggested.

Uh I think there's been at least three other community partners that have been suggested as possibilities uh and needing uh a great and willing partnership.

On behalf of RCTC, I will say uh I served as an administrator at uh Augdenberg College, now Augsburg University, at a time when which resources uh were uh constrained.

And uh I would say that uh for RCTC, uh probably is true for UMR as well.

Uh their chief goal is to educate people uh for the people who deal with finance uh at RCTC.

Their chief goal is to ensure that they have the financial viability to uh enter the next two and five and ten and twenty years.

So that uh perhaps uh what I perceive as barriers uh is fairly logical on their part uh because providing community access to recreation probably doesn't rank on their top 10 things to do.

Right.

I'll just add, and I just want to commend this council for last October, really making the commitment to have these discussions with RCTC.

In the uh discussions that we've had to with them, we have always been transparent that uh that we had other options, that it wasn't just going to be RCTC option.

I would uh echo what council member Wall said as far as commending our team, and that's it, the entire team, including the mayor and everybody else that's here, that the resolve of our team uh and what we're looking at is do we have that support?

The result resolve that we have is that the community wants something that is focused on this, and our commitment to making something that works both for the community financially for the city and uh and has a long-term uh advantage to all of us, is I think gotten stronger.

And if I might just shift then, I I hear that we have a 55 million dollar budget, but I don't hear potential funding sources, and I'm just curious about creating expectations that now we have a project with a budget, perhaps roughly.

But I just worry about the expectations that we're creating here and now showing potential concepts, even at 5% design.

And I don't know what my question is in that, but how how might you reassure us, Mr.

Parrish, about the path that we're on?

Yeah, I mean, I think this is uh I always like to tell new teammates that join the city, like we make our sausage in public, right?

So, you know, and in different contexts, you know, we would have you know more discrete iterative conversations, but we need your policy guidance in order to have these iterative conversations, and we we make our sausage in public.

So, you know, right wrong or indifferent with that.

Um, it's the right way to do it.

It's what we value, and but at the same time, you know, it's iterative.

We we need to understand are we pointing in the right direction so we can get you good and better information, um, and then we can evolve that recommendation because what might work for option one, let's say, so we're not referring to anything here.

A financing path may not be viable for that, but for option two, it might be.

So we just need some context that we're pointing in the right direction, and then we'll bring back, you know, those next things and we'll further iterate from five to 50 to 100%, and ultimately hope to bring you something back and maybe just a point of privilege.

I I have appreciated, I think this is a good example of how a staff council partnership can work.

Um, you know, I think everybody has made their maximum effort here, um, no more so than the elected officials that you know we're we're serving here and all the work that they put in on this and continue to do so.

Um, and and you know, if we don't, if we are in a situation, you know, just the partnership might not line up.

Um if we are in that situation, I still think we're looking at options for, you know, what can we do to enhance and maximize optimize what we have, as the council president has said.

Um, what can we do to ensure that there isn't uh a year off of the dome if we are going down uh an option C path where could we find a way to get the dome up?

We may have to take some risk in that as a city, but to preserve and have some continuity in that over the next one to two construction cycles before a new facility could come on board.

So, you know, we're definitely having those conversations.

We still have strong partnership on the fields and still wanna, you know, obviously have collaboration.

So I think we're really trying to look at this from a multifaceted perspective.

Councilmember Keene.

Thank you.

First, just and I know these are five percent and all this, but you mentioned some of the cost of the known the RPUs, the other ones, about a million dollars.

Is the is the operation projected, and I'm gonna make this up like three, four, five percent of the cost of a project.

And then the question is would we project with our city municipal experience that this is gonna have an impact on the levy?

This is going to come back to the city to run.

Yeah, and we'll look at this financially from two perspectives.

We'll look at the the annual operations, right?

I mean, no different than what we were looking at in the regional sports and recreation context.

You know, what is our pro forma for indoor outdoor?

It also matters where it is.

So, you know, we're iterating in both of these spaces, um, and whether we have a private provider, et cetera, um, here.

Um, so I think you have to be okay with the idea that it could, but you know, we will try to do an when we bring the preliminary design back.

Part of that is some operating projection, like you received with the original information to say this is what you could expect for a deficit or this is what we're projecting for surplus, and you at least make an informed decision, you know, saying, yes, I want to proceed with the project with that understanding.

So that's part of the process.

I again, I didn't know I don't expect an answer that says this is what the dollars are.

I know they don't know that, but I want to bring that into this conversation because that's part of why we went more outdoor than indoor, because clearly indoor and then winter is a higher expense, and clearly, you know, when you have this sort of indoor space, even in a dome, um, you're gonna have a higher uh carrying costs.

Um, the question sort of, and I and there's no answer for this here either, but are there perceived rents enough for those basketball courts at night or on weekends or for those that indoor stuff?

Is there enough there?

Or when you get back to the cost part of this, it says like, no, this is clearly subsidized, and we ought to have that in the front of our minds as we go into this.

Yeah, I mean, uh, what we uh also again, not to put it back to the group and the community working group and the council, but um, to the extent that you want affordability, um, to the extent that you want informal programming, which is what you heard in your survey results, um, that can come with the the lack of ability to generate income that offsets your operating costs.

So we need to find the intersection of revenue and producing activity to support operations and that opportunity to make sure we have affordability as we'll attempt to define that for you.

So that's thank you.

And I'm not looking for an answer, but I just want to get that into the discussion.

Um, so a couple of things.

When I look at this right now, um, a couple of things.

One is I have tried to watch through my peers what's been going on with the RCTT.

And I'm scared off from it.

I'm uh I am uncomfortable coming back with no matter where we get sales tax or other sort of funding to say this is a good way for us to invest city resources because of the time horizons that that aren't there.

And because of that, I've focused my attention on option C being built at our new complex.

Um, and like we say, we're not talking about we're going to do it or we're not going to do it, but two things on it.

One is I really do think it addresses some of that things we were hearing last like us last summer and fall about the problems with the one we were going with that.

Now it has the indoor thing, it has all that community aspect of evening usage, but it also is a tournament sort of thing, and it's got it is a better good assets.

I've been talking to people about are the domes really like secondary citizens compared to you know these other places, and they're not.

They they can be run really well, and and then there is the playground space.

So I think I I like the direction.

Um, and because that I want to make sure we do what we can between now and June to make sure we stay on that path.

I think that's different than making a decision.

I think what we're doing is just keeping that option open.

Um I um is as far as um going back on this.

I I still believe that the uh the best way to kind of combine this stuff would be some sort of partnerships with our major sports groups, but also our park and rack running this space and programming.

I think that connects the two parts of having that good like tournament sort of space, but also making it available for others.

And I think that's when you start getting into partners and hiring someone else to do it and having the profit motive into it.

I just think we lose uh control of that.

Uh but those are the things I'm worried about sitting here.

I I do worry that we're going to make commitments to the 2030 uh levy without knowing it and then being surprised when it hits.

We should assume that this discussion has those potential, uh hopefully not, but potential there.

Councilmember Doring.

Yeah, Councilmember Keene just uh highlighted a lot of what I had been thinking here as well.

Um I had heard in this presentation as well as as conversations with colleagues who have who have been at the table with RCTC, that ultimately we have a very hesitant partner there.

Um and and and part of that is is just uh caused by legislation and and the reality of the space.

So um if we were going to go for it, I'd be much more comfortable pursuing option C at this point uh because there is a modicum of control there for for the city.

Um I do have a question though.

Um if if this were to come back to us by June 1st and we abandoned uh pursuing the RCTC relationship.

How much further in the design process could we be?

Uh could we be any further into the design process to help inform our decision?

I think we are by that point in time, we would have some additional information that would assuming we can develop some level of consensus with RCTC about where and their property because it's a very large, it's a large footprint, 250,000 square feet, it's like 700 some feet long and 300 some feet wide, or I mean I'm don't quote the dimensions, but it's big.

Um, and so you know, it's not the easiest you know thing to place on a site and and you got utilities and parking and all these other things you got to navigate.

So um, with that being said, we will try to give you a comparison if we can develop some consensus with RCTC about this is what an RCTC option would look like, this is what the South site would look like, and the adjustments we would have to make in order to make that happen.

I think what I heard you saying is for the South site.

Yep.

I think we could definitely, if we're focusing in on the South site, that you could get more specifics.

And maybe if I could just also clarify, I don't think that would be, I don't think this was your intent, either fully abandoning the RCTC relationship, but really we would be much more narrowly focused on existing facilities and trying to still maximize access to the facilities that have existed for some time in partnership with RCTC in the city.

Um, but I guess maybe just for clarification, what I heard being said was would we have to be able to focus more on the South site?

What could if we were more focused there, could we get better like further along on design?

I mean, Zach, I mean you're working on a lot of that stuff now, so I believe that's to be true.

Yeah.

Councilmember Wall.

And I would add just a little bit uh to what Ms.

Elms has said, and uh maybe it was just an unfortunate uh set of words.

