Welcome. Please rise as you're able for the pledge of allegiance. Indivisible, with liberty and justice for God. Thank you, and welcome to our, Monday, September 22, city council meeting. We begin every city council meeting with our open comment period. This is a time, where anybody has two minutes to speak for a total of twenty minutes, and, I request that each speaker be concise to allow more people to speak during the designated time. Participants are also encouraged to,
limit comments generally to topics that are within, the scope and jurisdiction of the city's, ability to affect policy. Council members and staff do not respond directly to your comments during public comment, but instead will follow-up as on any specific request separately. If you have materials to share with the council, you may give them to the city clerk. Over there, clerk Queso, could you raise your hand? And, she will distribute materials to the council. And, I will also be keeping track of time through two methods.
One is a stopwatch back there that's set currently for two minutes, and so you could you will be able to see that from the podium. And then there's also a stoplight there over by the mayor that will at I believe the one minute mark will start to give you a yellow light. So with that, I will, go to our list, and we have, Molly Dennis. K. K. Is this working? Okay. Thank you so much. On August 18, the National Civic League inquired about these, civic engagement cards that you all got to to help address the decreased public engagement
as city council meetings. Here are the facts. September 8, along with the the local news reporter, myself and half a dozen residents showed up at city hall. We had done a prior Google search, and that is where the meeting was said to be. But in fact, it was here. It had been moved to RPU and thus silenced an incredible amount of voices at that this month's meeting. Also, these constant changes in location disrupt public engagement. Having only two short minutes, which are subjectively enforced, if you look at the record, lead residents to believe that their voices do not matter.
Moving the council meetings to 6PM, which is a proven dinner time, has also had a substantial substantial drop in public engagement. I was there for the vote and have seen it happen. Silent pub silencing public comment on all Rochester social media has proved to residents that Rochester, all of you, do not care about their opinions. And having meetings behind closed doors, you rode public trust, and that transparency is trust. So I just ask that please do not falsely claim that our city or anyone on the diocese here cares for residents what residents think as your actions and your
policy prove otherwise. And since I have just a moment of time, I would like to also address the three one one system that fails to respond to citizens' questions. So ask that president Schoebring, if you could help enforce that your statement that, staff or council will follow-up, I would like staff and council to follow-up on all the previous months of questions that I have had about potential wasteful spending here in Rochester that will impact their taxpayer dollars in the future. So I appreciate those, two things being done, and I hope and just wanna say thank you for the very brief two minutes
of time. Thank you, miss Dennis. Miss Dennis is the only person who signed up. Is there anyone else wishing to be heard during our open comment period? Anyone else wishing to be heard during our open comment period? Seeing none, I will close open comment period and ask clerk Casel to please call the roll. Good evening. Council member Keane? Here. Council member Miller? Here. Council member Wall? Here. Council member Fredericks? Here. Council member Palmer? Here. Council member Doring?
Here. Council president Schuberting? Here. Mayor Norton? Present. Thank you. Next, actually, we've got a slight change to our agenda this evening. We do have a member of our Rochester legislative delegation here who asked to, address the council for, about five minutes. And, just so, members of the public know, we will extend this opportunity to any other Rochester legislators. So without objection, senator Carla Nelson. Well, thank you, mister president, council members. I know you have a packed agenda tonight,
and so I do appreciate the opportunity to just, bring you greetings from the Minnesota senate. A bit of a short wrap up, although we've had lots of times for wrap ups, and also, speaking about things important to Rochester. And then, at the end, I'd like to just give some brief, I have a memo from the senate, fiscal staff, taxation staff, nonpartisan staff, just about the, local sales taxes. And I just want to that's available to you, and the public too if they'd like. But I thought we might just address that a little bit to make sure we
all have the same set of facts we're we're dealing with. We might have different opinions, but perhaps different, but not different facts. So one, I just wanna say it's a joy to, be here with you. It's a joy to be your partner at the state level. Certainly, a lot of things that are happening at the state certainly impact the Rochester community, the broader Rochester community. I think, something that is heavy on all of our hearts, and I would just be remiss not to mention it is is the, the violence that we have seen, to elected officials. And it was very hard to see that with my my state colleagues,
with the murders of the Hortman, the attempted murders of the Hoffman's friends of us all. That was a terrible thing to see. And then the most recent, the the shootings at the, at the school and and then with, Charlie Kirk. I mean, this just has to stop. We have to, all say there is no room for this type of violence. And, with that, I will just speak a little bit about the things that, are important, to you. I know one thing that I heard the most about at the legislature was local government aid, hear about that a lot,
LGA. And as you know, the legislature came into session with looking down the barrel of a $6,000,000,000 budget deficit. That's not a happy time. And, unfortunately, one of those first initiatives was to really drastically reduce local government aid. I want you to know the League of Minnesota Cities, your lobbyists have been very effective at the capital. Sometimes you have to look at what what good things that were accomplished. Sometimes you have to look at that in the alternative. What bad things were we able to stop?
And in this case, I was very glad that we were able to, not, pursue with the local government aid, reductions that had been proposed by some. As you know, the Rochester local government aid in 2025, 5,000,000, thirty thousand eight seventy eight. And then in 2026, the proposal, didn't go up by much, but it did, briefly. $5,034,737 is the anticipated piece. We know that those are, challenges. Excuse me. Three year old mother who's probably watching on TV.
And, so we know that that's always a challenge, but that was really one of the bigger fights that the legislature was making sure that that local government aid wasn't cut. One of the other things was, of course, bonding. That was important, always important to us. And we did pass a bonding bill. And I'm very glad about that. And, basically, it was focused on those things that I think are pretty well, understood as real bonding needs, clean water, infrastructure, roads, bridges. Now, unfortunately, none of those were in Dodge or Olmstead County. None of those, none of the city's, top priorities were covered.
And that was shocking to me after sixteen years in the legislature that the city of Rochester, not a one of its priorities, was addressed. But we have another year. And this the bonding bill this year, is looking at those, priorities. I thought they were all very good priorities, particularly, those interchanges on Highway 14 at Counties 5 And 3. That's a dangerous dangerous intersections. We definitely need to get that. And, of course, I'm still a fan of the Rochester International Airport, as in all avenues. It is so important to not just Rochester,
but really the vitality of our of our not just the Southeast part of the state, but all over the state. With that, I think I should use my time briefly just discussing the memo from senate counsel, regarding what used to be called local option sales taxes. Lately, they're called just LST, local sales taxes. And I did want to just make sure that, that you have the information, regarding the authorization in that 2023 tax bill. I know there's been some some confusion about that. I'm sure the counselors, you all have that information. 50,000,000 for an economic vitality fund,
50,000,000 for the street reconstruction, and then flood control and water quality, excluding the removal of the dam. That's not included. And then 65,000,000 for the sports and recreation complex. And the one thing that I is I sensed some public discussion that I want to make sure people were aware of is that these local sales taxes must be regional in nature. So they're not for those things that are part of the city's responsibilities and budget. The other statutory requirements are that,
obviously, you had to adopt a resolution, and it had to include these things, the proposed tax rate, detailed description of no more than five capital products projects to be funded from the revenue, and then documentation of regional significance for each project, and including the economic benefit share of that benefit to of each project by persons residing in the business located here and also outside the jurisdiction. So that regional nature is written right into, state law. And the amount the local sales tax revenue would be used for each project and
then the estimated time for for that to happen. So I think, that is important to know. And then, of course, that the total revenue raised for all projects before the tax expires, and then, of course, that estimated time to do that. And then, of course, you submitted that resolution along with documentation. And the legislature, also just requires that those are for capital projects. And those are defined in, statute as well. And, but as you would know, the first three projects did not meet what was those statutory requirements.
And so, therefore, there's that wonderful word or challenging word, however you look at it, notwithstanding. So notwithstanding that requirement, Rochester was able to go to the voters and bring these, five I think it was five projects to the four projects, to the voters for passage, which which they did. And then, I I think that was there's quite a bit more on here. You're welcome to look at that. You can take the links to the language itself, the statutory language itself. And, so just to note that the legislature you asked the legislature to approve.
We approve based upon the language in law and notwithstanding certain aspects of that. And then, the regional nature is is required. So with that, I'll be glad to, seed my time, but just know that, I'm available should you have any questions. We have a terrific nonpartisan, fiscal service, in the tax department, particularly. I speak as a former tax chair. And if there's ever any questions, you know, just please let me know, and we'll have staff take a good look at that. Great, staff attorneys who can can look at those questions.
