Oh yeah.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Please rise as you're able for this pledge of allegiance.

I pledge the flag on the United States of America.

Welcome everybody to the June first city council meeting.

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

This is a time on our agenda for members of the public to speak on items that we will not be taking public testimony during a public hearing later in the agenda.

Each person has up to two minutes to speak for a total of 20 minutes, and I keep track uh with two methods.

One is the red uh stopwatch on the wall over there, and then the stop light uh in front of us here.

Uh participants are encouraged to limit comments generally to topics that are within the scope and jurisdiction of the council's ability to affect policy, and council members and staff do not respond directly to your comments during public comment, but will instead follow up on any specific requests separately.

If you have materials to share with the council, please give them to the city clerk and case all over there.

And uh you will be invited up to speak in the order you signed up.

And we have Linda Parker.

Is it Parker or Packett?

Parker.

Welcome.

And you may have to turn the microphone on.

And you push that button and yep, it's green.

There you go.

Thank you.

Hello, everybody.

Nice to see you all.

I wish I was coming here less frustrated, but it seems like every time I come to speak to the council, I'm frustrated.

Tonight's topic is the sports complex.

I have been studying and researching and listening and reading about all of your comments.

I don't understand how when we make a mistake that we just don't admit it and regroup.

The estimated cost of the sports complex is doubled.

We all know it.

Why not stop and regroup?

We're putting a band-aid on, we're gonna go to do this, we're gonna do this.

Now we're going to scale back.

We're not scaling back, we're paying twice as much for half the project.

But now you guys are making the decision on how those dollars are being spent, not those of us who vote for it what you presented.

I heard what the state say, and our leader said that there's nothing that can be done, but I guarantee you there's got to be a lawyer or somebody that would be able to find a loophole that would be able to say, time to stop, maybe we need to regroup.

I don't understand how the pay-for-play now is going to cover all of these new expenses.

The dome wasn't prepared for, that's going to come out of property taxes, which are at record highs, where most of homeowners now are some of your highest earners in Rochester.

Families are having to move to apartments because they can't afford property taxes.

All of this extra money is it going to come out of the general fund?

I don't know, because you guys haven't put out where it's going to be.

Let's we take the loss and let's come up with a new plan.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

That is all I have on my list.

Anyone else wishing to uh speak during open comment period?

Anyone else wishing to speak during open comment period?

I will close the open comment period and we will uh move to our uh roll call.

Clerk Case will please call the roll.

Good evening.

Councilmember Keene.

Here.

Councilmember Miller.

Here.

Councilmember Wall.

Here.

Councilmember Fredericks.

Councilmember Palmer.

Here.

Councilmember Doring.

Here.

Council President Schubring.

Here.

Mayor Norton.

Present.

Thank you.

Next up we have our city administrators report.

Administrators Elms.

Thank you, Council President.

Council members, I always start the uh report with thanking our teammates for acting with respect to integrity, safety, and excellence in everything they do.

And did just want to comment that our partners at Experience Rochester stepping forward on your consent agenda this evening.

There is a community festival permit for 4th of July at Soldiers Field.

So did just want to point that out for the community in case you were wondering that is planning to move forward, depending on action later this evening with our partners at Experience Rochester with some music starting at 5 or 5 30 in the evening on the 4th of July, followed by the traditional fireworks from the City of Rochester.

Also, if you are have a mailing address in the city of Rochester, we did mail out the Summer Fund and City Resources magazine.

I received it last week.

And if you didn't receive it, you can pick up a copy at City Hall, the library, or development services and infrastructure center soon.

It is also available online at RochesterMN.gov.

So if you head to our website, you can get a digital version if that is your preference.

But it is full of different activities that are happening this summer.

One of those activities is outdoor water recreation.

So the facilities listed here are opening soon.

Soldiers Field Aquatic Center on June 5th, Silver Lake Pool, newly renovated, really almost entirely replaced, is going to be opening on June 8th.

The McQuillen splash pad is open, and as is the Lincolnshire splash pad and the Silver Lake Splash Pad will also be opening on June 8th.

Also, the lakes will be opening.

For those of you interested in the Valley Drive Northwest traffic management improvement conversation, that's going to be Tuesday, June 9th, 6 p.m.

to 7 30 p.m.

at the Rochester Montessori School.

They're going to be talking about traffic calming options for five locations along Valley Drive between 41st Avenue and 46th Avenue Northwest.

And Thursdays downtown will be starting up again starting on June 11th through August 13th, except for July 2nd, 11 a.m.

to 8:30 p.m.

downtown on First Avenue Southwest from Center Street to Historic Third and on Peace Plaza again this year.

So something for all of us to look forward to, brought to us by Rochester Downtown Association.

And the Riverside Music Series is returning Sundays, July 12th through August 9th at Mayo Park.

Music will begin at 7 p.m.

Food and Beverage available for purchase from vendors.

It's free and open to the public on those Sundays.

And of course, the Forward Concert Series is also kicking off this Wednesday.

That will also be at Mayo Park, the first of that series.

So you can head on down Wednesday to check out the Forward Concert series series that is starting this Wednesday and Wednesdays throughout the summer.

And that's all I have.

Thank you.

Next up we have the mayor's report.

Mayor Norton, take it away.

Yep, I've got just a couple of announcements up front.

June is gun violence awareness month.

And every year the moms demand action, ask for the dome lights to be lit and hold an event.

So that will be coming up this month.

Play ball is a uh an event that the mayor's office sponsored last year, and we're sponsoring again this year.

And this is in conjunction with the U.S.

Conference of Mayors and uh and Major League Baseball.

And so uh the Honkers will give a training camp for boys and girls between the ages of six and twelve at uh the honkers at the ball field over there.

Um the honkers will run it, and um again it's 9 a.m.

until noon.

And if you would like your child or grandchild to participate, you can just go to that um QR code or call the honkers, go to their website.

There's a place to register.

Um last year we had uh 300 registrants and it poured rain and about half of them showed up and got very wet.

Um this year we have over 200 registrants already, so we're expecting to have a full house for that event.

And um, we just would love to have um again, you know, kind of with the 250 theme that we have going this year.

We'd like to get at least 250 kids at that event.

Um also move to the market, which is a uh new offering this year.

The village uh food co-op has held an event uh uh at Rochester History Center.

They've done a um market on Tuesdays.

This year they are moving to Cascade Lake.

So this is their first time at Cascade Lake.

Um they will be there, and the move to the market part is as a result of a U.S.

Conference of Mayors grant that we won.

Um we came in second or third, third place, maybe in that and received 50,000 to support the farmers market.

So if you move there, walking or biking, and there will be extra bucks for you to spend at the co-op.

So we're really excited to have this new location and to be able to support uh more active uh movement and healthy eating.

So that will be starting here this next week out at Cascade Lake on Tuesday nights.

Should also mention that on Sundays, linked to the um uh concerts downtown at the Riverside area, the Mayo ball field, the I'm sorry, the the MLK park um on the side and south side of the park.

Um, there will be a farmers market as well.

It had to move a little bit from last year due to the construction in the area, but that will be open Sunday nights just before two in the afternoon, I think till six or seven p.m.

before the concert starts.

Um, also worth mentioning is safe city nights.

Um again, it just shows all the activities just that the city is responsible for that are happening this summer.

Um, the Rochester Police Department holds a community policing events this year.

It's at four locations.

Um it starts on June 9th at Gibbs Elementary, and we'll remind folks periodically, but um two in July, then and one in August.

We're trying to get them in all the quadrants of the city, um, 6 to 8 p.m.

Everyone is welcome.

Free food and activities for all.

And then uh also in June is America 250 bike parade.

And this was um something again working with the U.S.

Conference of Mayors uh and the National League of Cities.

We're trying to um hold local events to celebrate America's 250th birthday.

And so there will be a bike parade.

Youth are invited at 10 30 to come to Edison School on uh the parking lot there, decorate their bikes.

Um We Bike Rochester and Bike MN are hosting or helping, they're helping me organize this, and they'll be they'll have decorations.

So the first 250 youth that show up will have decorations, they can decorate their bike, and then um parents, children, singles, couples, everyone's welcome to do the bike parade at 11:30, and it'll be along the path that will be used for the parade later in the day and for the run that will be happening between the bike parade and the citywide parade where everyone comes to gather candy.

Lastly, board and commission vacancies.

We do have one opening on the Board of Appeals.

So if that is of interest, we would love having some applicants for the Board of Appeals opening.

That's all I've got.

Thank you, Mayor.

Next up we have the order of the agenda.

Uh are there any changes to the agenda?

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

Second move by councilmember Fredericks and seconded by councilmember Wall.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed say nay.

Motion passes.

Next we have the consent agenda.

Councilmember Palmer has polled item F11.

Councilmember Doring is voting nay on item F7.

Correct.

I'll be uh voting nay on F7, the competitive negotiated sale of uh for of the tax bonds for the regional sports and rec complex.

I continue to believe that this project is not what the vast majority of our community wants and or needs.

And I'm nervous about taking this on financially based on the forma provided by our outside uh operator.

I'm still not convinced of the economic viability of the regional sports complex.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Uh so uh we have one polled item.

Uh so I would invite a motion to approve in block items F1 through F10 and F12 through F19.

So moved.

Second.

Moved by Councilmember uh Keene and seconded by Councilmember Miller.

Councilmember Wall.

Thank you.

We are awarding two contracts tonight.

Uh engineers' estimates at 473,450.

The bidding was favorable, came in at 380,000 for a savings of 93,000 or 19.7%.

It continues to work well for us.

Thank you.

Thank you for the wall report.

With that, uh council member uh Keene, go ahead.

Yeah, yeah.

I just wanted to comment.

I know there's a lot of uh important city business on it, but I wanted to call out F-16 is University of Minnesota Rochester funding.

This is a combination of uh DMC but also sales tax funding from the past.

Umr has been one of the bright success stories over in Rochester over the last two decades and the way it's kind of grown up and seeing this on here really does show that it's become an important part of our both downtown but our our overall community and our overall economy.

And I just wanted to call it out above and beyond the normal consent agenda.

Thank you for doing that, uh, Councilmember Keene.

And also would like to recognize our friends at UMR for being here.

Thank you.

Uh with that, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Pose say nay.

