And then we have a council initiated action for discon uh connected parcels trail gap off with Brian or Brian on >> financial policies. >> Sure. Thank you. Council President Council members mayor zones. Uh so one of the items I was tasked with shortly after I got here too was to take a look at We've obviously so working with different departments and a half of these as well to make sure that they work for them as well too to see what else needs to be updated. 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, you're dealing with a document as you can see before you. So, we have 22 policies before us. I'll probably just be talking about the slide presentation to discuss >> discuss. Uh it's a fluid document uh in the past and we're about to detail the matter where the council consent agenda on an annual basis. Uh so current council members can take a look at it. New council members have a chance to take a look at it. Um and also rating agencies and auditors like to hear the word yes it's been approved and reviewed in the last year as well too. So one gets approved or reviewed. So just think it's just an easier way to go about doing that as well. So uh so with that I will move these purpose of the financial policies. I think we can all agree with those uh taking a look at this one for the financial policies. This was the first one up there was an attempt to as we heard um when a study or a plan sustainability plan or something like that comes before the city council u this is kind of guidance to what you mean by that. 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. >> Uh that way if there's something that needs to also approve it, they can adopt it. The council can adopt it. [snorts] the latter part >> and it doesn't matter who who's it first because I talked to the parks board and we said well they going to the council and council usually adopted first and then back to parks board. So again it doesn't matter but the action would be adoption that there's an action to be far that's being asked to be taken. Uh and then the second part in here is my personal uh the second part in here then relates to the city understands that the adopted document is used for informationational resources that provides direction without creating any future responsibility or obligation to the council to the council's part. Uh the approach preserves the council's discretion clarifies that the acceptance does not equate to an endorsement for specific financial commitment. I know that's where a lot of the discussion was after the fact that you receive these plans might be many pages might not have dollar amounts attached to it. So the dollars usually come later. So with that if you again like the plan most of the plan adopt the plan and usually the followup is and this states that you know there will be or this doesn't tie the council down just because the plan has stated that doesn't matter everything with the plan you should think they're brought back for further approval question questions on that one. Just again kind of clarifying what we've seen heard. Okay. Uh the second paragraph down there simply states that the uh uh the city departments and entities that report to the cities that report on the city's financial statements shall operate using our shared resource planning planning enterprise resource planning and inspired chart of accounts. And that's what we're working on right now. uh the ERP and the chargeful balance is all part of the project that you guys approved for $1 million give or take right now too. So this is stating that uh in the budget process that that's what we were to maintain going forward and shall operate under the items listed there too for that as well. >> So I have a I have a question Brian. 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. >> So so >> it's an action. So if uh staff staff is asking for action be taken I guess I guess that would beer or shall be adopted would be the c action that's be passed or that we're seeking action set up received or something else >> I guess I guess that's really what I'm asking it's more >> uh are they [clears throat] uh >> uh does everyone have who comply. >> Okay. Okay. >> So, I'm kind of in the same vein. I was thinking like um sometimes a department or individual will come forward with ideas about something we do do. >> The council, you know, accepts that now they're going to adopts it, but it may not be the thing that they want to do ultimately because there may be better other ideas. not they're not obligating funding for it according to what you said. >> So I'm struggling with um some plans that we had a couple years ago that idea came to the city council. The city council listened to it and said well that's interesting. Yeah. You know >> and then is that you know that can be seen as an endorsement of that plan forever >> or but there's no financial obligation that was given. was just accepting um >> concept and so what if something better or a developer comes between now and then and we've had this issue come up one time this last year where we already had a plan well plan was kind of a pie in the sky idea it wasn't really a plan so so adopting to me then is that obligating us too far or not and how would you change it for instance >> admin administrators >> I think I think the intent here is that to have a specific process and order of operations or if it's got a board, it comes to board and the council and it should be adopted. 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 [clears throat] 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. That wouldn't come to you, but I'm sure there are. Um, so I think the intent here is to show this is what we would intend going forward that it would go to the board. It would come to the city council. The intent would be to adopt them >> and it doesn't obligate to you to anything because there would be to be potentially other financial decisions related to implementation of ideas within whatever the product is. So if I can follow up on that then what >> someone else had a different idea for something that we had discussed. >> Do we have to retract approval of this or we could just approve something else or how how would you think of handling that? >> I guess I guess that was the gohead. Well, well, I guess for what I'm thinking of for these is like these larger plans, you know, master plan, the library has a plan that they brought forward sustainability plans can be brought back, amended, things of that nature, I guess. Um, but the ideas are floated by more I don't see something like amended adopted. Yeah, >> we could bring something back and amend. >> Yeah. We've got we've got council member Miller then council member Keane. >> I guess I guess to go to go off of that line of questioning. >> One of my one of my questions is just the the need for the middle sentence regardless of which body approves it first because because the the sentence before says that it would be brought to council for feedback or consideration of adoption. And I almost feel like that next step is should it be adopted >> then the city understands that the adopted document I >> the one that reads funny to me and I'm curious of your thoughts on >> what that sentence adds. I I understand that it's setting up the the idea that it should be adopted but it's it's really at that point the council's decision >> and that reads a little prescriptive to me. >> Yeah. When I talked to uh Mike from the parks, he he made it sound like they bring parks plan before the council. Obviously, they talked about it, but they're all with the board and they bring it before the council. They back all the feedback. You made it sound like the council almost adopts it and they bring it back to their board for adoption. And that was the first time I heard that. It doesn't matter if in my mind I guess if the board adopts it first and if that's what we want to make sure it happens we can but he he was kind of the one that said well if the council adopted first after their board and they >> that's why it was >> and I guess that's one charter board but the way that this reads to me is that review adopted by the charter board would it be relevant that the council's consideration of adopt And then should it be adopted then the rest of the policy follows. >> But I guess the mayor's point what I'm understanding is sometimes when we adopt plans or we we have a formal study and then a period of time passes we don't review it again. Is that a locked in plan or how are we having feedback? And I I feel like we've had this discussion over the last two years of how do we have more council input? So I'm not sure whether it applies in this, but I would think some of those larger plans um area plans, >> etc. We just maybe the the alternative is to build back in a feedback process to the council for review progress updates. >> I guess I guess my thought is these are financial policies, right? >> That's and they're intended to really this is intended to sort of clarify the conversation. So if it's not fair, we should make it clearer. Um, but I would argue also that regardless of what this says, if the city council doesn't fund something, it's not going to be something that was put in a plan. Um I think the intent is to have a structure and a process and to clarify that a plan is a plan and the additional actions that are necessary depending on what is in the plan still have to go through whatever proposal process is necessary in order to effectuate and implement either a policy, a project, a new way of operating, things of that nature. >> Council member Keane. Um um yeah, I I had seen this specific chart in package and I read it to be having to do with charter boards. 