We don't intend to abandon our relationship with RCTC.

We still expect to use the field house and have community access.

We have city uh investment in that.

Uh all the fields we have out there are incredibly important to our youth sports program.

And further, uh, we have said uh in our uh Monday meetings that our city has no interest but to have the very best RCTC possible, the very best UMR possible.

Uh we we think we can win together.

Yeah, just to re-iterate to restate in another other words what council member wall said.

I think we will continue our discussions with RCTC.

They will know what direction that we're looking at, but uh as far as capital costs, but that partnership and really making sure that there is access, that there is ease of uh of scheduling and that uh there is visibility for the offerings there as well as the outdoor fields and uh and uh making that uh a better uh service for for us as well.

So those discussions will continue and there will be a new enhanced RCTC partnership with the city.

We just may not have a major capital project down there.

Yeah, uh thank you for for clarifying that.

That was my intent.

Uh so thank you for providing that clarifying information.

Uh Councilmember Palmer.

Um let's just assume we go to C.

Is there a way for us to help out with the dome that's existing there so we don't lose that piece of property in Rochester um in the winter time?

Um, Councilmember Palmer, uh, I think the fabric there is, you know, getting to the end of useful life.

Um there's been challenges with storage over the years, etc.

You know, with that.

Um, I think we certainly want to entertain a conversation about the interim period so we don't lose service.

Um, I'm not sure that you have a lot of opportunity beyond that.

What's the cost to replace their dome right now?

Um, the cost to replace the I there's HVAC issues, et cetera, but I think we were carrying three and a half to four million dollars in those estimates we included in the packet.

And if I may, I think part of the challenge is that it does not appear that there is strong interest from the current operator owner of that facility to continue to do that.

Okay.

Great discussion.

Thank you, everybody.

Uh council member Keene.

Go ahead.

I just want to make sure.

I mean, in the study session, we're supposed to give guidance here.

Does the staff feel like they have what they need to yes?

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Keene, for confirming that.

Next, we have uh comprehensive surface water management planal draft, Mr.

Luxteen.

Again.

That was pretty clear.

Excuse me.

You gotta act like one.

I believe all right.

Good evening, Council President, Council members.

Thank you for having us tonight.

Aaron Luxine, and with me is Troy Erickson.

He's our water resources manager.

We'll be co-presenting tonight.

I'm starting to lose my voice.

You're gonna hear a lot more from him than myself.

So try and follow along here.

Um so hopefully you've all we've been to council about a year ago to give you an update on this.

So hopefully you're familiar with uh this is a new topic for you.

Um we'll do a quick refresher though.

The comprehensive source water management plan describes our current service water and groundwater resources and how stormwater impacts those.

So we're looking at both what's happening on the on our surface as well as impacts underground.

It identifies all of our local, state, and federal regulatory requirements.

We're heavily regulated both by the federal EPA, the state pollution control agency, and then local requirements and even things like wetland protection um acts, things like that.

It also establishes goals and policies that are aligned with the city's principles and strategic priorities.

We made sure that we've updated those as those have advanced um with uh council um adoption there, and then it guides our Campbell capital improvement investments and development standards.

So this does not change standards, but it will guide um future standards as we have discussions on that.

And then you'll hear a lot from Troy on how it will help us uh select our capital improvement investment investments as we move forward.

Um, and then it covers a wide range of topics, um, everything from water quality to flooding to groundwater protection, how we're handling construction stormwater, primarily with the Rosen sediment control, and then also public education is a big component of what we do.

I want to emphasize what it doesn't do is again, it doesn't change any development permitting or engineering standards.

This is a guiding document that will be used.

Um, any of those other changes um other than I guess engineering standards would all come back to to council, but we'd use this in making decisions on whether or not we change those.

It also doesn't change any of our stormwater utility rates.

Uh that would come forward as a separate utility rate evaluation process and recommendation to council.

And it also doesn't mandate any projects, notably capital improvement projects.

So why is an updated plan needed?

We currently have one and is from 1999.

Um and a lot has changed since 1999, and it doesn't reflect today's challenges, notably around a lot of the regulatory changes that have happened as well as Rochester's growth.

Um, it didn't consider anything related to destination medical center, as well as a lot of the supporting development that came with that.

We've had two updated um these are state and federal MS4 um permits that that now have additional requirements.

There's also been what are called total maximum daily load studies where they look at the amount of pollutants in our receiving water bodies and a need to reduce the amount of pollutants entering those to hopefully restore them to what they call an unimpaired state, which means they're healthy receiving water bodies.

And then also the city has its planning to succeed 2040 complan, which called for an update to this plan in coordination with that.

We did an extensive amount of engagement and outreach activities, notably in the first two years of the process with the public, a lot of internal teammates.

We brought in developers and their consulting engineers, several surveys and questionnaires.

We also did it, we didn't go through the full co-design efforts, but we used a community advisory group, uh, very, very similar to that co-design process.

Um we developed an interactive uh ArcGIS online hub that is still active uh today, and uh encourage you to take a look at that.

Um we did a lot of visual strategic uh mapping workshops, and and I as I look around the room, I know we've had a few council members that actively participated in those uh sessions as well.

Um, and then we did uh stakeholder public forums and an open house right across the river here to gather feedback from the community on what their priorities are um as well as get an idea of of the services that they expect um related to that.

We then took all that information and broke it down into five focus areas and then a lot of subfocus areas.

So we call them issues, but another word for that is either a topic or or subfocus area first and foremost, but I guess in no particular order, but um to protect the natural environment.

So again, that's our surface waters, our groundwaters, both quality and quantity, and then natural habitat specifically as it relates to connectivity, um, is a big struggle, things that our community is losing now.

Improve climate resilience, uh establish effective policy and program procedures.

This is the boots on the ground, and that's why it's the biggest category.

So this is all the regulatory requirements, permitting requirements, capital improvement projects, things like that.

Improve our stakeholder awareness and support.

A big piece of that is outreach education and public participation.

Uh, a good example of that is a little bit better than we have going on right now, and a lot of community members are participating in that.

And then established fiscal responsibility, and this really looks at asset management.

Um, if you think about it, we just had a couple weeks ago we brought forward a project that looked at rehabilitating all of our stormwater catch basins when we did mill and overlay projects.

That becomes a big expense, all the manholes that you see.

So, really looking at how do we make sure that we can um up front think about the infrastructure that is being built and then the long-term cost associated with that and make decisions up front before they become too expensive on the back end.

And so the the last thing I'm gonna cover before I turn it over to Troy is we had a robust discussion with community members and elected officials around community expectations uh related to level of service, and it really gets into what is that performance standards that our residents expect, whether it's related to when they're driving down a street, how often is that street flooded?

Is it every single rain event?

Is it once every 10 years?

Things of that nature.

The condition of our stormwater ponds, many of those are an asset to communities.

They want to well-maintained, they want uh native grasses and and um flowers and things like that.

So, what are the the level of expectations from our community members?

Um, and and what you'll hear we really looked at and what we heard is specifically from rain events.

It's those two-year events, so those nuisance conditions, they see it every time.

The street corner is always flooded.

I always have water running through my backyard.

It happens on a regular basis.

We call those nuisance conditions that really they see the most, or the extreme flood scenario where we have significant property damage.

And that's the area where they really say you got to protect against those two, and obviously there's a wide range in between there.

Troy, I'll turn it to you here.

All right, thank you, Aaron.

So I'm gonna talk about it's really four key plan components that really make it unique.

And those four include integrated stormwater management, uh, the evaluation of the entire drainage area, planning by uh drainage districts, and then our asset management capital improvement planning.

All right, not the end of that.

Um so first off, I want to introduce to you the approach, I guess it's called integrated stormwater management.

So integrated stormwater management is the practice of thinking about all factors that affect precipitation as it moves from the landscape to receiving water body.

So for example, um, you know, again, it accounts for all components of stormwater management.

So rate control, volume control, water quality, and and groundwater impact.

So those are all all aspects that we already account for in our ordinances and design standards.

However, what this integrated stormwater management approach does is it puts it in a logical sequence.

So we're trying to capitalize on you know on some connections there that work within our existing you know regulatory environment.

Um you can see on the bottom, there's there's uh an example of the natural water cycle, and then you um the next one over in the middle is a conventional urban water cycle, and then on the right, there's a sustainable urban water cycle, and kind of the biggest difference there is really what amounts to the amount of runoff.

So, really what what nature does is allows water to infiltrate to keep water in its place.

So that's what we want to capitalize on.

So and in every case, it's not possible in Rochester, but where we can, we want to take an advantage of that, and that helps for water quality and and really downstream impacts, like erosion and flooding.

So looking at looking at this a little further, a big part of integrated stormwater management is the implementation of green infrastructure.

But again, it has to be in a context that works.

Um the um this approach, again, it relies heavily on what we already do today with gray infrastructure.

So that means like like um traditional storm sewers, culverts, um, and bridges.