But I just wanna thank you for your service. It's not always easy to be an elected official, but it's essential. We need people who are willing to run. We need people who are willing to serve. And I think it behooves all of us to debate, to debate respectfully, to debate thoughtfully. And, and I I appreciate the fact that you do that here. So thank you so much. Thank you very much, senator. Wanted. Thank you. Moving on, to our city administrator's report. Administrator's Elms, go ahead. Thank you. Council president, council members, mayor Norton, senator senator Nelson,
grateful to have you here. And, of course, all the members of the public who are here today. We always start the report with thanking our teammates for acting with respect, integrity, safety, and excellence in everything they do, whether that's in an office or out in the field. We have many, many employees who are out in the field every single day making sure they provide wonderful service to the community. And so just a big thank you to them for all that they do. And with that, we have some exciting things coming up. Every year, we have the Peregrine Falcons in the city of Rochester somewhere. And this year, they will be here Wednesday, September 24 from 04:30 to 05:30 at the Rochester Public Library in the auditorium.
So that is for families and youth. If your age is six to 12, it'd be perfect for you. So head on down with your family. Join the Midwest Peregrine Society and the Mayo Clinic Peregrine Falcon Program. Also, our partners at, the Rochester Art Center are going to be cohosting Opfest twenty twenty five at, the art center, 30 Civic Center Drive Southeast, 11AM to 4PM. That is going to be on September 28. It's a free sensory sensitive, family fun day and art festival. So you can get more more information on that, at the art center or at autismresource.guide/autfest.
Also, we are celebrating a week without driving. So that is coming up September 29 through October 5. And you can learn more at dmc.mn/week- without dash driving, and that will have a whole list of events that you could participate in all or some of them if you want to learn more about being a non driver or, becoming a non driver and how you can move about Rochester, without a dedicated vehicle. And then the last thing that I would wanna share is for those who are either reliant on or, one of our participants that,
takes the bus, the temporary bus stops are going to be moved temporarily, on Tuesday and Wednesday, September, weather permitting, because we have a construction schedule set at Central Park to be conducting tree maintenance with our partners at, the parks department. So if you are a regular utilizer of the Central Park temporary stations, they will temporarily be moving so long as the weather, holds out, although it is looking questionable. So just be aware of that and always, check that out on the city's website or on the transit app before you ride,
and that's all I have. Thank you, administrator Zones. We'll move on to the mayor's report. Mayor Norton. Thank you very much. I have a couple things to go through. We're gonna see if we can get this to work. Whoop. Also, it happens. Okay. Constitution Week, ran from September 27 to the twenty third, tomorrow. We we were asked for a proclamation, because of the timing of the meeting. It was, requested by one of the high school, social studies and government instructors in town, and, that's been delivered. So I'm not going to read it here this evening. It was read at a constitution event this week,
I believe. But just, to note that, I'm glad that our high school students are learning about the constitution. We have German delegation visits, last week and this week. So just to quickly highlight, we had a group that was discussing education. There are some global health exchange programs starting with, the University of Munsters, program. They came here this summer, through UMR and did some, exchanges with UMR and Mayo Clinic, some job shadowing. And I think the hope and the goal is to have the exchange go the other way moving ahead.
DMC's, Michael Flynn, spent an hour and a half with them, talking about potential. As we as we think about, Bold Forward Unbound and what that's transforming health care, which a lot of it is digital transformation, both Germany and some of our Scandinavian partners that they're working with, and that we're working with are really working in that area. So it was an opportunity to talk about possible, links as we use AI and digitalization in the healthcare sectors moving ahead. So it was an interesting week, week last week. And this week, commissioner county commissioner Sanjum and, and I will be hosting,
but some of you will be in attendance too. And we're happy to have you there, to talk about DMC, infrastructure design, bold forward and bound, the circular economy and waste management. Those were kind of the topics that they wanted to learn about. So in addition to, some discussion with some of our wonderful city staff, in the morning, we're gonna have a little bus tour and go through talk about bicycle traffic, bus rapid transit, roads and bridges, climate change, and he'll see, he, they, there's a dozen of them, will, visit sites in the city on a bus tour. So that should be,
really nice. I have been sharing a little bit with the Rochester vision, and I skipped it last time. So I'm gonna do infrastructure this time. These are the results that the community gave us about their thoughts about what the community were. Infrastructure was one of the subcategories that that was highlighted. And so there were six areas. I'm gonna highlight four of them. One is they requested more integration with public transit, which is interesting. We have public transit coming up, as a topic in the next week or two. They ask for more frequent practical bus routes, especially on evenings and weekends.
They're looking for improved route planning, better and more frequent routes, better bus infrastructure, and integration with biking and walking options. There was also a request for high speed rail. Oh, don't I like that? And light rail connections between Rochester and the Twin Cities. In the area of urban design and livability, the public, the community, said residents want vibrant, walkable neighborhoods featuring more benches, lighting, greenery, and public art to create inviting community spaces. There's concern that was raised about suburban sprawl and a preference for increased urban density
to make better use of existing infrastructure. Many emphasized investing in public amenities that benefit the broader community rather than flashy private developments. Equity and inclusion came up as a topic with regard to infrastructure. They want investments to be equitable and accessible for all, especially low income, elderly, disabled, and carless residents. Many point out gaps in access to park and transit and sidewalks in underserved neighborhoods. Affordability concerns were raised, such as utility rates and transit fares, as key barriers,
to full participation in city life. And there was a strong call for inclusive planning, basic services for homeless residents, and more opportunities for public in in public oh, I lost my input. Thank you. Safety and accessibility for all users, came up as the fourth highest. So these were all these top four were almost all equal in importance. Community members expressed strong concerns about safety and accessibility, especially for pedestrians and bicyclists near schools, parks, and busy roads. Demand for more traffic calming measures, improved lighting, and stronger enforcement to create safer and more welcoming public spaces.
And then I'll just mention the other two topics without going into detail. Were environmental health benefits, a lot about energy solutions like solar, EV charging, and geothermal. And then the last one was dedicated and connected infrastructure for active transportation. Again, continuous, well connected networks that separate for separated bike lanes and connecting folks to neighborhoods, parks, and all the things that they want to go see. So that's, you have two sections left in the in the RV 2050 data, but, that narrows it down to two now. So I thought I would share that with you.
The Mayor's Medal of Honor is something that was started many, many years ago. So I'm changing subjects here. And, we continued that tradition. The nominations come in for the whole month of October, and, then there will be a celebration in December for those that are, nominated and then selected. So if you know anyone, and I would suggest, you go online and you can see that we will take applications starting on October 1 for people in the community in one of a dozen different areas, where people volunteer, give of themselves, give back to the community.
So if you know someone in the community who's just a stellar volunteer in a club or a church or in public that you know, please consider nominating them for the Mayor's Medal of Honor. Chalk the Block is coming up. It's a family friendly and free event. Artists have been hired and are chalking from 09:30 to 12:30 over at Riverside Elementary School. And then after that, from 12:30 to five, the community is invited. You can come watch them do the art, but then you can come see all the art that is done afterward.
There are there's interactive poetry, a scavenger hunt, obstacle course, face painting, and multicultural food trucks that will also be available that day at Riverside. So swing by Riverside on Saturday, September 27. Another fun event that's coming up in the mayor's office is cosponsoring this year, the annual education summit summit that's put on by Cradle to Career, one of our wonderful nonprofits in town. It is free and includes lunch. They're all day sessions that you can go to during the day. And then in the evening, there is a keynote that's open to the public. So even if you're working or in school during the day,
in the evening, Doctor. Amit Sud will, give a presentation to anyone who's interested, but really focusing on caregivers. So teachers, parents, childcare providers, and others, ministers who care for other people, and he will talk about how you can take care of yourself. But even if you're not a parent or one of those, if you would like to go, it's free and open to the public, and it will be at the Mayo Civic Center. And just lastly, quickly, we have boards and commissions. We only have two openings right now, one on the citizens advisory on transit, which is super important about busing and our routes,
and the other is sustainability and resiliency, and that is for a youth member. So if any of you are interested in the audience or listening in energy and environmental issues, we do have one position on that that is for youth. And, our last youth graduated and went on to college, and so we're looking to fill that position. So please let us know. Contact the mayor's office. And lastly, the Rochester Olmstead Youth Council is, again, taking applications. You have to be between 14 and 20 years old, reside in Olmstead County, so you don't have to live in Rochester, and want to learn about city,
county government, and leadership. So if any of those things interest you, there's a phone number to the mayor's office. Please give us a call and let us know. We'd be happy to hear from you. That's all I got. Thank you, mayor. I think you've got an audience for a few of those last items. So hopefully so. Moving on to our order of the agenda. I have not heard any changes to the agenda from staff council members. Is there a motion to, approve the agenda? I'll move to approve the agenda as presented. Moved, actually by council member Fredericks over here first and seconded by council member Keane.