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. I think really the key point for you know the acceptance who goes first is it recommended to you that's probably not as important the key is that last sentence you know it they're not ratified or actionable it doesn't obligate you and we'll have $30 million of CIP requests next year and we have about $9 million to allocate so we can't accomplish all of the plans so I think this is really just saying you're preserving your authority to only implement what you feel like you can in a given budget cycle. >> And that is that is something we hear regularly when we bring a plan forward is this same question. Is it obligating us to do this whole plan? And the answer is no. And so this for all of the departments would clarify we use whatever word we use adopt, ratify, accept, review, name your word. We are not obligating the city council currently or in the future to implement all of the pieces of >> Thank you for Thank you for that clarification, >> Brian. Brian can go forward. >> 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. So not duplicating some of the larger services that shared with them. Um and so the city of Rochester shall just read policy statement real quick but shall operate as one integrated municipal enterprise. Uh so it improves efficiency, consistency and internal controls, service quality, long-term financial sustainability and then it goes on to list some list some of those under subject team centralization finance, payroll, IT, purchase service management, delete and record management and then departments may not independently establish system process or staffing these functions. without a cruel you know just policy vers hiring it or hire building maintenance or something like that where you have that and we could share that service so more communication keep that as efficient as possible then then there's the authority of the stewardship city administrator finance director human resources is listed there. And then and then on the bottom you can see too it's would be would be review and then with the console in conjunction with the two-year budget process would probably be appropriate place too or do [clears throat] your budget process and the budget and funding alignment listed there along with the performance review and then it leads down with the implication as well. And again things that have been done I think with the library and stuff like that too to help IT services and building maintenance and so it's just continuation out of that for all departments to take a look at it when they're council member >> just a point of clarification would you like to do do as we go through the four or five different suggestions talk about each individually or wait till the end and then go through them >> I think if if folks have uh questions on the specific u um policy areas. I I guess what I would say is how I look at this is that a lot of this is in practice and what >> what you're doing is writing it all down and putting it in one place. And so what I would uh ask is Brian as you go through this point out if anything is new. So, >> so this one is [clears throat] >> just comment on this one. I was more involved in this and I 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 um you know even since I started uh we have consolidated services and the council's aware of what we did in facilities and what we've done in fleet um but even those are not fully integrated across the enterprise um and we have you know separate IT departments in some cases so like the question is do you want to have you know multip and I'll even just pick on Brian because he's up But like you want two finance directors for the city, one view, you know, a house. Is that the right thing to do? It might be. Um that might be the right way to do it. Um given the scope of what, you know, each is responsible for um the business need within the department. Um but we also want to, you know, push on that too and say, are there opportunities for realignment, efficiency, and better coordination and collaboration? So >> just having a you know some communication to you on an every other year basis with the two-year budget that says >> are these are the areas where we're align here's where we continue to have exceptions and there's business needs for that. Um it just allows you to you know do your due diligence and exercise your fiduciary responsibilities. Um we're not saying anything has to change. Um, but we are kind of setting a bar out that says if we have opportunities, we should be thinking about them, talking about them and be transparent about them. >> Council member, >> council member Doring. >> Yeah, RPU in particular is the entity that came to mind as I was reading. So, thank you for that clarification a little bit. Um, and does in terms of administration, do we see RPU as a separate entity of the city or is it part is it a department of the city? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I we could probably talk for a few hours about that. You know, Peter might have some exciting stuff to share with you there too. But um >> I mean, you know, in some areas of the charter, it's characterized as a department of the city. Um, parks is also considered a department of the city. Um but they have some unique authorities that are provided within state law within the charters and so you know each has a different environment they work in. RPU in particular >> that is delegated to the charter to the board. You continue to exercise your authority to set the budget and your expectations for what operations look like through the budget. Um so that's really your opportunity to provide feedback on your expectations in that environment. Um same really goes for parks. um they work a little bit differently just given their funding model and all that, but um for some of those things they do have granted specific authorities that they get to live out, but but you also have the ability to create expectations through your budget process. >> Then I have one other follow question. Um I think two slides back it said exceptions could exist if approved. Uh uh one more [clears throat] >> departments may not independently establish establish systems process or staffing for these functions without approval. Is the common council the approval of of that or is that an administrative function? >> Yeah. Yeah. I I think a lot of it I mean our whole structure really is embedded in you know the budget process and so you know our staffing profiles and all that um are really set through that. So the lion share of any approval really does rest in those positions that are you know they're buried in the budget book but they're there um and you know we have some of the ability to change that through you know reclassifications etc. But generally you are looking at that when you approve the budget or have the opportunity to do so. So what so what I hear you saying and I just want to make sure I understand is that while it's not explicitly explicitly stated in this policy that the common council does that is implied through the budgetary procedure. >> Yeah. Yeah. So when the parks budget comes before you um you have a set of positions within parks you have blank number of arborists. Um they're budgeted for blank number of arborists. >> Bring up landscape technicians. I think a certain number of landscape technicians um and and that's what they're appropriated um and so now they get to go and do the hiring for all that and the administration of that but you are approving position levels. >> Thank you >> council member. >> Council member >> Keane I guess I do want to just voice just some concerns with some of the things here. First I think it's good to go through these reviews and make sure that at a policy level we're set but I feel a lot of these policies are getting down to What's the operations and administration level? Um the consistent the work we've been doing with getting the ERP on the same system across the two major businesses should help us into the future. Um what I've been watching some of the shared services you mentioned but communications is an area over the last four years that we've been trying to bring together and there's times where I think it makes sense and times where it doesn't where we have brought people into a shared group or dotted line but um I 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. >> Um the other thing I want to say with this about I went through this all my career in technology where we would have all the all the programmers together and all this other stuff and that that would work but then when the big projects would come someone was saying like don't pull pull the people you need together. So it was always a kind of a back and forth with this but the way this works best is when the group that's getting the resources you mentioned it the onus is then on them to provide the services to provide work plans and do these other things and the places where these fail is the service or the skills get moved to one group but not the responsibility and we really have to have a good way to move responsibility. If the police have someone doing communications and that person moves to administration, they can't be reassigned and not do the work they were doing for the police. Uh same thing with public works. If they do, then we're just bringing things together and reassigning work. And that's what I worry about with the way I read some of this. The other one that that line too that member Dory put up on approved exceptions. I mean the operational nature of that sentence makes me feel that it really is using the council to drive certain specific things through through the organization where I consider those to be more uh managerial and operational. >> I guess I guess it's a follow question to slide five mentioned communications. I don't see it listed. I mean assuming there are other other services happening within departments that are not subject to centralization. Is that would this be the list of prioritization? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Communications didn't make that that probably would be a relevant one to consider. I mean we have mostly integrated communications but there's two exceptions to that. Um and and again there could be great business cases for for that to you know be in play. And I think council member Teen's points are are relevant in terms of we still have the distance needs for these things. A lot of it and I can't lose sight of that fact. It really is just because how's it delivered? Um >> communications often could be like a like situation but um to use the example of it. If we have two you know fairly significant IT structures and we have a director director manager manager manager manager in the you know equivalent structures then then we we minimize our ability to scale you know resources >> and I appreciate that I I reviewed this list too and I didn't see communications and I just assume that there are services that are not coming out of this policy today >> as a recommendation. >> I think that might have been an oversight. I think communication is a relevant one we talked about. >> Okay. Okay. >> Continue. >> All righty. >> Uh uh so this is minor changes area a special service fund area uh where in the past we have not had like a operate expenditure uh listed in there. uh state auditor doesn't recommend doesn't have a suggestion for that like we do with our general fund where we would have the council set at 42% and you can see that in here as well too uh for the fund balance for the general fund um we did not have one in here but taking a look at fund balances that you can see here so we we have currently 11 special revenue funds certain standards special revenue fund they all operate differently uh this legality on why it is a special revenue fund and why they function as a special revenue fund too. So with that we were proposing to put in there fund balance not less than 15% of unreserved designated expenditures. So that's what you see in here if you go to page like 105 of the free you'll see actual fund balances in there as well. If you go to page 101 you'll also see a quick demonition of all these as well too. So again, they all operate different, but we've thought for and assigned that are reserved and unassigned. Um there should be some like a fun balance in there, like a 15%. So it's it's range in there because some of these are much higher, but they're going to be used for something else later, right? So, so that's why we put a sentence in here special. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Policy. This is probably one that we probably get the most questions on my career as well and open up the policy and take a look at it and walk people through it. Uh, rightfully so. So what we did with this particular one is we were taking a look at and a obviously it all goes off of state statute for the most part and that's what we were looking to simply replicate. Right now the threshold is up to $50,000 and then it goes to the city council uh for approval after that. Uh what we are proposing at this time too is and again the contracts for $25,000 or less. That's out of state statute. Sorry, sorry. Um, $25,000 or less and then they still have to go by state statute and that they have to get a quotation >> lower in the open market or basically they get at least two quotes um if necessary for under $25,000. And then there's again this is out of the statute as well exceeding 25 to $175,000 that that would allow the department heads and there authorized to make those purchases. Um [clears throat] there's also discussion in there too about that. That's the other alternative. And then 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. >> And what is what is the what is the limit now? >> The current is 50,000. Um and so there are cities that have I think Woodbury know county I thought had it up to 150. Bloomington has it up 175. a lot of cities that are size that moved it up to 175 and for a while there the state was was moving. It used to be 50,000 with the state and then I forget but there was like four or five different times where they bumped it up, bumped it up, bumped it up and I think that's why Duth is at 150. They probably set up updated theirs like 175. Um so and again these are for budgeted items you know you know anything non budgeted basically be come back and you've seen those on your RCA budget items bro here's a funding source type of thing mayor Norton >> well well this is this isn't jelling with what I see when the contracts come through so you know maybe we need to just sit down and talk because we've used 50,000 as the guideline but then apartment things come through and those are forgiving. >> So there's two things. Yeah. Mayor's got some signature authority and so um for a contract approval it's 50,000 or less. We can be approved administratively. 175 is the state amount and actually RPU through their financial policy also is already set at 175 in the county. So thanks relatively you know asked that to go to this you know those of that amount for that I think mayor may what you're thinking about you get a voucher through something that's already been contracted whether through the council process or through that the approval of the vouchers can exceed that amount that's more like a workflow that we have internally to review the voucher approvals but you've already if it's above 50 approved it or if it's even below 50 it still goes through it's aing process once the bill comes in. So there's their contract and their bill. >> Council member Council >> member Keing that we have separation of duties on a lot of these things that there isn't one person that can initiate and sign a check. >> Oh, correct. Absolutely. >> Yeah. >> With those sort of tax >> that I just want to get that on the record here that this isn't something that we're just up in this thing and hoping for the best. There's all kinds of protections in place and I 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 >> no further answer your question also to 11 steps within my department alone to check make sure the the item is in the budget budgeted correctly. a revenue source so it's fun as available. Um and then it's coded correctly too change to five different people or something. Yeah. And then all my all contracts right now 50,000 or under go through a workflow that the department head, the mayor, the city administrator and the city attorney all sign off on for reviewing those contracts as part of that workflow. >> And that would be a second part of this to raise that 175. And again, the process would stay exactly the same. All those people still need to sign off on there, but it'll just be consistent with statute. >> Okay. Okay. >> Uh, real quick, insurance specifications. 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 >> risk. Basically what we're doing is transferring the financial burden uh potential accidents injuries and property damage away from the taxpayer responsible party. So if we hire somebody to do something or a company to do something, they have to have insurance. So we just put in this right to double check to make sure that they have the insurance to commercial general liability insurance regardless of the size of the project basically because you could take something that I would think would be >> small but it's an electric you know person still or maybe it's a small landscaping but it's probably a busy road or something you know you know all kinds of crazy things can happen. So this treats everybody the same. This is the minimum. Now if things get bigger, there's more within the policy to be the required additional insurance, but this would be the minimum for doing contract. >> So just so just to be clear, so this is current policy. We're writing it down. >> Any any changes beyond that? We we we kind of took a look at a cheered system if you will, but ultimately put a lot of basically on staff you know again simple small value. So I think this simple baseline for the final one that we have here too is the payment of new taxes. >> This is a process that city has done for a while long time. Basically, there's already been the transfer of funds from the five enterprise funds into the general fund. You can see the five enterprise funds listed out there. >> Um, and so with this one, it's basically is trying to level set because right now we don't have standard practice between all five enterprise funds. 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 um and what and there's going to be two missing we implementation for this because uh some things are a little out of whack but start now uh with that being said too the 26 and 27 will stay as it was in the budget we're not going to mess with those right now um and you can see year two moving forward six and half percent or and again we'll want to see where things shake out but for uh something like electric for just pretty close to what electric currently has now electric has its own issue probably in 28 we heard that there might be a dip and it might take a little bit to come back over um so we're aware of that water utility if you take a look at that one to get up to 6 and a half% I'm just going to say they don't have to pay double what they are so that one we were going to continue to phase Uh sewer is pretty close and if anything their pilot would go down slightly. Um storm water pretty much pretty much in the same boat pretty close. If anything would go down slightly again we'll have to take a look at their revenue. Uh parking again they're paying quite a bit more. So water and parking almost kind of the opposite of where they should be. So that's why if you do a flat 6 and a half% it would level that thing. So marketing like a proportional to what their central revenue was on that too. So 6 and a half% you can see like at the end of 27 again this is just a projection projection but it comes in pretty close to what maybe our estimated our actual budgeted amount would be to uh the proposed new pilot would be. So 6 and a half% seems like there wouldn't be any dips in what we see right now. be consistent across the board and the reason why there's a couple you look on the far right column here too operating revenue is what you see listed in our that's what the aers take >> retail revenue the top two for RPU that's what they I was talking with here with RPU too focus on retail revenue it's probably more stable some of the other revenues that they receive pretty much of the modern stuff too so I have worked with five press on this. Um a lot of ideas traveling back and forth. I think this is kind of again place that there's going to be an implementation phase of the hotel. We can see how things are going again three have a little bit of a a shift. That's what this tend to do at the same time. question uh council member wall. >> Thank you. Thank you. Uh of all of all the policies that we have seen uh outside of perhaps enterprise policies, how much of this is Rochester centric, how much would be statemandated, how much is best practices? Another way of asking that question would be if we went to Bloomington or Woodbury, >> uh, how different or similar would their policies be to these? >> I would say well for all of them or for pilot >> for I'm sorry. What >> for for all of the policies that we have or for specifically to >> No, just just the whole run that you've gone through. >> No, no. Uh, the whole run I would say they're very similar. I mean, that's what I don't want to say comparing yourself to, but that's where we get a lot of our information from. Uh if you took a look at Bloomington and I think they had some like they included their tip policies and a few other things. So theirs was like 112 pages or something like that. Um but a lot of these Woodies and others um and I'm not going for like volume or anything but that's what they have. They have the policy and then they have a short excerpt maybe on procedural so somebody doesn't have to go to another binder. So, it's all listed in a one or two page policy that's meant to be fluid and help staff members and uh department heads and everything along. And maybe just to add to that, I think what you're getting to is are there much like we have the 42% requirement that we have for the general fund. That's >> a based finance offices that are out there out there. 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. Um but we're trying to have you know clarity a trend making sure that we're following policy or changing it if there's something that is desired differently or there's changes in the um community that require us to do something differently. But I would say that most of these are every city is going to be slightly different because not every city operates an airport for example or has charter boards things of that nature. So there will be differences but the concepts of needing to have fun balance. You should have a minimum fund balance in order to have security for your park system for example. So those kinds of things I would say are >> maybe standard is an excessive word but it is aligned with general best practices for >> local governments recognizing that every local government is slightly different and has different services. They provide different amount of special revenue funds, different enterprise fund types. Um having you know the largest electric municipal electric utility in the state is different than [laughter] other um cities and how they operate. So >> question in particular a couple of points there. is it is important to have the policy reflected um and written down um and sort of stable you know I mean I think that's something when we go through the rating agency process they want to understand that there's a a logical methodology to what we do and that it isn't something that we draw upon and change you know based on you know a budget need elsewhere so there's communities in Minnesota that have 20% you know payments um which is very excessive and not on point and you know a burden to their electrical you know rate payers. Um so [clears throat] this provides us across our ecosystem to say we have a standardization much like we would the alternative is we don't have a public utility and we have a private franchise agreement and the franchise agreement pays and you know we by council's franchise agreement that's approved but within parameters within state law you know you're in that 6 and a half 5% type of range um within Excel Energy if you had an investor owned ability so I think it's just important to have some stability and predictability for our rate planning for uh bond issuance. And so I think this is really an effort to do that here. Um and just encourage you to think about that way. >> It's a big change all at once. So this tries to introduce that idea. Council member, >> council member Palmer. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. I think what Mr. Wall, at least in my opinion, what we look at is like the liability insurance. Is that is that state what the state requires or is it above what the state requires? And if it is above, what does that cost us? >> Uh the workers comp would be what I think the state requires in there too. >> Are we at the state requirement? >> Yeah, because we worked with also the leading stuff too. So, you know, this is obviouslyformational for staff when they're executing the stuff and emergency policy. Yes, it goes off of state statutes, but there's alo other reminders and other things in there as well too for staff to make sure that they follow. Um, and then like an investment policy, then state, you can't invest in, you know, invest in these 11 things. But um the nice thing about that is we take our investment policy, we hand it out to our broker and say, you know, don't put us in anything other than what's in here and so on and so forth. Um >> and and to follow what Mr. Parish is getting at and let's use the the electric if we had a a investor owned, they would be paying us a franchise fee. And and what is that typically a franchise fee? Is that each individual city is different or is it kind of a blanket franchise fee? There's common methodologies and you've really had this same conversation when you went through the natural gas franchise fee discussion. So it can be off of revenue, it can be off of utilization or terms or you know kilowatt hours or whatever. So there is a little bit of variation but a nor a very normal uh benchmark uh for a lot of franchise agreements would be like some percent of of revenue. So that's not atypical at all. That's how our charter agreement is structured. Um, so that's a very normal difficult way to approach it. >> And if and if I may, you would also be receiving property tax from that private owned electric utility on top on top of that franchise. >> Council council member >> Keane, >> are you look like you were thinking, but I didn't know. I think it's hard to do. Um, >> go ahead, council member. >> So property tax. So, so, so this is really just rule of property tax, isn't it? >> I would say two things. Uh, and we we pilots are term we use that's part of it. Um, so if there are electrical assets that are taxable or other enterprise assets that are taxable that would normally pay property taxes, this is designed to do that, but it's also a a fee to use your rightway. there isn't private activity if it was an investor owned utility in particular that's occurring in your rightway and they're making money off of that and your rightway is worth something and they get some benefits with how they work in your rightway and all that. So you think about the amount of resource you're dedicating to make these utilities successful in your rightway is trying to capture some value out of that process. >> So let's let's look at parking then. So, we have parking structures downtown and instead of paying property tax, which I'm assuming it would be quite high if it was a private industry. >> 6.5 doesn't seem like enough. >> Is is that >> I mean because electrical is different than parking. >> We we could do that. I think the parking system very well established here. It could have been initial conveyances to the system um for the land that create the parking. So there could be some reflection of that here, but you're correct in that if it was that is more of a a real estate adjustment here. And I guess you could try to value the ramps. Now, they're really only worth the cash flow they're generating. And so I wouldn't make the assumption that 6 and a half% of revenue is way off base, but we could do that study if that was something the council wanted to do in the future. >> Okay. Almost done. So Sherman Associates gets a free lot. And so that came out of the parking fund because they used to get revenue for that. But we're not reimbursing the parking fund for that. >> Correct. >> That's correct. >> But shouldn't we if it's a true enterprise fund? >> I mean, I think that's a fair policy conversation for you all to have versus your economic development priorities. Um, the tough thing is is like how do we acquire that initially and how to turn into parking? We've got certain lots in our system that are parking because that's what they can be because there's underlying environmental issues or whatever the case is. They can't be something else for a period of time. >> So each each one has a story >> and do we look at that? I mean I'm using Sherman as an example. Do we look at that and say this is the cost to do this development for the city of Rochester? I'm not saying we shouldn't do that, but I think that you should be aware of what what gift they're getting from the parking lot fund to do that. >> That's a fair thing to >> council member. >> Council member >> Keane, um I'm interested in that thing about consistency because about three years ago or four years ago, we looked at the electric utility thing. We having trouble because we project the piloted one thing in the fall and by the time it got to the spring, it was off those numbers. So we did a reset on that on how what the algorithm was for how to uh compute what the pilot would be for RPU electric. You I think you I think you guys are remember this. Um 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. Um, so I just want to make sure we're not breaking our own rule for consistency by saying we're going to change this again. And I think it's about it's only been in place for about two years. >> I I can start. I'm sure we're all excited to talk about this, but um >> yeah, 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. So I I would say that um I think having this in place and for the foreseeable future and sticking to it for a while be helpful for all the things that you just mentioned. Um, and there's provisions within the language for us in order to mitigate some of the potential volatility if we have a bad parking gear or you have a wastewater customer that happens to go offline or name name the thing that can happen to revenues in these enterprise funds that we're going to scale back and not budget 100% of the revenue but we're looking to budget you know 95% and 90%. So eventually if we you know have a blip um in in one of those areas that we have something to mitigate that curve. Um so this policy does suggest the idea of you know the finance suggestion just to say 95% or 90% we're going to work toward backing off the amount of revenue that we budget account. Um um and as far as that sort of compare I don't want to just this appears to be something that we're doing within our our family here say 6 and a half% now we do have retail and operating with pretty much the same measurements is it who is it important to that we do it the same way for each of our enterprises as opposed to having a separate algorithm for each enterprise who would care. >> Yeah. Yeah. I I I mean I think you can do it many ways. I I think this really is an effort um for you as council members to understand, you know, what's that? It's important. I think I think a lot of these things you can make maybe parking is the exception, but a lot of the other enterprises, you can make the argument that the basis for what you're charging is somewhat similar. So, there's sort of this equity argument in terms of what each is paying. Um and just predictability for people. So, they can when they do their rate studies, they can go in and say, "Yeah, it's not not three years. We're going to change the number." um we didn't budget for that and we've had that challenge in wastewater as an example where we adjusted it ahead of a rate study. This would just allow people when they're forecasting the revenues to say 6 and a half% is what we're you know looking to need to allocate for this payment. >> Um and and in the budget cycle in the fall we'll use the 6 and 12% of projected and then what we'll really collect is what's real when we go to collect. >> Yes. Yes. Um um it it's not lost on me that RP Electric's probably 75% of everything we collect through pilot. It's it's not just one of the five utilities. It's it's the lion share of what we're doing. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. There wasn't much I mean half% change I guess. >> Yeah. No, no, very it is it is surprising and good that even though it's a different algorithm, it almost seems like probably another question, but I'm assuming that's where 6 and a half% came from versus 6% versus 7%. We were trying to mimic what we've been doing. >> Yeah. So, three of the five enterprise funds come out almost >> equal. Um but then the total also comes out equal to 10 at the end. We use six and a half. So it's it's good for the three of the five because again basically in my mind it's supposed to. >> Okay. >> And I I guess I want to bring this out because I mean these same same rate payers are the same people this group represents the same as levy payers almost the same slightly different mix in there. But >> when I think of pilot I usually think of it as uh pay in le of local property taxes and then the franchise stuff. what is communicated to rateayers if these things change. I I don't think anything is but I can't I can't tell. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I think that depends on the utility billing folks who are if they want to try to show that there are costs in the bill that are not directly related to service. Although one could argue they are not related to service because you can't provide electric water unless you're utilizing that public rideway. you have digit ability to be there and you also can't have certain optics value. It really depends on how the bill goes on. >> Okay. So, as how these came together, I mean, I I do like the idea of the consistency. I'm glad to see that staff tried to do this to like peg it to very close to what the current pilot was. And I think that's important for consistency because we I think we're in for some turbulent energy things over the next five to 15 years and scares me that we're going to show this. But I'm also thinking that energy usage and retail sales and electricity is going to go up over the next 10 years compared to where it's been over the last 10 where through some demand management and other things usage has been flat even with our population growth. So I I am projecting this to be a bigger funding source. That would be consistent with me when I look at the way levy went up over the last 10 years and pilot did not. But at the same time I am concerned that we have to represent both the levy payers but also the rate as we have these discussions. So um I I just wanted to have this full discussion with my peers here. I'm um supportive. I'm a little >> like distraught about the RP water stuff just because of the big percentages, but the relative size of the numbers are so dramatically smaller that that it is it is a different animal. And I really appreciate Ryan your comment about this doesn't happen when we approve policy. This is a slow methodical move so that it is so it can be absorbed the same way with Ryers. >> Right. still work with the residents. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for that clarification, council member. >> Any any further questions on this? >> So So well, what I was going to say is just to emphasize council member Ke's point last point phase in. So the phase in will happen in >> 88 or basically what I wanted to do was keep 27 and 28 because those are already budgeted numbers. >> Okay. So really really >> Okay. Okay. Got it. >> Council member Miller. >> Did I miss >> Did I miss this? Did we cover 13 the microcontract process policy separate from >> Yeah, I guess I I apologize. I hit the slide when we were talking about the policy. >> I just wanted to make sure it felt like you were talking about the purchasing and then >> Yeah, that goes off real quick too. That was the 2016 resolution that the council passed. And so that was just put in there. Okay. Just wanted to note that we sorry and >> thank you for noticing that I think 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. Maybe I'll say what they're in a different way. Most of our enterprise funds operate like a utility. Yep. >> And those are the ones that are utilities. Parking tries to operate like a utility, but it has different right. So land use especially downtown whereable property is. Um so does everything have to stay at 6 and 12% forever? No. You don't have to keep you don't want to constantly pay new taxes because what the message that that sends is that you are trying to reduce your company tax by utilizing it revenue. So having consistency is important but changing a policy because you're looking at say parking differently. Let's say that you did that over time and did a study say parking. What does that mean also for your rate study for parking which you just announced a year ago? There's a lot of implications for that. So it doesn't mean that you can't ever change it in the future or that you can do this this time at 61% but you want to have some logical methodology to why it isn't 6 and a half% why it is something different and I think there's probably logic in saying parking isn't quite the same as operating electric water um storm water or sewer utility like they have different implications throughout the system. Um and there different implications for major use of property [snorts] something different and also that other entities would have potentially build that parking parking parking. So >> and we don't fully operate parking as an enterprise, right? We buy a lot of free parking. So if we were operating at your enterprise, you would say like well after five, you don't have to pay for electricity. Um, >> no, I appreciate that point. I think it's really getting to this idea and council member Keane has brought it up is like what is the subsidy going into parking and I think this is another area where I see additional subsidy because if this pilot is decreased from the current rate then that is likely made up by property tax. So it feels like another area of subsidy. So I just want to note that um not looking to change it. I think standardizing 6.5% for all these makes sense. Um, and I guess my interest would be really in looking at some of the questions that customers at Palmer brought up as well. how we track assets coming in the enterprise and go out and how are we right sizing that sort of subsidy versus paid by the rateayer in that case the parker >> we could adopt six and a half% for now and then do some evaluation you know about what the cash flow for each ramp is and what the corresponding value for that would be and try to project the property taxes off of that and see if we're in the same neighborhood I mean there's other ways to look at how you would want to do that or you can just keep the same and just escalate it by a percentage every year at the fixed dollar amount that it is now if you feel like that's fine. Um, so there's a couple different ways that reevaluate that as a a follow up for next year financial policies, you know, if you wanted to bring that back and you reconsider them year. Council council member Keune there are a lot of >> all of these things there are implications for are we expanding the city or not the city do we have utility but also your drug profile want to look. >> Council member council member Keane. >> Yeah. Yeah. Again, I'm just going to follow up on this parking one too because I was surprised, but I'm also surprised in this discussion that we said if we had to value them, we do it by cash flow where I would have to think we should do it by replacement value and it's dramatically high. The other thing is we did have I thought a fairly serious discussion at some point of saying we should when when this council says free after 5:00 or free on weekends. We should still project that as revenue and say we're g we're giving that away as a good decision or not. Uh and that then I think pilot could be paid on top of that. Um I am worried that uh I mean I I'm not bought into the idea that all of our five enterprises have to be piloted the exact same way. To me that means nothing to anybody outside of this room. Um but I think that consistency on how we do our um with with the major rateayers. Not parking is a different thing or it's not it's not a a utility no other choice. It's it's by choice. And we've also gone through these big discussions with how we're going to use that to stimulate downtown development. So with those in mind, I I think I I would be open to like the parking thing could be different in the in the short term. So thank you. Any other comments? >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Brian. >> Thank you, Aaron. >> We are going to move to storm water >> quality treatment credit transfer policy and program development. Tyler >> and Aaron >> [clears throat] >> Mr. >> Mr. Lux, go ahead. >> Go ahead. >> I have a storm water policy for you. Consider a long title. It's a mouthful. did a good job saying that [laughter] we can come up with a shortened acronym or something else. I try your back. >> Um >> there we go. >> There we go. >> Thank you. >> Um so just to uh kind of set the frame um framework for this is I'm specifically seeking your feedback on three areas. Of course, additional feedback is is always welcomed. 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. This probably doesn't make any sense right now, but as I go through the presentation, think about that is whether or not there's support to do it because there's a lot of additional steps that would need to come after this. We don't want to waste time and effort trying to move forward something that you don't support. So, first and foremost, whether or not you would support um this type of program. um and even if you'd support it, we would like to see a few tweaks to it. The second would be the use of credit transfer ratios. Um and I'll talk about those and why we see value in those. Um and a big part of that is to help support the council's responsible environmental stewardship. Um, as well as you'll see the way the program is set up is it really tries to push projects that are closer together in those transfer ratios because there's cost associated with that kind of force people to start looking closer together. So there's some incentives [clears throat] for those transfer ratios. And then the last would be um whether or not you would support the city participating as a generator of these credits that could be used by non for non-public projects. So, a private developer using credits that are created by the city. And again, I'll explain the pros and cons around that. Just to let you know, the city's going to have to be a generator for our own projects. So, when we do street reconstruction projects, things like that, we're required to provide storm water treatment. It can be very challenging. So, even if they don't become available for private entities, we're still going to have to be a generator for our own projects. Um, so keep that in consideration. So those are three specific areas I'm speak seeking feedback on. Again, certainly welcome for additional consideration as I go through it. Um I'm welcome to take questions throughout but council president. I understand it can be a complex >> when when council members raise their hand I call on them. So >> council member just did go through this and I want to go through it now with you. I but I also want to understand the genesis. Is this like an industry best practice? Is this something that came to us from the private sector? How does this come before us today? >> I'm going to talk about that in part of the presentation. Really, what it was, so that the structure is already in ordinance because it's dictated by the state. So, off-site storm water treatment is set up under our state permit. It's in our ordinance, but there's lots of challenges. It is not easily implemented. And you'll see I have a slide just kind of talks about all the challenges. And as we worked through those challenges, we saw opportunities to create a solution that addressed multiple challenges. >> You don't mind. It is a staffgenerated method. Correct. >> Does it have a just so I understand what I'm hearing when I start hearing that is it like a way to stimulate infill development? >> Yes. >> That's a way to support development with some of the challenges that come with infill development. >> Okay. And if I can on the Janice's question, I'll again public projects are going to see issues with satisfying storm water requirements going forward. It's >> hard to construct a pond when we street construction in downtown for example. Right. So a lot of this comes from that and it's taking advantage of other opportunities in front of us. >> Okay. Okay. We're going to have Council Member Miller and then we're going to let you get started with your presentation. >> I just want to build on that. I was going to wait for a question. Uh but would we be pioneering this approach in the state or are there other cities that are doing this today? >> Um this specific approach we might be pioneering. There are two other wershed districts that have similar programs but slightly different. >> Okay. >> Okay. Aaron. Um so to help set the stage so one um per the the state permit that we operate under what is called the hemisph permit um and which then is in our city ordinance we require storm water treatment um for any either new development project that is going to disturb one acre or more including small lots. So think of a housing development lots of small lots but collectively generally usually disturbing more than an acre. So they're required to provide storm water treatment and volume reduction. Also in redevelopment scenarios whenever you disturb one acre or more. Um so if you're going to disturb move around one acre or more or even smaller projects where if you're going to disturb less than an acre but you collectively have more than an acre of impervious in that redevelopment now you have to provide treatment um for that for that redevelopment project. And that's really where the infill comes in. Most of it's already impervious surface. Um and it can be very very challenging to to find