But then um, as we move into the watershed, there's a uh, you know, we look to rely on um you know what's termed engineered assets, so um, you know, things like infiltration um basins and things like that.

But and then as we move all the way over to um natural assets, so being able to utilize um you know like wetlands and and existing um you know drainage ways that already have a tremendous a tremendous amount of benefit to uh uh you know to the stormwater management and conveyance through the system.

So again, it's it's really looking at things, you know, from from in context with respect to the existing drainager and and working that through.

And and really it calls this for you know proactive development in that sense.

So um, you know, we we did investigate this concept with uh you know project that's been um that we've looked at for for some time, uh looking at the headwaters of of King's Run, so um in Northwest Rochester, and the uh graphic on the left um shows kind of the traditional approach where we look at that you know, uh basically a large detention basin that's that's intended to reduce flooding.

Okay, so it really fulfills one purpose.

It was it just put there, not really, you know, we understand the drainage area that that um flows to it, but beyond that, that's kind of where it sits.

It does its job, attenuates flows, and you know, and protects downstream.

The graphic on the right shows, oh I am so sorry.

Okay, I didn't catch that.

I apologize.

I saw some confused looks.

Okay, anyway, uh getting back to that.

Um the graphic on the right shows the integrated stormwater approach, where again, some of the um, you know, some of the natural assets within the watershed are preserved.

Um and you know, downstream it's built within in uh again with with what we call coal benefits, multiple benefits.

So, for example, this could be done potentially with in cooperation with parks and having some you know, whether it's athletic fields or walking trails that go around it, but but really with a um with a uh an area that's really designed to allow uh flood waters to to pool up and slowly release over time to protect downstream.

All right, I think one thing to note there, Troy, is you can see the size of the original pond, the the blue cell there is significantly smaller when you can hold water close to its source, and so by preserving a lot of the natural areas, not allowing encroachment on some of our uh riverways or or steeper slopes and holding it close to land, you can get away with with smaller ponds that do allow for that fluctuation when water reaches it.

So yeah, great point.

That's another advantage of that.

Council member Palmer.

Um let me let me figure out if I understand this correctly.

That you um all of our new subdivisions that we have all have retention ponds that are paid for by the developer, which is obviously paid for by the homeowner, correct?

So go ahead.

Yeah, by and large, it's true.

There are some exceptions where where we have built regional facilities.

Um, you know, for example, uh Pebble Creek, there's a large um pond that was built uh within the last few years that serves the development and northeast quadrant of that.

But but the developer paid for that.

Uh they uh the did not pay directly for that particular pond.

Um they will, there's there's swim pack fees that will contribute to that over time.

But but by and large, the developer will um ultimately pay for the stormwater management uh infrastructure.

Stormwater will pay for it.

So I guess where I'm getting from is last 25 years, we basically have had retention bonds put in all these all the new development.

So the rain that just fell today out here, where's that water go?

It goes to the Zumbral, correct?

They have no retention ponds here, there's no retention ponds and any of the existing neighborhoods at all.

Is there's not um so at Soldiers Field, we did a retention pond um upgrade on the pipe.

So are are those homeowners in that area going to pay then for the upgrade in the in the stormwater?

They will pay with our stormwater utility fee that funds those projects for the the pond that was put in, if we speak specifically to Soldiers Field, that was done.

Um ultimately for I guess for a project that will occur sometime in the future for 10th Street and the new regulatory requirements that that require stormwater management for that.

So to address exactly what you're saying to address um uh stormwater management areas where none exists.

But they're not I'm paying.

I I live in a neighborhood that paid for their own retention pond.

So my money is gonna go to that area.

Why don't they have to pay for the area that's affected more than just the regular uh monthly fee?

Yeah, so the way our our program is set up.

So any developments will either pay to build their their own stormwater ponds as required and conveyance systems as required on development, or they'll pay into our what we call a swim pack fee.

And in some cases, it's bold, depending on the scenario.

So development is paying for development in terms of stormwater management.

Um residents and commercial properties also pay a stormwater utility fee that is built for every parcel, and that is used to operate and maintain the collection system.

In some cases, it is used for capital projects to do retrofits in areas where we have street flooding and we might need to you know divert that stormwater either and build a pond or do some infiltration.

Um, but the majority of that is for operation and maintenance of the existing collection system.

Okay, I guess what I'm trying to say, I'll say it clearly in the last 30 years, the residents that paid for their retention pond.

And in so now we're going back to the existing areas.

If you did one for downtown, why would you want to use that fund for that?

Shouldn't there be a special fee to the people that actually get the benefit from that?

Not sure I'm fully understanding.

Let's let's say I'm at metal metal creek or metal um park and they don't have retention pond, and all of a sudden you decide you want to put one in there, you're taking it out of the fee that the whole city pays.

Shouldn't there be a special fee just for that particular that benefiting those particular homes?

Administrator zones, were you gonna address it?

So one thing I get.

So one, we're not talking about fees tonight or the fee structure or how it's paid or any of any of that.

That'll come later as part of a uh a rate study associated with it, and we can look at how whether or not we recommend continuing forward with the current process or we change it.

So tonight is not intended to get into any fee discussions on how anything would be paid for as part of this plan.

That's a that's a separate council action that comes later.

Go ahead.

Unless everyone is clear, I think that the concern is that if as we continue to adjust our our surface water management plan, is that going to create haves and have nots where we have existing developments that have ensured based on all of their approval process that they are retaining the water that they are creating on site?

And if there are places around town where there is something that's being constructed with the ongoing monthly operations and maintenance fee, we should have very clear like guidelines for if that's happening, is it just to serve one piece of the community, or is there some other distributed problem that is been created that's going to have multiple benefit?

And what I'm hearing Mr.

Luxtein say is that those are things that they take into account if we see major changes with the final surface water management plan that says we need to say no, we will never pay for like a specific storm uh drainage basin with the ongoing monthly fees again.

We need to have some other process that might come forward.

I don't know that that would be the case, but there are situations throughout any place where water goes where it's not just one location that's either contributing to the problem or receiving the value of the solution.

And so what I'm hearing is we need to tie those very strictly to the funding sources that we have available.

Correct.

Thank you.

And the one thing I will add our ordinances do spell out how the storm swim pack can be used, and then also the stormwater utility fee.

And it's not black and white for every scenario.

So we look, we evaluate each one, and then select which for uh source funding sources appropriate.

I'll also give a precursor next month.

I will be back with um one way of how we might be able to fund some of these retrofits um in areas.

So you'll hear more about uh innovative uh idea that we've been working on.

I'm not shocked.

Okay.

Continue.

All right.

Okay.

Uh the next you know, key component of this plan is the is the evaluation of the entire drainage area.

Now, um, as you're well aware, Rochester sits kind of in a bowl with with multiple tributaries that um that ultimately tie into uh the South Fork the Zumbro River.

Um you can see in this figure, there's uh 10 drainage districts.

So by and large, most of them um are present around a particular tributary, the exception being the South Fork Azumbral River, um, which is one drainage area which was not modeled in its entirety due to its sheer size.

So um some exceptions were made to that.

Now, this is important because we're um we're looking at at you know, we want to we want to make sure we're we're uh accounting for all the influences of of the larger drainage area on the city, and conversely, what the you know, how the city impacts you know, uh the surrounding townships as well.

Um there's you know, great great level of of detail that goes into there.

Um, so this the storm water stormwater management plan largely deals with with the impacts on the landscape outside of the the central drainage corridors, and it's more in the central drainage corridors are more consumed with like the say the flood control project and things like that.

So there's a difference, but they're ultimately uh ties together there.

Um with that said, our next next um component is planning by drainage district.

So and I am behind here on that, sorry.

Um is again planning by drainage district.

Before I get into that, though, one thing for each drain district, we looked at this in a in a unique way through the lens of a risk assessment.

Now, risk is it's a it's the the product of the probability of occurrence, and then what are those consequences of that?

So we had a quantitative way of looking at at risk in and how we approach that.

Um, this graphic illustrates that.

Um we looked at this again at the you know, the first drainage we looked at was uh the Cascade Creek drainage district.

So that's you know, for there are a number of reasons why we chose that.

A lot of it had to do with the amount of development occurring in there, projects, um, different things.

Um but with that, um, as I mentioned, we looked at at the Cascade Creek Drange District, and we ultimately divide that into 87 subwatersheds and evaluated each one for risk across uh you know a wide array of of uh rainfall events ranging from the two-year event all the way up to a hundred-year event.

Now, um, this probably looks a little confusing seeing this, but um really what this illustrates it goes back to what Aaron had noted.

Um Rochester is really set up well for large large events like along the the stream corridor in terms of flooding.

We're we're well, you know, um there's been a lot of work gone into preserve and protect um areas along there.

But what this really shows is that um smaller events have a you know, I won't say a higher um it's not not a larger flooding problem, but what they they create um nuisance conditions, you know, more often, hence their scoring higher in this in this um assessment.