Motion passes with council member Doring voting nay on item F7.

Moving on to our public hearings.

We have two public hearings on our agenda this evening.

Uh public hearings, uh, a little different than our open comment period.

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

And then I will open the public hearing.

Members of the public have five minutes each.

Uh, and again, encouraged to keep comments brief, concise, and uh and uh to the item in uh question.

And then following the public hearing, the applicant will have up to five minutes to respond to any questions that came up during the public hearing or uh additional information.

With that, I will go to item G1, which is a major land subdivision by Creekview Meadows LLC to be known as Creekview Meadows Fourth.

Uh Mr.

Desmond McGill.

Thank you, uh, Council President Schubring, Mayor Norton, members of the council.

Good evening.

I'm Desmond McGill.

I'm with community development.

I'll be introducing this item, uh, which is a major land subdivision preliminary plat for Creek View Meadows 4th, which is the fourth phase uh for this project by Creekview Meadows LLC.

The 12.6 acre site is located south of 18th Street, north of 20th Street, and east of 37th Avenue Southeast, uh in an R1 zoning district.

The general development plan was approved by City Council in June of 2020 and consists of uh 185 units having 139 single family lots and 46 attached single family lots.

Uh phase four of this development proposes 15 single family lots that are uh detached of various widths and depth.

Uh it is located on a local residential street.

That residential street connects to 37th Avenue on the west side and 18th street on the north.

The proposed plat also contains three outlaws.

Uh Outlaw A is a parcel for developed stormwater facilities for phases one through four.

Uh outlaw B consists of delineated wetlands and outlaw C provides a parcel for stormwater facilities for future uh phases of the development.

Uh this major land subdivision is consistent with the general development plan and the R1 zoning standards.

Uh planning commission unanimously recommended approval of the subject application at their May 13th meeting by a five-zero vote.

And um subject to four conditions of approval.

Uh that concludes my presentation.

I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have after the public hearing.

Thank you, Mr.

McGill.

Is there uh a the applicant?

Are they here?

Please step forward, state your name, and you have up to 10 minutes.

Thank you.

Uh Council President Schuberg, mayor, members of the council.

My name is Ryan Schoenfeller with WSE Engineering.

We're the engineering planning serving consultants on this project.

Um Desmond did a great job explaining the project.

Um just a few more details.

We held held the neighborhood meeting on April 7th.

No one attended that meeting, so we didn't receive any opposition.

Uh were acceptable, those four conditions.

The turn lane is actually going to be constructed on the coming weeks here and be uh paved here shortly.

Um again, any questions you have, we'll be able to answer those.

Thank you.

We'll call you back after the public hearing.

Uh with that, I will open the public hearing.

Is there anyone wishing to be heard on this item?

Anyone wishing to be heard on this item?

Anyone wishing to be heard on this item?

I will close the public hearing.

Invite Mr.

Schoenfelder to come back up.

And any closing comments that you have.

Uh I will add the master pond and outlots C is gonna serve the remaining phases of Creekview Meadows, all those additional lots.

So we're excited to get that built and done with with this phase of development.

So happy answering questions.

All right, council members.

Councilmember Keene.

Uh, just a clarification for staff.

Um, in the suggested um resolution in the agenda, it doesn't call out the four conditions.

Is that um and I want to make sure we do call out the four conditions on the approval?

Maybe I'm I'm looking at the agendas or maybe I'm reading it wrong.

Um thank you.

Uh, they do appear to be there on on our screen.

Okay.

Is that on the um council?

This is on both the G1, the um request for council action, but also the overall agenda.

I may I don't know why I'm missing it, but I'm looking right at it.

I'm missing three outlines.

Okay.

So you think it's covered.

I I I'll just make sure we we have four conditions.

Thank you.

It's on the meeting.

Any other comments on this?

Is there a motion?

I'll make a motion adopting a resolution approving major land subdivision number CD 2026-007, PLAT by Creek View Meadows LLC to be known as Creek View Meadows subdividing 12.6 acres into 15 residential lots and three out lots.

Second.

Motion made by Councilmember Fredericks and seconded by Councilmember Palmer.

Any more to add, Councilmember Fredericks?

No, happy to see it in the ward.

Uh there's been a lot of nice work done in that subdivision already.

I see the families out outside using the heck out of the area.

It's really nice to see how active they are.

It's like those kids don't have iPads or something.

They're actually outside playing.

So it's just nice to see.

And I'm happy to see more coming to the area and enlivening it up out there.

Hopefully, we can get them uh a path to uh get to the main part of town easier.

Thank you.

Councilmember Palmer.

Yeah, there are four conditions on here.

It's not on the heading um, like Mr.

Keene pointed out.

So you uh you you're gonna add that to your amendment.

And I would love to if I knew how to properly say it.

I think your seconder said it.

And so you both agree.

So the four conditions are are in the middle of the year.

Yes.

Got it.

Councilmember Keene.

Yeah, again, these are in the they're correctly in the real resolution later in the packet.

It's just not in the suggested thing we had in.

I think it's all covered.

I just wanted to make sure we did it right.

Councilmember Doring.

Yeah, I was just gonna follow up what they say.

Okay.

All right.

With that, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed say nay.

Motion passes.

Next, next up we have uh G2, which is amendments to the uh 2026 master fee schedule.

Mr.

Parrish.

Uh Mayor, president, members of the council.

Um, this is a request to amend the 2026 fee schedule, which we do on an annual basis.

Uh, what this really is doing is just correcting uh an oversight uh in terms of the look back period in terms of how we set one of the fees, which is based off um some indexes within the engineering news record.

Um public works director uh Neyer is also here if you have questions on this.

Um but we're just requesting that that adjustment be made.

Uh and the requested action will be to approve an ordinance establishing the amended 26 fee schedule as well as directing the city attorney's office to prepare the ordinance for the July 6th meeting.

Thank you, Mr.

Parrish.

Uh this is a uh this is a public hearing.

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

This is a public hearing.

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

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

Parrish back up and invite my colleagues.

Uh any questions?

Comments?

Is there a motion?

Yeah, I'll move to approve an ordinance establishing the amended 2026 master fee schedule and directing the city attorney's office to prepare an ordinance for the first reading on July 6th of 2026.

Motion made by Councilmember Doring.

There's seconded by Council Member Fredericks.

Any more to add?

Councilmember Keene.

I guess just that question or more of a comment than a question.

Um again, I appreciate you guys bringing this back up.

I realize it was an error made back in December.

We're getting it corrected right now.

But underneath this is the conflict between two one of our priorities, but one of our policies, our policy is that new development pays its own way, and therefore we have to keep these fees up to date to cover our costs.

At the same time, these rising fees are a detriment to trying to get housing built.

Is there any sort of wrestling going on to say how can we stem this or what type of cost controls can we put in place so that we're not moving in lockstep as all these construction costs go up and basically hindering one of our main policy objectives over the this year and in the coming years?

Yeah, Your Honor, I think from a policy perspective, I mean the fee is grounded in the notion that we do attempt some level of cost recovery with new development in terms of how that could be managed.

I'm going to defer to public works director Neymar on that.

So I would say just in general terms, you know, the team is always looking at those fees, right?

Um obviously it's clear to us that the community is looking to prioritize housing, right?

So internal review of all of our fees and everything is uh reviewed on an annual basis.

These specific fees are scaled to that ENR index.

Um, all we're trying to do is keep pace with inflation um with the fees that we're discussing here.

I I appreciate that.

And I did I didn't expect a hardcore answer, but I guess I just want to keep it in front of us that this is a conflict that we're losing at right now.

Councilmember Miller.

I guess building on that, would our June 22nd study session when we talk about the Urban 3 analysis and our TIFF policy be a good time to talk about what incentives and where we have adequate infrastructure and where we have new infrastructure costs.

Because there does seem to be a differential and we we talked about this with the the stormwater credit fee as how we incentivize and help infill development where we have adequate infrastructure often built.

So I'm just curious if if there is a future place from a policy perspective where we have differentiated fees, whether they're in target opportunity zones or outside.

Uh Your Honor, I can I can start with that question.

I believe Urban Three is next week, right?

So is that correct?

June 22nd.

Oh, that is June 22nd.

Okay.

Um so yeah, I mean, certainly we've seen a preview of that information.

I think it's at a broad level, it's gonna be a good opportunity for you all to um just understand, you know, the the impacts of different development types and the cost to provide service, um, but also you know, where a lot of your tax capacity comes from, and you know, just get some notion of tax efficiency and tax breaker.

Um, I think in terms of you know where that leads us, I think that's gonna be part of you know your conversation and and what you'd like to see happen out of that as well.

Absolutely, and I appreciate that.

I just wanted to anchor that discussion as a potential place to have a policy discussion about these fees.

I don't want to change them tonight to Councilmember Keene's point, but I do think it is a conflict, and I appreciate him bringing up that tension.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed say nay.

Motion passes.

Next up, we have reports and recommendations, H1, which is the phase two indoor recreation option and next steps, Mr.

Parrish and team.

Uh, President Mayor, members of the council, uh, really appreciate the opportunity to be here today uh to give you a bit of an update on some of the conversations we've been having with regard to indoor recreation options.

Um we've really spoke about this in many uh places and spaces.

Um, just wanted to give you an update about uh where we've been, but also a potential option that you can consider uh to meet some of the indoor recreation needs.

Uh, we discussed this fairly extensively at the an April study session.

Um at that time, there was some broad perspective and direction provided by the council to uh ultimately focus our efforts in looking at um options for indoor recreation on our southern sites uh to bring back some uh discussion points for you this evening to further refine that, um, as well as um in the in the longer view as we get better information, bring back some uh recommended financing and operational strategies, but also recognizing the fact that the uh existing dome on the RCTC campus uh was indicated that it was going to be closed this fall.

Um, continue our conversations around how we might collaborate with them to um keep that open during the interim period.

Just to ground you, we've had three or four significant planning efforts on indoor recreation.

I'm not gonna go through all this.

You've received this information before.

Um, but as you can see, again, with the turf transition and the uh indoor dome.

Uh the last survey we uh went through, there was a fairly strong indication and preference to uh have a turf option.

Nothing that we've gone through in our previous planning efforts, so the landscape has changed.

