Minnesota, of the 50 states, Minnesota probably has the most complex tax system in the nation. And so, what takes me seven or eight slides to explain here in Minnesota, it takes me two or three in other states.

This is 195.3 times higher than the amount of county area it takes up. Again, it's indicating to you how productive your land use regulation is. That's the simplest way to put it. The zoning, the setbacks, all of the limitations and regulations you place result in a certain amount of productivity. And that's what Rochester looks like.

I think that the the earlier conversation and the point I I heard from you, Ms. Worthington, is that we we are not in a situation where we should be looking to create a trend where we go bankrupt, right? We should create sustainability so that we can provide quality of life through city services and discuss the appropriate level of subsidy, but a more productive city allows us to have a more robust conversation about city services.

So, it's really a philosophical discussion and and it really in my mind does weigh into quality of life and how do you value that? How do you count quality of life in this type of discussion?

The The numbers would suggest that it is the first. The The downtown is The downtown is supporting the city as a whole and the county as a whole. Um single family uses in the United States do not pay their own way.

It's really the ability...to capture and use most of the increased local property tax revenue from new development within a defined geographical area.

We've invested about 120 million in total increment to private projects which have produced in total development cost around 1.5 billion. So, that's development cost. That's not market value.

You can think of it as a as a uh basket of policy options. You can think of it think of it as do we decertify the districts when the obligation is done? Do we keep the districts open for future pooling and we'll go through some of those examples or do we return increment from the districts strategically in order to leverage those funds for governmental purposes.

I mean, the opportunity cost maybe to just be simple about it is you can decertify these districts at about a 50% discount in terms of the impact, right? So, you can decertify it, we'll receive half of those dollars for operational expenses, or you can use this to support at 100% at least in the DMC districts to advance your you know, your and all of your uh existing strategic priorities really fall into the types of eligible uses of funds here.

I I lack of better word, this sort of new slush fund that we're going to have to be able to work with and it just it doesn't feel right right now.

I think just aligning these investments strategically so that we have productive land as we're already seeing a a very healthy pattern, but maximize that. We've also talked about infill development as a key priority of our our action plan.

My my question is um is is you're asking about should we bring back policy choices, you know, for we're having this discussion. Should we bring back policy concepts? So, since we've just heard that we have done this on a case-by-case basis already, I guess my question is will a policy decision that then gets put in writing limit us rather than give us more options than a case-by-case recommendation based on what's happening in a community?