So, uh, did a lot of that and these financial policies. I've done this for two other communities before this. This seems to be kind of something again to rain everything back in.

So what it states in here is that the plan should be adopted and it be adopted by So if they're asking for an action to be done, we're recommending that it be adopted would be the action, not received or anything else unless specifically noted for a specific reason.

So since uh I think you kind of went through a semantic exercise with adopted uh is the word shall in there meaning that you want them to do it but they they don't have to do it.

But the rest of the language is that it doesn't obligate you to anything because there would be a future action, a budget item, some sort of financial resource, a specific CIP project, something of that nature that or maybe even adopting a policy that's an idea in the plan, but then it still needs to come forward to either a board or the city council depending on what that is.

I really think our time would be better spent really focusing on the financial marks. So what's in front of us? The policies that are things like is there a shared service policy? What are the what are the signature levels? I think those sort of policy things I getting into discussions of a master plan. I don't consider that under the control of financial policies.

So this one has to do with enterprise shared services. This is a relatively new policy but not a new concept basically. Um so with this one here is to not them but to maximize the use of shared organizational services across the city of Rochester.

this is really just sort of an idea and expectation that you know we we're linking um we have a lot of duplicative services right now. We've got you know we have moved toward a lot stronger alignment um in the shared services space um but we have had a fairly decentralized environment.

I guess I get worried when I see that line that um I think it's in there somewhere which says the um all the authority will be with the city administrator to interpret and enforce the policies. that almost sounds like we're we as a council are getting pulled into like these management things and I I just want to be careful with that.

So with that we were proposing to put in there fund balance not less than 15% of unreserved designated expenditures.

for contracts over 175, all contracts over this amount must be by the city council. That goes for anything over $175,000. So that is what we are proposing against to raise the limit.

The current is 50,000.

I actually think this is a really good government efficiency thing to be doing and not having the overhead of the lower dollar amount with the other process rigor we have in place. So I would I'm supporting this.

Again, this particular item worked with our safety and risk manager on this one. And this one is what we're proposing to do is to for the city for the city contract policy is to protect municipal assets um and then manage financial risk.

So if we hire somebody to do something or a company to do something, they have to have insurance.

So, what we're trying to do here is try to set it at 6 and a half% um for electric water mostly the water reclamation plant and the storm water utility and the parking.

having your financial policies adopted regularly is a fin is a best practice because there's transparency with the board to understand like these are the things that we should be applying. There may be exceptions sometimes because you need to do something.

But then when we talk about consistency now here we are two years later changing it again. Are we breaking our own rule that you know is the consistency important across our different enterprises or what we portray to the outside world because to me these expenses and this sort of thing on the utility affects when they go out to the open market which they're going to be for for bonds.

I mean there was an adjustment just because you know there's been some unpredictability and current the current formula uh is more complicated than it needs to be and I think this is an effort at simplification so people can easily understand you know what it is that's happening here um but also grounded in best practice.

parking one is the one that feels quite different from the others. Um I I I guess I'm curious too about some of the prop like protected revenue seems like it's falling falling back below and I'm curious about like how we're forecasting revenue and parking and also it seems like it's the one getting the biggest discount uh compared with current policy and so I guess explicitly is is this being said really based on trying to optimize the RP electric rate and then standardize that to the all the enterprise funds.

First and foremost is their support for establishing a formal market-based program to better support two-party transfer of off-site storm treatment credit.

Yes. That's a way to support development with some of the challenges that come with infill development.

I am wondering though about water quality. So, um, let's say you have a part of the community that it just is very feasible to do any people start buying the credits where they're available and they might be a little further out. What about the water quality in that particular area?

If the generator falls out of non-compliance, the onus is on the person buying the credit from the generator to then buy credits from someone else. Because that's what I thought I heard you say. That seems punitive for the person who is operating in good faith to buy credits um and not punitive to the person who is falling out of.

I like I like the idea of it because you're mitigating a problem up towards foster errands. you're mitigating a problem there and it's getting funded by what sounds to be like private priv and the private sector in some cases and we want infill and if you got to meet state requirements and you can have two wins and actually more than that if you're providing in some cases housing whatever it may be a need for our community or for our city I just it's a it's it's a win on multiple levels so I I I like it.