So you'll see two year, there's more of darker colored um subwatershed, say than in the hundred year.

Okay.

So what that's telling us is that there's there's more um there's there's again the the um there's more opportunity for those nuisance conditions.

That's really what we're we're trying to pick up on.

Um, and then looking at those across the the realm of or the continuum rather of uh rainfall events.

So by looking at that, we then see this next um this next slide, which really it's the it's the sum of risks, okay.

And then ultimately we're looking at um the prioritization.

So we see the the subwatersheds for which you know had in this case we looked at at the five um the five highest subwatersheds with respect to risk, and those that are hatched came to the forefront.

So when you when you delve into that, we see next this next slide.

Um you'll see kind of the results of our hydraulic modeling.

Ultimately, that's what we're looking to do to create a hydraulic model, which um digitally illustrates you know the impact of of flooding, and then um throughout the landscape.

So you can see on the left.

Um now this this particular area um is by I guess most notably um John Marshall.

So you can see the track and and that kind of thing.

And you can see I believe it's 13th Avenue.

There's a lot of um you know blue areas that showed that actually illustrates like uh areas that um during current conditions will experience some degree of flooding there.

Um you can see along Seventh Street, right where that intersects, you know, some more flooding.

So that's a sort of level of detail that this model will pull out.

And um ultimately, you know, that's the sort of information we're gonna look to develop um you know, capital projects and understand you know the effect on on residents and and others.

Um the the graphic on the right shows uh shows the uh same situation with projects applied.

And I'll get into some of those details with this next slide.

All right.

Um this uh table illustrates it's a summation of I guess the the three different types of of um approaches.

So the implementation of green infrastructure, so that'd be like rain gardens, tree trenches, uh infiltration bases, storage, both underground and surface storage, so in terms of ponds, underground would be like like chambers and things that are commonly used on site for developments, and then of course pipe upsizing, so increasing the conveyance capacity, you know, through storm sewers in our streets.

Um so this looks very generally at solving you know all those problems within the drainage district, and along with capital costs that would um would be necessary to do that.

Now, the intent is not to undergo every one of those projects that ultimately be prioritized, especially when we start looking around the city, but um it's again idea of the the magnitude of um improvements that would be necessary for that.

All right, so ultimately, you know, um, as I mentioned, the the drainage district assessment, it's it's a means of of um assessing capital improvement projects that have a uh a means of prioritizing their relevance, you know, um one project relative to another.

Um one thing, you know, I guess as part of this planning effort that that rose to the forefront in terms of being an important topic is asset management.

Um what we ultimately want to do is build out our asset management program, and that will allow us to have the proactive review and assessment of existing infrastructure, which then will allow timely development, implication and implementation of capital improvement projects.

Um but as part of that um we became very familiar with something called the envisioned rating system.

So what that means is when we when we have a project, uh the envisioned rating system, it's it's a framework that allows comparison alternatives that incorporate sustainability um components.

And you know, there's a number of factors that that come into play with that, but um, you know, a lot of things that we already incorporate into our our current standards, but it's just a way of looking at projects again to come up with with if we're looking at at a particular project and an alternative, it's a way of further refining that to make it as sustainable as possible and have the most benefit um you know in terms of its impact if it's flooding or water quality, but also in terms of its impact on the community.

All right.

Um then as I mentioned, we're we're we're summarizing a number of projects that that require a degree of refinement, um, evaluating those um with respect to envisioned rating system, and then um as we implement those projects, um observing and documenting really what the what the level service, how does it change the the way they um you know they impact the level of service within our community?

So whether it's street flooding or you know, if it's if it's um, you know, uh ponding and the impact, you know, overall.

So um, you know, there are a number of things that um that we take into account.

But the point is this process is iterative.

So once we implement projects, you know, those will be plugged back into the modeling and we see the benefit, of course, and that will reshuffle how how projects are prioritized.

So it's a it's an iterative process, you know, that's that's very involved, but it brings um forward just an opportunity with with using the best information available to ultimately uh define and create the best projects or most cost efficient products for the ensuing benefit with that.

And you can just keep driving for the last two slides.

Oh, sure thing, yeah.

Um so Troy just summarized the four main areas.

Those are gonna be the big buckets that you're gonna, we're gonna send the plan to you this week, by the way, which is why we're showcasing it here.

So you'll be able to read through that in in much more detail.

But those are the the big buckets concepts that are part of the plan.

Um uh to summarize it all.

So it'll provide a clear long-term plan on how we're gonna look at managing stormwater, protecting our water resources that aligns with the council priorities, the planning to succeed 2040 and all of our other regulatory requirements, and it's looking 25 years ahead as well.

So kind of bringing it up to date and looking forward.

It's promoting that integrated stormwater management approach, uh, as Troy noted.

So looking at mimicking natural systems as as much as we can, um, looking at green infrastructure and recognizing we we have to have gray infrastructure.

Um, and that's a part of every single development, but doing so in a way that improves water quality, reduces flooding, um, and supports our objectives and in a fiscally responsible way.

Um it evaluates the watershed conditions.

One thing, um, I don't know if you notice this on the map.

We actually are looking outside of the city limits and even our growth projections because a big thing that impacts Rochester is what's coming from outside.

So, and as we grow, um taking a look at that, it maintains our current development costs associated with with stormwater management.

So looking at that or uh recognizing the goals of the council is not to drive up development costs, it's actually looking for ways to reduce that.

And we've already made some adjustments based on the information we've been finding as we went through this to help reduce some of those costs.

It sets clear goals and actions um going forward, um, establishes that partnership between city departments.

I didn't talk uh a lot about that, but that was one of the key things.

We brought in all the different departments and talked to the emergency management and parks and community development and and how making sure that this plan recognizing that stormwater touches so many different things is being coordinated across um departments.

Um and then it it really promotes that stormwater infrastructure infrastructure that promotes co-benefits again.

So we're not looking to solve one problem or treat for one thing.

We're looking at multiple co-benefits that come with that at a cost effective price.

So you'll receive the uh proposed final draft of the comp plan this week.

Um our goal is to bring it, our plan is to bring it to council then, the last council meeting in May as part of a reports and recommendations.

Certainly if you have questions between now and then, reach out to Troy and I so that we can work through those.

Um and then after that, we'll be seeking a request for adoption of the plan.

Um, then you'll see all of these require council action.

Um as Troy said, so we've completed Cascade Creek.

We're working on King's Run right now, and we'll work through the rest of those drainage districts.

So every time uh we hire a consultant to do that next model, you'll see that come to come to council.

And then we'll update our asset management and capital improvement plans.

So you'll see those annually, the the capital improvement plan um components as they move forward.

And then in 2027, um uh we'll be able to do a utility rate study.

Our current rate study is I think nine years old right now.

Um, and so we need to get that uh updated, and that'll be coming back then to council in 2027.

We'll look at uh ways to be able to fund existing infrastructure as well as future.

And and again, each of these requires council action will be coming forward to you.

So with that uh take any questions.

Thank you.

Uh Councilmember Wall.

Thank you, Aaron and Troy.

Uh very informative.

Uh I perhaps uh am lost in the enormity of uh this task.

As I understand it, catchment 315 alone would require seven and a half million dollars of capital cost.

That's one catchment of 78 in one of ten districts.

How many catchments uh do we have that require that kind of investment?

Right.

So I want I want to be clear about that.

The the again the example that was set forth there, it does show you know that large that large um the cost associated with.

So there, I mean, so so clearly that's not realistic moving forward, you know, especially across the city.

Um, you know, each one of those will require, you know, again, the the projects need to be um, you know, these were done on a on a high level, so we identified, you know, um, you know, like say flood areas that that could be addressed through, I guess, one of three ways or a combination of those.

So we would look at those, and I think it it's it's an opportunity.

You know, we we have these to say there's like 20 areas within that particular subdistrict, there's probably too many, but we would we would look at those, find the ones that that you know, have the most the the merit have you know, have the most nuisance and look through that.

So um we don't intend to, you know, that that's not realistic coming forward with with that big of or that many projects, and we're not saying it's necessary, but it does bring to light, you know, if we were to fix all those, that's what what the what the you know costs would be expected to do.

Yeah, so simplified version.

We're looking for those that are going to bubble up to the top that are causing the biggest problems, whether it's property damage or the the nuisance conditions, and then be able to evaluate that against what is the most cost effective fix, both in terms of the capital cost, but then if you also saw we also looked at the life cycle maintenance cost of that.

So it allows us to be more strategic in where we're going to invest so that we are addressing the the largest issue at the most cost effective point, looking at the capital as well as long-term maintenance costs.

Councilmember Palmer.

So you showed Cascade Creek, which doesn't have any flood control retention ponds on it.

Um we had the old golf course that we've updated with DNR money, I believe, and we matched a little bit.

We've got the Negan property coming on board, which will then we'll have retention ponds, which we'll then have the floodway taken care of.

So isn't that going to affect what's going downstream on 7th Street?

