approval by the residents. This is being proposed on a large part based on the following misinformation provided by city staff over the decades. These are things that I've heard um The city states that Silver Lake Dam is unsafe. Even though there have been no documented dam related accidents or deaths in more than 90 years. I wish we could say that for Foster Arends. The city says a smaller Silver Lake will still be present at the same level as before, but engine engineers now indicate that the water will be lowered by almost a foot than it currently is. The city implied the old dam was unsafe and although 2/3 of the dam was rebuilt by the core in the '90s and the other third was recently rebuilt, so it's not a 90-year-old project. Um the city touted the new dam will provide recreational tubing, kayaking, and canoeing, although engineers indicates summer water flow will not usually support those activities. The city stated the dam was originally built to provide cooling water for the power plant and of course that's no longer needed, but the power plant was built a decade after the dam. So, I don't know if they were psychic. >> [laughter] >> Um Um we have also been told it's to appease the DNR. The The city said the dam removal was part of a larger city project to remove the upstream impediments. Something that's not known as a fact as far as I can tell there's no documentation on that. Um it was also stated that the current dam functions only to to send spring ice break up downstream, although it's lowered many times throughout the year. I've I bike across the railroad track they call the Silver Lake bike trail all the time and I'll cross that dam and it's You miss Wiley. You see the difference a lot. So, Thank you. Thank you. Next up we have uh San- Sandra Gussie. Gussie. Gussie. Sandra Gussie, 121 14th Street Northeast. As city staff pushed to remove the Silver Lake Dam, the following related facts for proposed dam removal concern many city residents. The recent study session on the changes to dam removal was canceled during the council uninf- the leaving the council uninformed on proposed changes. The Army Corps has not fully determined the impacts of dam removal on historical significance of Silver Lake Park or the impacts on flood control. The DNR has concerns about the low summer flow on the recreational pools making them put a potential fish death traps and not having enough water for the proposed fish muscle passageway. Only two of the current council members were around when the original plans for dam removal were proposed. A new mayor and potentially new council would inherit a controversial dam removal project pushed forward by current city leaders. A year ago preliminary cost estimates were 40% higher than original estimates. With the current city construction climate, increased costs will be significant with no identified source to cover expenses. Electric rate payers will be asked to pay a signi- a significant part of the dam removal costs through rate increases. A 22 2022 dam removal inf- informational meeting and later a peaceful protest demonstration at City Hall supports that most Rochester residents who have any interest in Silver Lake are opposed to the dam removal project. The council's role is to represent the citizens of Rochester, not rubber stamp the staff proposals. Thank you. Thank you. Uh that is uh all on the sign-up sheet. If there are others who wish to address the council during open comment period, please step forward. Anyone who wishes to speak, please step forward. Seeing no one, I will close the public comment period and uh ask the city clerk to call the roll. Good evening. Council member Keen. >> Here. Council member Miller. >> Here. Council member Wall. >> Here. Council member Fredericks. >> Here. Council member Halverson. Here. Council member Doran. >> Here. Council President Schubring. Here. Mayor Norton. >> Present. Thank you. Uh next up we have our city administrator's report. Administrator Zelms, go ahead. Thank you, Council President, council members, Mayor Norton, members of the public. Um I always start this report off by thanking our teammates for acting with respect, integrity, safety, and excellence in everything that they do. And this week I also want to recognize everyone um that is providing public service to the city. Um that is public service recognition week this week, so um an extra thank you to all of the professionals that work uh for the city in variety of different roles for the service that they provide to the community. Um also just draw attention to a couple of things that are forthcoming this week starting tomorrow, May 5th through the 7th, the Chateau Skyway will be temporarily closed for repairs. Um so, if you rely on that uh walkway in order to get places, you will need to take a different route during that time period. Um elevators and escalators at the Shops on University Square at the Galleria are still available in order to be able to get up and down, but you won't be able to get across um at the Chateau Skyway there. Uh hopefully the weather will stay good and then people will want to be outside. Um also the 2026 transportation fair um is coming up. Um there's no registration required for the free event. It's put on by Early Childhood Family Education, School Readiness, and our teammates at Rochester Public Works. That'll be May 9th from 10:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. at Goose Egg Park. So, if that's something your kiddos would be interested in or the family, um check it out. Uh also we have on May 9th tree community tree planting that's happening at Sunset Terrace. Uh that will be Our Neighbors and Rochester Parks and Recreation. Saturday, May 9th, 8:30 a.m., so an earlier start for that. Um meet up at Sunset Terrace Elementary School at 1707 19th Avenue Northwest. Um you can get more information at ourneighbors.org. And then finally, if any of you have been outside recently, there's a lot of mowing going on, but there's some slow mowing going on this summer. Um so, you might recall the No Mow um May. We are now in Slow Mow Summer. That is our new initiative that we're doing in Rochester, so um still important to make sure your turf grass is kept at 12 in or under and control noxious weeds, um but um encouraging folks to consider taking a little a few extra days between mowing um in order to encourage sustainable lawn care, um pollinators, and healthier lawns. And that is all I have for you. You can pick up a Slow Mow Summer uh uh yard sign if you like at the Parks and Recreation office here at City Hall. Thank you, Ms. Zelms. Next up we have the mayor's report. Mayor Norton, go ahead. Sure. I have a couple things. One which was really fun from this last weekend. The Road Runners Club of America has designations for cities to apply for to become a runner-friendly city or runner-friendly community. We won that designation back in 2020 and we reapplied. You have to reapply every 5 years and we were once again designated a runner-friendly city, so we have a plaque um that the runners club asked that we keep here at City Hall because they don't really have a place to put it. Um but it was really nice ceremony. They had a run and they also uh joined the Chamber of Commerce, so they had a ribbon cutting for the event, too. So, it was a really nice event this weekend. So, I thought I'd start with something kind of fun. Um again, this is just a reminder that we are hosting um a town hall uh on utilities. So, Rochester Public Utility will be there to speak. Everyone in the community is invited to attend. It'll be on May 12th, Tuesday um from 6:00 to 7:30. So, at the Heinz Center and again, there's um I hate to say the C-word, but construction uh going on in Rochester, so you may have to approach um the uh Heinz Center from uh a different direction than you might have prior to, but please do come. Bring your questions. Um Tim McCollough and perhaps some others will be there um and talk about how we're moving to be 