All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Motion passes. Moving on to our consent agenda agenda. Excuse me. Council member Wall has pulled item f seven, which we will discuss under reports and recommendations. We are also pulling item f 25 for consideration at a later council meeting. Any any other items to pull? If not, I would invite a motion to approve the consent agenda in blocks, f one to f six, f eight to f 24,
and f 26 to f 38. Second. Moved by council everybody really wants to make these motions tonight. Moved by council member, Fredericks and seconded by council member Miller. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Moving on to our public hearings. We have, I believe three public hearings on our agenda this evening. Before we begin the public hearings, I'd just like to take a moment to clarify the process for our public hearings. First staff will introduce or present the item,
and then if there is an applicant or an applicant's representative, they will have up to ten minutes to discuss the item, and then I will open the public hearing. Members of the public have up to five minutes to, address, the item. And at that point, I will close the public hearing, and then the applicant will have a rebuttal time for up to five minutes. And at that point, I will invite my colleagues, to ask clarifying questions of staff or the applicant and,
and then, invite a motion. So with that, I will move to our first public hearing, which is the, the 2026 annual action plan for community development block grant allocations. And mister Brent Snedby is at the At the microphone. So go ahead. Brent Snedby, community development department. This evening, I'm here to ask the council to open the comment period for the 2026 annual action plan,
which is associated with the community loan block grant program. So this is for the year 2026. Just so the council is aware that just last week, the city received our 2025 funding of CVG dollars. So it does take a while for the city to receive this funding, but we do get it. It seems like every year it's getting later and later, but, hopefully, we will receive funding in 2026. So just a little background. So the city does receive, annual funding through HUD, through the, community development black background program.
The city is considered a entitlement community, and the funding is used for a wide variety of community development projects including, the goals of the program are to provide decent, safe, and sanitary housing, provide suitable living environments, and to expand economic opportunities. The primary use of CBG funding is that for lower and moderate income persons, so those individuals below 80% AMI levels would be considered low and moderate individuals. To be an eligible activity for CBG funding, you must be a eligible activity as defined by,
HUD regulations and meet one of the three national objectives of the program, which are listed on the screen before you. And this evening, we are here asking the council to open the comment period on the annual action plan. Basically, the annual action plan is how the city intends to spend their CVG dollars. And for this, we're looking for year 2026. Last year, the council adopted a new strategic plan for CVG funding, the consolidated plan, which runs through 2025 through 2029.
And within that consolidated plan, there's five strategic priorities, access to affordable housing, access to public services, non housing community development, planning administration, and furthering fair housing. So here's a timeline for 2026, CVG funding. So back on July 18, I, emailed over 50 individuals who have previously expressed interest in CVG funding. And then on July 19, there was a notice published in the pulse bulletin notifying the community that the application
window was open, and that application window was open until August 18. In between those two dates, we did also do a press we press release on July 22. And then on July 28, we did host a open house for anybody with questions, in regards to the CVG process. Unfortunately, at that July 28 meeting, we had zero people attend this year. Then on September 3, the steering committee met. They reviewed the applications, had great discussion on the applications received, and, formulated what activities,
they would recommend for funding for 2026. So then based off of that mean, on September 3, our office did go ahead and draft the 2026 annual action plan. So we are at September 22 where we're asking the council to open the comment period. And then we'll come back to the council on November 3, asking the council to close the public comment period on the action plan and make a formal adoption of those programs you would like to fund for 2026. During the open comment period,
we we received 11 applications for public service activities, back in 2020. Basically, cities can spend up to 15% of their CVG allocations on public service activities, and the city has decided that those are act are the activities that the city would seek applications for. So, based on our projected of the funds we would we would receive in from HUD, you would have about a 100 to $1,000 to allocate towards public service activities. But you will see that,
we received 11 applications based on the scoring from the steering committee. They are recommending funding six of those, agencies that submitted for funding and the, recommended funding amount. As previously mentioned, the steering committee met met on September 3 to review the applications. The steering committee is made up of, seven individuals, four individuals work for the city of Rochester. And then this year, we added three community members. One person was a past recipient of CVG funds, one was a disability advocate,
and the other was the affordable housing advocate. I will say that this year, we had great discussion from the committee members more than we have in the previous years, so that was great to see from that group. And then they do have a scoring criteria that they use when they do review their applications. They're looking at timeliness, how soon can the money be spent by the applicant, because there are regulations through HUD that the city can only have so many dollars by November 1 of each year. Basically, it's no more than one and a half times of your allocation amount.
Then they also look at project effectiveness, priorities of the council and also of the consolidated plan, and also if the project or activity was previously funded. So for 2026, here's the recommended allocations. You will see that, the total dollar amount that we're projecting to have is, $826,000. Of that amount, about a $150,000 is projected to come from program income, and program income is what the city receives from our single family rehab program.
So when we do a, rehab loan for a property, we do a mortgage. And, when that person no longer lives at the house, they sell the house, then that money gets paid back to the city. A number of years ago, the council, directed us to change the interest rate from that program from 2% to 0%. So those loans are at 0% because those loans, are again, you have to be a low and moderate income individuals to get a loan for the rehab program, so they're at that 80% AMIOS. So they're they're getting loans to rehab their house to make them decent living conditions.
So you can see that, they allocated a $101,400 for public service activities, a $150,000 in administration activities, $464,600 in rehab activities that's consisted of our single family rehab loan program and also our rental rehab program that we started a couple years ago, and then some administrative costs for that rehab program. And then for the last couple years, we've been putting about a $100,000 away for infrastructure projects and lower minor incomes.
Those are mostly for, pedestrian crossing or pedestrian ramps at those at intersections. And, again, those have to be in lower moderate income neighborhoods. So here's our funding kind of breaks down into about, 12.3% going to public service activities, 57.4% into housing rehab type of work, 18% into administration, and about 12% into infrastructure cost. Again, here's the timeline shown previously in the process for 2026,
and we're at September 22 asking the council to open the public comment period and then coming back to the council on November 3 to close the public hearing and then adopt those programs for allocation for 2026. I will note that, I did publish ad in the paper on Saturday notifying of a open house we're gonna have on this Wednesday from three to four out at, the community development office where anybody who wants to come and review the annual action plan or provide any comments on the action plan.
The action plan is also posted on the city's website. So if there's both interview the plan, then they can either call me or submit or email me with any comments they have on the plan. Again, the the request of action is asking the council to open the public comment period. Any questions? Thank you, mister Senvi. At this point, I will open tonight's, public, comment period. This is a public hearing. Anyone who wishes to be heard on this item, please step forward. Anyone wishing to be heard on this item, please step forward. Seeing no one, we will close the public hearing for this evening and,
ask, members of the Ask you to leave the public hearing open. Leave I will leave this public hearing open, and it will, when we, take our motion, we will have a public hearing open until, November 3. Council member Keane. Yeah. I just wanna point out this small administrative problem. I think on page six of your summary, I think you missed the Jeremiah project listed. It should be it should be listed as one of the funded projects. Yep. It's on Yeah. This right there. It's on this one. It's on this one. Yep. I messed it up. I messed it up. Yep. You missed it on the other project. I know it.
Yep. Yep. Thank you. Mayor Norton? I have a question. Can you talk a little bit about, how, the, twenty twenty six applications and recommendations, are either similar or different from, last year's, or are there trends in, what we're seeing as far as, those that are seeking, CBG, CDBG dollars. Now this I mean, it's trying to every year, we're trying to spread a wider net to get more organizations realizing that the CVG dollars are out there, but it does have to benefit lower amount of income individuals,
and they have to be able to track that the person's higher loan income. So there's quite a bit of reporting requirements that maybe turn off some individuals or some organizations from applying for CVG funding, but, we do get a lot of repeat organizations asking for CVG dollars, but they do have to have a quantifiable increase of service that those dollars are going for. So we just can't keep funding the same program over and over again. There has to be an increase in service unless it's a program that we've started funding from the very beginning.
