OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Rochester, Minnesota/City Council
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Rochester City Council Study Session: October 26, 2026

City Council — Monday, October 26, 2026
BodyRochester, Minnesota
SessionCity Council
DateMonday, October 26, 2026
StatusNEW · FILED
Video Record
0:00 / 3:05:44

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

Speaker numbers apply only to this recording.

Speaker 1

0:14

Welcome everybody.

0:16

We will uh start our city council study session for October 26, 2026.

0:23

And we have a pretty hefty agenda today.

0:28

So we are going to start with a tax increment financing policy considerations, and we're going to move into prevailing wage background and overview.

0:39

Then we'll talk downtown employee parking program, then parkland dedication, and then we will leave this room and uh adjourn to a closed session for our city attorney performance review.

0:54

So a lot of stuff that we need to kind of cover in the next three hours.

1:00

So I'm going to start it off with Mr.

1:03

Josh Johnson and uh TIFF.

Unassigned speaker

1:05

Thank

Speaker 2

1:06

you, Council President.

1:06

Yeah, Josh Johnson, senior economic development specialist.

1:09

Um I'm joined here with my colleagues who've been working on this, Brent Svenby as well

Speaker 3

1:12

as well as Ryan Yetzer.

1:14

So if there's anything that uh I might forget, they'll they'll

Speaker 2

1:16

welcome them to jump in.

1:18

Um so yeah, thank you for having us back.

1:19

Uh last time we were in front of council with this topic was June 22nd, which does not seem that long ago, but um here we are in uh the first the first uh uh study session in in June was really to talk about the overall health status and then preview some of these topics um and now it's just going a little bit further.

1:37

So a lot of these recommendations are coming out of the uh TIFF analysis that was conducted by our financial consultants Ellers.

1:43

Um and we're just going a little bit deeper to talk about some of the policy uh considerations and and management of the TIFF districts.

1:51

So um we've got three different sections.

Unassigned speaker

1:53

The first section is just doing a little bit of you know, uh level setting, another just reminder of where we're at with TIFF, some of the benefits of TIFF, and then we'll break it down into two parts.

Speaker 2

2:02

So the first part will be how can we uh better utilize TIFF administrative fees that we collect from TIFF districts, and then the other section will be strategic pooling and how that can support economic development and how can we better utilize that as a as a

Speaker 3

2:17

financial tour uh tool for the city.

Unassigned speaker

2:21

Um

Speaker 2

2:21

so just going into some of the TIFF priorities.

2:24

So uh for the most part, Save Rochester utilizes three different TIFF districts.

2:28

There are several different types of districts that have different legislative requirements.

2:32

Uh the ones we traditionally relied on are housing districts that must meet certain uh uh area median income uh rates, redevelopment districts that are the standards, you know, Minnesota State statute uh districts, and then we have our special legislation for uh DMC TIFF districts.

2:50

Um, and then this image is is really just how do we use utilize those districts to help support and um advance the Rochester

Speaker 3

2:58

uh City Council strategic priorities.

Speaker 2

3:01

Um so investment to date.

3:03

Um we've gone back to this number a couple times.

3:05

We're in the range of 43 to 44 open TIFF districts.

3:08

We've got a couple more that we haven't certified, so um, you know, the actual number will be a little bit higher in the next month or two as we uh certify some TIFF districts.

3:17

Um of all the open TIFF districts to date, we've invested over 120 million dollars.

3:23

Uh that investment has led to the creation of over 4,000 residential units, of which 46% are affordable at uh 60% AMI or less.

3:32

So making a pretty significant dent in the affordable housing uh area.

3:35

Um we've also supported almost 800,000 square feet of commercial, uh almost 100,000 square feet of industrial, and then added almost 900 units of of hotel hospitality rooms.

3:46

Um whenever we establish a TIFF district, we always do it as a paygo, so pay as you go.

3:51

So it's actual the developer pays their taxes, almost the county collects those taxes, uh, they give the city the increment that was generated, and we provide the increment back to the developer.

4:00

So we're never outlaying any cash, it never impacts uh our state um general fund or our general levy.

4:08

Um also, you know, depending on the um how much TIFF we're utilizing.

4:13

Um, you know, we talked to our financial consultants, TIFF by itself doesn't necessarily impact our triple way bond rating.

4:19

However, positively it does impact the amount of market value growth and redevelopment uh we're told are important factors for receiving that triple bond rating.

4:27

So uh impacts it positively, not necessarily negatively.

4:32

Um using it as a as a tool for community development.

4:35

Um, the graphic on the left, you'll see that originally the market value for the sites that we've that we use TIFF for was uh were at about 43 million dollars in assessed market value.

4:46

Uh post-construction that those market values increased over 500 million, so an 860 per 2% increase in market value.

Unassigned speaker

4:53

Um that adds you know, about 450 million of taxable market value once those districts are uh decertified or are no longer um part of the TIFF district.

Speaker 2

5:05

Um

Speaker 1

5:06

Mr.