100% renewable, what we're doing, talk about your bills. You can talk about anything you want having to do with utilities. Should be nice. Um I thought I'd just touch base really briefly. Um as you know and I announced last time we had a meeting, um the I went to City Lab. And so, this is uh the bottom picture on there is the mayors group. There is a one-day mayors uh innovation studio, so mayors from around the world get together. There were a number from the United States, but it's a very global event. Um and uh we talked about city design, housing, community connections, healthy environments. Um there was a lot of talk about designing for togetherness and belonging. Um there was a fact that they mentioned that um during this conference uh beyond just the mayors day, but throughout the whole next day and a half where we were together with uh experts and developers and all sorts of folks is that in the past, 70% of architects were employed by cities. Today, it's 1%. And I found that fascinating. Cities often had and did have a number of architects uh in in their employ and that just doesn't happen anymore. Now, we do consulting and hire firms, so that was that was something I knew nothing about. Um Regarding connecting communities, the 6th Street Bridge came to mind as we were we were, you know, listening to the discussion about that. Um, cities that built these connections, whether it be walking, um, any kind of bridge, but bridge that also had walking capabilities, it could also be cars, um, saw economic growth, increased property values, um, and bike and ped use, uh, jumped, uh, beyond expectations and there were mayors from London and Madrid in particular, couple others talking, um, about the results that they had seen. They also talked about when you're, um, and I've got a quote here if I can find it in a minute. Um, Uh, this is a Manchester mayor. Change You have We all, as elected officials and elected and, um, employees have to change the cities that we live in, but we don't want to change the character of the city. And I thought that's really profound. We do We have to change. Life is about change. As cities grow, they absolutely must change, but how can we do that with keeping the character of the city intact? And I think that's been a challenge here for our staff and certainly for us in some of the projects that we've had. Um, and they said, you know, change must be done to enhance the economy and and the economy for the people that live there. Um, you just you can't run from that. We talked a lot about sprawl and, um, low-density housing needing to address that as cities continue to grow and rural areas shrink. Um, and how do you do that? And and that it's really important. Uh, Lord Norman Foster, who does a lot of design work, talked a lot about getting the balance right. And again, it's it reminded me so much of what we do at this table so often, trying to get that balance right between density, um, and still having a city that [clears throat] folks want to want to live in. Um, they talked about design as as a social agenda and that public spaces were key. Um, again, it reminded me of a lot of the public spaces we've been and will continue to build in the city, whether it be, um, Peace Plaza or our parks. We have them all over. Um, they talked about, um, designing with children in mind, um, and that safe spaces are a must, um, and that all of us, I think, will say we've seen less children walking to school, less children biking to school. Parents and caregivers feel less safe letting their kids out the door without, you know, that security. And that, um, between traffic, I use the word accidents, I know a lot of people like to use the term crashes, um, and addressing, um, safe spaces is really, really important so that children and families do feel like they can let their children out. Um, the parks in Madrid in particular were fenced, um, and they also have always have places for adults to sit and watch the youth. It was, um, their parks are massive there, but it was, uh, um, it was remarkable. Um, One of I guess one of the things based on some of the comments I heard here before I um, I'll just tell you about two funding opportunities, um, was that all cities are dealing with what we're dealing with here and this was across the globe where you plan something, it takes years of planning. You have your funding, you have your budgets, and then the reality of today hits and cities all around the country and the world are facing the same problem we have, which are when you finally get to the point it's time to build, the budget doesn't work anymore. And so those are challenges that we all have and they were talking about, you know, how do you continue to give a product that is meaningful to the area, but do it in a way that affects the budget less? And they're convinced that we can do that, that we just have to, re- um, you know, work hard at providing the same feelings of community and safety, um, but to do it in ways that, um, maybe weren't quite as elaborate as we had thought, but that will serve the same function in the end. Um, so I'll I'll leave it at that. It was a a fascinating, uh, week and opportunity. I have lots of notes, which some of you that come to my office periodically will have to hear about just cuz, um, it was really exciting and, uh, we had an opportunity. The mayor of Kyiv was there, too, and I can't talk about that publicly cuz I I do tend to get quite emotional, but it was, uh, um, um, a fascinating, um, discussion that he shared with us and and, uh, very meaningful. Um, the city recognitions that are coming up, some may have been mentioned, um, but National Firefighters Day is May the 4th be with you day. Um, National Police Week is May 10th through 16th, Public Works Week, May 17th through 23rd, Building Safety Month and Historic Preservation Month. Those are all things that cities deal with and our employees deal with every day, so we want to recognize them when we can and say thank you, uh, depending on the week and the department. Um, I have those up here. And lastly, um, well, I want to share the the two funding opportunities, but lastly from announcement general announcements I have, um, board and commission vacancies. Um, you'll see some in your program today or your agenda today. Three have been filled. Um, we have a couple others that Mayor's Civic Center does not happen with Mayor's office, but it is, uh, one that has openings. The Board of Appeals, Fire Civil Service and Police Civil Service Commission, um, do have, um, an opening each, one each, so I'll be looking for three folks. And I would just say the Fire Civil Service Commission and Police Civil Service have to do with hiring and promoting, uh, within the department. And so if, you know, you have any interest in HR or those areas, uh, please go online and fill an application. I do believe the website is working now. And lastly, the two announcements, um, Bloomberg does funding opportunities every year. Um, he does the, uh, Bloomberg Initiative for Cycle Infrastructure. They're going to open a new grant cycle in June. Um, last time it was between 400,000 to a million dollars cycling infrastructure, uh, grants for capacity building and planning. They gave out two around the world, none in the United States actually last time. Um, but they are they are, um, going to give out, I believe, 24 this next year. Um, so, uh, they suggested we consider applying and only the Bloomberg cities get to apply. So, as you know, we've won one in the past and I said, "Will that affect us at all because we've won a grant?" And they said, "Absolutely not. Uh, consider putting in an application." And also there's, um, the Global Mayors Challenge will be coming up again, probably for the next mayor next year. And then the there's a youth grant coming up and I'm going to talk with the Youth Council to see if there's any interest in, um, having the Youth Council uh, put in an application for a grant. So, that's all I've got. Thank you for your time. >> Great. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you for all that insight and information. Next up, we have the order of the agenda. Is there a motion to approve the agenda? Move. Second. Moved by Councilmember Fredericks and seconded by Councilmember Miller. All in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. Motion passes. Next is the consent agenda. I have not received any pulled items. Is that correct? Uh, therefore I invite a motion to approve the consent agenda. So moved. Second. Moved by Councilmember Miller and seconded by Councilmember Fredericks. Councilmember Wall. Thank you. Uh, we are about to approve Thank you. We are about to approve, uh, nine contracts, uh, amounting to 9,276,000 dollars. The estimates, however, uh, prior to bidding were 11,149,000 dollars. And through the good work [snorts] of, uh, staff and our construction partners, uh, around the area, uh, we saved 1,872,000 dollars or 16.8% off of, uh, the estimates. So, really great, great work. Thank you much. Thank you, Councilmember. We all appreciate you pointing that out and, uh, and the good good work of our staff on that. Uh, motion has been made, seconded. All in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. Motion passes. Moving on to our public hearings, we have five public hearings on our agenda this evening. And, uh, uh, before we begin, uh, take a moment to talk about the process. It's a little different than our open comment period. Staff will first introduce the item, uh, and give or give a presentation. And then if there is an applicant or applicant's representative present, they will have up to 10 minutes to discuss the item. After which I will open the public hearing. Members of the public have up to 5 minutes to speak on the item. Just as with open comment period, please keep your comments, uh, confined to the item and, uh, and concise. And a- after the public hearing, I will close the public hearing and invite the applicant back up to answer any questions and or respond to questions from, uh, the council. And with that, uh, we have the first public hearing, which is item G1, an issuance of conduit multi-family housing revenue bonds related to The Commons at Bear Creek. Mr. Svendby. Uh, good evening, Councilmember President, Councilmembers I I think you turned it off, actually. There you go. Good evening, Councilmember President, Councilmembers Mayor Norton. Brent Svendby, Community Development. Tonight we're here for a public hearing to consider adopting a resolution for the issuance of tax-exempt conduit multi-family housing housing revenue bonds for the financing of the acquisition, construction, equipping of a approximately 149-unit apartment building located along 4th Street, just across the bridge um, just east of Bear Creek. So just kind of just across the river from Riverside Elementary School. The project does qualify as a qualified rental housing project. On average 100% of the units will be affordable to persons at 60% AMI levels meaning that there may be some units at the 30% range, 50% range 60% range and 70% range but on average it'll be a 100% at the 60% AMI level. So basically back in January of this year the council was awarded bonds in the amount of 27.1 million dollars. This was the third go round for these bonds. The first application the city made was back in January of 2025. We didn't we're not successful in those bonds. We applied again in July of 2025. We applied again in January 2026 and we were were awarded bonds this time around. It usually takes a number of cycles to get through the bond process when they're allocated by the state. And then the bonds do they do expire 180 days from when they were issued by the state and they were issued on January 12th of 2026. The bonds will give the borrower in this case is Rochester One Limited Partnership access to access and financing which means lower interest rate cost and allows the borrowers to obtain 4% housing tax credits for the project which will generate significant source of equity for the project. If issued the bonds are secured solely by the borrowers assets and the revenues to provide derived from the loan agreement which the borrower agrees to pay all payments and on the bonds. No money will pass through the city. No money or assets of the city will be pledged for the payment of the bonds. If all the payments are on the um developer in this case. Um the bonds will not constitute a general or moral obligation of the city. They will not be secured by or payable from any property or assets of the city or by any taxing powers of the city. Um the bonds will not affect any debt limitation imposed on the city. It will not have a adverse impact on the credit of the city. Um The bonds are fan financial tools that cities can use to help achieve a public purpose generating affordable housing. This isn't the first time the city has received bonds bonds for a project. Most recently we received bonds for the Sherman project which has intensive hopefully will be be breaking ground here in June of this year. Um prior to that we received um bonds for the Bella Grove project River Glen on River Glen project Flats on 4th and Eastgate project to name some recent projects where the city has applied for bonds behalf of the developer and have been issued bonds and have had successful projects. So with that I'll stand for any questions. I know the developer is in the audience and he may wish to address the council to introduce himself. Sounds good. Thank you Mr. Svenby. If the applicant or applicant's representative is here please step forward and uh introduce yourself and you have up to 10 minutes to address the council. Awesome. Well good evening Mayor Norton, Council President Schubring and all council members. My name is James Riley. I'm a vice president and project partner with Lincoln Avenue Communities. We're the project sponsor of the Commons at Bear Creek. As Brent mentioned we've been working on this project for over a year and a half now very closely with city staff and so we're really excited to hopefully be breaking ground here early this summer. Um I just wanted to say from Lincoln Avenue Communities how excited we are about the prospect of being a part of the city of Rochester here. The growth and the policies that you all have implemented have started really coming to fruition and are are evident in everything that's going on in the city here. So we're extremely excited about the prospect of being involved and really with that happy to answer any questions that you all might have on myself or the firm or our project as a whole. Thank you. We'll invite you back up after the public hearing. Thank you. With that I will open the public hearing. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on this item please step forward. Anyone wishing to speak on this item please step forward. Seeing no one I will close the public hearing and invite Mr. Riley back up and and Mr. Svenby as well and if there are any questions from council members. Mayor Norton. So this is um a question maybe for Brent but for either of you. There is concern in the public about um the density of low income in one building. And if I'm not mistaken that is part of the requirement the low income housing is part of the requirement to get the bonds. So could somebody maybe walk folks through that because people are worried about that and yet that's how the program works. Yeah I don't want to speak for Brent on this. You know from our standpoint the affordability goes along with the financing. So as Brent mentioned this is being financed by not only tax exempt bonds but through those bonds we qualify for the 4% low income housing tax credit. As part of that per IRS or federal guidelines the project has to average to 60% AMI which are considered affordable rents. As Brent had mentioned we'll be using income averaging here. So while the average income of the units works out to 60% there will be a a wider band going down to 30% AMI