Um, but you also can see that there's this desire for multi-purpose space and fitness and and and court space.

Uh a lot of these uh efforts and communication that we've received back have really been grounded in not just you know the need to increase the uh amount of indoor space that we have, but how do we communicate about it?

How do we uh let people know about the programmatic opportunities?

Many people know about the facilities, but the programmatic opportunities, um, we have opportunity to do better in terms of how we communicate market, and you've invested some resources in that.

And the team at a later date can provide you some insights into how that's working.

Other recurring themes in this in these conversations have really been the opportunity for informal play and recreation and more unstructured activities, as well as really bringing a strong notion of affordability into the conversation.

So that's again part of that.

More specific insights into the indoor recreation options.

Of course, here indoor playground, court space, pickleball space, we're all rated very highly.

And then last summer, we also had the partnership with the Rochester Healthy Community Partnership that really did some targeted qualitative outreach to a number of our diverse communities and demographics.

And again, similar concepts there, strong interest in informal activities like walking, swimming registered here.

That's not something we're specifically talking about because we've you know had a number of other aquatics related conversations, but just that unstructured play piece was really a strong value for the folks.

Then lastly, uh we have uh just a very slight preview here this evening for you.

Um our parks and communications and engagement team and our DEI team have really spent uh a good amount of time partnering with the school district on their community education survey.

Um and again, strong indoor demand for year-round recreation uh facilities and options, more awareness, more uh differentiation on how you communicate affordability.

So, again, recurring themes.

I'm not gonna go through this on a detailed basis, but really um this just says that depending on your your demographics, you may have different communication preferences.

Um, we have opportunities again for you know perspectives based on income and how we communicate with families versus older adults.

I mean, these all require differentiated strategies.

Uh here's just one slide that tries to pull all that survey data and past community outreach and engagement together.

And uh just saying that we need to you know build greater awareness.

Um we need to really be cognizant of affordability, um, ease of registration and access is important.

Um again, continued interest in flexible indoor and year-round rec opportunities, and then really just you know try to define what are our KPIs in this space.

So shared themes really uh you know, are in that casual rec, improved facilities, affordability space, much of which you've heard before, but continues to be reinforced.

I also want to just let you know that since our last conversation on this, we we did continue our discussion with RCTC about the potential uh for an indoor dome on the RCTC property.

Um we were informed recently, I think uh, as the council is aware, um, that that's not something that um is currently an option at the RCTC campus given the long-term nature of the ground lease that we would need.

Um the site that we had been focused on and directed to uh evaluate also would have had its own set of challenges.

Um we likely would have had to eliminate four um rectangle fields for existing soccer and lacrosse fields, replacing those elsewhere, you know, probably running the six to eight million dollar range.

So just understand like that would have had its own uh set of challenges.

Um but just right now, given the state of higher education, um, this kind of long-term investment didn't align with uh RCTC's needs, and I think we provided the communication uh to you previously.

Um, however, we do want to emphasize that we want to have good ongoing collaboration there.

So we still have relationships, we still have the ability for the public to access the uh existing field house or the Rochester Sports Center after five o'clock and on weekends.

We want to maintain that.

We want to communicate better around that.

There's still you know, walking options.

Um we also you know want to uh encourage some innovation in the uh ability and how you access and register for the facility.

So we will still maintain that ongoing dialogue and collaboration with RCTC.

And then lastly, if you like to continue to advance the design conversation on an alternative uh dome structure, um, we would try to have a conversation about how we could maintain that existing dome over the next one or two winter seasons.

That opens from November to April.

Um, as of now, um short of some other intervention that is set to not open this fall.

And so we'd like to continue that conversation until we can find a way to meet the community need if this is a project that you're interested in pursuing.

Uh that brings us to uh what we spent more time on over this past um uh month or so, and that's really a more substantial dome than what currently exists.

Um it's it's an elevated experience uh compared to what we currently have.

Um it's over twice the size of the existing RCTC dome.

So if you think about the existing footprint of that being a large indoor turf space, this has a large indoor turf space plus an additional area that's about twice the size of that turf space.

And we'll talk about the indoor amenities specifically.

We have a concept about how it could fit on the Rochester Regional Sports and Recreation site in the southeast.

Just want to draw your attention to some specifics on that site.

As you know, we're in construction on the regional sports and rec complex, which will feature eight uh multi-purpose or eight uh diamond fields, um, two rectangle fields, pickleball courts, as well as uh a substantial playground and lots of walking tracks.

Also the walking area.

Uh the Willow Creek Trail is also going to come through this site.

So that's a separate project, but that will take you from Game Haven all the way through Highway 52, and um generally allow you to access much of the uh other trail infrastructure in Rochester, but kind of that gap that we have right now between getting through there and 52, the Willow Creek Trail Project is proposed to deal with that.

Um, I'd also say from a site perspective, um, the parking being created here allows you the opportunity to engage in some conversations about um this being a uh a park and ride type of transit facility and evaluating your transit access on this site.

Um, it's well situated to serve you know the southeast and southwest portions of Rochester as well.

My kids in the northwest, I travel this area quite a bit.

Um, it takes me eight to ten minutes to get to Northwest Rochester, given the proximity to Highway 52 from this site.

So, you know, it may seem like it's a challenge to get to at times, but the proximity to 63 and 52 really do provide good vehicular access, and that Willow Creek Trail will enhance the uh pedestrian and bike access uh to the site.

Uh specifically, right now we have a five-month dome that's available to the community.

Um, because we have the uh turf field that has outdoor purposes, that doesn't typically get going until the middle of November.

People are often ready to get indoors before then, um, and they're ready to stay indoors longer than the middle of April often.

So this would be year-round.

Uh we have temperature control issues in the existing dome.

This dome would be insulated and be able to maintain a reasonable temperature inside the facility year-round, and so uh that would be an enhanced enhancement uh for sure.

And again, year-round, so you have the ability to program uh this facility uh on a year-round basis.

It would have a foundation, so I think from a notable perspective right now, the existing building, the only a reason that it cannot be year-round is it doesn't have a foundation.

Uh, this would address that um as well as um provide much needed space.

There would be an existing, uh, you can see it on the southern portion of the building.

Uh, there would be an area for locker rooms and gathering space and queuing space and and and bathrooms, etc.

So you can see that on the uh on this particular uh slide as well.

Um I want to just uh note that there's other exciting things happening um in this area.

Some of the sewer investments that we're making are gonna you know, catalyze development um in this space and set the uh future uh tone for growth in the area.

Um, and the it's important to note that you can think about other sites for this, um, but whether we're comparing this against RCTC or another green field, we have a lot of existing costs embedded in this site that make the potential project costs lower here.

So if you think about the fact that we have shared parking with the outdoor amenities, if you think about the fact that we've already acquired the property, if you think about the fact that we have other shared utility and site development costs here, um, anything on a standalone basis elsewhere would cost considerably more.

So just you have to take that into account as well.

Um, I want to say as we go through the design process, which we'll talk about in a moment, um, we will be evaluating geothermal as an option.

We've been very successful with geothermal installations in our downtown public district energy campus.

Uh, we're doing it at our maintenance uh center now, and uh we believe the tax credits will continue to be in place that would allow us for the potential uh geothermal installation on this site as well.

Uh couple things to think about.

This is not you know mason area or concrete construction.

I mean, this is a a foundation with wing walls enclosed by a fabric dome.

That that fabric does need to be replaced every 20 years.

Um all facilities like this have lifecycle costs.

Part of our analysis that we'll bring back to you, we'll try to give you some understanding of the life cycle cost difference.

Part of the challenge is you're not going to be able to do 200 to 250,000 square feet, you know, of conventional construction anywhere near this price.

Um, so you you'll have to you know have some context for that as well.

But if you and you think about conventional construction, you also are going to have roof replacement, other types of investments you're going to need to make in order to maintain that.

But when we originally talked about this, we went weren't talking about indoor turf to this level.

That's been a new evolution.

This is likely your best option if you want to preserve an indoor turf availability.

Just moving on, part of this process will also help us to refine what programmatic expectations you have and what you want to deliver in that building, but also how we want to operate it.

So right now we have a third-party operator for the outdoor portion.

We had that forecasted for an indoor portion that we didn't proceed with at that time.

So we would start with that as the model.

We would evaluate the third-party operator model.

However, we can also evaluate a publicly delivered model in that context or other models if the council is so inclined.

But we will always use a publicly delivered model as the base.

Again, full-size indoor rectangle field, soccer lacrosse, exactly the same size in the existing.

We will go through a community-based process with a work group and public open houses to further refine this area, but you'd have a seating and play area that you could have some transitional space in with existing courts.

You have a number of potential courts that you can have as well as pickleball facilities.

So getting more definition of what people want to see in that seating and play area and what's important to them will be an important part of this process.

Some pictures that we showed you previously would be further refined in this design process.

But just to uh yeah, give you context.

Um, this really does give you an enhanced uh multi-purpose and turf space.

Um, but of course, there are costs here too, and you know, we'll flush those out as we go through and refine the operating model.

Um, I think I've covered most of these opportunities and challenges as I've gone through the presentation, so I won't go through that.

The only thing we really have is June 1.

We are at a point on the existing outdoor facility project where we need to make decisions about adjusting the parking and adjusting some of the utilities to make way for this.

Um, so that that is part of the time sensitivity here is if you want to make room for this on the site, we need to adjust the parking in order for that to happen.

Um, I would say irrespective every project we bring forward to you that's a vertical construction like this.

Um, you're gonna have a lot of concrete here.

There's a lot of concrete being used in the community right now, and there's a lot of construction happening.

So it's a very dynamic bidding and cost escalation environment.

So as we go through the design process and get better designs and better bids, um, you know, we hope to be able to make sure you have a number for this project that you can evaluate against the financing strategies.

But you know, we put a number of 55 million dollars out.

Um, but again, that'll be informed by where the cost environment is at the time and you know where the community's design process takes you.

So that transitions us into a potential schedule for this project.

Uh, the upper portion of this, I know this is a busy uh diagram.

The upper portion is engagement and community outreach.

The bottom portion is really the construction and approval uh time frame.

So community engagement would take place between now all the way through September 4th.

We have a community working group, which I'm gonna just uh show you right now.