So example, Catholic Charities Larming Center, that was a program that we funded that center their very first year they're open. So the city is able to keep funding that program even though they're not increasing, but they don't have to have a quite a final increase in service every year for that program. That answers your question. Yes. Any other questions? Council member Palmer. Thank you. I have a question on the CO and the smoke detector, $10,000. Who who's handling those out and who's qualified to get them?
That's a a program that the fire department would like to start next year. So, we will work with the fire department to come up with a method of distribute distributing those fire detector, but they will have to be income of qualified individuals to receive a small detector. But that's something we'll work with from now or from November 3 until we get our funding next year to come up with a a program of how they can we distribute those smoke detectors and still meet the requirements of the CVG program,
but it would be for lower and moderate income individuals. So the fire department will go out and purchase smoke detectors. They would get a phone call from a resident requesting that that smoke detector. They have to verify that they qualify for the program as being lower or moderate income individuals, and they would go out and they would sell smoke detectors in those homes. And and so I've I've had some experience with the program, the programs that you have. So they're gonna have to provide their w two and and prove that they're on the 80% AMI. Is that the Correct. Yeah. And we do that now.
We have a a a tree removal assistance program where, the homeowner documents, their income. Either they provide us with their last year's tax statements, so we verify that they qualify for the program. K. And what I'm just curious, who how did you decide or who decided to put three community members, and how did you decide to pick those three community members? We'd like to keep the I think, I guess the steering committee has always been around seven people, and we've always had a notion to I think we started out with all seven members being members of the city team.
We we wanted to get away from being all city teammates and go out into the community to to find, members. So, this year, it was kind of sort of late, so we didn't have the time to put out applications for to seek individuals to be on the steering committee. So we did, did some brainstorming between staff and came up with, three three members that we thought would be suitable for the steering committee, but we are looking at other ways to get other individuals involved in the steering committee.
So the past person recipient isn't receiving any funds this year? Correct. It was a recipient of a, rehab alone. So Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Any other questions, council members? Is there a motion on this item? No. Do do do we not take action to, to open open the public comment period? That's what the hearing is for this evening. Okay. We will move on. Thank you, mister Sifendi. Moving on to, public hearing, G 22, which is a final plaque by Stonebrook of Rochester LLC,
mister Desmond McGill. Please go ahead. Yeah. Thank you, president Schubert, mayor Norton, members of the council. Good evening. This is a a final flat subdivision for Stonebrook Sixth. This consists of 69 total lots, two common area lots and three out lots on 62.5 acres. This is located East Of Sunnydale Drive Southeast and East Of Fortieth Street, Fortieth Avenue Southeast and South Of College View Drive Southeast. The final plat proposes 28 single family lots and 41 townhome lots.
The general development plan for this site was originally approved, back in 02/2002, encompassing single family homes, town homes, wetlands, and open space area. The GDP has been revised a few times, the most recent being April. The final plat is consistent with the P2S comprehensive plan land use designation of low density residential. It is also consistent with the R 1 and R 2 zoning districts, which underlie it. And, additionally, the recent updated, Stonebrook GDP, it is consistent with that.
And, there is, the, June 2025 council approval of the preliminary plat, for Stonebrook 6 And 7. It is consistent with that. The subdivision will help the city in addressing current shortages of, single family homes, and, the development review committee is recommending approval of this subdivision subject to four conditions of approval. I do not know if the applicant is here tonight. They did note that they if they could not be in attendance tonight, that they would, they supported all the, the conditions of approval that were added. And that concludes my introduction.
I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, mister McGill. Is the the applicant here or their representative? Seeing, not, I will, at this point, open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to be heard on this item, please step forward. Anyone wishing to be heard on this item, please step forward. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing and invite my colleagues, to ask questions of staff on this item. Any questions? Seeing no questions, is there a motion on this item? I'll make a motion. Move by, are you gonna read the I'll read it. Adoption resolution approving final plat number CD twenty twenty five dash o three o plat
by Stonebrook of Rochester LLC to be known as Stonebrook six with four conditions for the subdivision of 62.5 acres into 69 residential lots, two common area lots, and three out lots. Moved by council member Palmer, seconded by council member Fredericks. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Thank you. Moving on to G 3, which is a final plat, by Noble Development LLC. Mister Miguel? Yes. Indeed. This is a final plat subdivision for Highland Hills townhomes.
This final plat consists of 20 residential townhomes and one common area, lot on 3.63 acres. This is located on the South Side of Queens Drive Northwest and approximately 250 feet east of 50 Fifth Avenue Northwest. This final plat proposes those 26 well, they're single family detached townhomes or what we would refer to as twin homes, and that one common area lot for public utilities, common area driveway. The Highland Hills, general development plan was initially approved in 2022 and encompassing single family homes,
townhomes, and open space. This site has, been previously plotted as Outlaw F as part of the original, Ponds Of Highland Hills final plat. It is this this, infilling of this parcel is consistent with the p two s comprehensive plan, the low density residential, land use designation, and the R 2 zoning district. Additionally, the the recently updated, Highland Hills GDP. The council approved the preliminary plat for Highland Hills, I think in 2022, and the subdivision will help the city address current shortages in single family residential dwelling
units. The review committee is recommending approval of this, application, subject to the one condition of approval. That concludes my introduction. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Miguel. Is there a the applicant or a representative of the applicant here for this item? Seeing none, we will open the public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to be heard, about this item, please step forward. Anyone wishing to be heard on this item, please step forward. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing.
And, council members, any questions for staff? See, I'll make a motion. Go ahead, council member Doreen. I'll move to adopt a resolution approving final plat number c d two zero two five dash zero three one plat by Noble Development LLC to be known as Highland Hills Townhome second with one condition for the subdivision of 3.63 acres into 20 residential lots and one common area lot. Moved by council member Doreen. Is it seconded by council member Keane? Any more to add, council members? Seeing none,
all in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Motion passes. Moving on to our reports and recommendations. H one is our 2026 preliminary tax levy and recommended budget, city administrator's elves. Thank you, council president, council members, mayor Norton, members of the public. We have the recommended budget. I wanna, just share that as you are aware, it was carefully designed to significantly reduce the levy that was projected last year while still providing additional investment to support services in our growing and diverse community.
And I wanna thank, provide my appreciation for the dedication of all of our departments for their work on the baseline budget, the submittal of their decision packages that help to invest in the community and their thoughtfulness and their approach to the budget. In particular, I wanna thank Rachel Hodak and Josh Doer. They are the principal people who work diligently to finalize all of this into the full budget and CIP document. It is 1,081 pages, and you can find that on the city's website, rochesteredmund.gov. You head to the finance section to reports. You can see that all the way back into the,
brief history of time, but you can find the twenty twenty six, twenty twenty seven recommended budget there, with a lot of detail. As you have all participated in, the city council has discussed the recommended budget over the course of five study sessions starting in April, continuing into June, August, and then the past two study sessions of September. We discussed a number of different topics during those study sessions. After the presentation of the recommended budget, that resulted in one change to the 2026 levy, which adjusted the community building fund with an additional $50,000 to enhance the that program.
And those discussions resulted in a preliminary levy adoption coming forward to you today of $118,284,623. That includes a recommendation to establish the preliminary 2026 operating and capital budget in the amount of $663,901,470, which is inclusive of Rochester Public Utilities, and then establishing Monday, 12/01/2025 for the public hearing and final adoption of the recommended 2026 tax levy and
budget, both operating in capital. So what that means is, that we are recommending a $6,639,481 levy change, which represents the year over year, change in the total levy that would need to be certified for collection to the county to provide revenue to support the recommended 2026 budget. And so the levy, the dollar amount of the levy is certified then with Olmsted County and then applied across all property, based on the tax classification of someone's property. And then the assessed valuation of each property,
serves as the basis for tax notices that are sent to each individual property, owner. So what's happening this evening, will, result in the forthcoming tax notices that help to inform, more specific public comments on the tax levy during the established public hearing in December. And, of course, that 12/01/2025, date and location as well as time will be listed on every single tax notice that goes out to individual taxpayers in the city. As we've noted previously, the preliminary tax levy established is the maximum levy that can be levied for 2026. So after this evening,
the city tax levy can remain the same or be reduced, but it cannot be increased, going forward. I'd be happy to answer any questions. We've met about this a number of times, but that would that's that's principally what you would be doing this evening is establishing the preliminary levy, which establishes those tax clauses that go out to each individual tax owner or property owner. Excuse me. Thank you, admin administrator Zelms. Any questions from council members? Mayor Norton? Well, I wanna thank the administration for all the work they've done and the many, many, many hearings we've had about this and discussions.