That's one of my questions.

The next question is when you talk about news nuisance cost, I saw the one on 11th Avenue.

I mean, if so you can't go through the intersection for an hour as it drains through.

But but property cost, are we talking houses are being flooded?

Are we talking my front yard is wet for a day or two?

So to answer your first question first.

So the projects that'll be done in Cascade.

Um, reduce the amount of water flowing through there, slow it down, and re settle out a lot of the pollutants that come through.

But it the issues that we're facing um by John Marshall is more its capacity of that system.

Too much water is hitting that street too fast and pushing its way.

It's not not flooding back up in there, if that makes sense.

So two separate issues.

And so that project isn't going to directly improve or make a have a benefit for John Marshall.

So are we talking a wet road?

Um, I can't pass through it for an hour.

Are we talking that um I've got a basement that's flooded?

So, like in that scenario, most of it is wet roads or flooded up to right-of-way touching private property, some of it, you know, in those scenarios are coming right up to private property um impacts.

And so that's where you start to look at the risk associated with that.

And so that was just one scenario there.

We're not talking about houses flooded and all that in that scenario then.

I think Mr.

Wall used the number seven million dollars to to not have a wet road.

Is that what we're talking about?

So again, these are the conversations that we need to have.

One is the level of service and expectations.

Are people okay?

Because it comes down to investment.

Are people okay with a street being flooded for an hour, two hours being impassable?

Uh limiting any pedestrians, or in some cases, yes, impacting private property.

We just showed you one scenario.

These are the discussions that we'll conversations that we will be having in terms of level of risk, which is why we went through, you know, Troy gave you that scenario of evaluating risk.

Protecting property is going to rise to the top.

So if we have those scenarios, that's where we're going to look for those investments as we go throughout the city.

Um, the second is going to be what are people willing to pay for in order to address some of what could be a nuisance condition, like a flooded street that is impassable with stranded cars, things like that.

But that's a discussion on are we willing to invest in those areas to minimize that impact or not.

Councilmember Keene.

Uh, thanks.

Yeah, I guess I got a good uh education on some of the stormwater things back in 2019.

It's one of the only times in the last 10 years that we had a real test of some of our of our systems.

Um considering the way Rochester you said in a bowl, see all the water coming in from like three different directions and only going out in one.

Is that a unique aspect to our 50 mile city?

Or is there every city's got its own things in our stormwater spending?

Um of the city with the bowl effect that we have, everything coming down to the South Fork of the Zumbra River being that that pinch point.

And we've talked a lot about the flooding impacts.

That's why we had the floods in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, and why there was such a huge investment in the flood control system is because of the unique nature of Rochester.

Now there are comparable communities that have some similar challenges, um, even smaller ones that Rushford, for example, they they're in a similar situation with the Road River, right?

Well, what I was thinking of was the topography, like most of Minnesota is more flat prairie, where in Southeast you have a lot more of the the rolling hills, which to me is uh causes flooding concerns.

Um whether in place people build on top on ridges or they build near water sources, and those are the different things.

Rochester, I feel does have a unique risks built along the water things and the bowl, um, and some of our topography here with the the drop downs.

Yes.

Yeah, certainly unique.

And when it comes to stormwater, there's a couple things just to keep in mind.

A lot of it again is holding water where it lands.

The faster the water hits the ground and flows through our rivers, you're gonna have natural pinpoints within the system that is going to cause flooding.

Okay.

And so the best way to manage it is minimize the amount of pervious surface, you know, the amount of runoff, slow the water down as best as you can to hold it on on site and then strategically move it through the system, um, which is what our flood control, you know, largely does.

So what this plan does is it takes that into consideration.

We look at how can we help um rainwater, stormwater move throughout the city of Rochester and lessen the impacts, whether it's on private property right of way, um, or you know, like the flooding flooding type scenarios.

You guys talked a little bit about having this model, and I heard simulation, but I'm probably taking it further than it is.

Does that mean we can simulate six inches of rain over three hours in this part of Northwest Rochester?

Yes, that's a that's exactly what it does.

Um we're use yeah, we're using not to get too much in the details, but we're using a kind of the industry stand for that and allows you to, you know, again, once you have uh uh you know, the existing model set up, calibrated, allows you to input either like past storms that we've experienced through uh radar-based rainfall estimates or design storms, so we can look at all that, determine the term and understand what those impacts are.

Okay, yeah.

All right.

Um I've been lucky enough to work with you guys on a couple of projects where existing neighborhoods, existing flood control, but underperforming for whatever reason, too small of a catch base and something like that.

So I've appreciated, and some of the neighbors have too, this idea that we can come in and figure some of that stuff out and have some of the funds to do that.

So I think that's the benefit of having this stormwater uh enterprise.

Now the question is we have these fees that we've been paying over the years that are end up being used for these projects as you look forward.

Are they covering what we need to do?

Are they coming up short?

Is this another thing that we need?

Uh I mean, again, I'm not looking to do the rate study here, but does it look like we're okay with the way we've been funding this?

That's why we need to do the rate study in 2027.

Um, and we'll have information that come out of the models that we'll be able to run to help um give us a better estimate, both on the capital costs and then the long-term operation and maintenance cost as well.

Right now, um we've been able to have adequate funding to support the needs.

Um, but we are seeing uh the impacts of um changing climate patterns, you know, precipitation events, things like that that we hadn't seen before.

And so uh but that's your question.

I um yeah, I'm not looking for a yes or no.

I just didn't know if uh because of the change in climate pattern, there's no way we're keeping up with it, or it depends on that policy question that says you're willing to put up with two hours of flooding on Seventh Street, or do you want to say absolutely not?

I think those policy things play into what the rates are.

So I I do I just trying to bring up the as a topic as opposed to trying to solve it here.

Yep, council member is we are not proposing any changes to the utility fees or development fees at this point in time.

We'll do a study and bring it back to to council, and those additional policy discussions will come in then.

Council member Miller.

Just a short question on uh the each drainage district model.

So one is developed, one is in process, there are 10 total, right?

How long does each model take to develop and how long is the useful life of that model once developed?

Right.

You know, to the consultant, or you know, or internally either, you know, um, bring that up, but it's probably realistically, it's probably nine months to a year for for the completion of of the of the of the model um with back and forth and that kind of thing.

Um those are typically done sequentially then.

Yes.

Some now just in the there's a bit of a caveat to that.

Um given the nature that um for example, if we look at at like Bear Creek and there's um badger run, there's a number that have our are tributaries, so we will do those as a kind of a lump together.

So they won't it won't be like you know, ten years out be that that uh uh um grouped, you know, to get done um together.

So probably I guess in total, I don't recall correct uh exact, I believe it's like four four modeling efforts will be necessary for that.

Um so with that being said, the models will be the intent will be to update them as development occurs within the city.

So that should keep them up to date.

That's always a challenge with any modeling effort.

Um there's good as information in them, but that's our intent to maintain those as development occurs.

Okay.

How is the prioritization of which one's next?

Right.

We went through an extensive uh uh process in terms of prioritization.

Um so and uh I t I touched on that.

Um I guess I'm trying to remember back all the all the details of that.

Um Yeah, I know the the priority list and then went into it is in the plan, and we can pull that up separately for you unless you can recall off the top of your head.

I've yeah, I I don't recall the generally complexity population.

Exactly.

We did we looked at at those those things.

Um development demands um in the area.

So that's why you looked at King's Run with Northwest Northwest versus as a priority as well as cascade.

Okay in that area as we looked at kind of the West Umbro area.

Um downtown was had been listed, but we were able to uh build um a model as we worked with Boldford Unbound and the development in the downtown area.

So we already have a a good model as a starting point for for the downtown area.

So thank you.

All right.

Thank you, gentlemen, for you know, you one last comment, uh, Councilmember Wall.

J just to thank you.

Uh I live on one of those city retention ponds, and I'm thankful for it for a lot of different reasons.

I spend way too much time looking out my window at uh storms, ebbs and flows, drought, wildlife.

I mean, it is those retention ponds are really valuable, I think.

So thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Thank you.

We will take a six minute break.

All right, we are back.

And uh just to kind of clarify, even though we don't see ourselves on the screens there, that according to Christian, we are on the air.

So with that, Council President Josh Johnson joined here with Chancellor Carol.

I'll give the uh brief introduction, then I'll hand it off to Councilor uh Chancellor Carroll, excuse me, to introduce her team and uh go into the exciting exciting update we have for you.

So uh University of Minnesota Rochester is at a pivotal moment pivotal moment.

Uh I'd say downtown Rochester's in an extremely ex exciting moment.

Uh and this all is a pretty critical component.

I didn't mean to be that illiterative there, but um for uh uh for our workforce housing needs for both today and growing into the future.

Um so going back fifteen years, um, what started as a community vision has really turned into a national uh model for delivering, you know, um education.

Um and what makes us unique as we all know is that there's no demarcation between the UMR and our downtown.