Um, very similar to the outdoor group that did an amazing job providing feedback into that project.

Um, a little bit of an enhancement here, you know, given some of the turf uh stakeholders that are involved.

But this is the kind of the base group.

Um, our communications and engagement team will, as they've very capably done in the past, facilitate this effort with consultant you know, support for diagrams and and renderings, etc.

Um, but we'll have a couple of community working group meetings, a couple of open houses, talk about accessibility, affordability, your own to use community benefit, what people want to see out of this facility.

Um that those will take place through the summer with a recommendation coming to you at your September 9th City Council meeting.

At that meeting, uh, what you would be able to do is review the engagement, um, understand the preliminary design.

Uh, we would have a preliminary cost estimate for you all to review and understand.

And then we would provide along with that some recommendations on the approach to financing and initiating permitting.

Once that's complete, we would then, if you endorse where we're at at that point in time, we could then proceed with the bidding and permitting process, ultimately bringing you back a bid and a recommended and final financing approval at your December 14th meeting.

And then onward down the line, construction starts in 27, concludes in 28.

With that, the team and I are happy to answer questions.

These are the requested actions for you to consider this evening if you would like to proceed with the next phase of due diligence here.

Excuse me.

First, it's just generally endorsing, like this is the direction you're interested in going.

So that's item one.

Item two would be authorizing a contract with TSP architects at just over 948,000.

That allows you to get the design work done in order to continue to advance the project, continue to keep your construction schedule and so on.

We yield in domes, uh they have some construction service, they would be brought on the team at risk.

We would look to do an RFP for construction manager at risk.

They ultimately give you your gross maximum price.

And that again helps you have confidence in the numbers that they're actually estimating and positioning themselves to bid uh at the project.

Uh these costs would go into the project cost ultimately.

However, if you elect, you know, in this September to say this isn't for us at this time, um, those costs would have to be paid for out of the holistic budget stability fund.

There's about 2.8 million dollars there.

Um those costs you know would need to have a place to land in that case.

If they roll into your recommended financing or preferred financing strategy, those funds would not need to be touched.

So six just talks about something we've already discussed in terms of key council approval dates, and then seven just says we want to keep working on interim options for the dome.

So with that, we're happy to stand for questions.

Uh Mayor Norton.

So from my perspective, this is very premature and fast.

Um, I had anticipated from the last study session that something might brought before to say yes, we could or couldn't do something out there.

I'm just shocked that a solution has been found and that it's being presented without any discussion about anything.

And I will just say one, I'm really disappointed that while we did get a very what I would consider curt email from a member of the administration at RCTC.

We have not closed the loop to have a meeting and find out if there were other options, if the administrator agreed with the other administrators' email, and I would have very much preferred before we have even said these things that we would have closed the loop with RCTC first to assure that there weren't workarounds because several of us have talked to folks at the state level and MinSCU or whatever it's called now level that it wasn't a closed door.

So that's one disappointment.

I'm still concerned about the troubling location far out southeast.

While I do agree that indoor space is needed, and I recall in the back of my mind when I said I didn't think we should choose Southeast, that if we did, there should be an indoor location.

Um and that's what you're bringing forward here.

Um I'm still not convinced that what the community is asking for is in there because I don't think I I haven't heard enough discussion about what will be there because it was only a little over a month ago we were talking about a building at RCTC, and then the idea of a dome was thrown in there last minute, and now for the last month, it's all talk about dome.

And you know, uh dome is as you've mentioned a 20-year life expectancy for a roof that will have to be or the dome material have to be replaced every 20 years.

We're already seeing that as a problem over at RCTC.

Uh granted it's a uh a different kind of dome, but that has is desperately in need of replacement.

Um that will be true in 20 years, so we will be handing off some expenses to future councils.

Um, and and I had hoped we would have a more comprehensive look at other sites that the city owns.

Um, what can what could we of all the things that you had on the screen that the community said they wanted and some that they do want that weren't on that list, like curling and some of the rest of it.

Are there current facilities that we either own or that are available in the community that could be enhanced?

It doesn't all have to be at one place necessarily.

Is there room at the rec center, for instance, not only to enhance the offerings that we have, but to put an addition there, given that there's a brand new parking garage going to go in.

I would have, and I hope we can still have some discussion in that regard, rather than just grabbing this thing that you've put in front of us today and say run with it.

Take a comprehensive look at all we need, everything everyone wants and other possibilities before we say yes to this.

And lastly, one of the things, well, two things.

One is you mentioned the holistic funky name for it.

Holistic budget stability fund, which as I recall was the ARPA funds.

Now, are there ARPA funds left, or have we continued using this terminology and put other funds in there?

And if so, whether it be ARPA funds or I think I would like to hear a little bit more about where the 30 million is coming from, because the taxpayers, as uh Ms.

Parker mentioned earlier, think it's coming from levies or taxes.

Um, I have been told that's not the case, but I think this community deserves to hear a that it's not going to be on their taxes for either building or ongoing expenses.

And B is it coming from the community deserves to know that.

So those are a couple of the points.

I'm just, I'm just I was deeply disturbed when I when I saw this on the agenda because I thought I did expect a report back about Southeast.

I did not expect not only a report back, but an you know, an immediate ask for over you know around a million dollars and then an obligation for 30, 40, 50 million more in the future.

Yeah, your honor, I appreciate that.

And I mean, I think this is uh, you know, it's gonna be a conversation that you know you're trying to blend in a variety of of needs and perspectives.

Um we always intended and hoped to have an indoor option on the Southeast site.

I mean, that was part of the original proposal.

Unfortunately, you know, the the numbers didn't allow for that.

Um, it's a dynamic changing environment.

The we've been with this for a long time.

Um the TERF news is relatively new news.

That's different, you know, things have changed.

Um, I think if there's other sites and options, I I can't think of them, to be honest with you, that don't involve you know, utilities and new grading and buying a site unless we're talking about the site we own in the Northwest.

Um, just from a size perspective, whether it's this dome concept or the uh the other concept that was originally fitted for the site, um, they're just uh I'm not thinking of any you know sites that are immediately available that haven't been sort of ruled out in other conversations for other uses, right?

So open to that, but um I'm I'm not thinking of them at this point in time.

Um that doesn't involve a whole new cost structure and strategy for this.

Um I think the RCTC, you know, piece is uh I appreciate the clearest kind approach they've taken finally.

I mean, we've been having lots of conversations.

I thought the email we received was pretty clear.

It was copied to the president, and I haven't heard any different that there's any disagreement on the perspective included within that email.

Um, if that happens to change, um, you know, I guess we can re-engage in that conversation.

Um, but at this point, I I have to accept that as the direction that they provided until they tell us differently.

Um, and if they do, you know, we could obviously re-engage.

Also, though, want to tell you that there's a mountain of challenges with doing this project on that site.

First of which is you know, taking out four existing fields in an area that is well utilized and you know, people value.

Um, the second is we still would have to negotiate within a framework that you know that allowed for a ground lease that we would want to sign and they would want to sign.

Um that all would take a very significant amount of time given the approval processes.

Um given the level of progress we made from November of this last year to now, I might be able to bring you that back in a number of years.

You know, I mean, just as it would take probably an amount of time that the current construction pricing and current other things, you know, would make that challenging.

Not impossible, but there's a lot of concessions you'd have to want to think about in order to do that effectively on that site.

So I just you know want to lay that out there.

Certainly could work, but it's just on a different kind of uh immediacy and and time horizon.

As far as the holistic budget stability funds, um that is not necessarily ARPA funds.

Um we do have funds that we are putting in there if we have revenues over expenditures in the annual budget process.

Um we did code certain funds from the ARPA and original CARES funding uh two purposes and then transferred levy money into that fund as offsets for what we used as eligible expenses there.

But generally speaking, um, the more recent capitalization of that fund has been through um coming in under budget for the year um and and realizing your general fund balances on target with where you want that to be.

So I think those are your main capitalizations, but it it's a yes and you know so to follow up, Mr.

Chair.

I'm gonna actually go to council members and we will haven't answered all the questions.

We will get to those.

I have a list of your questions.

Council member Palmer.

Thank you.

As you speak, you always raise more questions, and and I appreciate what the mayor's trying to do here.

Um the first basic question is is what would be the cost just to do the underground, just to to get your site work done.

Do you have an idea what that would cost?

Um Palmer, I if I'm understanding your question, I I don't know that there's a net differential on the cost to make the changes, if that's what you're asking, like just something you could do to make sure it's placeholder to allow for some future conversation.

Sewer line big enough, is the water line big enough?

Yeah, is it is it graded enough?

Would your holistic um budget stability fund cover part of that?

So if we decided let's put a pause on this, let's let's get this construction work done and it's a gamble, but you at least would be able to sit down and figure out what you want to do later on with the building.

Yeah, I think if you position the site to work later, I I don't know that those costs would be material, we'd have to do some additional work there.

Um, what I would say is is just it might look funny for quite some period of time because you would be leaving some open spaces on the site that you it wouldn't intuitively looking at it makes sense to have the parking here versus elsewhere, but um yeah, it could be done, and I think at a fairly reasonable cost.

Okay, yeah.

Um I mean, you you've heard people with a frustration over the original plan and what we're trying to do.

Um had we just written down or provided to the community why the original thought process didn't work and why the budget was so high, and and and why we're at the spot we are at right now with with basically doubling the cost of what we thought it was going to be.

Because I know for a fact that it wasn't uh uh bait and switch, it was an honest we had our money coming or our uh consultants told us this is what it was going to cost, and that's what we went with that, and we were only 10% designed at that time.

Um, even this design that you're showing today is probably 10% design.

Yeah, not even 10%.

Yeah, and so you know that gets us in trouble with the community is that they see this, and all of a sudden, someone a year from now is gonna say, Well, where are the pickleball courts?

Where is the spectator spot?

And you I mean, I can understand where people get frustrated with that.

I mean, do you see that?

Yeah, no, I I understand.

You also have to have something to say I want to spend a million dollars to kind of point toward to, and so it's an iterative conversation.

But yeah, I mean, there is a reason why we're reluctant to say this is exactly how it would be financed because we don't have a good cost estimate, and how much you're gonna finance on this project really does sort of drive into you know what what how good is your estimate, and you know, in terms of what are your options, you have to definitely relate those.