opportunities on site. So that's what ordinance requires. It's mandated by state. We have to implement it locally. It's been required since 2020. So it's still generally fairly new. Um uh but is something that you know developers have been struggling with since 2020 when it was in. Um the other requirement is that any of those storm water we call BMPPS so treatment um technologies must also prioritize green infrastructure which means volume reduction. So if you can infiltrate uh reuse of storm water tree trenches things like that that really promote that reduction piece >> recognizing um this can be a challenge there is kind of an offering. So if the BMPPS cannot be cost effectively treated on site, you can go through a process to get approval to do what is called offsite stormwater treatment. So it says I can't do it here, but I'm going to find another spot where treatment isn't occurring and I'm going to do it there. And so it's a kind of a swap process. Um and so that is again allowed by ordinance. And um there are two parties that have successfully done it. I'll talk a little bit about that more in order to go through this off-ramp kind of the off-site treatment process. One requires city approval. Um the project area selected. So the offsite treatment area selected you have to go through this priority ranking order. So again it forces you to look as close as possible. So the first is the same receiving water body. So look somewhere really close close point source discharges the same catchment area which so kind of our storm sewer shed um the next adjacent catchment area. So, a good example would be here. This is South Works on the river. Really close by within a mile is Bear Creek, you know. So, if you're close catchment area um and then as long as you're kind of upstream, so you want to look upstream on that side of it or the last one is anywhere within the city. So, you can be on the way south end, something on the north end or vice versa, anywhere within the city. Um and you need to kind of go through this process of looking um and and identifying those priority areas. Um it also must involve the creation of a new storm water um BMP. So think of an area that currently was developed prior to storm water treatment requirements. Our government center is a good example. Everything that runs off here goes straight into the river. Um, so you either have to do a retrofit, create a new BMP, retrofit an existing one to expand it to create additional capacity to offset or if you have an existing BMP where there's already capacity, maybe they built it larger for anticipated growth that never happened, you know, different scenarios. Um, you can use that surplus capacity, but the goal is you're doing something kind of above and beyond because it's offsetting this new new construction. Um the other requirement is it must be completed no later than 24 months after the start of your construction project. So you can start redevelopment, get approval, but you still have to be doing this storm water project and get it done within 2 years. Um which can be be a challenge. Um so those are the requirements in in our ordinance and in our state permit. So here's the challenges that kind of led to this. So, one infill development and redevelopment, especially in our high density areas, is is cost prohibitive. We've seen developers come forward and say, I just can't redevelop because it storm water treatment is too expensive um to be able to do it on site. If you start looking offsite, project proposers either need access to land to be able to build a new BMP um or you need to find a second party to be able to work with and start cold calling people to say, "Hey, can I buy storm water from you?" And it's so it's not an easy process there. So, there's challenges with that. Um again, the timing is you have to complete a project within 24 months. So you have that going on and if you don't have land, you're working through all that while you're trying to do a development. Um they're hearing two parties have successfully done it since 2020. Both of them had existing land where there wasn't treatment nearby that allowed them to do a project. Um it was Mayo Clinic and Western public schools. Those are the only two that have successfully done it. That's because of the access to to land and the properties properties they were working with were constructed prior to regulations. So it it provided that opportunity. The other thing that we talked about a month ago when we were here talking about the comp plan, the city is having some challenges. One is we look at adding VMPs in our um older parts of town. We don't have room. Um we're experiencing nuisance conditions. um and they are expensive projects and we would right now be relying on rateayers and so we started thinking about is there an alternative funding source we have developers that have a need city has a need there's challenges we can do these retrofits for cheaper than it would be to do on site this might be an alternative funding source to help advance some of these city projects too and not have to rely on great pay so with those challenges and we came up with what we believe is a good solution and aligns with council strategic priorities. And so with that, we researched um what other communities were doing and um and so the two other watershed districts that I mentioned, one is the central region in downtown St. Paul, the capital district down there. They just have a payment program. So they say, "Give us money, we're going to go do projects." There's a lot of risk associated with that because they don't know what the construction costs are going to be and all that. And there's this feel of give us money. We have to commit to a project. We don't know what that project is going to be. There's a lot of that. The other is Washington um county watershed district. They have a very similar program, but their goal if they produce them first and then to say you can buy into this, but it's just a payment payment type program. Um, and so we thought about that. That works great, but you're limiting it to just the government being a generator of credits. You don't allow anybody else to really participate. So, um, as we started brainstorming ideas, there was a concept called trading, water quality trading. Um, and if I use the word trading, I apologize. Initially, we looked at creating a local trading program. We've been meeting with the state a lot. They're updating our permit and adding some language called trade. So, we're going to use transfer instead of tra trading or recommendation because of regulatory reasons. But you'll see this has a very similar approach to what a a trading program would kind of look like. Similar would also be wetland banking if you're familiar with with that concept um with construction projects. So >> recommendation of the proposal is create a marketbased compliance program that allows the transfer of approved credit. So you get approved credits from one entity to another and the market base provides that incentive for recouping cost. So, >> [clears throat] >> um, you could have someone that says, "My property really doesn't work well for redevelopment or additional development, but maybe I want to create a green space, nice open spot, you know, with storm water treatment and the rain garden, whatever for my employees." This is a way to help them. They could get money to be able to pay for that um, as a as a part of it. It also is going to be market driven based on supply and demand. It forces entities like the city, if we are a generator, to select projects that are cost effective because you have to be able to sell those credits at a reasonable rate that's going to be cheaper than, of course, the unaffordable on-site option. So that market really kind of supply and demand forces um cost effective, efficient projects um in places where they're needed. So we also have to be strategic on where you select select projects. Um by setting up a framework it it would provide a clear framework for both generators of the credits as well as users at the start of projects. So under the program um we would approve a generator project that would be listed on our website. So a developer could say now I've got into this offsite situation. I need to find someone who has [clears throat] grants. Now you have a contact in a location and you can reach out to someone to be able to start that exchange process right at the front and you're going to know those upfront cost versus waiting until you either find a site later and have some of the unknowns related to a a project. >> Um Mayor Mayor Nardney >> I'm trying to get my head around all this. It's new >> new conversation for me. Um um is is there any sort of um not sure if I'm looking for a requirement that that if they can they must before they go through the transfer option. Correct. >> So we're not creating a situation where you're buying it, you know, because it's cheaper, buy it from the city and then not do anything in the area that they're in. >> Correct. They have to do it on site first. It's really And then they have to justify why they can't do it on site. The other thing is they have to do as much as possible on site. So maybe they can't get 100% of the on-site storm treating, but they can get 90%. At 10% they can't quite, you know, fit in. They could purchase that off to be able to get it in compliance. So it doesn't have to be. >> So I have a question. So you have city would be the first generator of a storm water treat quality treatment credit. Now would we also be the clearing house for these private market? >> And and then >> who decides >> what level of credit >> quality >> quality of the the storm water treatment and and and whether they meet the standard. So >> kind of >> kind of what does do we provide we provide are we the clearing house and the the the >> the approver. >> Yeah. So couple different. So yes the city city for our we are the ones that anything with on-site treatment and any development yes it goes through our approval process. So we would review and approve that, make the determination of whether or not they would qualify either for offsite or to be a generator of the credit. So and um that would be when we get to the policy, the recommended policy council would say implement that under the water resources program just like we do right now with construction projects. So we would be responsible for implementing that and that comes into one of the concerns of whether or not the city would be a generator at the same time we're approving the credits. Right? There's some risk level there. Um so city city would approve these. We would uh track them. Um and then also would be authorizing the construction projects. The others yes I hadn't got to that last bullet. Um I'll talk a little bit about that. there. The city does have a project that right now is in the engineering planning phase. It's um currently so up just north of 37th Street. There's about 600 acres of um drainage that flows directly into the South Fork River. Very little water quality treatment, very little volume control. We've had lots of erosion issues um through that area. It's been washing out the bike trail by foster errands. lots of investment in there and sediment loading right into the South Florida River. We have an opportunity to retrofit that area um to be able to capture it, infiltrate