Uh the students that attend UMR uh live, learn, work, volunteer on our downtown core.

Uh not only do they provide um you know vibrancy and um uh uh and you know, integrate their their their youth into our downtown.

Um, but they also are increasingly deciding to stay here in Rochester, and that's important.

Um, as we create uh more healthcare opportunities, uh, we need to capture that talent uh and fill our pipeline of workforce development.

Um that of course leads to a challenge, and it's a good challenge.

We'd rather be talking about needing to grow rather than the alternative.

Um, but that brings us here today is the need for, you know, facilities, the UMR is at its capacity.

Um so that's what we're going to be presenting on.

Um none of this progress can happen without partnerships.

Um, going back to twenty thirteen when we approve the sales tax for you know, the purchase of the UMR uh campus area as well as other um campus improvements in classroom space.

Even more recently, when we were doing Discovery Walk, and I was a project manager on that.

I was extremely appreciative that UMR allowed us to use a piece of their campus for staging for that construction.

And up recently to when Experience Rochester, the city and UMR, they need some you know, classroom space right now, and we've got some office space in Civic Center, a great partnership opportunity there.

Um, and most recently with uh Biolabs and Mortensen and DMC in the city in UMR, realizing that in order to support that biolab ecosystem, we need workforce to backfill you know that need.

So that then leads us into the campus expansion request at a future date.

So just a reminder today is uh to go over uh preview the anticipated request for uh sales tax and and DMC funding.

Um, but today's an update, so no formal request.

Um caught me.

It's my one slide.

I basically covered everything that was on there.

And I'll hand it to Chancellor Carroll.

Welcome, Chancellor.

Thank you so much, City Council presidents and members and staff.

Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the future of the Rochester campus of the University of Minnesota.

My colleagues, Jack Brian Feldman and Katie Pikel join me today, and we begin with gratitude.

Gratitude, especially for the citizens of Rochester and their decades of determination that brought the University of Minnesota to this community, and their city sales tax dollars have fueled the early development of this campus.

Did you hear me say thank you?

Yes, we did.

And it was in big white letters behind you.

Fantastic.

All right.

But we're also grateful to Rochester's elected officials, including each of you, as well as our valued partners, the City of Rochester staff and DMC and Mayo Clinic, and the wider ecosystem of employers and educational institutions.

At UMR, we live by three principles.

Students are at the center, research informs practice, and importantly, partners make it possible.

And thank you very much for being our partners.

Together, the University of Minnesota, the citizens of Rochester, and the leaders of this community have accomplished a rare feat.

The successful launch of a public university campus.

This campus was designed to reflect this city, health focused, innovation driven, and world class.

We live in an extraordinary city, but not just because we're growing, but also because there is inspiration all around us that sustains our culture of compassion and commitment.

Stories of invention and discovery of lives saved and lives dramatically improved.

So last week in the skyway between the Student Life Center and University Square, a student waved me down.

And to get to me, she was dodging patients in wheelchairs, and I was finding my way through a bunch of people with blue tags and scrubs trying to get to Steam, and she's saying, Chaz Carol, Channel Carroll.

What?

What happened?

I asked.

And she said, I got to see a kidney.

This UMR student then thanked me for introducing her to someone in Transplant who made it possible for her to walk from her dorm room to observe the gift of life in surgery.

And her drive to be part of scientific miracles like that just exploded.

Now I don't tell that story because it's unusual here.

It's quite the opposite.

Our place matters.

And as this inspirational city of health you all are leading has grown over the last decade, so has your hometown University of Minnesota campus.

Very few public university campuses have started in this century.

After decades of citizen advocacy, Governor Polenti, the legislature, and the university's board of regents declared in 2006, right, 20 years ago, that a Rochester campus of the University of Minnesota would be established here.

Many people in this community work with the first chancellor to determine how this campus would distinguish itself and how we would reflect America City of Health.

Different from the university's Twin City campus and other regional campuses, we specialized in two different ways.

First, with our academic programs, serving students who want to make a difference in the world through careers in health.

And then we also needed to be distinguished in our research.

So we did something no other campus on the planet has done.

We were determined to be different on purpose.

We began serving students in 2009.

That first graduating class in 2013 had 57 souls.

Now over 1,100 University of Minnesota students are served in Rochester with the aspiration to grow to 2,500.

With current facilities at capacity, that means we need to expand for one primary purpose, developing the human potential of significantly more students.

Importantly, our brilliant students come from a wide variety of backgrounds.

Over 80% are Minnesotan.

That's roughly split evenly between rural and urban.

And over two thirds are from groups historically underrepresented in higher education.

That's the first generation to go to college in their families, low income and their families, or students of color.

That's over two-thirds of our student body.

And with these differences, they share a common passion to make a difference in the world through a career in health.

To educate these young people, we need space.

And many of you know UMR started with small leases in just a couple little places, right?

And that partnership approach to campus facilities has continued.

We're now in seven buildings in downtown Rochester, all mixed use, all with long-term leases.

This inspiring learning environment is fueled by the intentional placement of university spaces.

We are a downtown campus, again, on purpose, keeping students in walkable proximity to kidneys, right?

And something we call work-based learning, which is critical because they are near the sector they will serve.

And inside these spaces, we are harnessing the power of experiential or what some people call real world learning.

Learning where students work shoulder to shoulder with their future employers.

These opportunities accelerate students' readiness for impactful careers.

So our University of Minnesota students are not just studying in downtown Rochester to ignite their own futures.

They are also impacting Rochester and the health and life sciences ecosystem, even while they are still students.

Our annual economic impact, 89.9 million, that's from 2025.

Through our long-term leases, we pay property taxes over about $700,000.

Of course, we're addressing dire workforce needs, and over 50% of graduates were employed at Mayo Clinic last year at commencement to get that one.

All right.

Now about two-thirds of our students go on to our graduates go on to advanced study.

And the typical path is to stop out and work at Mayo for a year, two, three before going on to their professional degrees.

Our med school acceptance rate is very high, 68%.

The majority of UMR students are 18 to 22 years old.

You remember those years?

Yeah.

They are serious about academics.

As they live and learn and work and play in downtown Rochester, their youth and energy and curiosity and healthy lifestyles.

I'm so proud of our students, are an asset to downtown.

While they are students, they're engaged in volunteering, in part-time employment, in internships and research labs, and more.

They're a force for good in this city long before they graduate.

UMR's impact also includes contributing to the reputation of the city as a place of innovation.

We were named an opportunity campus, that's a national recognition, only 15% of university campuses based on the diversity of our graduates and their salaries being at least 50% above the median, an opportunity campus.

And that one-of-a-kind research focus on student learning has made us innovation leaders in higher ed.

We were called to testify to Congress about the model.

We've had substantial national media coverage later this week.

PBS is coming from DC, looking at our get forward faster model.

These are new designs that decrease student costs while increasing student success.

And those student success outcomes are everything to us.

Very important multiple years we have had no achievement gap in completion.

So timely completion, no achievement gap.

Remember that variety of backgrounds of our students.

This is a very unusual outcome.

It's because we're applying research to practice.

The eventual return on investment of this high valley value college degree is not only for the student.

The more graduates in health, the wider array of types of communities they serve, the better the health outcomes in Minnesota.

That's long-term impact, but it's realistic.

So our students, when they graduate are going into all kinds of patient care careers, yes, but also mental health.

80% of Minnesota counties have a shortage there.

They're going into healthcare administration and public health and healthcare research and digital health and everything med tech and biotech as well.

It is our daily commitment that the impact of this campus will surpass the high expectations of the citizen advocates who dreamed and work to bring a University of Minnesota campus to this city.

So what's next?

Well, the growth of the community and the growth of this campus are intertwined in part because we share priorities.

The highest aspirations of the University of Minnesota, which are described in our strategic roadmap, elevate extraordinary 2030, include the following three imperatives.

Serving communities by driving economic and workforce development with Minnesota employers, expanding the health and healthcare workforce.

Got it.

Innovating to transform the future of learning, generating a workforce educated to meet emerging and critical talent needs.

And why does innovation and education matter?

The bottom line, more students succeed.

And graduating on time affects affordability.

It really matters.

And the final imperative with which we so resonate advancing our excellence to lead the discovery and application of sustainable solutions, improving environmental and human health.

So in this time of growth for Rochester, spurred on by the bold actions of DMC, the City, Mayo Clinic, and others, the University of Minnesota is ready to expand.

Our impact, our commitment to be a driving force in the future of Minnesota's health and life sciences workforce, and our leadership role in creating a healthier Minnesota.

And all of that requires that we expand our footprint in downtown Rochester.

Our near-term three-part vision for a University of Minnesota Rochester campus footprint that includes capacity for bolder enrollment growth and serves as a national model of health and sustainability has grown out of our campus and climate action plan that had broad community impact input and was approved by the regions in 2024.

So the plan includes additional lab classroom space, and this is absolutely our most pressing need.

An academic building like no other, and a student residential and recreation district.