Just back to how we got to this point.

I think there was a question in there about that.

Um, yeah, it was unfortunate.

We got an unfortunate initial estimate on the option that uh the 65 million dollar project that said we could do indoor and outdoor.

Um maybe a slight gap to be closed there, but we we just didn't get a good uh and a good estimate, and then as we went through the next phase of design and construction and further evaluation with the project, um, it became clear that we weren't gonna be able to do both phases of the project.

Now, at that time, the council provided distinct direction to say we want to, you know, we want to phase this, we don't want to lose sight of the fact, and here we are talking about what phase two wants to look like.

Um, but it really was yeah, just an unfortunate estimate that we relied on in good faith, and um you know it's been challenging ever since.

Now, I'd say if we were talking about a similar facility, that was for about 130,000 square feet, which was mostly um eight indoor gyms.

Uh that add to this project, and I'm just gonna make I'm not gonna this is not a definitive number, but it's not 55 million, it's substantially more than 55 million if we wanted to do that, and no turf in that scenario.

So conventional construction, eight gyms, even what we're talking about back then, um, you know, is a much larger project.

We were pricing out a metal building, uh, a grade of construction less at more than 55 million dollars for this and less less space.

So just it's been an evolution, but clearly that one bad estimate is you know been challenging.

So the dome they're proposing is about the size of the fleet farm that's out there south of town.

Which which that's I know that for a fact.

So I mean, for people to look at that and go, wow, that's a huge building if you start just looking at the walls, um, which I thought was kind of a curious thing.

So RCTC, I know we worked with them for over a year.

Um, we tried to work with them and it didn't work out, but we do have a um commitment with them.

We have a we gave them sales tax dollars to build those buildings.

What are we going to do to get that market in better after five o'clock?

Since we have control or we can use that building after five o'clock.

There's very few people who've ever been there, let alone know that that's available or in the morning that that's available.

Yeah.

Good evening.

Uh Jenni Bowman Communications and Engagement.

Um, great question, Council President Palmer.

I think uh we have seen some opportunities already as we were moving through the colder weather months to work with RCTC uh to help promote those opportunities.

We did see um some positive uh response to that, and I would hope that as we continue to work with the RCTC uh folks that we can make additional strides.

Um, as uh mentioned by Mr.

Parrish, uh we will be coming back to uh you all as well as the park board to give an update on uh what we have been doing, and I think you're all aware we were uh did not anticipate uh, but I think great opportunity with community ed to work together on that survey so that now as we review that data as well, come back to you and say, here's what we've learned and what we've done.

Here's what we further learned in connecting with the community, and here's how we would intend to use the dollars that you've allocated as well.

So it really will be about continuous information sharing through a variety of um channels, but I think um would just fully agree that we have continued to see time and time again that there's an awareness uh gap and we need to address it.

Okay.

Um, Mr.

Parrish, in your presentation, I think if I read it right, there's about a half a million dollars of cost just to run a building without any programming in that building.

Um the rec center were about $800,000 a year in property tax.

Do you have any idea what we would want to have for out of the property tax to actually operate events and do things there?

Yeah, and again, I think that's part of this evaluation is you know, updating the pro forma.

You saw pro forma for the previous uh court-based facility.

Uh we would have to you know put that in.

I I would just to be you know, reflective of this.

I mean, there's likely some subsidy going to be required here to operate this.

Um, you have to balance out your values here.

You know, people are talking about wanting programming and unstructured programming and affordability that comes with the cost.

Um, and uh, you know, we are gonna be taking a fairly large amount of square footage.

So I I do expect that there will be you know be some level of deficit, but there are gonna be revenues to offset, right?

I mean, the existing bubble, you know, runs a deficit, but it you know also generates reasonable revenue there.

So I think it's just a lot of these facilities are about how do we manage the deficit and what can we expect in that space?

And if you want more affordability, more unstructured time, we probably have to be willing to think about some level of deficit.

But we'll try to bring that back to you once we get a better sense of the program after the engagement.

And just my last question would be um with our current facility that we have out there, we have a third-party operator operating that.

Are they out promoting this?

Are they looking for sponsorships for the fields?

And in is that revenue that they retain, is that revenue that we would retain?

How do we how do how do we get some some financial backing there?

Yeah, so I mean they're definitely uh you know, beginning to do outreach in terms of you know bringing events and tournaments, you know, into that facility.

Now we're only partially open come you know next year and then fully open, you know, the following.

So uh there's some onboarding time for that.

Um, we do know that they've engaged with the group to solicit sponsorship, and they're out doing some of that and having some level of preliminary interest and success.

The same thing would happen with a facility like this.

So those things can be material in terms of offsetting construction costs or offsetting operating costs.

I mean, I think our orientation or my recommendation to you is to look at ops offsetting your operating costs with those sponsorships.

But um, I think there's that potential.

Um, but that could be someone else's logo, you know.

I mean, I think if you go to naming rights and all that, those are definitely areas that we're gonna want to explore.

Um, but they go into a common budget.

Uh, we contract them to do the operations, they have some incentives to, you know, be in a surplus situation.

The incentives don't kick in if they're in a deficit situation.

So we've tried to structure the agreement.

With that being said, we do these on a five-year basis.

Uh, so things aren't going the way we want them to go.

We reevaluate where we're at every five years and say, yeah, this is really working out great, or no, you know, a public model is better, or doing another RFP is a better option.

And you skipped along a little bit on opening next year um partially for the fields.

Is that because of the the artificial turf?

It's hard to get.

Is it is a rationale or how much is going to be open?

Is it gonna be open next June?

Is it gonna be open next September?

What what's your guess?

Yeah, Ben here.

I'd rather not guess.

I'll just not guess either, but yes.

Good evening, uh, council and mayor.

So uh timeline right now is that we would have four fields and the rectangle fields open by next April, May.

So we'll have most nearly all of the outdoor season with it open, just the scale of the full project with 10 artificial turf fields and all the grading and other things, utilities, all of that.

We the timeline just the kind of scale of construction doesn't allow for to have the entire facility open by next spring.

So then all fields would be open by spring of 2028.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Keene.

Uh, thank you.

Yeah, I'm just gonna be very like small up front here, just in the seven-point action in front of us, there we don't talk about the operating model.

Um, and we probably would need something like that.

You referenced like is going to be a some sort of operating um subsidy, but I'm looking for the the process place for those decisions about how much um uh you know, structured versus unstructured, municipal versus contracted.

Is that like is that in that September meeting?

Is that in December?

That's further out.

We need to make the commitments before we're there.

Yeah, we certainly would you know hope to have that available for the September meeting, you know, just the working estimate based on the program and what's being recommended, just an update of the original pro forma.

And then obviously, you know, as you move toward getting bids uh on the 14th of December, you know, we'd continue to update those documents.

But yeah, we'd want you to make a decision to go ahead on the 14th, because there's another substantial amount of money to get you from September to December in terms of construction documents, almost another million dollars.

So, you know, we don't want to go down that road if you're not feeling good about how it's going to be operated, what the design looks like, and you know, is this if you meet the need that you perceive to be in the community?

One of the reasons we did lean towards the outdoor was because we did think the operating ongoing operating expenses was much lower than having indoor space in Minnesota.

Is that still an assumption here?

Is it I mean I'm making the assumption that with indoor space, even dome indoor space, the operating expenses are higher and hopefully the usage is more, but the operating expenses are higher?

I think that's fair.

Okay.

Um another mistake I made going into this when we were going waiting for the operating model on the outdoor sports thing.

I still have in my oversimplified mind, I thought operating model also included how do the non-tournament sort of community people get access to the asset.

I thought that was part of the operating model.

Can you talk about how if you have these courts and you have this somebody trying to, you know, um enlist these tournaments and these other kind of paying customers?

How does the Rochester youth basketball contract for it?

Is there something we're going to do to make it a civic asset, or is that considered we're in full cost recovery by then and they're paying customers like anybody else?

Yeah, I mean, it's gonna be a blended strategy.

You're definitely gonna have a fee for service, you know, the soccer club is gonna want to use the turf and you're gonna rent the turf by the hour.

Um, same thing with the court, same thing with pickleball.

Like there's you know, almost all of our recreation options have a fee for service element, and there's some value in that.

And I think part of this conversation is gonna want to say, how do you scholarship people into these options?

How do you provide that opportunity?

And as we were talking through with the indoor options at RCTC, you know, how do you provide unstructured time within that?

So it's not it's not exclusive, right?

You can do time for associations and time for unstructured.

So the West St.

Paul dome is an example.

Um they have open dome where if you just want to come in and kick a ball around or use the batting cages, that's certainly an opportunity or have a birthday party or whatever.

That's certainly an opportunity for people to do that.

That's scheduled.

They actually do that in a lot of their time in the summer because they don't have a lot of we'll call it paid time in that environment.

So, you know, these open dome times, same thing with your gym time.

Like if it's not scheduled, like it can be open, or that area on the uh sort of we'll call it the seating and play area.

I think that is designed primarily to be unstructured and not exclusive.

And so what amenities want to happen in there, whether it's an indoor playground, whether it's, you know, the kinds of fixtures and furniture that allow people to have that unstructured time.

I think that's what we're asking the community working group to solve through and provide input on.

But I think it's uh it's both, you know.

I I I appreciate that.

And I I realize it's not something that we're gonna have a you know, a set plan of September if we go in this direction.

At the same time, I I really do think it's onus, if there's on us on us to figure out how to create incentives if there's an operator that they make it more civic oriented, the way we've done with the civic center.

So I'm I'm really bringing these up more to think about it that way.

But so I think I've got my my answer.

I did want to just I I really struggle with this idea of I'm really glad we're doing a lot of community engagement, but that whole comment on what the community wants.

And I just have come to the conclusion that there are just an inordinate number of independent communities.

Um, and this thing started out coming much more as an economic development project that was really there to help our has our hospitality industry.

And now we also want these other benefits for local community assets, and I think it is possible to get us to both of it.

But as an example, do we have good like youth sports input and collaboration with this?

Do we still have like I know we're really struggling with the community input and how that happens and how we connect to them and how they get to the event, but do we have the other original players are looking at this and going, yes, this is we're bending in the right direction?