all the way up to 70 and you know really the the 70% rents in pretty much every market in the US get very close to market rents. So that really helps us accomplish the diversity of unit types and incomes at the property and you know hopefully not concentrate a certain income level in one community. So that was really our goal with the income averaging. Thank you. That's exactly what I'd hoped you could address for the public because there is confusion. So thank you for that. Any other questions from council members? Is there a you can sit down. Thank you. I was just going to You want to wrap up? Go ahead. Just asking the council to adopt a resolution adopting the housing program the issuance of the conduit multi-family housing revenue bonds and the execution of related documents relating to the Commons at Bear Creek project. Is there a motion on this item? I'll I'll move to adopt a resolution adopt a resolution adopting the housing program the issuance of the conduit multi-family housing revenue bonds and the execution of related documents relating to the Commons at Bear Creek. Second. Motion made by Council Member Keen and seconded by Council Member Fredericks. Council Member Keen. No nothing to add. This is something we've been working has been worked through staff and through this council for a while now. It it does I appreciate the mayor's interest there in making sure we don't collocate too much of the sort of the workforce housing in one spot and and we've had some other projects where it's been moved around other parts of the city. So I think it's been done well. Council Member Wall. I have had just a couple of comments from two two different people as to trying to make this building as attractive as possible on a heavily used thoroughfare in Rochester. So just a word. Council Member Fredericks. Appreciate the developers for bringing a great project to the community and enhancing our downtown. So thank you. And just to add to the choir one thing that I'm really excited about is to see rental units coming into the market. I we have a really tight rental market here and to see more on the supply side really can help really move that. So thank you very much. And with that all in favor say I. I. Opposed say nay. Motion passes. Next up we have item G2 which is a conditional use permit by the city of Rochester. Mr. Muller. Good evening Council President, Mayor, members of the council. Elliot Muller Rochester Community Development. So as the Council President had mentioned the applicant tonight is the city of Rochester and the request is for approval of conditional use permit number CD 2026003 CUP for changes to structural works with alterations of the flood wall placement of supporting piers in the floodway subdistrict for the development of the 6th Street Bridge. The site as you may have guessed is located between 6th Street Southwest and 6th Street Southeast across the Zumbro. The overall 6th Street Bridge project is currently going through federal and state reviews which have included a higher level review and more detailed plan sets than just this conditional use permit. However this is a requirement under the Unified Development Code for any bridges, streets or railways that would be crossing or being built within the floodway. The flood plain development permit conditional use permit but we use the flood plain criteria is intended to ensure that all development in the flood plain complies with all applicable federal, state and local regulations um, is designed to reduce risk of damage due to flooding. Um, the structural engineering of the bridge will prevent [clears throat] any, uh, exposure to flood hazards. There is a 1 in rise with the placement of the piers within the floodway, um, but that will be handled under the conditional letter of, uh, map revision through FEMA. Um, so that will be, uh, outside the city, um, or outside of my purview under that one, but um, otherwise the development team is recommending approval, um, with two conditions, um, and then the planning commission has forwarded a recommendation, um, the same. And the applicant is sitting to my right. I'll answer any questions you might have. Thank you, Mr. Muller. So, when you said the applicant is sitting to your right, so does the applicant wish to use their 10 minutes to discuss the project? Uh, no, thank you, Council President. I think, uh, Mr. Muller covered it well. All right, thank you. Uh, well, with that, I will open the public hearing and invite anyone who wishes to speak on this item to please step forward. Anyone who wishes to, uh, be heard on this item, please step forward. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing and invite, uh, my colleagues to ask any questions. Council member Keen. Uh, yeah, um, Mr. Muller, just this is not the first time that the city has been the requester for something like this and there's we're following our our rules and state law by having a, uh, a public hearing at a conditional use. Is there any unique things we have to do when the city is both the approver and the requester? That's a great question. Um, I will defer. Uh, thank you for the question. Um, I think what we're doing is following the same process that we'd require any other applicant and so we're there is really no difference in terms of process. We're kind of going through, um, this application went to the planning commission for a review. It is before City Council. So, we're following the same process outlined in the unified development code that we'd ask any other developer applicant to follow. Oh, okay. I again, I've I've seen that and and I think that's an important thing that we go to the these, um, advisory groups. At the same time, I'm just just get me feeling a little discomfort with the idea that the city is approving something for the city and uh, I'll I'll just bring it up as a concern, but I'm glad to see the process is being followed. And I would also note that we coordinate with the county in terms of flood plain permits and then this is also being reviewed by FEMA. So, it's not just solely, um, by the City Council. This is a step in that process. Very good. Thank you. Council member Wall. Thank you and I appreciate, uh, extra information, uh, earlier, uh, this day that helped me understand better, uh, the length of this project and, uh, the fact that this is not a new, uh, problem to solve, but an answer that I didn't necessarily get and want to understand better, the moving of the channel walls, I presume will add to the cost of, uh, preparing whatever it is that, uh, we are going to be doing with with the piers. Will that subtract from amenities that will be available to the larger scope of the project? Mr. Sampson Braun. Uh, Council member Wall, it's, uh, not a really a direct correlation. So, we looked at several alternatives that improve the, uh, landscape amenities along the corridor in combination with the size of the bridge opening, uh, at 6th Street. So, in this particular case, uh, some priorities, especially on the east side of the bridge, is to maintain a separate Zumbro River Trail crossing from the street, maintain that protected crossing. So, uh, some of the wall reconfiguration is related to that particular component. And while the piers go in the middle of the river where the bridge touches down on land, those are the abutments. So, those obviously have to be built to support the bridge. So, abutment construction is also causing modification of the walls and all that comes to the net design, uh, and the final deliverable. So, um, I'm not sure one's triggering the other. It's more a matter of the wall we're reshaping the walls to fit the landscape architecture and recreational amenities that have been built into the project, if that makes sense. Okay, uh, I'll ask it in a little bit different way. Uh, when we're done, Mhm. will we get the pretty pictures that we have seen? Yes. Yeah, I want to remind everybody there's two phases to this project, but especially on the southeast