This initial phase will consolidate and expand our lab facilities, augmenting our existing long-term leases in Discovery Square.

Intentionally, side by side with Biolabs new spaces, we will be co-creating programs designed to optimally prepare students for lab internships, research roles, and life sciences entrepreneurship.

The sustained presence of the University of Minnesota in Discovery Square will significantly contribute to its continued success, demonstrating a robust talent pipeline to both existing and future tenants.

Our rigorous undergraduate STEM education requires all students to take multiple lab classes to be prepared for their future careers.

Other spaces we are leasing cannot accommodate lab classrooms.

Only Discovery Square was built in a way that will make more lab space possible.

Other new spaces will not have to be built to include labs.

So consolidating that type of space contributes to affordability of the rest of our facilities expansion.

The build-out of our current lease spaces in Discovery Square was also supported in part by city sales tax dollars.

Again, we thank you.

Without investment to make this new space possible, we would have to cap enrollment, and that would mean squandering human potential.

Remember, every additional UMR student is a future health professionals.

So if we are able to secure needed investment, this 30-year lease will go to our Board of Regents for approval in June, and construction will start later this summer with a tentative timeline for opening in fall 2027.

The next phase of the proposed expansion will be a new academic building intended to be the campus centerpiece.

This facility will be designed to accommodate boulder enrollment growth, serve as a national model of health and sustainability, and advance the university's core commitment to transforming the future of learning through research-based innovation.

As we continue to pursue investment to make this building possible, we anticipate releasing an RFP for the design of this facility in the next few months.

The location has not been determined.

The facility will include four primary elements focused on fueling student success.

First, the facility will be home to state of the art, AI-enhanced active learning classrooms, specifically engineered to facilitate student success through immersive, interdisciplinary, and employer integrated experiential learning.

Second, the academic house.

This is a centralized dedicated space that co-locates multidisciplinary faculty and student success coaches.

Our first academic house was constructed in part with city sales tax funds in 318 commons.

That was a pivot after the planned building project with the Y was pandemic interrupted.

Again, thank you.

The current space is a model for generating strong student success.

And this next space, this next academic house, will be designed to maximize student faculty interaction, provide accessible career exploration and well-being resources, and foster dynamic collaboration spaces across disciplines and with our education and employer partners.

The new academic building will also feature a large-scale gathering space designed as the central campus crossroads, addressing our distributed downtown footprint.

For a campus currently integrated across mixed use buildings, this singular space is essential.

That is according to UMR students who spoke out as we crafted our campus and climate action plan.

This gathering space will serve as the primary connection point for the entire UMR community, facilitating interactions that generate a strong sense of belonging.

Now, belonging is a critical variable in our research.

It's not just fluffy stuff.

It fuels deep learning, supports student well-being, and drives timely degree completion, which is key to affordability.

This space is essential.

We also envision this academic building as the home to the University of Minnesota's new National Institute for Learning Innovation Research, leveraging the unique focus of UMR's faculty.

This state-of-the-art center will catalyze research on student learning and development, drawing K-12 and other higher ed partners in the region, and ultimately from across the state and country.

UMR professor Dr.

Cassidy Terrell recently described the kinds of learning innovation scholars will pursue and share in this space.

She says, I'm curious about how we can use new technologies to increase cognitive capacity for learners to create more room in their brains so they can think more clearly, organize information more readily, and thrive while they learn.

I would like more room in my brain.

I don't know about you, but I hope she gets right on that.

This new space will serve as the university's primary hub for discovering and disseminating actionable practices to other educators, directly advancing the university's strategic imperative to transform the future of learning.

So first, lab classroom expansion in Discovery Square, the imperative next step, absolutely essential for any future growth.

Second, an academic building, like no other, and the final part of this three-part facilities expansion, a student residential and recreational district to be advanced through a public-private partnership project in the UMR and recreation subdistrict near Soldiers Field.

This P3 development will ensure student housing that supports UMR's evidence-based emphasis on community and well-being.

During the campus and climate action plan process, students provided substantive input, clearly indicating that housing with some separation from their study and work would be preferable for that sense of community and for their overall well-being.

This project will also fill gaps in recreation access, included a much-needed gymnasium to support our burgeoning UMR sports programs, complemented by adjacency to the diverse and wonderful, wonderfully expanded activities available at Soldiers Field.

Our goal is to release an RFP later in 2026.

Concurrently, we are actively securing additional temporary space to ensure staff and faculty have the resources they need to sustain educational quality for every student while these projects move forward.

We're grateful for the partnership with Experienced Rochester to ensure we have space to accommodate current students.

For the past decade, the University of Minnesota Rochester has successfully forged a unique community campus strategy.

With support from the city, our campus is purposefully integrated within the downtown core.

This allows for our students to be deeply immersed in an extraordinary place that helps them move in the direction of their dreams.

It also enhances the vibrancy of this extraordinary place as brilliant minds choose to learn and grow their skills here and generational talent consider calling Rochester home.

The University of Minnesota Rochester is ripe with opportunity.

On a trajectory of growth, we are poised to dramatically address surging workforce demand to continue to grow and strengthen our economic impact for Rochester, and to be a vital force that turns learning into value for individuals and communities.

As partners with our city, we share this vision for talent pipeline growth, health and health care, economic development, and sustainability.

Beginning with the expansion of lab classrooms in Discovery Square, just imagine what a profound force for good we can continue to be.

Thank you, Chancellor.

I'll I'll wrap us up and uh hit on the next steps on the timeline.

So you'll see on the screen above, um, April 27th, we are here.

Um, next steps will be uh you'll be taking a stop during the City Council bus tour and stopping with University of Minnesota Rochester to hear more.

Um on May 21st, uh funding request for DMC funds will be presented at the MCC board meeting.

On June 1st, we expect to have that uh request at City Council, City Council meeting, and then on June 11th, um it'll go to the University of Minnesota Board of Regents for approval.

And then we can open up for QA.

And kind of just clarify one thing.

Um, when we're referencing um the release of city sales tax funds, that is prior designated funds from the 2012 authorization that's remain available for UMR.

So welcome your questions, comments, observations, guidance, or wisdom are all of the above.

Councilmember Wall.

So I I want to uh make sure I heard it correctly because of one of the questions I had.

The sales tax money perhaps being requested is already in the bank from 2012.

That's correct.

And this and the uses that UMR are referencing were the intended uses of those at that time.

Thanks.

That's great.

Umbe a little bit of an indelicate question on the third uh proposal indicates that you would build on the land that uh UMR already owns uh down by Soldiers Field.

The second one, I think that you said you haven't identified where it would likely be much closer to the current academic offerings than Soldiers Field or what is UMR thinking.

We're exploring a variety of options, and uh they will be in the downtown uh core, somewhere between University Square and Soldiers Field.

Okay.

Would they would they be in the historic district?

Um are those some of the options.

We would surely not uh do anything to disrespect the historic buildings that are currently up.

Thank you.

That's that's a great answer.

I think if you just do like a triangle around where their current sites are, you can probably find out.

Uh Councilmember Key.

They truly have not decided or know, but we have serious exploration underway.

Yes.

Councilmember Key.

Yeah, thank you for being here with your team today.

So appreciate the the early eyes on the plans going on and all the uh approvals that have to happen before we really get to doing real things.

Uh a little bit of disappointment when I hear is talking about some of the uh partnerships.

I guess I've come around to Discovery Square being like I didn't picture that being UMR space.

I had a different vision of what Discovery Square was going to be used for, but I also do understand that idea of like the value of the academics being in uh with these other projects.

Um I don't know exactly on the public-private partnership, but I did want to talk the UMR at one point I saw a map that had UMR one on it.

And again, it was it was just a concept thing.

Um, but I think that's what you're talking about now, or are you talking about because you didn't put that down as a public private partnership?

That sounds like UMR is building a building.

Do you think I'm hearing that right?

First, let's talk about Discovery Square.

Okay.

So uh a reminder of the kinds of space that we need immediately.

These are lab classrooms, and our current lease spaces are not built for lab classrooms.

Uh and in fact, there's some pressure there uh given what we're already doing.

Discovery Square is built for labs, and those adjacencies, as I've mentioned, open up all kinds of opportunities, not only for the biotech and med tech groups that are coming in, but very much so for our students.

Uh so we are already in Discovery Square and benefiting dramatically from that.

So that for example, tenants can use the shared spaces this coming Friday.

We have our research symposium.

We are able to use the event space there.

So it's it's been a wonderful arrangement.

And uh to contain that those spaces to our labs uh makes really good financial sense for us.

Okay.

And now you can repeat your second question.

My second question, I mean again, I I talked about, you know, I've been watching this for the for the whole 14 years.

Um more than that, Nora.

But um, saying when you said the um uh I I think of it as a UMR one, yeah, as uh as an owned building, not a public, not a partnership, not uh not a 30-year lease.

And I'm asking if you think I have that right.

So we're about to release an RFP for design, and I think both options are are open.