Yeah, you're honored.

I think that's part of this process again to kind of reaffirm.

I mean, we were out and had all those questions and conversations when we were looking at the original indoor facility, and you know, I think a lot of that perspective is rolled forward into this, and the needs we're trying to meet have rolled forward into this.

Um, but I think you know, validating that and understanding like this is a different concept, you know, again, because the turf evolution and trying to meet that need is come before you now as well.

So I think they'll I think yes, there is some perspective that these are needs, and um we want to validate that and just make sure in this environment that the perspectives were fine.

Very good.

Those are the kind of things I I'll hold on my comments on the other things, but they these are the things I'll be watching for, like in September that we also, along with the community, do do the people that we originally set out to try to serve the chamber and the the hospitality thing, they they think they're getting what they want, and we're able to get this other sort of the asset things because I I don't I don't want to set the goal of you know everybody's happy because it's just not gonna happen, but I also want to make sure that as we make these decisions, we have that aperture open and wide enough for all the different opinions.

Thank you.

I want to listen to my peers now.

Councilmember Miller.

Yeah, I'll just start with where I am and then I have some questions.

At the study session, as the mayor said, my understanding was the urgency was really what is the potential decision to leave room at the South site.

It was not clear to me that we would be asked at this meeting for more than a million dollars of investment authorized to move this forward because it felt like instruction is moving forward.

If we're going to ever have the possibility of this type of concept at that South site, we would just need to adjust parking utilities.

So I would be fine doing that.

I am not in a place where I'm ready to move this forward at this rate at this cost.

And the reason is if we go back to the sales tax, it was an authoration authorization of $65 million for a sports and recreation center.

We asked people what they wanted if we were to spend $65 million on sports and recreation.

Many people told us indoor we weren't able to provide that.

And so we went in this direction with the potential, and I even remember council member Keene saying we should be clear to the community.

There's no guarantee of a phase two.

We are authorizing a phase one.

And so now we have this new opportunity.

But we haven't told people what the funding can be used for.

I don't know what the funding is.

It's unclear if this is restricted to sports and recreation.

And so if that were the case, then I feel like yes, we have good community engagement.

If that funding could be used for other community needs, the mayor did a Rochester Vision 2050 survey.

I've talked with plenty of people that are interested in cults, uh cultural and arts programming and investments and other aspects of our community beyond sports and recreation.

And I feel like even the way this community working group model is structured here, we're presenting a concept that's already fully realized in its concept and asking them to make tweaks within the building.

And I don't feel like that's a pathway that we rebuild trust with the community.

And so I'll just I'm interested in my peers' conversation on this.

But I think the elephant in the room is what is this potential funding source?

Is it property tax?

I would appreciate comments that would clarify that it's not property tax going into this if it if it's not.

But I think we really have to have a better conversation about how $55 million could be invested for the best need for the most pressing needs of our community, and not say, well, we have engagement about a prior $65 million authorization for a sports and recreation center.

And so we can expand that.

And I'll I'll just say too, I I received a question today uh from somebody who's active in the space and said, where was this $55 million in the prior discussion?

Why why wasn't it available to not say, well, we can't do both, but here's how we could do both.

So I I feel like we're moving ahead of the community, and I'm not comfortable with that.

And I'll I'll leave my comments there for now and look for what my peers have to say.

Thank you, Councilmember.

I'm gonna weigh in now as well because I think a lot of my thinking is along the same lines as Councilmember Miller was talking about.

I really have trouble justifying a million dollars when we don't know if we're even going to do this.

It feels like we're putting the cart before before the horse.

I uh I really want to see community engagement, but I also want to see community engagement on the funding model.

I want I want our constituents to say, yes, we do want to spend this and whether it's a mix of uh of uh property tax or uh other funding sources.

I think we need to be very transparent about what those potential funding sources are.

And when it comes to the design and getting us higher design, I'm don't quite understand how that's gonna help us with the funding model because with the original 65 million in sales uh tax dollars, that was set.

That was our cap.

And so we did design up to that.

Couldn't we do design up to 50 or 55 million and have uh have you folks come back to us, whether it's September or earlier than that, and say these this is the funding model that we propose for uh providing this amenity to this community.

And I say that as someone who really encouraged the team to expedite this because I heard from uh the community that they felt they were getting indoors.

So uh myself and council member Wall and and Mayor Norton spend five months, not a whole year, council member uh Palmer, but five months really encouraging and working uh to try to get some kind of reimagination of something on the RCTC campus.

I do believe, unfortunately, Mayor, that the the message that we got last week was a final no for now.

And so that is not an option for us, but I still I want more greater transparency on this funding model before I even commit a million dollars to it.

And then just one other thing that I I think I I am very proud of the work that folks have done on uh serving the community uh community ed uh and the work that we've done with RCTC on what we want to see.

And the the message we get loud and clear is we want greater visibility of the offerings that we have across the spectrum.

So what I really want to see in conjunction with capital project like this is what is our plan for marketing our uh entire sports and rec facilities that includes RCTC, the recenter, and uh the uh regional sports center and potentially this project.

So with that, I will uh stop and uh turn it over to Councilmember Wall.

Thank you.

Boy, this is complicated.

Uh goes back years, uh goes back through uh community vote, goes back through uh failed uh expectations uh with the money that is available to us through the sales tax.

Uh with many of the people on the council here, uh, I would be concerned if there were property tax dollars that were going into the building of this.

And of course, part of the recommendation uh that we're being asked for is for uh the staff to go back and and uh flesh out exactly how this thing could be financed.

Um with the proviso that property taxes were not used in the building.

I'm not necessarily saying in the operating.

I think that is uh another issue that we will deal with.

But in the building, uh I would be more amenable to uh at least in taking these next steps to see what what is true and what is possible for us given the funding sources that we have available.

So that's the funding part.

Uh Aaron, you started going down uh a road that I thought was helpful, uh, and I think you can complete that story in comparison of the building that uh was being promoted at the time of the vote and uh the building that is being uh uh promoted at this point.

For instance, the number of courts, the number of indoor pickleball courts, the large play area, the turf.

Uh could you do a comparison on those uh two buildings?

Yeah, um, mayor present members of the council.

So again, uh the original idea really was for eight um indoor gyms, uh 130,000 square feet, some you know, queuing space, pre-function space within that, and then within that you could program courts in many ways, but it really was eight courts.

There wasn't a lot more to it than that.

Um, you know, there was a room for some some meetings and birthday parties and things like that.

Um the pickleball piece of that wasn't dedicated like it is here, it would have taken place on those courts, so you would have had shared use.

Um, in this case, uh, the number of courts uh is the same uh at eight.

Uh, there wasn't really any indoor playground or any of that seating and play area, which is a substantial area.

And of course, uh there was a piece that you know allowed TERF to be added on later, um, but that was not part of the original scope at that point in time.

And so, yeah, I mean, again, if you just think about, I know Councilmember Plummer used Fleet Farm as the analogy.

Um, really think about the existing uh dome if you've been in there, and just think it's more than twice the size of that.

So you have the existing dome and this area, the space to the right, um, really is additional space that you have the opportunity to program in many, many ways.

Uh so I I do think it's an enhancement.

Um, and again, this this whole journey for us all has been challenging.

And we had a YMCA close, we had a bad estimate, we've tried to partner in many other different places.

It was hard to find the property.

I mean, you all went through a very substantial, you know, property acquisition, you know, phase of this project.

And so yeah, it's like anything.

Good great projects are never easy.

Um, if if you wouldn't mind, I I mean I'm happy to provide some more context on financing.

Um, and I mean maybe just preface this and say you don't have to do any of this, right?

Like this is really just and I'm not here saying like, hey, we got to do this.

I'm I'm trying to be responsive to the idea that um you've identified need, we've uh you asked us to come for it with options at a point in time.

And um, you know, but this is this is a discretionary investment.

Um, it's a quality of life thing, and we're in the quality of life business, and so you know, you think about that.

Um, that's important.

Um, and again, I think maybe just because of this has been such a tricky project that you know, we're a little gun chai to overcommit to you know, trying to develop a financing strategy for something that I don't have a number for.

And so, you know, it's like anything.

If you want this, and we estimate right now it could be 55 million.

Um, that's one thing, but we haven't gone through design process.

So I would like to get you better information before we have the opportunity to do that.

Um, so it is a you know, uh you know, a confidence thing in terms of some of this.

Um also can say, like you could you're you may always set a budget of 55 million.

Um we did that with the regional sports and rec complex.

It's like we want to design, we have 65 million dollars to work with.

We've done projects that way too.

Um so that's certainly an option.

Um, but we also like to give you the room to make the decision of I would like to invest more.

I want to stick to this budget because that's just the number.

Um, so I think there's there's those things.

With that being said, um, you know, there's a handful of financing options that we present.

We certainly can work that into the design phase and have you know public engagement around uh the financing options that we likely would present um in September.

Happy to do that if that's what you'd like to do.

And it's just gonna have this big qualifier like on the bottom, like images are concepts and will be refined as the design and budget evolve.

Like, you know, we just start trying to manage expectations.

Um, and there's really just a handful of options.

There's not a there's not a significant number of them.

I mean, it could be a property, you know, tax finance facility.

I don't think that's what you're asking me to do, but like if you were to ask me to come with options, that's one option.

You know, that's always a thing you can consider.

Um, there's P3 models where you basically say, you know, we'll you know, get a private investment.

Um that will cost you something per year.

It could be offset by some amount of operations, but you're likely having to find a way to pay for that in some way, shape, or form, right?

Um, and then the other probably more leading idea is to um prioritize our sales tax above the 205 million dollars that we have collected.

So there is statutory authority that does allow us to invest in a regional sports and rec complex, not to council member Miller's question earlier, not in you know, just a wide variety of community priorities.

It's a very distinct authority, has to be over 40 million dollars.

It has to be focused either on a civic center, like think of civic center or regional sports and rec facility.

So those are like the two criteria for that funding.

Um, there is a law that allows us to do that based on our existing authorization.

We have the ability to overcollect um for uh anything above 205 million dollars.

And our current sales tax is projected with the years that we have available to it to collect much more than 205 million dollars.

So um again, need a target, uh, want to understand that.

But those are the types of ideas that we would be bringing for you to consider in September.