5:06

Johnson, can I ask you a question?

5:07

Uh back to the last side slide.

5:10

Uh of the 17 uh, well, all of the I see where you can you tell me with when it comes to the redevelopment districts and the housing districts, how are they spread across the city geographically?

5:25

Is

Speaker 2

5:25

there

Speaker 1

5:26

a concentration there?

Speaker 2

5:27

Good question.

5:28

The 17 housing districts are more widely distributed throughout the city.

5:32

Um those are affordable housing projects, a lot of them receive low income housing tax credits.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Parking█████████████████████21%
Prevailing Wage██████████████████18%
Tax Increment Financing█████████████████17%
Parks and Recreation█████████████████17%
Affordable Housing███████7%
Public Transportation█████5%
Public Works████4%
Labor Relations██2%
Public Engagement██2%
Summary of Proceedings

Rochester City Council Study Session: October 26, 2026

The Rochester City Council held a study session on October 26, 2026, from approximately 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., before adjourning to a closed executive session for the city attorney's performance review. The session covered strategic management of Tax Increment Financing (TIF), a prevailing wage policy overview, a downtown employee parking program, and a review of the parkland dedication ordinance. Council provided direction on staff proposals without formal votes, as is typical for a study session.

Tax Increment Financing (TIF) – Strategic Management and Policy Considerations (3:30 - 4:30 p.m.)

  • Staff outlined a plan to shift from managing TIF districts individually to strategically managing them as a citywide portfolio. Senior Economic Development Specialist Josh Johnson highlighted that Rochester has invested over $120 million across 43-44 open districts, creating over 4,000 residential units (46% affordable at 60% AMI or less).
  • Key recommendations included tracking and allocating staff time to TIF districts to recoup costs from administrative fees (currently a standard 5%), establishing broader project areas for coding efficiency, and passing legal fees for negotiations directly to developers.
  • Staff presented a major opportunity under the DMC legislation to pool 100% of increment for the full 25-year term. Decertifying districts immediately upon obligation completion would generate an estimated $14.5 million, while preserving eligibility for pooling could yield up to $66 million. Councilmembers expressed broad support for the strategic portfolio approach and the potential for pooling funds for infrastructure and affordable housing.

Prevailing Wage Background and Overview (4:30 - 5:00 p.m.)

  • Staff provided an overview of prevailing wage requirements for federally funded, state-funded, DMC, and city-funded projects. The city's current policy requires prevailing wage for all city-funded projects over $175,000.
  • A debate emerged over the policy's impact on project costs and competition. Councilmember Palmer argued it reduces competition and increases costs, particularly for wood-frame housing, questioning the efficacy of the city's own requirement. Councilmember Fredericks echoed concerns about cost.
  • Mayor Norton clarified that prevailing wage is the average wage for a trade in the region, not necessarily the highest. Staff noted that state and federal requirements apply to most projects anyway; of 44 past TIF projects, only 11 (wood-frame, non-subsidized) over 15 years would have been affected by a change in city-only prevailing wage rules. The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MFA) recently adopted a lower residential carpentry rate for projects under six stories, representing a potential 23% savings on carpentry labor. Councilmember Miller and Doring expressed openness to adopting a similar reduced rate for affordable housing projects, while Councilmember Keene requested more data from industry stakeholders before making broader changes.

Downtown Employee Parking Program (5:00 - 5:45 p.m.)

  • Transit and Parking Director Rachel Fauch presented options to address the cost of parking for non-Mayo downtown employees. Current ramp occupancy ranges from 62% to 73%, with 53% of spaces under contract. Options included a flat discounted parking rate, a reduced transit pass subsidy, or no program.
  • Councilmember Doring challenged the fairness of subsidizing downtown employee parking with city funds. Councilmember Fredericks countered that utilizing empty ramp space is not a true subsidy and is vital for struggling downtown businesses. Councilmember Wall and Keene expressed concern about potential impacts on the parking enterprise fund.
  • Councilmembers Miller and Palmer advocated strongly for partnering with the Rochester Downtown Alliance (RDA) to design and administer a pilot program, focusing on data collection and strict caps to avoid unintended consequences. The Mayor noted that getting employees off metered street spaces is a key goal.

Parkland Dedication (5:45 - 6:30 p.m.)

  • Parks and Recreation staff Paul Widman and Irene Woodward presented options to update the 1989 ordinance, including establishing a predictable per-unit fee instead of the current population-based formula. Current costs vary widely based on fair market value (e.g., a $300 fee versus a $1,000 fee for a single lot split).
  • Proposed per-unit fees ranged from $1,127 to $1,607 depending on density and whether the fee included full (Option B) or partial (Option C) park improvement costs. Staff recommended a hybrid geographic allocation (75% to the quadrant where development occurs, 25% citywide) and adding trails as eligible uses.
  • Councilmember Wall favored Option B but worried about housing affordability. Councilmember Miller supported adding trails and favored flexibility for affordable housing projects. Councilmember Palmer strongly supported a legislative change to allow fees on redevelopment sites (like the former YMCA). Councilmember Keene cautioned that legislative changes are difficult without regional allies. Councilmember Fredericks urged smart design to control maintenance costs.