I think it's it's been good, and I'm glad we've gotten it out there. I did wanna, just clarify. So can you tell us, is there a limit on how much a city could levy? There is a limit on how much a city There is a limit on how much a They could levy. We are drastically underneath that limit, and I think people are probably grateful for that. I can't I off the top of my head, cannot give you that number, but it is significantly higher one than what, the city of Rochester levies. And, over the course of the last eleven years, we have hovered between about a four point a 4852% net tax capacity rate,
which is that resulting percentage of spreading, the total levy dollar amount across all of the, property value in the city. So thank you. So I'm I'm just wanting for the community's understanding to know we could levy significantly more than we are. We do not. We have not chosen to do that historically, nor are we anywhere close to doing that this year. And the other point, which we've hit home every time we've talked, but I want to say it again because I talked to a couple constituents this week who continue to be confused that a 5.95%
increase is not what we're increasing in taxes. It is an increase just of the levy portion that we're talking about here and that it their taxes will be impacted by this, but primarily, the impact has to do with the valuation of their home. And it gets very confusing for taxpayers when they hear we're increasing our levy by 5.95, and they don't understand that does not mean a 5.95% for them necessarily.
So if you have a clearer way to say that, do so. If not, I think I've made my point, but I just it it is very confusing to residents when we talk about this increase and what that means to them. Administrator zones, any messages that are more concise? Council president, council members, I think the mayor said it well. Maybe one other, way of explaining it is that even if the tax levy didn't change at all, each individual tax bill will adjust based on how much your assessed valuation is relative to the other properties in your class.
Thank you. Council member Wall. I think further complicating, that is when they open the envelope, there will be three contributors to, the property tax. And so whatever the city levies is not necessarily what the school or the county will levy either. So, yeah, it just gets, there are multiple levels for possible confusion. Council member Keane. Yeah. I'll just add that I think when we go through this work, I think there it's fairly common for a a resident to just watch the high level numbers and those key facts are the size of the overall budget,
but then that percent impact to, to the levy. And I think some of the key facts get lost underneath there. And one of them that I wanna share is the pool of taxpayers in the in the pool is getting better year over year. So with the the money that's being levied against the for the city, there are additional properties paying that. I believe our tax base went up two percent based on new properties being added, and that's new taxpayers. So a four a six 5.9%, if it all if all other things equal, it would not turn out to be that much for because of the new taxpayers
in the pool. But of course, as my peers have pointed out, your mileage will vary with with things like and then I didn't say that assess property values went up four are gonna go up about 4.5% across the whole, tax paying base. And that's gonna have as much and likely more impact on what your tax, what your tax rate is next year. I was one of the lucky ones in 2025 even with our 9% increase in the county having a 6%, my bay tax base went down because my property value didn't go up. And the those who were getting the higher values were carrying a bigger part of
the of the levy. Going through this, city administrator Zelens mentioned that, net tax capacity, but that's a key metric that I've been watching since I've been doing this. We were as high as 52% of of of what our tax base was, and we're down we got down as far as 48%, which means that we're basically for every $100,000 of value you had, you were paying a little bit less in terms of tax capacity. And that's something that it's not a it's not a all encompassing indicator, but it's a sign that we're trying to keep we're we're managing our our expenses.
This budget closes at about 49 point something, getting closer to the 50% number. And again, it's not a magic number, but it's a key indicator for me that we're under control, where we've this will always be the balance between, our our ploy our where are we treating our employees, with respect? Are we maintaining our assets for the future, or are we are we doing some sort of budgetary tricks of reducing things and pushing responsibility to future councils? And I feel good pretty good right now that when I look at what we're spending on, on our employees,
but also on, capital improvements and maintaining our buildings and maintaining our assets, I I think we're being responsible stewards going forward. Thank you. Council member Palmer. Thank you. I've got a couple pages here. I think people have to remember that the residential portion of this is is is going up quite a bit compared to the commercial and the and the apartments. You know, I'm kind of disappointed in how some of our taxpayer dollars have been used this last year. I go to the RPG Gold micro transit pilot program. It turned out to be $232 per ride.
And I don't think $232 per ride is is is using taxpayer dollars very well. And the cost to us as as a city of Rochester transit fund was a $121,585. That's 20% match. And so I'm I'm disappointed that that's what had had to happen. The other thing I'm disappointed in is in the 2025 transit overview. The numbers of ridership is down from almost 2,000,000, before 2019 to, 600,000 this year. And they're thinking maybe that they might decrease it by 10%,
the overall cost of of transit. So I I think with the federal dollars and the state dollars, I think that we need to look at that a little bit closer. Somebody asked me why I don't like the library. I like the library. I think it's a great facility. I read, and I enjoy it. But our library is the most expensive library in the state of Minnesota. It has the most amount of hours. If you look at the hours from La Crosse to Cedar Rapids to Mankato, Sioux Falls, Fargo and so Saint Cloud and Duluth, you can see on Sunday hours, we we are more than anybody else. And and adding four new,
FTEs for that, it, to me, just doesn't make much sense. I don't think that they've done a real good job of of looking at their budget. It's a $9,000,000 budget. When we ask them what what what we say that we, closed on a Sunday or a Monday, the response was, well, a $100,000. Out of a $9,000,000, budget, that doesn't make much sense. And so then you go into, you know, what do you think it should be? I think 4.8%. I have until December 1 to to make that argument, to have three other people join me on that. But, you know,
we're adding an arborist to a $124,000. We had a grant for an ADA management coordinator. Now since we had that grant, we've decided we needed that position. There's a $153,000 The north maintenance person is a $134,000 and that building doesn't open till maybe August. City council travel doubled in in from from last year, which is not a lot of money, but but it doubled. You know, for librarians adding that to a $193,000. And so I look at those and and go, can we do better? Now we have till December,
one to do better because this is the top limit that we have. I'm more than happy to look at other things. There are other council members, and we heard this again today in the past that said, oh, jeez. We just need to cut. I don't believe the city is is is ill managed. I think that we do a pretty good job, but I think these are suggestions that we could do, to to lower that. Because when you go and talk to people in the neighborhood, knock on their door, listen to them, the most frustrating thing for them is that their property taxes are going up. Yes. Their property values are going up. It's getting harder and harder and harder for people to to make that that that
payment. And so, that's my statement. Obviously, you understand that I will not be voting for this tax levy. I'd like to see it be at 4.8%. We have until, December 1 to do better, so I appreciate your time. Thank you, council member. I'll, say a few words at this point. I believe we should be celebrating this 5.9% tax levy. A year ago, this council was sitting here working on getting a 10% tax levy down to 9%. And this is a a levy that includes $4,000,000
worth of cuts that, our administrator and her very diligent staff work to efficiently look at all the programs throughout the city and cut 4,000,000 and and is adding, 1,900,000.0 in new spending that will, increase our, level of service to Rochester residents. This is half of what, was projected for 2026, and it is the smallest budget that the the administration has given us since COVID.
So I really wanna commend our diligent staff on working for the people of Rochester looking at better ways to provide service and, continue on this road that we're we're on at this point. So with that, are there other council members? Council member Miller. I guess I'll just make a brief comment, thinking about what the mayor said of how we communicate this, how we bring people into the discussion. And, in the strategic priorities at the beginning of the year, we've made inclusive growth management and bringing the community in.
And I am very excited that in our action plan, we have an opportunity to improve the tools that we use to tell the story of what how we develop, how we're providing efficient services, and to continue to tell the story of how we make decisions together. Because I look around our region and I see many communities struggling with double digit recommendations and then fighting to get down and in many cases, cutting essential services or pushing off the funding of those services to future years, and we are not in that situation. And so I agree with council president Schubert that,
we have a staff through the city administrator who have done diligent work to keep this number under control to continue to provide services. But I look around and and this is not something that is unique to the city of Rochester, these pressures of increasing cost, but I think is unique of how, tightly we've been able to control this and bring down even the number from last year. And I I look forward again to these future discussions of how we're looking at the growth of the community and what types of growth bring prosperity to the community that's felt by all residents, especially looking at the pressure of that tax levy on individual property owners versus being
able to grow in a way that we're able to provide the services, and it's not an additional burden every year on individual homeowners. So thank you. I will be supporting this. Seeing no other council members, is there a motion on this item? Yeah. I'll council member adopt the resolution certifying the 2026 preliminary tax levy at 118,284,623, which includes one, establishing the preliminary operating and capital budget amount of $663,901,470
and establishing Monday, 12/01/2025 for the public hearing and final adoption, of the recommended 2026 tax levy and budget operating and capital. Second. Moved by council member Keane, seconded by council member Doreen. Any more to add council member Keane? No. I I I'm listening to council member Palmer's suggestions, and I know we've gone through some of these same things, what the there were additional spending at a 2.4% or so. We we I'm I thought we gave them a clear hearing and went through the
the reasons for the the recommendations came forward. What we didn't go through is the recommend the ones that came just into staff discussions and didn't get past there. So I'm I'm open to the idea of looking at some of these, but, I I wrote it down as I think it's a $1,200,000 $1,300,000 challenge to a $109,000,000 budget. But, again, I'm open to having those discussions, but, I'm looking for the the new ideas. Council member Doering, anything to add? Any other discussion? Seeing none, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed,
say nay. Nay. Motion passes five to two with, council members, Fredericks and, Palmer voting nay. Moving. Moving on you keep looking like you're moving your hand to speak, council member. Moving on to item, h two, which is, the renewable energy purchase power purchase agreement, and we have our director of power resources, Bill Budok, to Billuk to, present to us. Okay. And I screwed up here, but last name That's okay. Give it to me again.