What we'll be looking at primarily is the absolute bottom line because affordability for students is a really important part of our model.

And I don't know, Jack, if you want to say more about that.

Yeah, and I think another uh aspect of that too is the certainty that we need for delivery of our facilities, and you know, as we've experienced with you know the the project that we had in 2019 that you know exigent circumstances had it fall through, you know.

I think something where we can control the controllables is if we were to plant a flag with the first building that that's not leased and it's it's more traditionally delivered.

I I think the academic building might be that.

Um but as Chancellor Carroll said, P3 is still on the table for the academic building as well if the opportunity presents itself.

Okay.

Yeah, I and I've watched this before.

Uh the this council took some of our 2012 money and did some work in the 318 building, maybe three, four years ago for the nest.

Um again, uh it follows the letter of the law, but I still think that was contemplated UMR building buildings when the sales tax went in, and that hasn't happened.

And it it uh it's a disappointment for me.

I'm glad to see the growth.

I'm glad to see the presence in downtown, but I still wanted to see more of that idea of when I think of that concept, it was one of those layouts that had UMR one on this corner, and you and then and then the other spaces, but it didn't happen that way.

And I and again, I'll just that it's not so much disappointment as is I don't think that's what's contemplated when the cities came forward and said we're gonna use sales tax to get UMR here.

And this is gonna be their build, we're gonna help seed their funding.

Um, so uh if we're following the letter of the law, I'm not questioning that, but I really would like to see the UMR buildings in place.

Thank you.

Councilmember Palmer.

Well, I I uh uh had written down that I'm really proud of the fact that the UMR is adjusted and had gone with different things because from 14 years ago life has changed and you're here doing things, having having the the the uh educators downtown to me has been phenomenally great.

Um and I'm talking about downtown core.

I don't particularly see your property south of six as the core.

And you know, you're three blocks away.

I don't think you're gonna be building a skyway down there.

Um, and I think that's one of those things that would be important to have.

So I I guess if I were gonna say is is release that property, use that money for something downtown in the core, would be better for Rochester.

I'm glad that you're using um Discovery Square.

I think that that's what that was designed for to have the the students down there that they can be in weather and kind of be in that campus, but still be downtown.

So I applaud you for you guys changing your your plans and adjusting to the market in the last 14 years.

So thank you for that.

Thank you.

Um I'm gonna uh talk about kind of the three pieces.

It I mean, one, I really appreciate all the the work in partnership that UMR has had with the city.

Um I look at the the uh lab classroom expansion, which you're previewing for us tonight, and then you have the other two RFPs, part of this campus, which is in an unknown place somewhere downtown.

And then I think I heard you with the residential and recreation that that will be at Soldiers Field on uh UMR land.

Yes.

So I so one, those two are it's quite an accelerated kind of RFP plan.

I think I heard uh both in our going out this year.

And so my question is with the partnership that you're previewing on the lab expansion.

Do you foresee a partnership with the city on those two RFPs as well?

What we see potentially what we see with um the whole of the vision is that UMR is firmly committed to contributing to this city, right?

We've been partners all along, so it depends how you define partnership, how I would answer that.

Uh, but that are even more students will live and work and learn and play here in downtown Rochester.

Um, that we will partner in all kinds of ways that emerge that are invisible to us at this moment.

Absolutely, you know, that commitment is there.

In terms of the city sales tax dollars that uh were set aside for UMR, uh, those would be used by the lab expansion project entirely.

If I may, if I could add something from a city perspective, yes.

I guess I would also look at this as we have excellent partners in UMR, a unique partnership as compared to some of the other development opportunities that present themselves throughout downtown and around town.

Um, but when we're looking at potential for partnership to have this be a catalyst downtown for additional growth, as the chancellor is is pointing to, yes, from student population, but that also leads to other economic opportunity, is that we would hopefully, as partners, be looking at what are the spaces that are being presented to them from their RFP process.

I think you called it an RFP, not an RFI, whatever RF process happens, um, in order to understand what are the available properties, what are their adjacencies, how interesting and unique are those proposals?

Are there other community values that might be able to be solved for in that?

And recognizing that all of those spaces are also within an area that's supported by the destination medical center initiative.

There may be really unique opportunities where yes, you have the opportunity to be supporting uh one of the only growing universities in the country, maybe the world, probably well, at least the country, um, certainly the only one in Rochester.

Um, is what are the synergies that you might be able to create because of the very pressing needs of the university, which are directly related to the workforce development that we need for the future, not just for Mayo Clinic, but from other entities that we hope that will be spurred from Bio Lab, some of which will come from the business incubator that Mayo Clinic supports.

So if we think about the synergies of the economy and the things that we need for the future, both for the pipeline of workforce, but also individuals that are capable of being able to be innovative as businesses come back here and hopefully stay here, start their own potentially um piece of the pie of med tech, and what are the synergistic uses in a P3 model that may not just include the public piece, UMR in the city, but also other development that could be a great catalyst there that otherwise would not build on its own or would be asking for separate incentive.

So I don't know what those might look like, but just like any of the other developments that we have downtown, there probably would be a reason for us to be looking at what are the opportunities that we can't ignore or that would not have the best and highest use of the properties that are presented in order to gain more than the wonderful UMR expansion, but many other goals of the city as well.

Thank you for that context.

One follow-up and then I'll go to uh council member Miller.

So I don't know if you heard our earlier conversation on the sports and recreation ecosystem.

Uh with the uh recreational component of your residential and recreation site.

I would encourage any kind of partnership with uh with the city on that as well.

Jack's your guy right here.

We started whispering and then realized we should wait.

So we were listening.

Good.

Thank you.

Councilmember Miller.

Yeah, thank you so much.

I I feel very proud to represent an award that includes much of your campus and student population.

And I think I just want to acknowledge that you're mentioning downtown Rochester vibran as an important part of your impact, and I agree with that.

And I would look forward to encouraging how we further collaborate and understanding the needs of students.

I will say that I am a member of this council that cares deeply about transportation and realize that when we talk about affordability and students who are walking and accessing these different spaces by foot.

It's definitely an investment in affordability in their education and an understanding of what it means to design spaces that create well being.

So I don't share my colleagues feeling that you should swap land by Soldiers Field.

I think having that access of students on the street, of students interacting with the public space as vibrancy, adds safety, adds a sense of community and helps us struggle with planning for the needs of students who have not maybe traditionally at that phase of their careers been part of our community.

I lived in Iowa City for several years, and I think the distributed urban campus brings a lot of vibrancy and vitality to a community and creates a more cohesive ecosystem of our understanding of different phases of life and planning for all needs.

We often talk about our aging population who come for health care, and I think it's just as important to plan for a city that works for our younger generations who are considering careers in health and helping to better understand our responsibilities to each other at different stages of life.

And I'm also very excited to see how Discovery Square has evolved and its potential uses as Councilmember Keene mentioned, because I think that those lab spaces that are needed and active at Mayo Clinic, spin off companies into the private space as we're thinking about biolabs, but also require a highly trained, capable workforce at different phases of learning and internships who are able to support those same research projects in their infancy before they get to this capitalized version.

So I I don't necessarily have a question here.

I just want to acknowledge that the range of impact that this planning brings for our community, brings for Mayo Clinic, brings for other economic vitality for urban vibrancy and for just a healthier community overall.

And I appreciate how it also ties into the principles that the DMC has been working on looking forward, and we had extensive conversation about this last year at the collaborative session.

And I just I hear design for well-being in different words in your presentation.

And I appreciate that we're building momentum in those understandings.

And that these projects again continue to be the infrastructure that supports the development of different partners working collaborative collaboratively in our downtown.

So I do look forward to other opportunities that can emerge creatively that we don't yet think of.

And uh we had a visitor in town uh over the weekend who was asking about the Mayo Clinic development and watched the Faith Hope Science documentary.

And I'm just I I've been thinking about the final quote to that, which was Will Mayo's who ends the film saying, I look through a half-open door into the future, full of interest, intriguing beyond my power to describe, but with a full understanding that it is for each generation to solve its own problems, and that no one has the wisdom to guide or control the next generation.

And so I see that continuity here in this presentation.

I just want to acknowledge all of the investment, creativity, hope that has come before, and I'm grateful that we get to be a part of UMR's journey and the broader development of Rochester.

So thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Uh seeing no one else, thank you.

We're very appreciative of getting insight into just your very clear objectives and where you want to go, and that's makes us all better.

So thank you.

Thank you.

And at any time, if you have a question about the University of Minnesota, Rochester, what we're doing, what we're thinking, please reach out directly to us, and we will be happy to be transparent and clear always.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Study sessions.

Exciting part of the meeting.

Um, so we got a preview of your next study session.

Um, we will be doing a city council downtown walking tour.

So the primary mode of transportation will be yourselves on May 11th.

So please um come prepared and with the type of shoes that you would like to walk in and in the attire that you would like to be around downtown in for about 180 minutes.

Well, first you have one on the fourth.