um that at least the first one in of every rainstorm to reduce that volume as well as then provide that water quality treatment and rate control. That would [clears throat] be again that's a good retrofit. There isn't treatment now. So, we're creating a bunch of credits um that then would could become available either for city only projects or for private. >> Okay. Council >> Council Member Fredericks, are you on the list? >> I beat you. >> Okay. >> Okay. How you doing, Aaron? >> Good. >> Good. I'm not doing too bad. >> So, the question is I'm hearing you say, okay, they can get 90% done on their property, but then they have to buy 10% somewhere else. There's still that 10% there. Where do you go with it? where you go, >> how does it >> how does it how does it actually take care of the other 10% of water it's not able to handle? >> Well, so at that construction site, you're going to have an increase of salt water. So, um there will be some pollutants discharged on that property. The offsetting is you're finding somewhere else to treat that. So, collectively, >> Got it. Got it. >> You're not you're not taking care of it. You're just buying it buying it out. similar to like a wetland banking, right? I get it. >> I understand. >> I just got hung up on, well, there's still that 10% there. Do we just not care cuz we're going to pay for it? Okay. >> All right. >> All right. Got it. And then and then >> do you have somebody in the office that when somebody's coming in to do said development, whether big or small, that can explain this to people thoroughly and get them through it without them just like, "Oh, breaks. I'm out of here. This is too much. This is frustrating." >> Okay. >> Okay. Great. >> So we have >> So we have council ra Miller then Palmer. >> Palmer council member Wall. So we have we have a 600 acre parcel that could possibly be banked in this and it's bought over time. Uh in 50 years city councils are going to look at that uh land and that will be in perpetuity undevelopable. >> Uh so let me clarify there's 600 acres of drainage okay coming into the >> I have a slide I think it'll make more sense when I get to that slide. I'll show you where the 37th Street project is and all that. >> So, I think that'll be easier. >> Okay. >> You hold your question and I'll come back. >> Okay. I'll reserve that for then. >> Um, does this make uh infill uh a great deal more expensive to develop? >> No. No. And in fact, they would allow infill to happen because right now, um, the only way they're allowed to do offsite is if they determine that it's infeasible to actually do do it on site, which usually means a project doesn't happen. And then that parcel sits vacant, undeveloped, or not expanded, kind of situation. So, this actually helps redevelopment potential infill and allows those projects to move forward >> at some cost to be sure. Yep. And but it'll be a cheaper cost than if they did it onsite. And that's the key because onsite is not affordable. This allows for an affordable option um to be able to allow that project to >> council. Council member Miller, >> my first question is do you have the correct staff capacity to operate this program? You said you would just roll it into a lot of resources. uh we would roll it into existing resources and yes because we don't uh we're not anticipating much additional work with this primarily because this is a very very small percentage of projects that would actually participate in um again they have to do it on site if they can they can't there's a robust process they have to go through and it's largely limited to just infill um you know which again supports some of the goal but the council we're trying to focus on that. So, the workload won't be significant other than the upfront, getting it set up, building a website, things like that. But once it's up and running, um, it won't take a significant amount of resources. >> And and we would be committing staff time to making sure these projects are being required to begin with. So, you know, there's a lot of overlap with the effort that's involved. >> Second question, can you define what a unit is that generates a credit? >> Yep. >> Yeah. So it's uh again our ordinance defines this so it's a calculation of 1 in so 1 in over the total amount of imperous surface um across the entire development then on a c per cubic foot basis. So that's the the volume that they're required to to treat. >> So I guess I guess is one credit like how much area is one credit typically going to represent? this >> um >> that's that's a great question trying to think of how to >> I guess maybe what's the example I think >> good example of this so I'll just look to that slide just for a visual image so so in the bottom right hand corner of this slide so on the north side is Foster Aaron's um park on the south side this is street um here's the RPU complex. So there's a small area here that got 600 acres that flow through this one central point. This site will be able to provide 90 acre feet of water quality treatment. It's a significant amount. I mean there'll be hundreds of acres of development just in this one site. Was that 90 credits based and these are so this would be able to produce 90 acre feet of credits. Yeah. So an acre but yeah one acre but would be a unit of credit. >> Correct. >> In most most scenarios. Yes. >> So my question then is you mentioned an undevelopable piece of land that somebody commercial owner could develop into gardens green space generate credits. This would this be only restricted to area commercial >> parcels? Would you envision a future version that >> a resident with some green space develop this into a rain garden and get some fraction of a credit in the market or this is just to rainwood? >> Yeah. So, so great question. Um, >> help from a workload standpoint and not have a influx of bunch of generators. >> Yes, we would. Our recommendation is to cap it at it. It has to produce at least onetenth of an acre foot which would be basically the equivalent of an acre development. So you'd have to have a larger parcel that you are treating um versus you know a quarter acre development things like that. So it's really going to push more into that commercial level. So >> thank you council member Palmer. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. So I'm familiar with the Westland wetland banking back in the 90s when that started and I think it's like a for the one acre you needed to buy two or three. Is that something that you're looking at doing? >> Is it one for one? Are you are you trying to increase it? >> Great transition. Maybe I'll go ahead. >> Go ahead. >> Let me ask you a question. You can do that. So Tyler, we did North Broadway that we're just doing. We spent a lot of money with with infiltration and and storm water on that and kind of a unique type of thing. But the prior North Broadway project, did we do any of that? >> Dylan, do you want to help me answer that? >> From Civic Center Drive to the bridge, did we do any from the bridge to 37? >> We did. >> Yeah. So, we we would not be required to find an offsite. We were able to achieve all of the water quality treatment and and meet the storm water permit requirements within the project footprint >> on both on both the one we constructed a number of years ago from civic center to the dam and then on the one currently wrapping up in the next week or two. I'm curious, how did you find it in the in the old in the first one? >> What did we use? >> We utilized rain gardens >> and we >> and we reduced our reduced our impervious footprint. So we were able to help reduce the the volume of runoff. So >> that helped by if you recall it was a >> essentially a highway that felt like a runway and a lot less impervious surfacing helps as well. But my other last concern is >> you're putting >> you're putting this this by foster errands park and and I don't think I don't know if you know this not but they're not the prettiest things in the world to have detention ponds in your neighborhood. >> So so why would I want to have that in my neighborhood or in my ward? >> Um and would you end up with one ward having 12 and another word having zero? >> Two different ways. One, we haven't received council approval to do 37th Street project. So, that is not set in stone. We got approval to do engineering, >> but you took the trees down. >> Um, two, uh, our goal is to make them uh, visually um, pleasing as as much as we can and I would say we have a lot of water ponds that are very visually pleasing even in filtration basins where we can plant vegetation and like minings like that. >> Lots of cattails, right? >> [laughter] >> recognize that some of that is subjective. Some people like them, some people don't to make them as aesthetically pleasing as possible within reason. The other is I would say so again in order for this >> program to be effective and based on transfer ratios when we get to those ratios from the city standpoint. I think there's a huge benefit by having them spread throughout the city again because it's going to promote projects, finding a generator project close to their project as much as possible. It doesn't make sense to put 12 of them all on the the north side of town when there's development projects happening, you know, throughout city of Roxer and at least the downtown area. So trying to spread them out through each of our storm water catchment basins um in my standpoint is a smart thing to do from a city investment side of it. >> And I'm not I'm not saying this is wrong. The 37th site is is wrong, but I did run by today and the thistles are high and nobody seems to want to mow around our our ponds. But um not I guess it's like art. It's in the eye of the boulder. Um but um but I just I'm concerned about that. But I also wanted the real reason to do this is to get better water quality and help the downtown and other places that makes more sense to do. >> Yes. And that's that's less. So two things. One, if we have sites, please send them to us. I just follow up on that. Keep in mind there are still quite a few private ponds throughout city of Rochester maintained, but if their city wants certainly want to know about them. The others, yes, currently all of this water is flowing through untreated. largely uncontrolled based on velocity pushing sediments into the river causing erosion things like that. This will improve the neighborhood and provide water quality treatment by high rate control and improve um that area by doing these projects. >> Okay. But but that's to be clear the water coming into Rochester is worse condition than when it leaves >> um >> with sediment and and chemicals. It it generally speaking, yes. Depending on the concerns, it's either it's either gets a little bit better or it stays >> the same, >> but we're not adding to the pollution or the sediment >> for the most part. Well, there's there's always discharge of pollutants into our water bodies. And this is why we have an ordinance that requires uh water quality treatment in redevelopment scenarios and even in development to help minimize floods. But there's still going to be a discharge of pollutants from any impervious surplus within the city of Rochester. >> Unlike city hall where it goes directly to the river, a new subdivision goes to retention pond, gets treated, and then it goes. >> We don't have any waste here. Sean, >> I will follow