quadrant, uh, adjacent to the, uh, what's known as the Ampie site, that will be, uh, an opportunity with public realm, uh, places to stop. There'll be, uh, access down to the riverfront. So, yes, we've had to scale back from the very first rendering, uh, to make sure we remain on budget, but yes, there will be it'll be a great place to come and visit and hang out as a community member. Thank you. Council member Doring. Trying to get my mic. Um, with the Thank you so much. With the with the changes in plans, will it have any additional adverse impacts on private property owners? Uh, there'll there's no planned adverse impact to private property owners. There is a parallel project, um, to modify an earth berm within Soldiers Field Park. Uh, that will actually reduce the area of inundation that occurs today without the 6th Street Bridge being built. Thank you. Uh, Council member Fredericks. I'll make a motion adopting a resolution approving conditional use permit number CE2026-003CUP by the City of Rochester for changes to structural works with the alterations of the flood wall and location of the supporting piers for the development of the 6th Street Bridge with two conditions. Second. Motion made by Council member Fredericks and seconded by Council member Keen. Anymore to add, Council member Fredericks? Nope. Good work. >> [snorts] >> Council member Keen, Mayor. Yeah, I will just reiterate, I think what I was hearing Council member Wall, um, make take comment on, which is there was a lot of community engagement that happened with this project. A lot of community engagement and the money for this was we started lobbying in 2020. I think we got the money in 2021. It has taken this long, too long in my mind, to get here, but here we are finally and I want to make sure that we do not underperform and disappoint the folks in that neighborhood who gave us a lot of input about what they wanted and we made a lot of we yes, we'll do this and so I see nodding, so I think they're familiar with this concern, but I just want to raise it and I appreciate, uh, Council member uh, Wall member mentioning this, too, because it's an important, uh, part of our job. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, seeing no other comments, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay, motion passes. Moving on to item G3, which is a vacation permit, uh, by Olmsted County. Uh, Mr. Muller. Yep. Evening, uh, Council President, uh, members of the Council, Mayor. Um, Elliot Muller, Rochester Community Development. Um, tonight the applicant is Olmsted County, um, and they're requesting approval of a vacation petition CD2026-003VAC, um, to vacate a water main easement that is 20 ft wide and approximately 1,960 ft in length. Um, it snakes across the property. Um, the site is located at the waste to energy property, which is at 301, uh, Energy Parkway Northeast. Um, the water main and the associated easement will be relocated to allow for an expansion of the waste to energy facility. Um, the county currently has a site development plan under review with the City of Rochester. Um, this being the last outstanding comment before we can approve it. Um, and then tonight the development review team is recommending approval of the petition. I'll answer any questions you might have. Thank you, Mr. Muller. Is there a representative from Olmsted County here? I don't believe so. With that, I will open the public hearing. If there's anyone, uh, 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 any questions or make a motion on this item. Council member Keen. I'll move to adopt the resolution approving the vacation petition CD2026-003VAC by Olmsted County to vacate a 20-ft wide water main easement approximately 1,960 ft in length on the Olmsted County waste to energy property. Second. Motion made by Council member Keen seconded by Council member Fredericks. Council member Keen, anymore to add? Council member Fredericks. All in favor say aye. Aye. >> Aye. Opposed say nay, motion passes. Uh, onto G4, which is another vacation petition by the City of Rochester and this would be Mr. Miguel. Uh, thank you, President Schuhring, uh, Mayor Norton, members of the Council. Good evening. Desmond Miguel, I'm with Community Development. I'll be introducing this application for you. Uh, City of Rochester Public Works Department is requesting approval of a right-of-way vacation. Uh, the subject request, uh, for vacation, uh, is for the 2nd Avenue Northwest, uh, uh, street, uh, north of 26th Street. The proposed right-of-way vacation is 66 ft in width and 125 ft long. Uh, the right-of-way is presently undeveloped with no street improvements or public utilities. Um, when subdivision was platted in 1967, it was anticipated there would be a connection to the north into that residential property. However, when that project came along 20 years later, the streets in that development did not connect to the Second Street stub out. So, those those streets ended in a cul-de-sac bulb. So, um therefore, this right-of-way currently dead ends at the south end of that subdivision and provides no access or public benefit. Since the right-of-way was dedicated for public transportation and infrastructure as part of the Valhalla Second Subdivision, the city should probably release and vacate the street. This development review team is recommending approval of this application as is the Planning and Zoning Commission. Um and once this vacation is recorded, it is anticipated that the east 33 ft will be absorbed into the lot to the east and the west 33 ft will be absorbed by the lot on the west side. That concludes my introduction. I'd be happy to answer any questions the council may have after the public hearing. Thank you, Mr. McGill. At this point, I will open the public hearing and invite Mr. Matt McGulpin up to speak to the item. And you have 5 minutes. And please introduce yourself and Okay. My name is Matt McGulpin. I live at 203 26th Street. Thank you for hearing me. Um I'm here because I had a received a phone call last summer about the vacation of the property and so I was interested and I believe I talked to Mr. Schwenke over here on that occasion and possibly one other time about the lot and I guess I'm expressing my interest in the lot. I I do have a couple questions about it. Um one being if I guess let me back up. The neighbor next to the other side of the lot, I had spoken with her and she is not interested in that half. So, I'm I guess I'm putting my uh I guess what I'm trying to say is I'd I'd be interested in the other half as well if that's feasible. And I was wondering what um possibly the tax increase would be on that. And I guess I was >> [clears throat] >> also told that there may be concrete that's buried in the middle of that from I guess past dumpings of concrete trucks. I was wondering what that would entail. That would um make it viable land or not. Um I guess those those are my questions. Okay, thank you. >> [clears throat] >> We will get to those after the public hearing. This is a public hearing. Anyone else who wishes to be heard on this item, please step forward. Anyone else wishing to be heard on this item, please step forward. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing and invite Mr. McGill to answer Mr. McGulpin's questions. Sure. Well, I thank you Council President Schubring. Regarding the you know who the property is uh you know, who it ends up with after the resolution is recorded. That's a function of the County Assessor's Office. It's not you know, the function of staff or the City Council for that matter. I guess the decision at hand is whether or not you want to vacate this street or not. Um we anticipate that each half will go to both property owners. I don't know if the county could somehow dedicate or require allow the the east half to be dedicated over to the west property owner. So, a question is so you heard Mr. McGulpin's uh request. So, where does he go for those answers? Uh he could speak with the the property records office once the vacation is recorded. Um and of course, if it is split down the middle as we anticipate um perhaps they can negotiate a a property line adjustment or something that would bring it back into his property after after the fact. Okay, thank you. Council member Palmer. So, the city doesn't own the land. Um it has an easement on it. And so when we give up the easement, it goes for free to both parties on both sides of the property line, correct? Correct. And then they can decide what they want um with the county as far as the assessment goes. Uh yes, the the assessment as well is also a function of the County Assessor's Office. Um I I believe that most of the value is associated with the structure itself on the property. I don't think there would be that much increase in the in the taxation on the property. Although, I could not specify a specific amount uh that that would be assessed. Okay, and just for information on on it, I was just dealing with the county on another land thing and you can swap the land for a tax for free to bring it onto your property, which won't cost them anything. So. Thank you. Council member Keen. I've I've got one clarifying question. Um I've heard the term easement, but I've also seen right-of-way and I believe this is a right-of-way and I believe it is owned by the city. It is right-of-way, but it's not fee title owned right-of-way. It's It was essentially dedicated through the plat. So, it is similar to an easement this right-of-way. It is not something that is a property in and of itself. Once it is vacated, it just simply is absorbed back into the properties. That does feel like a unique situation. Um then the second question, this idea of like I've been involved in many issues where we do the vacate and it's almost like uh the the rule of thumb or the first operating thing is the splitting, the ownership goes either side. Is that by law or is that just a convention that we've used? Um I think what the the County Assessor's Office looks at is what subdivision did this land come from uh in which this you know, right-of-way was dedicated. And in this circumstance, both the property on the west side and the east side of this street were part of the Valhalla Second Subdivision plat. So, likely the you know, property would essentially be absorbed by the most contiguous properties of the subdivision. Um to that right-of-way. Okay. Slightly different question. We've had other um uh city-owned property that have come from in some cases land swaps or park things that were city properties that end up becoming either sold or were used as leverage to build owner-occupied housing. Was that considered for this property? Or can it be considered? >> I don't believe it can be. Perhaps a question for for the the legal team, but I don't believe it can be. Mr. Schwenke, Craig. >> it can't be because it's right-of-way. So, we can't we can't sell it as a lot. It's not a lot. Okay. Um going back to your earlier question about >> [clears throat] >> is it an easement? Most right-of-way is an easement. It's not a lot. It's not a property. So, what I'm saying is it's not fee title. Sometimes we do have roads that are a parcel that we own. But that's pretty uncommon. Most streets are an easement that is called right-of-way over top of it. And when we vacate it, it goes back to the adjacent property owner. Okay. >> We wouldn't have been able to sell this as a lot. It's not a lot. It's right-of-way. Um thank you for the clarification, but I believe that's something the City of Rochester does in other municipalities don't have that convention, that they really do have property that is right-of-way. I wouldn't want to venture a guess on that one. Um all right, thank you. Anyone else? Uh Council member Fredericks. I'll make a motion adopting a resolution approving vacation petition number CD 2026-002 VAC by the City of Rochester to vacate a 66-ft wide public right-of-way approximately 125 ft in length dedicated for Second Avenue Northwest north of 26th Street Northwest and south of the Riverview West Replat Subdivision. Second. Uh motion made by Council member Fredericks and seconded by Council member Doering. Any further discussion? >> The mayor. Uh Mayor Norton. Thank you. It's mostly clarification. So, the action that the the resolution that was just read that will be voted on, the action item doesn't describe where the property will go. It's We're just vacating. So, just to be clear for folks listening, then the next step, so what we write in the report narrative really is neither here nor there. Right? We're only doing the action item. So, now the gentleman that spoke could go talk to the county uh with his neighbor and resolve this in in that fashion. Thank you. Yeah, just to clarify. >> clarification. With that, uh all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, say nay. Motion passes. Uh next up, we have G5, which is a final plat by SCS Rochester. And uh this is Mr. McGill as well. Yes, thank you, Council President. I'll be introducing this item as well. It is a final plat for Rochester Savannah uh subdivision plat by SCS. It is a 30-acre site located at the southeast of Badger Hills Drive Northwest and 50th Avenue Northwest in an R2 zoning district, which is low-density small lot. Low residential residential density small lot. The general development plan was approved in December of 24, which consists of a rental townhome community with 196 units. A major land subdivision was approved by the council in September of 20 25 and this final plat would create two blocks each having one lot in a collector road extension of Alpha Parkway Northwest, which will extend through the development and connect to Badger Hills on the north side and 50th Avenue on the west. This final plat is consistent with both the preliminary plat and the approved general development plan and the development review committee is recommending the council approve this subject to the five conditions of approval in your staff report and resolution. That concludes my introduction. I'd be happy to answer questions after the public hearing. Thank you, Mr. McGill. Is there a representative from the applicant? Please step forward, identify yourself, and you have up to 10 minutes. Okay, good evening, Council President, members of the council, Mayor Norton. My name is Craig Britton. I'm with Widseth at 3777 40th Avenue Northwest, Rochester. And I'm here representing the applicant SCS Rochester on their final plat submittal. We have reviewed the conditions that are outlined in the report and in the resolution and are in agreement are in agreement with those. So, I'll be here to answer any questions you may have. Great. We will call you up after the public hearing. And it may be sooner than you expect. >> [laughter] >> This is a 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 Mr. Britton to uh make any closing statements. I don't have any for you. All right, with that, Council members, Council member Wall. And this is for Mr. Britton. Um I believe I remember this as a rental townhome community. Correct. We have approved a couple of others in recent years, neither of which were built. I'd love to hear your assessment of the current market for rental townhomes. What research have you done that would lead you to believe this is really the right thing for Rochester? Yes. Well, thanks for that question and really that's I would leave that for the developer to answer, but I know they have done some research. They've completed and many successful projects across the the nation and I feel that this is a right fit for Rochester as well. Thank you. Any further questions? Seeing none, is there a motion on this item? I'll make a motion adopting a resolution approving final plat Sit down, buddy. Oh, I was saying Mr. Britton can sit down. I'll start over. Adopting a resolution approving Fredericks. final plat number CD2026-006PLAT by SCS Rochester to be known as Savannah Rochester with five conditions for the subdivision of 30.17 acres of land in the two residential lots. Motion made by Council member Fredericks. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Council member Keen. Any more to add? Council member Fredericks, Council member Keen. Go ahead, Mr. To you and the developer, thank you for adding more units to our fold. I believe that adding a housing option for a rental in an area like this is a good good idea. So, thank you for providing that. With that, all in favor say I. I. Opposed say nay. Motion passes. Moving on to our ordinance first readings, Mr. Spindler Craig. Thank you, Mr. President. There are two [clears throat] first readings this evening. Item J1, an ordinance amending section 3-1-17 of chapter 3-1 of title 3 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances relating to dangerous dogs. Item J2, an ordinance of the Rochester City Code approving the renaming of roadway section located at the intersection of 45th Street Southeast and Saint Bridget Road Southeast and runs eastwardly to Sports Complex site to Game Day Drive Southeast. Moving on to the second reading, item K1, an ordinance amending sections 2-16-2 and 2-16-7 of chapter 2-16 of title 2 of the Rochester Code of Ordinances relating to public ethics. I'll move approval. Motion made by Council member Keen. Second. Seconded by Council member Doring. All in favor say I. I. Opposed say nay. Motion passes. Moving on to other business, we will now recess to a meeting of the Rochester Economic Development Authority and we will move directly to our consent agenda. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda, which is our minutes from the March 2nd meeting? Motion made by Council member Fredericks. Second. Seconded by Council member Miller. All in favor say I. Opposed say nay. And we will move to now our one public hearing, which is for A establishing development district number 88 and tax increment financing district number 88-1 and entering into a development assistance agreement with Rochester One Limited Partnership, Mr. Svenby. Good evening, EDA President, EDA members, and Mayor Norton. Brent Svenby, Community Development. This is a public hearing on TIF district number 88-1. We called it Lincoln Avenue Communities. It's actually the the same property where the council had the issuance of the public hearing for the bonds earlier this evening, the Commons at Bear Creek. So, I went out the other day, took some pictures of the site. It's I know it as the former Rossi Auto Body Repair business, which is in the picture on the far right. The middle picture, I think at one time it was a used car sales lot. And then the picture on the left looks like it was a rental property, probably a couple units in that property. Here's a rendering of what the project will look like when it's completed. Again, it's 149 units. With an income averaging of 60% AMI. They have gone through the site development plan process with the Community Development Department. So, this is the plan that was that has been approved for the project. So, it will be a well sought after addition on 4th Street there, just on the east side of the river. >> [snorts] >> Some project details. The developer is Rochester One Limited Partnership located at 602 4th Street Southeast, just east of Bear Creek. The development is 149 units. Of that, they have units three units at 30% AMI, 27 units at 50% AMI, 83 units at 60% and 36 units at 70% AMI levels. Amenities include a fitness room, club room, and secure bike storage. The timeline for construction is they anticipate starting construction here by the end of July of this year. And if everything goes smoothly, they should be able to have it completed by end of December of 2027. The TIF district would be housing TIF district. The current property value of the properties is about $1.2 million. The value that we received from the county assessor's office, upon completion, the project would have a value of about $28.2 million. Um Based on our review by our financial advisor, who reviewed the developer's pro forma and with current market conditions, it's the recommendation of our financial advisor that we provide up to 19 years or just over $1.3 million worth of principal TIF for the project. And that was we achieved by having a 2.5% annual inflator on the market value of the property. So, we could get to that $1.3 million quicker than 19 years, but their modeling shows that it would take 19 years with that 2.5% inflator. In a perfect world, it may be only 15 years before we get to that point. At any point, that TIF district, we would stop paying the increment to the developer either at 19 years or that $1.3 million, whichever occurs first. The TIF note would be a pay-as-you-go note, meaning that the developer pays his property taxes, the county collects that, provides the cities with the available increment, and then we rebate that back to the developer. We do maintain 5% for admin expenses and we also are keeping 5% into our housing pool TIF. Project benefits, again, it provides a number of um units at that 30, 50, 60, and 70% AMI levels. It redevelops some underutilized properties. It will strengthen then the neighborhood safety in the area. It creates density in the transit-oriented development along 4th Street there. And then the tax base grows um once the obligation is met. Again, this evening is a public hearing of the EDA to um adopt a a resolution establishing the tax increment financing district and um authorizing execution of a development assistance agreement with Rochester One Limited Partnership. That's all I had. Thank you, Mr. Svenby. Uh, this is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to be heard on this item, please step forward. Anyone wishing to be heard on this item, please step forward. Mr. Riley, if you want any to add any comments, now is the time to add them. Uh Thank you, Mayor, Council President, Council members. Um, I think Brent did a great job of describing um the benefits that we're bringing here. I just want to say on behalf of the developer, we appreciate your consideration for the support. Right now, it's it's very difficult to finance projects. I think you know, you were alluding to uh with a project that was presented earlier this evening and using TIF um to help uh finance this property is really imperative to getting it done. So, just want to say thank you and uh express how important this is to our project moving forward. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Anyone else wishing to be heard on this item, please step forward. Are you going to speak during the public hearing? >> sorry. I should have mentioned that earlier. >> Okay, go ahead. I did bring some numbers with me just on um AMI levels for Rochester. Um these are 2025 numbers. I will mention that HUD just released on Friday the 2026 numbers. I have not updated my numbers yet, but um based on HUD's numbers from 2025, so like someone at that 30% AMI level, like a single person, um they would make about $26,400 a year. Someone at the 50% AMI level would be making about $44,000 a year. 60% is $52,800 a year and at that 70% level for a single person is about $61,600 a year. Um that was 2025 levels. 2026 numbers have increased somewhat. I think around 3.3%, I believe, if I remember correctly. So, just want to give you some context of what those AMI levels would be for single person. If you want to know two, three, or four, five-person households, let me know. I can let you know. Thank you, Mr. Svenby, and we will get back to our public hearing. Anyone else wishing to be heard on this item, please step forward. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing and invite Mr. Svenby back up uh to answer any questions and and Mr. Riley as well. And I have uh Council member Palmer first. I got a couple questions for you. So, the um people who are representing today, they own the property at the current time? They're going through that process to close on the property, correct. >> So, they don't own the property. Uh not fully at this point, correct. Okay. The number of units, um my understanding was that there going to be some three-bedroom units in here. Is that correct? >> Correct. Yep, they have one, two, and three-bedroom units in the property. And that's something that we sorely need is the three-bedroom. >> Correct. Yep. Okay. There's a fence that runs around the trail on that property. It's falling down. Is is there a way to get the property owner to fix that fence? Is that fence on the Sage property or is that on I'm I believe it's their property. Well, that We we would maintain our own fence. Um I wish I had the approved site plan with me, but I don't. Um if Council if you do remember, um the city did sell to the developer two small slivers of land back behind the site to make their site more developable. Mhm. Um I don't know if Jasmine would happen to have their site plan or Mr. >> uh Mr. Woodward Woodward, please go ahead. >> wanted to know we did receive a complaint about the fence, I think, a couple weeks ago and we've reached out to the property owner and following up with maintaining that currently right now. So, um that is something we've already been notified of and we're following our proper procedure as well. And it wasn't me that complained. >> [laughter] >> Uh Council member Wall. Thank you. Uh no matter how often uh we talk about TIF, there seems to be this great mystery in the city of Rochester, maybe other cities as well. Uh by creating a uh TIF district, uh we are not adding to the property tax of anybody in town. That is correct. We uh will benefit in the long run by the great improvement on a set of properties that currently are quite under-developed. That is correct. And so on uh on the whole, it would be pretty easy to say that this is uh a plus or a benefit for the city of Rochester financially, uh certainly in uh the long run. And correct. And even now by creating 149 units of housing, the three taxing jurisdictions still collect the taxes at the properties currently generating. It's just that that time when the 19 years, whatever that is, any increase in tax taxes are are being I'll say rebated back to the property owner or developer for the project. Thank you. I'm sure we'll have this conversation again. At the next meeting, probably. Yep. Cou- Council member Doran. So, I'm going to ask you to math a little bit for me. Okay? So, I I really appreciate you bringing the 2025 AMI numbers for you, but I've been asked questions about what that means for rent cap at those certain percentages. So, a single person uh in 2025 AMI at 30% is 26. 26, 400. >> And we would figure out how what to rent what to cap their rent at how? Typically, you would take 30% of that and divide that by 12. So, what could that particular unit be expected to rent for? Well, they also have in the chart, they also have uh maximum rents based on bedroom size. >> Yep. So, like someone at 30% AMI for a studio would be $660. Okay. A one-bedroom would be $706. Two-bedrooms, $848. >> Okay, that's great. I I just think it's it's helpful for for the general public to know how those rent caps are calculated and what they might actually be in real dollars. And that's of course noting that AMI is going to be different in 2027, 2028 when these units are rented. So, thank you. Council member Keen. Uh yeah, two questions. One is we're do we're being asked to do two things tonight. And that's you know, resolution establishing the district. And we're doing that, but at the same time we're also doing the agreement. Is that usually done in different times? No, we typically like to bring them to the same meeting so the EDA remembers what we're talking about. That's Otherwise, we waited three months and now we'd be giving the whole spiel over again of the TIF district we created. We do like to keep them at the same meeting if possible. Okay. I I think we're not always ready to do it, but that's I I try to keep them at the same meeting. [clears throat] I I noticed I didn't again, I I'm just using some of your numbers, the 28 million projected project. I di- I didn't maybe assume that, but it would seem that we must it's a to take 19 years to get to the uh I think it was 1. 1.3. Uh doesn't look like we're taking the full increment or are we assuming this is going to be tax advantaged for low income? Well, the units at that 40 or at the 30, 50, and 60% will be taxed at a 40 rate, which is 0.25 instead of 1.25. So, basically, they're paying about 80% less than what a market rate project would be paying in taxes. So, it doesn't generate generate much in taxes. That's why it's taking so long to get to that number. I I guess that's what I wanted to see if it that that that's kind of what I'm looking for me to go 19 years to get to that 1.3 means that it's um it it's already very tax advantaged and it really reduces the leverage we have with TIF. Correct. For that. Yep, cuz you the TIF is collected off that project itself. Yep. Thank you. in taxes for everybody else to pay for this project. Mayor Norton. This is just for for clarity, something you said earlier was a portion of the TIF goes to the housing fund and I thought it was only I thought that was only if they did not provide low income that we took that percent to go to the housing fund. Am I remembering? It's any um TIF project that we TIF district we establish, we can um capture some of that for our pooled housing TIF dollars. We haven't done that many over the years, but um by state statute, we can collect um 10% of the increment for admin expenses. Mhm. So, we have started um collecting the five 5% for admin and then the 5% for um our pooled housing TIF. So, we'll bring [clears throat] I'll come back to the Council in the May session. In June, we will talk about the project. >> that's different than when you talked about it several years ago. We haven't talked about this for a long time, but it was only if it was like our way of encouraging them to uh do low income housing. Um so, I was just surprised to hear that. It's fine. Uh so we are taking two actions. It's appropriate to have one motion for this. So with that, is there a motion on this? Go ahead, Council member Frederick. Make a motion adopting a resolution establishing a tax increment financing district through approval economic development district number 88 in the tax increment financing district plan number 88-1 authorizing the execution of a development assistance agreement with Rochester One Limited Partnership for tax increment financing district number 88-1. Uh motion made by Council member Frederick. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Council member Doran. Any further discussion? Seeing uh Council member Doran, go ahead. >> want to say I think that the TIF financing is so important to to help with our affordable housing crisis here in Rochester. Just doing a quick quick Google search. Uh uh average rental market rate rental for a studio apartment for one person in Rochester is $1,228 to $1,286 per month. So by uh awarding this financing at that 30% AMI, it's making something that is unattainable for something someone very attainable. So I appreciate that. Thank you, Council member. Council member Frederick. I'll just echo what I said earlier. I appreciate you adding the affordable option to our downtown community. Thank you. With that, all in favor say I. I. Opposed say nay. Motion passes. Is there a motion to adjourn the EDA? So moved. Motion made by Council member Palmer and seconded by Council member Wall. All in favor say I. I. Opposed say nay. Motion passes. We are back to the City Council and is there a motion to adopt the findings of the Rochester EDA? So moved. Motion made by Council member Miller, seconded by Council member Frederick. All in favor say I. I. Opposed say nay. Motion passes. Is there a motion to adjourn the City Council? So moved. Motion made by Council member Frederick. Second. Seconded by Council member Miller. All in favor say I. We are adjourned. An hour. Uh Allison.