Key Outcomes

  • TIF Policy: Council directed staff to implement a portfolio management approach, track staff hours for reimbursement, develop a legal fee pass-through policy, and return annually in Q2 for decertification and pooling guidance.
  • Prevailing Wage: No direction was given to change the city's policy. Staff were asked to gather specific regional wage data and engage with the local building industry to better understand the cost impacts, particularly regarding the potential use of MFA's lower carpentry wage rate for affordable wood-frame projects.
  • Downtown Employee Parking: Council directed staff to develop a formal proposal for a downtown employee parking and transit program in partnership with the Rochester Downtown Alliance (RDA). The proposal should include strict parameters and a plan to evaluate utilization and financial impact, to be brought back for council approval in the second quarter of 2027, aligned with the Link BRT launch.
  • Parkland Dedication: Council endorsed moving forward with a per-unit fee structure. Staff will engage the Rochester Area Builders and the Park Board before drafting specific ordinance language. The preferred model is a hybrid approach that includes improvement costs and a citywide funding component. Council supports pursuing a state legislative change to allow parkland dedication requirements for redevelopment projects.

Meeting Transcript

Welcome everybody. We will uh start our city council study session for October 26, 2026. And we have a pretty hefty agenda today. So we are going to start with a tax increment financing policy considerations, and we're going to move into prevailing wage background and overview. Then we'll talk downtown employee parking program, then parkland dedication, and then we will leave this room and uh adjourn to a closed session for our city attorney performance review. So a lot of stuff that we need to kind of cover in the next three hours. So I'm going to start it off with Mr. Josh Johnson and uh TIFF. Thank you, Council President. Yeah, Josh Johnson, senior economic development specialist. Um I'm joined here with my colleagues who've been working on this, Brent Svenby as well as well as Ryan Yetzer. So if there's anything that uh I might forget, they'll they'll welcome them to jump in. Um so yeah, thank you for having us back. Uh last time we were in front of council with this topic was June 22nd, which does not seem that long ago, but um here we are in uh the first the first uh uh study session in in June was really to talk about the overall health status and then preview some of these topics um and now it's just going a little bit further. So a lot of these recommendations are coming out of the uh TIFF analysis that was conducted by our financial consultants Ellers. Um and we're just going a little bit deeper to talk about some of the policy uh considerations and and management of the TIFF districts. So um we've got three different sections. The first section is just doing a little bit of you know, uh level setting, another just reminder of where we're at with TIFF, some of the benefits of TIFF, and then we'll break it down into two parts. So the first part will be how can we uh better utilize TIFF administrative fees that we collect from TIFF districts, and then the other section will be strategic pooling and how that can support economic development and how can we better utilize that as a as a financial tour uh tool for the city. Um so just going into some of the TIFF priorities. So uh for the most part, Save Rochester utilizes three different TIFF districts. There are several different types of districts that have different legislative requirements. Uh the ones we traditionally relied on are housing districts that must meet certain uh uh area median income uh rates, redevelopment districts that are the standards, you know, Minnesota State statute uh districts, and then we have our special legislation for uh DMC TIFF districts. Um, and then this image is is really just how do we use utilize those districts to help support and um advance the Rochester uh City Council strategic priorities. Um so investment to date. Um we've gone back to this number a couple times. We're in the range of 43 to 44 open TIFF districts. We've got a couple more that we haven't certified, so um, you know, the actual number will be a little bit higher in the next month or two as we uh certify some TIFF districts. Um of all the open TIFF districts to date, we've invested over 120 million dollars. Uh that investment has led to the creation of over 4,000 residential units, of which 46% are affordable at uh 60% AMI or less. So making a pretty significant dent in the affordable housing uh area. Um we've also supported almost 800,000 square feet of commercial, uh almost 100,000 square feet of industrial, and then added almost 900 units of of hotel hospitality rooms. Um whenever we establish a TIFF district, we always do it as a paygo, so pay as you go. So it's actual the developer pays their taxes, almost the county collects those taxes, uh, they give the city the increment that was generated, and we provide the increment back to the developer. So we're never outlaying any cash, it never impacts uh our state um general fund or our general levy. Um also, you know, depending on the um how much TIFF we're utilizing. Um, you know, we talked to our financial consultants, TIFF by itself doesn't necessarily impact our triple way bond rating. However, positively it does impact the amount of market value growth and redevelopment uh we're told are important factors for receiving that triple bond rating. So uh impacts it positively, not necessarily negatively. Um using it as a as a tool for community development. Um, the graphic on the left, you'll see that originally the market value for the sites that we've that we use TIFF for was uh were at about 43 million dollars in assessed market value. Uh post-construction that those market values increased over 500 million, so an 860 per 2% increase in market value. Um that adds you know, about 450 million of taxable market value once those districts are uh decertified or are no longer um part of the TIFF district. Um

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com