That's okay, council president Schubert, mayor Norton, and council members. I'm here to to deliver I think in in the last council meeting, Tim McCullough was here presenting the plan for, reaching our 100% net renewable goal. We do have one on the hook, so we wanted to bring it, forward tonight, for your approval. Again, the power resource plan consists of two parts. There's a reliable capacity piece, and the that's met through firm dispatch load generation and battery storage and demand response.
The chart below the the figures there show the the capacity that we need in Rochester. That's the peak load, and it's in the the MidContinental, independent system operator or MISO system, we are required to cover that. We're we're required to have control over enough resources to deliver that capacity when we need it. So in the summer, we need close to 300 megawatts. In the fall, it's closer to two fifty. In the winter, it's down around 200. And then in the spring, it's back up toward about two thirty.
So as you can see, depending on the season, so summer really drives like the maximum capacity that we require. And as you can see, we've we've divided this up into existing resources. So this kind of the solid gray and pink lines are are existing resources. The the hash, line is the planned resource. So you can see the planned resources. The gray one is 50 megawatts at the Mount Simon Station. The green are what what the wind projects provide for capacity. So as you can see, it's windier in the winter than it is in the the summer and fall,
so you get more capacity when you don't need it from the wind. That's why we need other resources. So that's why we are, we have the blue hashtags. That's capacity that we'll need to to, contract with going forward. That's one step at a time. Right? On the on the right side, you see the renewable energy. Those show the supplies that we have identified. They're not all, contracted. They're not all built. But, but the the first step the first hash, bar there is the contract we're talking about tonight,
Adams. So this plan you know, the way we're complying, we are we have been trying to, adapt to the changes in federal policy. So we have been trying to take advantage of the tax credits while we're there. So we have pulled forward, some of this plan, into the the 2026 to 2028 time frame. So we're contracting for wind before we really need it. But this means it will be there when we need it. And I have to say it's, it's it's been refreshing to get the support both of the council,
you know, of the RPU, leadership team on pulling these contracts together. Because based on the number of changes we've seen in policy as we're trying to nail these, projects down, if we did not have that support coming into this, we would, we we would not be where we are today. So I have to acknowledge the team at ARQ and and and everyone in this room for that support. So we're you know, we will, this first project, the first win is the smaller scale one. There will be,
two more coming forward soon. And these allow us to build up a rec balance, by pulling them forward where we can build up that rec balance. You see that, the the dark line going up. So up until twenty thirty, we'll be banking those recs, and we'll be able to use them for compliance in 2030, and beyond, and that will give a buy us some time. That's the idea. It's gonna buy us time in order to find other resources and, you know, who knows what policy will be like in four years. So this is the the the 22 megawatt Adams Wind Project is the contract that
you have in in, before you tonight. This project is currently off contract. It provides about 50,000 megawatt hours per year. Our full load is about 1,200,000 megawatts, so it is a small percentage. It does have an existing interconnection, and the owner will repower. Now contracting for an existing one was a lower cost. It's existing, so the development risk is not there. It did not depend on the tax credits in order to, to to be economically viable. And it does you know, it provides some, diversification of supply.
And this is our, if you if you look at the pricing, it does provide a hedge against price increases. As you can see in twenty twenty two and twenty twenty three, market prices were very high. And and you can see the yellow dash line is what, what the the cost of the power will be from the wind project. It's basically flat for every megawatt hour that we buy, But the market goes up and down based on supply and demand and what resources are available. So but what it does is when prices are high, it definitely is a hedge against, prices going even higher. When they're lower,
it is not a good deal. So but we don't know where prices are going. So we've locked into the lowest prices we could find. They're taking advantage of the tax credits, and we think that the the risk is worth a reward in this case. So it re it is our first step toward, the 100% renewable goal. It's 5% of our energy need. It's locking in pricing, and then it provides the opportunity to to repower, this project and extend it for another twenty years. The next steps we'll be bringing forward, hopefully,
in the October 6 meeting. We're still, you know, trying to deal with tariffs and and things in in contract language. But but the wind project at Dodge Center and at North Hills in Iowa, and together, those projects will provide about 60% of our overall power supply. So with that, any questions? Questions? Council member Keane. Yeah. I I just wanna make sure that we use the word like purchase and then tax credits, but we're calling this a purchase agreement. Can you talk about if this is the RPU, like, owning versus IPU purchasing?
Yeah. We're we're purchasing the output from a a wind farm that someone else owns. They own, they operate it, and then they sell. It just whatever output comes from it goes to us. So if they don't produce anything, we don't pay them. But we hope they produce things because we want the renewable energy certificates. K. And can you talk about how that's different than what we had with Simpa? So with Simpa, they they have, an most of the power from Simpa comes from, the Sherco plant, the coal plant, and they own a a a portion a stake in that plant.
So you can't get away from something when you own it. Right? You you'd have to find someone else to step into your shoes, which would be difficult to find for Sherco at this point. So that is the difference between that. We we own the plant and the output, and we share the operating risk with, Excel on that that facility. So that's the difference. No. That's very very good. And I just I was just trying to there's a difference between sometimes we're borrowing money and doing these things ourselves. That's on the makes. I I just have oversimplified. I know in the utility world,
there's all this PPA and Yeah. Power purchase agreements. But, I mean, I just as ex example here. In this case, like, when we talk about the batteries, when we talk about the, the on demand, we're probably owning and running that ourselves as our utility. When we're talking about wind, we're doing it slightly different where we have a partner that that's their business and we're we're getting the benefits of it. Yes. But we're not buying it on the open market. We've committed to a long term plan for purchasing it. Yeah. That's right. And the wind projects are typically further away from Rochester. It's hard to put a wind farm in the middle of town.
So Yeah. So we, we don't have the operating personnel to, you know, to manage that either. So it is a more efficient contract structure to do a power purchase agreement. And similarly, we were going out to the the finance markets when we were going to build Mount Sinai and things. But in this case, their the our partner is taking on the capital, and we're our real thing is our commitment for the next thirty years to or the next twenty years to purchase. Yep. To buy the yeah. Buy that power in a twenty five year agreement. Yep. Very good. Thank you. Okay. Anything else? Council member Miller.
Yeah. Thank you. I I you know, having the tax levy discussion before this and now talking about, racks and hedging, and I'm not sure that we've gotten any clearer on what we're doing for the average person. But you mentioned that people aren't necessarily sure where prices are going. But would it be fair if you were to bet that prices on electricity, no matter the form, are going up? Yes. The price of everything is going up. And so, if we're looking at a contract that's guaranteeing the price of of power for twenty five years, I mean, that's simply what what we're doing here.
Right? We're we're choosing a good price and guaranteeing that for the long term. Yeah. So I just I think that that's something that's good for the community to hear. Yeah. And I would also just, clarify that there are a lot of types of wrecks. Right? Mhmm. And we could go out and buy wrecks and say and and do nothing else and say we're a 100% renewable. But I think it's it's important to say this is a commitment beyond doing that. Yeah. Correct? Yes. So with this wind project, if we were not investing here, there's not a guarantee that this would come online at renewable energy.
We're buying we're we're we're one of the factors of this getting online. Yeah. They would not be able to finance this project if they didn't have a long term contract with Right. With a credible, office. So so would it be fair to say that we are taking action as a community to put renewable energy into the into the market? Yes. Okay. So I look forward to supporting this, and I just wanted to clarify those things because I think there are a lot of ways to be a 100% renewable, and some of them are purely accounting games. And this is not, in my opinion, what we're doing here.