Thank you.

I I still have two more questions.

Councilmember Wall, thank you.

And I really appreciate uh that uh uh better explanation.

I think that uh adds to some clarity anyway of what might be possible in the future.

Uh going back to the building itself, uh one of the big ads, there are many ads, but with the big ad, of course, is the turf.

And uh if we were to build this, it would be a direct replacement for the RCTC dome, and we would have the only dome in town that would uh accommodate what RCTC currently hosts.

Would that be uh correct?

Yes.

And we do not see that the RCTC dome is going, it's limping right now, and uh it'll be on crutches soon, and not very good in the years to come.

Yeah, that's correct.

I mean, we're waiting for an evaluation of the dome to even determine if interim use is an option.

Um, but it's one or two years that you know we feel without some substantial investment.

Um, and there's gonna be a request of the city to make you know that investment to cover the interim operations, and so you'll have to determine that.

I mean, maybe that's the other bit of urgency here.

I know we talked a little bit about urgency.

Um, I mean, I think the two things you have to consider on whether you want to proceed with this project, just so you know, you have all the perspective.

One is um, you know, do we want to be in a perpetual cycle of trying to do an interim situation on the dome?

I don't think RCTC wants to do that.

I don't know that we can talk to them more about it.

Um, but you know, they've very distinctly said we are out of the dome business this fall.

We're likely gonna be asked to cover the deficit, a couple hundred thousand dollars, plus or minus, you know, again, to be determined.

But um, do you continue to do that if you don't have a strategy to go anywhere with this conversation, right?

Or do you just say we're we don't have a dome in the community?

Like, I think that's where we were at, but for you know, this conversation.

Um, the other is just you do have to bear in mind too.

Um, the appreciation of our revenue sources, sales tax in particular, probably is a lot slower than construction escalation.

So you do have diminishing buying power as you move through this.

So we we say construction escalation is in you know in the 10% range, probably.

I mean, it could be more, it could be less, but for planning purposes, we'll say 10%.

Um you lose buying power.

So the 250 that you see up there might be 200, you know, next year, and it might be something less than that the following year.

So you just have to realize the you know, when you wait, you have the potential to lose impact too.

And my last question is a simple one.

Uh, if this item were to pass, how would people indicate their interest in serving on the community working group?

We uh typically have had uh that flow through our communications and engagement team, and you know, there's a base of people that are familiar with the site and you know have served on the uh the previous outdoor option, but I think it would just be contacting Jenna and seeing if there's any.

Some of the contact communications, thank you.

Councilmember uh Keene.

Uh again, I just to move our discussion along.

I I want to propose putting a motion on the table and then if we amend it or however it goes if that is suitable.

Go ahead.

I'd like to move to approve the seven-part motion to proceed with phase two to address funding, design work, requests for proposals, financing ideas, and interim RCTC dome extensions.

Is uh a motion made by council member Keene.

Is there a second?

Second.

Councilmember Keene.

All right, so I'll give my like overview and we'll see where this goes.

But back into 2023, we came up with uh four projects for the sales tax, and um we went first to the state to get permission to take these to the voters, and that was the process.

Um, I think it's clear now that we erred in that process by sharing what what I think what we thought were concepts uh and possibilities that could be part of the regional sports section before we had done the hard work of finding land and buying land and improving land and getting to the point that we knew that what our capability was with 65 million dollars.

And I think the city, I think I've heard from uh city uh it's an administrator parish.

Yeah, we realize now that we've probably got ahead of ourselves with some of that.

Um, and then what we did was come back with a smaller plan that was within our within our funding stuff.

Um I I think in my view of coming here tonight, the decision and the proposals in front of us are trying to do better.

We we have to do more design and planning work before we start committing to what we think we can do.

Um, we need to adjust the current plans with things like parking so that we don't end up coming to deciding six months from now to do something and then finding out we need to tear up things like the build once problems.

Um and I wish I could give insurance assurances here that we would not fund any of this type of work based on tax levy.

Um I know that I wouldn't want to I would not support that, but I'm one of seven, and that may go that way.

But my sense from being up here for over the years is this council wouldn't go that way.

Um, I think what part of the work here is this um finding out what these other uh funding sources are.

Uh federal and state are always options for these things.

But I think what we talked about now with sales tax.

But the other one we've talked about in the heights hospitality industries talked about this.

Did they have examples, other places where um um the private sector through advertising or other sort of things is a is a is a good um input.

And maybe as as uh Mr.

Parrish says, maybe more for operations than for than for building.

Um I I think we have to be careful when we say we want to listen to what the community wants.

There are so many different bifurcated parts of the community.

Um, and I think the majority right now would say stop spending.

Um I think what I'm always concerned with is not just you know, it it's sort of what where the sources of the funds are coming from, and are those sources what they're being used for.

And and again, that's why I would say right now with tax levy, I think we would stay away from that and focus that on city services and and um um and public safety.

Thank you.

Councilmember Miller.

Yeah, I appreciate the motion.

I I won't be supporting it tonight, but um I I did want to go back to Mr.

Parish, your mention that the leading financing idea has some restrictions, but I didn't hear you say that it's only restricted to sports facilities.

And I look at our civic center and it has performing art space, it has an art center, it has flexible event space.

And I also think of other community efforts, and I I hear from constituents often that we don't invest that much in arts and cultural spaces for people.

And so I am uncomfortable moving forward with further investment in sports tonight without a deeper dive into potential uses, be they limited with some restrictions by the authorization of how could a scale of funding like this potentially be used and add an asset to our community.

And I would just go back to when we had the conversation over multiple meetings about what are the council's priorities and what are our um strategic priorities and foundational principles.

The idea of inclusivity in the decision making and then the growth management came out in both, and we adjusted them in that direction.

And I am highly concerned that if we move this motion forward as as proposed, that we are losing further trust in those areas.

So I will not be supporting this tonight.

I would like us to hold hold space at the site and have a better community conversation about what could be done with that leading financing idea.

Councilmember Doring.

Yeah, I won't I also will not be supporting this motion tonight for many other reasons that uh Mr.

Miller just shared as well.

Uh I am concerned about the financing model relying on the extending the sales tax even a little further or collecting more sales tax.

Uh just because we can do something doesn't mean we should do something.

And I'm I'm concerned about that, especially without uh increased community engagement or can increase community knowledge about that.

I would agree with the I with the idea of holding space uh at our South site for uh future indoor uh development.

I just don't think we're here at at this point.

I I do recognize urgency uh for that.

Um, but I think we can come up with some uh additional creative solutions in the interim as we continue to uh suss out what the community wants with with uh uh a huge build of indoor space.

I also hear from the community about concerns about not investing in in cultural uh amenities or arts amenities in this community.

So I would love to explore that a little bit further.

I would encourage us if we engage with a community working group that we actually ask those uh different segments of that community working group to nominate spokespeople for those community groups uh rather than just real uh relying on the same voices we heard in the first phase of the project.

Uh increased engagement in that way brings more buy-in and more voices to the table, and that is essential to me.

So uh those are my thoughts uh this this evening.

Again, I will not be supporting the motion.

Thank you, council member.

I'll just uh say I will not be supporting this motion for very targeted reason.

It's like I said, I feel we're putting the cart before the horse.

I don't I think we need to have uh community engagement on the funding models that you, Mr.

Parish, outlined verbally for us and have a greater discussion on uh amongst this body as well as in the community on do we want to spend that and use those resources for this indoor?

And I say that as someone who has worked really hard over the last year to expedite this discussion and to uh uh to uh give us some options on indoor.

I I like the model.

I think we also and also need to know more about um the uh the uh all weather dome.

We should uh visit some that are in operation and take a look at them.

And one of my favorite terms is glide path this discussion with our with our uh constituents on uh on this is a uh uh a very viable option for indoor and uh and really sell it to our community.

And uh, but I I really feel hesitant to commit even a million dollars before having that discussion.

Councilmember Fredericks.

Thank you.

Remember when you were a kid and you used to get on a steep hill and think you're gonna run down it real fast, and you just get going and you lose your footing and you start doing somersaults and all kinds of stuff.

That's kind of how I feel.

I'm very much for anything to add economic stimulus to this community for the businesses for everybody.

I'm any I'm all about overall health, physical health, health of our community as well.

I'd just like to slow down just a little bit.

That's the only reason I'm gonna vote no tonight is because I just I just want to slow down a little bit.

That's it.

With that, uh Carler Ceso, could you call the roll?

Oh, uh Councilmember uh Wow.

Go ahead.

I'm sorry.

Just a point of order.

Uh I would like to know precisely what the motion is.

Uh there were seven parts, but I just want to know precisely what the motion is.

Councilmember Keene.

Yeah, again, tried to write it up without reading the whole thing back to us, but I move to approve seven-part motion to proceed with the phase two sports complex, address funding, design work, request for proposals, financing ideas, and interim RCTC dome extension.

Thank you.

As as presented.

As presented on our screen.

Uh council president, can I just get clarity?

Because I heard a desire for something different.

And if you vote no on this motion without amending it, I don't know if you have the opportunity to vote on something different.

Clerk Caseel, if this motion goes down, are we able to uh to uh put forth an alternative uh proposal?

I would say that if you wanted to do something else, you should probably amend the motion so the topic does not um fail completely tonight at this point.

Thank you.

Is there any amendments to this motion?

I'll propose an amended motion to adjust the site for the existing regional sports and recreation complex, particularly the parking areas to allow for a footprint of a potential future indoor space.

And to request thank you, Councilmember Palmer, and to request additional review of funding models at a future study session or council meeting.

Second so that would that was an amendment by councilmember uh Miller and seconded by was it Councilmember Palmer?

Councilmember Miller, can you clarify your your amendment?

Uh sure.

Well, I let me ask you a question.

I with your amendment, are you removing items one, two, three, four, and five from the action requested on our screens?

Say those numbers one more time, please.

It's one through five.

It's the funding piece.

It's I would uh clarify that I I understand six as presented here is is a financing option for this design.

I would clarify that I would like a financing discussion of the potential funding source and how it could be used, be it this project or other statutory options within that authorization.

And it doesn't have to be at the September 9th City Council member city council meeting, that's fine if it is.