Yep. And I just wanna be clear where where we are there. And again, I I think, you know, looking at the cost of power, I I wish that there were cheap power. Yeah. And I I wish I I think everybody in every community, whether an investor owned utility or municipal utility wishes the power were cheaper, and that's just not something that it seems to me that's that's available anymore. Yeah. Inflation has affected everything, and it's mostly in the cost of building these things as opposed to Yeah. The cost of the fuel because the fuel is free on wind. So I appreciate the presentation tonight. I I look forward to supporting this.
And I I just say that over the course, I know this is a a conversation with the RPU board as well, but how we, communicate our our goals of emissions reductions and putting renewable energy onto the sort of broader network in the grid, I think is important to, beyond just the 100% renewable language, which sometimes can be very confusing. Thank you. Thank you. Council member Palmer. Kinda going back on what mister Miller just was saying. So if ARPU didn't do this, this, wind farm would go away. Is that the the the the take on it?
Because to me, if if it's such a great deal, why if we pass on that, why wouldn't somebody else pick it up? No. Someone else would pick it up. Okay. Yeah. Well, it's it's the the sound of it that that all of a sudden this wouldn't power wouldn't be available. That aren't built yet, this is a little different because it's it's an existing wind farm. So that's what's been the risk. And that's what gets us tax credits and and and but if if we didn't buy it, someone else would probably buy it, and then that still would be on the on the on the market though that way. Yep. The the other question I have is is is Sempa is done with us with
$20.30 or we're done with them, but we're buying this wind power early. And so there's a cost to us that we're not using this this energy. We're we're getting some credit? Is that what I'm Yeah. We'll settle it in the market. So we'll we're basically selling it into the market at whatever the market price. Subleasing it. Subleasing. Yeah. Yeah. In my in my On an hourly basis. Yeah. Okay. And and and and, obviously, I I agree with this, and and I'm glad that we're doing it. And and I appreciate ARPU stepping up and and and letting us know ahead of time what was going on.
And, but if I remember right, five years ago, electricity use went down, and and no one ever predicted that. Is the use of electricity still going down? So I think the the biggest factor in reduction in electricity has been the LED light bulb. So that really led to long term downturn in electric use. But now we're talking about people putting in heat pumps, people buying electric vehicles, data centers going in. So electric use after years of of decreasing is suddenly on the uprise again.
But no one predicted that it would be going down. On ten years ago. They went and said that electrical use was gonna be dropping. I think they typically get the forecast wrong, but they eventually caught up. So in the la the most recent years, they've been keep assuming that the the things get more are more efficient. But And and that that's scary when you say, you know, the forecast were wrong because you're gonna tell me that this forecast is right on and wonderful and Every forecast is wrong. Okay. It's just a house. Yeah. It's just making sure we have diversification and that we we understand the risks and
we're able to contain it through a number of scenarios. In in Sempa, when we went into that agreement, was a great wonderful idea. It just it's you it's outlived its usefulness for us, and I'm looking forward to us doing 2030. I think municipal electrical is the way to go, and it it serves our customers the best that we can. And that's really what the city council's here to do is do that. So, again, I appreciate your your efforts to to educate us on this, not easy, item. Thank you. Thank you. Is there a motion on this item? I'd like to move to adopt a resolution authorizing the city to enter into a
wind energy purchase restore renewables Adams wind project. Second. And moved by council member Keane, seconded by council member Miller. Council member Keane, any more to add? Yeah. I just sent most times that I've been in these discussions between being an RPU for the last couple years just as a citizen trying to understand this and also as a council, we do get caught up sometimes and council member Miller tries to bring up the racks. I'd like to leave that off the table and really talk about what we're doing to to, you know, protect rates and reliability and these sort of things in our community because we have
this we're we're not just on a mission to say, no matter what it cost, we're gonna get to, net zero greenhouse gases. We're doing this in a responsible matter. And this this is what we're struggling is to find these things in this dramatically changing world between, you know, you talk about the the cost of everything because it's not just the city of Rochester or Excel competing for this energy now. There's a bunch of new players in the field trying to purchase what's available, and it's changing the markets. And the whole, the whole, regulation regulatory environment is difficult to understand right now too.
But just looking at this on its face, I I would say there is a nominal risk with with locking in prices in 2027. But to me to me and to to the professionals that we've been working with say, these are good bets to be making, not not just for, you know, for the environment and for the long term, but for the cost for the citizens of Rochester, this is these are reasonable responsible hedges that we're taking on. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Motion passes. Thank you very much. Moving on to h three,
which is designating the office of the city clerk to administer and regulate administrative citations and enforcement. This is an item pulled by council member Wahl. Council member Wahl. Thank you. I, move to table f seven until such time as the city has opportunity to communicate with, to seek feedback from, and to answer questions from licensees who, potentially will be affected by this item. Second. There's been a motion made by council member Wahl and it has,
seconded by council member Balmer. Council member Wahl? Yes. I I'm not I don't believe that there's any urgency, to this particular item, and I've had two people with licenses in the community approach me with just some confusion as to what this might mean in terms of their appeal processes, in terms of judicial versus administrative, actions, the levels of fines that could be levied. There's just enough discomfort on their part and mine that, I think that we can clear that up before we make this,
administrative change at the council level. I see mister Cartwright has come to the microphone. Can you give us me a kind of a brief, outline of, the the item and then, address the urgency that, whether or not there's urgency to, to pass this this evening. Certainly. The item itself, which is allowing the author of the city clerk to write citations, is in pairing with the already existing chapter one dash two. And if you look at the chapter itself,
you'll notice that there are several license types which already exist, which are already accounted for in ordinance in regards to administrative citations, alcohol and gambling, gambling itself exclusively, sewer, dangerous dogs, etcetera, etcetera. Those license types are managed by the office of the city clerk today. What we cannot do under the current writing of the ordinance is issue any citations for those license types. One dash two already allows for citations to be written, it is already codified into law. The resolution that's before you today formally allows under,
I believe it is, one dash two dash three wherein there are different entities allowed by the city council to issue citations, community service officers, police officers, the city administrator, and the common council to extend that provision to the office of the city clerk. Similar provisions have been extended, for example, to parks when they do their administrative citations for tall grass and weeds. They've been extended to the public works department when they do their citations for snow removal. And so what the office of the city clerk is essentially asking is for similar
consideration to be made to us, to allow us to write citations when we see those violations. If you'll give me just two more minutes, I wanna very briefly talk about judicial elements because I think there's been a little bit of confusion here. The city of Rochester is the arbiter and the issuer of licenses. This is not a judicial process. You do not go through the criminal court process for suspensions, revocations, probations of your licenses. You go through the city of Rochester, whether that avenue is yourselves, the full common counsel,
or an administrative hearing officer. It is something that goes through municipal governance should a ruling be determined through that process and an appeal made outside. So let's say that the city council body were to allow the revocation of a license, then the judicial process could come into being. But for all processes before that, it all happens in house. So, again, with the citation process, that would remain in house. So the intent here is just a little bit of cleanup and a little bit
of efficacy. Thank you. Council member Keaton. Couple questions. One is, I think there was a question about the the is there anything imminent about this change right now, or this is just good hygiene that we should do this to make any more efficient clerk's office, or is there a reason to do this before December when something happens? The immediacy element of it is similar to any time when we basically needed to get this done. You can certainly table this. We can certainly engage with the community about it. But I think the fundamental question that I would have here is the ordinance is
already written. The ordinance already exists. So and I would certainly look for council direction. What exactly is the engagement that we are looking for? Are we engaging the community just to ask the question whether the overarching body that already issues the licenses should have the authority to issue citations, or should that remain with community service officers? So I guess in that particular instance, I would just want guidance on exactly what a town hall would look like and what questions the office of the city clerk is asking about this. Other questions?
Council, mayor Norton. Yeah. So I'm just looking for clarity. So you're you're not changing the fact that people are getting the citation. It is just who is issuing it, whether it be the c s the community service officer, the CSO, or your office. Thank you for that question. I I think the issue at play honestly here is on a question of ownership. Because the office of the city clerk are the subject matter experts on a lot of our license types, when alcohol and gambling, for example, potentially has a violation, when, let's say, a vending card has a violation,
it really is our office that typically is taking action on this, but we do not have the tools to use a citation process. Community service officers primarily are doing traffic tickets, etcetera, etcetera. Police officers really are wanting to operate on the streets and handle heavier crimes. So that that's the intent here. Okay. Thank you. I see council member Wahl is next, but I'm gonna ask, council member Wahl if he can clarify. If we table this item, what do you want to see, before it comes back to the council, and do you have a time frame for tabling the item?
Yes. Thank you. I I don't dispute a word mister Cartwright has offered to us. Thank you. I do believe it's good governance to, try and be in communication with the people, for whom these differences either are perceived or real to them in terms of, how the viability of their businesses even up to and including, the potential loss of a business. Obviously, that's an extreme case. The citation would have to be quite a quite a problem. As far as a timeline,
I don't have a timeline. I think it's more up to the clerk's office in terms of an ability to, help address some of the questions, amongst the licensees in the community so that, we can move together. Thank you. Any further discussion on this? Mister Cartwright, go ahead. Just one final point I wanna make about, some of the logistics. Thank you for that clarification, by the way. So one dash two is very narrow. It really talks and deals with citations. When you get into some of that particularly concerning element,
the revocation of a license, the suspension of a license, typically, the governing ordinances of those particular license types come into play in terms of them having to go through the appeal process here in front of the city council. So that's part one. Part two of the consideration for one dash two, again, speaking frankly from a logistical standpoint, is I'm I'm happy to reach out to businesses, but the businesses that currently are licensed with the office of the city clerk, frankly speaking, are not our problem. They typically are wanting to adhere to city ordinances.
We have tools in our toolkit, probationary measures, suspension measures, writing letters of warnings. We know who they are. I can reach out and talk to them and send out a communication, certainly have a town hall. The main prong or problem are businesses that do not, will not, and have very little interest in obtaining licensure and do not feel that there is a valid methodology that the city can implement to gain their willful compliance outside of going through a process that does, to the point of, I think, some of the people that are concerned, involve criminal courts for matters that might be disproportionate for the level of offense that
the city has concerns about. So, mister Cartwright, if we were to table this item this evening, what would, you see the city clerk's office doing, in in the interim and, as far as reaching out to businesses? And, what kind of time frame would you see this coming back to us? I would reach out to all of the licensed businesses that would be impacted by one dash two. I would inform them about the movement towards an administrative fine process. I would likely have forums that would be organized just to get general feedback from
those businesses that could potentially be affected. And once those forms have occurred, you would likely bring this back as, again, a consent agenda resolution. So, I can't speak 100% to timelines, but I would imagine sometime maybe in November or December. Council member Miller. So I appreciate the concern, from my colleagues. I guess I'm curious about the alternative action where if people have questions, why they're not just calling you so you can clarify that the ordinance exists and provide additional information as needed. Because it's my understanding that in our August,
eighteenth meeting, I believe, that we we took the more substantive change to add additional license types to the administrative fine process. And tonight, we would be taking a more minor approach, really an organizational approach to give the city clerk's office the ability to, as the department most engaged in that process, have additional oversight of the the streamlining the logistics, so to speak. That's correct. Change tonight that would, raise my my feeling that we need to set up a bunch of forums,
that probably at cost at some cost that, you know, people have other remedies to get clarification and get feedback. Council member Wall. Thank you, council member Miller. People do reach out. In fact, one of the two people that I spoke to, had a thirty minute conversation with mister Cartwright today. So, and that was reported to me. People are seeking to, try and be better informed. Council member Keane. I I I'm watching this, and I I saw this on our agenda. And outside of the clerk's office and what the I almost think of this as
more of a a closed office efficiency. Does you don't have to reach out to other groups. But it does remind me of a thing that I'm trying to deal with, and that's the fact that we have other administrative rules, like our zoning rules, that we don't have any citation capability for. And I know I've worked before with, community development of saying, like, how come our only recourse is to go to district court? And the answer is because we don't have, administrate we don't have debt we well, I shouldn't say we don't have we have decided not to have the ability to do fines or citations Because if you do,
you have the extra added weight of having to have a a, like, a court thing or a judge on staff that can can hear these. And outside of just what we're talking about with the clerk's office, I I'm I'm gonna kind of open this up a little bit to staff to say, is there a reason that some areas in the city like tall grass or like snow removal have the ability to charge and fine in other areas like zoning infractions and, other zoning enforcement that happens through our community development group, their only recourse is to take someone to court.
Mister Spindler, Craig, that sounds like a legal question. Thank you. Council member Keane, council members, mayor Norton. It is in part a a legal question. It's also a question that mister Cartwright is probably in a good position to answer as well. Part of the nuance that that council member Keane is is identifying is is the difference between administrative citations and criminal citations and some level of statutory limitation on, a municipality's ability to to utilize an administrative citation process.
It's not carte blanche where we just get to decide, what types of offenses we can handle on our own outside of the criminal process. So as you correctly identified, there has been discussion in the past about whether it could make sense, would make sense, to use, permissible administrative citation process on in some of these other subject areas. Certainly something that can be a, an ongoing discussion or or reconsideration, and and mister Cartwright may have some additional insights on that.
If I could disperse, I mean, I I understand what you're saying that I'm really not trying to take zoning infractions into the criminal courts. I'm talking about the way we do snow removal and long grass that we do allow parks and we allow, public works to both, like, fine people for their infractions and escalate the fines if that continues, where we don't allow that in our zoning thing. So I'm not sure if I'm framing it correctly, but any in insights? Council okay. I'm gonna ask for a little order here because I was ready to recognize council
member Palmer. If you want to be recognized after a member of the staff has answered the question, please look to the council president, and then I will recognize you. So Thank you. Council member, are you looking for another answer? I I I thought the attorney was asking mister Cartwright to respond, but I I don't think you I don't think that's gonna happen. Council member Palmer. Thank you. My my question is for the city attorney. If I remember correctly, weeds and and those items are are are put up against the property and the property owner, if that's correct? Correct. And and part of the problem with with zoning and and from a building code
perspective is I have to have the person's real name, I have to have their birth date, and those are sometimes hard to to obtain. Is is that not correct? That is sometimes a challenge. But those are requirements Yes. Support. I mean, you have to be it has to be Sean Charles Palmer. It can't just be Shawnee, I mean, as an example. True. My grandma. Okay. Okay. So, I mean, so there's kind of the problem that we have when we go to the citation part of it, and and I do understand why mister Wall made the made it. So I appreciate your answer. Any further,
discussion on this? Council, administrator Zelms. Council president, I just wanna point out for the record that one of the things that mister Cartwright suggested was that this would come back on a future meeting on consent. However, if the motion is to table, you have a section on your agenda that in order to remove something off of the table, you have to put it in the tabled items, remove it from the tabled items, and then move forward with commencing to discuss it again. Typically, in a situation like this, we would move to continue to either a date certain or continue.
I just wanna point that out, that tabling and continuing are a little bit different than what I think was getting discussed here. So, I would, recommend to the clerk's office that this go if this were to pass the the motion that this go on the tabled items, and it will stay there until you're ready to Who would that work again? Is that how we would do that, clerk, Casel? From a parliamentary procedure? From that perspective, then we would need a motion to take it off the table in order to bring it back. But if we continue it,
then we could bring it back when mister Cartwright was ready to bring it back. Does that work for you, council member Wall, if this motion were to pass? I think either works. It it is no problem to make a motion to bring something off the table. It's simply a council action. So just for clarity, we would not put it on tabled items until we were ready to ask you to take it off of the table, which would then be two actions on that evening to take it off of the table in order to be able to discuss the actual item. Just clarifying. That's how that works.
Go ahead, council member Wall. Which I think makes more sense because it gives more leeway to, the clerk's office in terms of being able to do the work necessary to, bring information back to us that will make it successful. Okay. So there's a motion on the on the floor to table item, g h three, the former, f seven. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Nay. Motion passes five to two with council members Miller and Doring voting nay.
Moving on to thank you. Moving on to, ordinance first readings. Go ahead, mister Spinbur Craig. Thank you, mister president. There's one first reading item j one, an ordinance annexing to the city of Rochester approximately 120 acres of land located Southwest of the intersection of Country Club Road and 40 Fifth Avenue Southwest. Moving on to the second reading, item K one, an ordinance amending section one dash two dash three of chapter one dash two of the Rochester code of ordinances relating to administrative enforcement procedures.
Our motion, I understand. Moved by council member Keane. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by council member Miller. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. Thank you. Moving on to other business. We are now going to, recess to a meeting of the Rochester Economic Development Authority. Any other business now? Seeing none, is there a motion to adjourn?