But I would like us also, as I understood during the study session where we last discussed this, to just do the immediate work of utility location and making sure that we're not building a parking lot where something could be in the future.

Those are the two actions I'm suggesting we take.

And it I I want to ask the question again because i is your action striking.

I would suggest I'm striking the entire list of seven here.

Okay.

And proposing alternate actions that we have a deeper dive into the funding model.

Point of order.

I would suggest that's a substitute motion and not an amendment to a motion.

Okay.

I think uh if you saved um one of the points.

How about we save seven?

There you go.

Pursue interim options for existing RCTC dome extension of that beyond this season.

Is there clarity on the amendment?

Councilmember Palmer.

Yes, I'm very clear.

So nope, I I guess I I understand that again, trying to, I mean, this is more manipulative, just keeping seven, but there's also the I thought embedded in what Councilmember Miller said, and also make the arrangements at the South site to, and that's not in the motion right now.

So I would suggest that it we can keep seven and amend it to add actions of bring a uh future council discussion of potential funding sources and their possible uses.

And as it can be number three in this list, prior nine, is to um authorize the realloc relocation of parking, et cetera, on the existing site to leave space for future indoor construction.

I am going since we are at uh roughly eight uh seven forty-five, I am going to take uh uh uh have a 10 minute break and I'm going to uh ask Councilmember Miller and Councilmember Palmer to work with Clerk Caseill to write up this uh amendment.

We're on break.

Can I borrow a sheet of notebook paper?

I can't rip it out of this.

All right, we're gonna uh we're gonna get back get started, and uh Councilmember Miller, can you uh read your amendment?

Sure.

So a motion for to amend by striking numbers one through six of the main motion, leaving item seven and adding two additional requested options.

And uh Councilmember Palmer, are you good with that?

Okay.

So we have a uh amendment.

Any further discussion on this amendment?

Council Member Keene.

Just to clarify on the adjust the RCT site, is there a cost associated with that, or that's not a cost?

Go ahead.

Uh your mic.

Yeah, your honor.

Um appreciate the question because during the the break, had the opportunity to kind of group up with the team, and there there will be some additional costs there.

I I don't know that that should influence we can't tell you what those are.

I think what we will do is make every modification we can um in order to best position that for future use, but it's not to say that there's not going to be any cost with that in the future, that there might be some site disruption and modifications that end up having to happen.

But just respecting the fact that you're you know clearly not in a position to understand what that is.

Um but I just want to forecast that you know there probably would be some additional costs um in the future for that.

So that's a good clarification, thank you.

Clerk Caseel, could you call the roll?

Councilmember Keene.

Aye, Councilmember Miller.

Aye, Councilmember Wall.

Aye.

Councilmember Fredericks.

Aye.

Councilmember Palmer.

Aye.

Councilmember Doring.

Aye.

Council President Schuhring.

Aye.

Okay.

The amendment passes 7-0.

So uh, and we're back to the original motion.

Uh, and that was made by councilmember Keene.

We're we're back to the amended motion.

We're back to the original yeah, amended motion.

So any further discussion on that.

All in favor say aye.

Aye, aye.

Opposed say nay.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Moving on to H two, which is the contract approval plan for enhanced public realm delivery.

And this is an item that was pulled by both Councilmember Palmer and Miller.

Councilmember Palmer, do you would you like to start?

Well, thank you.

Um what what is the funding source for this money?

DMC.

Who's going to take that?

Ums Woodright.

The question.

Thank you.

Um, it will be DMC funding.

And is this only going to be in the current DMC area?

That is correct.

Um, there is a map on the within the RFQ on page nine that identifies the streets that'll be examined and they are all within the current DMC boundaries.

That's what I just wanted to hear.

Um I'm not in favor of this only because a lot of reasons, but the biggest reason is that I think that we have staff and we have male clinic people working.

I don't think we need to add more people to this.

And I'll give you kind of an example that we've had two recently that having more than a lot of people involved and nobody really wants to take responsibility.

And one of them would be for the St.

Mary's Electrical that cost us $900,000 in the Peace Plaza.

And everybody's playing to everybody else on these issues that these are this is what went wrong.

So I think adding one more group to this does it make any sense.

And so I won't be supporting this um request.

Councilmember Miller.

So I pulled this for a different reason, and I had had some conversation with Ms.

Woodward.

Um, but I was hoping that you could clarify the process of the RFQ, narrowing down the applicants, and then narrowing down finalists and making the recommendation.

Can you talk about the the framework for that?

Who was involved, and and give us a better sense of how this recommendation came to be for this consultant?

Certainly.

So there was an RFQ process, so a request for qualifications.

We made it pretty widely open.

We received 10 proposals.

Um there was uh an initial review and scoring with a number of items.

I think there were about six different items that we were asked folks to score, included representatives across city departments, including parks, public works, community development, along with DMC um folks and Mayo looking at them.

We had a discussion and narrowed it down based on who scored highest, and then we ultimately interviewed two firms, um, further asking some clarifying questions about scope and innovation and how the public engagement, and then we narrowed that down through that interview process and made the recommendation for Gable and Associates.

And at both stages of that were the different stakeholders evaluating the proposals or the the firms and then the interview responses independently, or was that done in a group?

We reviewed well that initially everybody scored them individually, and then we brought that together to have a discussion, and then through the interview process after the interviews, there were group discussions.

Okay.

So was it uh a unanimous decision?

Was it consensus?

What were some of the tension points of one versus the other?

Could you generally was consensus?

Part of what we were looking at is who really understood the scope of work, understood the timeline, really understood also the engagement efforts.

One um I would say proposal had more of doing a larger engagement, but we also recognize there's been a lot of engagement done to date, and we wanted to build off of the existing engagement so that we're not tiring folks out of repeating some of that same information.

Also understanding the complexities of we have a tight timeline with uh mail construction happening and being able to get these design elements together to be able to give them to the project managers who are gonna be looking at these infrastructure projects and how all that's gonna work together really well.

Okay.

And that's what it seemed like to me too, uh, from some conversations I had.

Uh but I I guess one of my concerns, and I I'm happy to support this tonight, but I I feel like often we move with urgency as things come up.

And I know that innovation was part of that RFQ.

And I read through both of the proposals, and I it's unclear to me that we're choosing a firm that is is really bringing core innovation.

And I I hope that that's the case when they actually deliver this project.

But I wouldn't want us to lose sight of innovation, especially when we've gone through this process with the DMC EDA to develop these three areas, innovation being really one of our strong areas and design for well-being.

And I I just want to make sure that those are well represented.

And I know the other consultant is actively engaged with that, has done recent plan review, and I I see how there could be advantages to both firms in different ways.

And I again I just don't want one to miss all of the the requirements just because expediency and they're already engaged.

The the requirement will be to provide an innovation and really looking at different tiers and how does that get incorporated throughout the design.

So that element is required of the consultant to complete, and that will be some items that we will make sure as we kind of move forward that that is part of it, and also probably likely part of the engagement of what does that innovation really look like throughout this process.

Okay.

Is there a motion on this item?

Sure.

I'll I'll make a motion approving a contract with Gamble and Associates for the development of a plan for the enhanced public realm downtown adjacent to Mayo Bold Forward Unbound.

Motion made by Councilmember Miller.

Second, seconded by councilmember Doring.

Any more to add, Councilmember Miller?

No, I appreciate the opportunity to have this discussion in uh a public setting.

I know there's a lot of um competing uh factors that go into any of these recommendations, and I I just want us to make sure that we operate from a clear set of principles and don't get thrown off course as things get urgent.

And I know that that's come up with uh councilmember Keene talking about um transformative capital projects and really keeping to timelines.

And I know that the 38 million dollars for this area was approved a while ago, and then we didn't go out to RFQ until a lot closer to it, and it feels like maybe we've created some of this urgency.

And I again I I'm happy to support this firm.

I just want to make sure that we stick to the core principles and don't get thrown off course in a very busy uh project environment.

Other thoughts?

I would just echo and uh not in particular with this project, but I the urgency and the action plan, because there are so many uh so many plans that we've done, whether it's uh the small area plans around uh this building or the small area plan uh at uh AMPI and Kmart.

And they they're great plans, they're they're very uh creative, but then there's nothing to lift them off.

And uh this is a little different because it isn't a development project, but uh it's that action plan that happens after the plan is developed that I'm really interested in seeing and and hearing more about Ms.

Woodward.

Do you have a response to that?

Yeah, if you don't mind.

Um so all of this work will directly correlate to projects.

So part of what we're trying to do with this plan is to identify what these elements are gonna be in the overall streetscape design that will directly link to construction projects that are also gonna include underground infrastructure.

So it's really doing the upfront work with this so that those projects are ready to go and on schedule and on time as well.

So these this work will directly link to what will be in those construction projects.

Thank you for that.

Any further comments?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Uh say nay.

Nay.

The motion passes five to two with council members wall and palmer voting nay.

Uh with that, uh ordinance second reading.

Go ahead, Mr.

Spindler, Craig.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Item K1, an ordinance of the Rochester City Code approving the renaming of roadway section located at the intersection of 45th Street Southeast and St.

Bridget Road Southeast and runs eastwardly to sports complex site to game day drive southeast.

A move approval, second, motion made by councilmember Keene and seconded by Councilmember Wall.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Oppose say nay, motion passes.

Item K2, an ordinance amending section 3-1-17 of chapter 3-1 of Title Three of the Rochester Code of Ordinances relating to dangerous dogs.

Move approval.

Second.

Motion made by Councilmember Miller and seconded by Councilmember Doring.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Oppose say nay.

Motion passes.

Is there a motion to adjourn?

Mr.

Chair.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Does someone have a other business?

I did not hear about other business, but go ahead to Mayor Norton.

I just want to uh remind uh the council that I'm taking off on Wednesday afternoon to go to the U.S.

Conference of Mayors to forward a resolution for workforce development.

Um and we'll be back after.

And there are two items that I am not willing to put my name on, item F7 and K1 that will be in my box.

And Mr.

Chair, I would ask that you sign those, both related to the sports complex.

Uh thank you, uh Madam Mayor.

Uh is there any other business?

Seeing none, is there a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

Uh second.

Second.

Motion made by Councilmember Miller and seconded by Councilmember Fredericks.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Oh say nay.

We are adjourned.