answer it. A lot of the comes out of the city is coming from chemicals that are part of agricultural production outside of DC. >> Okay. So, Mr. Lux in our previous lives. >> So, I do >> so I do want to get get allow Mr. Luxign to continue with the presentation. We do have council member Miller. Can your question hold or is it related to this? Go ahead. Go ahead. My question would be how frequently is the price of a credit set or is it based on supply and demand? I mean bidding for these available credits there two projects and they both want to use credits from from a priority area. >> How are those assigned and at what price? >> Yep. So some of that again is going to be market driven. generators will be able to determine what price they want to sell that credit at. Again, with the goal of you want to be able to sell the credit from the city standpoint, we have developed what we would recommend if this is supported is again these projects would be constructed. So, we would know the engineering cost, the construction cost that went into that. So, that can go into the calculation. Um, we will also be able to have an estimate on the breaking of payments. My recommendation would be you do an upfront cost. This would be negotiated with the with the purchaser, but you would do an outcomer cost to cover on a per credit basis that construction the engineering kind of your upfront and then there would be an annual operation and maintenance payment just just like they would have had to do if they had that BMP on site maintaining it. and then you can collect those fees. The other would be you could um estimate out say over a 20-year period what that operation and maintenance is going to be. Collect that and then re-evaluate at whatever that frequency would be negotiated as part of contract between the user of the credits and then with the generators. Okay. >> Continue >> continue. Um um so again uh so better upfront consideration because our our requirement would be in order to be a generator you have to have the project complete gener the credit determination is based on something already built. We know that then it's confirmed. So we're not trying to sell transfer things of unknown. So it has to be built. Our recommendation is to also include what is a transfer ratio to account for the distances between sites that helps enforce that priority level and to create an environmental set aside that aligns with that the responsible environmental stewardship. Um additional bonus is first requirements. We have to make improvements in towards TMDL. So many of these water bodies are impaired for too much suspended solids. A lot of it comes from outside city roster. we are still required to reduce that. These are things we can report back to the state saying we're making our reductions um under our permit. Um again, if this were to move forward with the 37th Street project uh potentially coming forward that could be a first one that could could participate in this program. >> So here's how transfer ratios would work. It's a um again similar to the wetland banking multiplier that would be applied to that credit. So um recommendation and we worked a lot with these to try and bring forth someone that it's something that is reasonable but also helps move the needle a little bit. So within that priority one is so same receiving water body it would be at a 1.2 to1 ratio. So sample would be if you have to purchase one credit instead you have to do 1.2 two, you know, so that's how that multiplier works. One tenth of that is just set aside for environmental benefit. We can pay credit for that under the TMDL. We're making advancements in water quality improvement. And then the other tenth is for that distance recognizing there's a distance between those two discharge locations, but they're still pretty close together. Priority two level would be again same drainage, but then further away. Um, so that's at a 1.3 to one. Uh priority three would be again like something in Creek. Um one project's in South Forks number, the other one's in Bear Creek. That will be at a 1.4 to one. And then the priority four at a 1.5 to one for anywhere with within the city. Again, the calculation you first start at a one one, you add in that 10% 110 for environmental gain or 0.1 and then you add in a 0.1 for every priority level. it's easier to track. I think it it is supported based on um proximity within Rochester in [clears throat] comparison. Um so if we use the wetland replacement um they have a a two-tier based on what you're doing. It's either 2.5 to one or 2:1 as as you mentioned. Um under the state TMDL water quality trading so the point source and wastewater trades it's at a 1.6 to one. Uh or if you do a non-point project, so you could do like a screen bank restoration project where you have lots of um uh erosion that's at a 2.1 to one. So these are less than what you see on the state and um federal level uh to keep you know recognizing there is a cost by the time you add that on to keep them at a reasonable rate yet still get some of that benefit um uh for the the community. still community game. Um, and it's enough of a ratio to again the especially the difference between the 1.5 to one to the 1.2 really push people to say I want to find something as close to my project as as possible. >> So hypothetical how this would work here. The picture in the top left is the government center where we're sitting today. It's a little over 5 acres about 5.25 acres. Pretty much all of it is impervious. Um so if we wanted to do a redevelopment here project um and don't quote me on these numbers I you know I I just did some rough estimates on what would be required here but um so say you want to do a project we're discharging the South Fork of the Zumba River um under our ordinance if it's not a project again these are just fake numbers based on an unknown project right hypothetical 10 acre feet of water quality treatment which would be pretty close for like a 5 acre redevelopment type project. So, city of Rochester, we we can't do it on site um for for various reasons. One, difficult to infiltrate. We're close to the flood walls. We don't want to be infiltrating a bunch of water underneath that. City goes through the process and gets approval to do on-site storm water treatment. Just so happens that water resources got council approval to do a 37 street project that got built that has 90 acre feet. Um so that's in the the bottom right corner. Um uh we would have an infiltration basin that would treat um you know 90 acre feet. It would get approved. This is like what you would see on a website. Somebody could look on a website, find this information um and and then that the city could negotiate with the water resources division to purchase. So this would be at a transfer ratio because they're both discharging into the south of the Zemer River. However, you have that separation distance. Um it would be at a 1.3 to one. So, uh the government center we need to purchase 13 acre feet um of treatment from our 37 street site. That would take it from 90 down to 77. We would still have 77 credits we could sell to someone else. That would get tracked. That would be real time. And it would we would track it on a website just like this. So somebody could click and say, "Hey, I see this project in my neighborhood. Who's who's transferring credits and what are those credits going for?" We'd also inspect each of these sites to ensure they are compliant and have that um compliance status on the site so that people know that the system's being operated and maintained in compliance the way it should be. So this is hypothetically how it could work. The benefit here is again city's doing a redevelopment project. you know, you can't do it on site, you would know a price right up front of how much it is going to cost to do the storm water treatment and consider that right in your budget. As soon as you make that transaction, you're automatically in compliance. You don't have to wait that two years and try and figure something out um to make that happen. So, >> Council Member Frederick, >> thank you. >> What's that what's that 13 acre foot going to cost? um going to be based on what the construction cost is for this 37th Street um which I don't have right now. So again, that would go into that calculation of what the price would be per per acre foot. Um and so we would know that once the project is is complete. >> That didn't really give me an answer, but do you have a rough idea or don't you want to quote anything? Um well, so I can do >> I think >> I think she I think she answered for you. >> We can use rough math and just say that um so let's say the 37th Street project cost I'm trying to do with 90 acre feet. Say it was $900,000. >> Okay. Okay. >> Okay. So you do the quick math on that. It's going to be $10,000 per acre foot. >> Got it. Got it. So $10,000* 13 $130,000. >> So for a project like that, it ain't something that's going to stop the wheels from turning. That's what I really wanted to hear. >> Okay. >> So So that would be, you know, that would say an allin upfront cost. Yeah. And then as part of the negotiated contract, we would say if you want to pay for operation and maintenance up front for either unknown >> or do you want want us to send you a bill every single year? >> Right on. I just want to see us have our cake and eat it too. don't want to see development stop, but I also don't want to just be in reckless with our resources. That's that's all I'm trying to get my mind wrapped around. >> You know, it's not just an engineer feasibility thing. Cost comes into play for these developments, too, right? So, to figure out a way to chamber this water underground, right? We've already potentially seen examples where that's cost prohibitive when you cost you stack up against an approach like this. It's much more cost effective. Allows that. >> It's no different than what we're doing with our tree policy. It's the same thing. If you can't plan them, you pay to find them somewhere else. >> Yep. I get it. >> So So I I understand >> I understand it from if if the city has the property and we build it, we know all the costs that uh we have to build into what that credit will be. We know that we're going to maintain it. and uh and when it comes to the >> private sector doing them, what kind of quality controls would we have on >> their upfront costs and their maintenance of it and >> I can just kind of to build a scenario. So you have a a private land owner and they say, "Oh, we have a wetland now." and then they >> are able to undercut the the credit fees and we don't have control over >> the quality of that >> water >> water treatment. >> Yeah. So good question. Um, so one, anything that gets construed that needs to be reve by by the city and ensure that it meets our >> ordinance as well as our engineering standards. So that's the upfront construction side of it. Um, we also then inspect those projects to make sure that they were constructed correctly. Um, and then under this program, what what our recommendation would be is in order to participate, an annual inspection would be completed to make sure that they're effectively maintaining the system because if they don't, it could cause compliance issues for another property. Um, from the cost standpoint, that's a little bit the beauty of the the market base approach. It's going to be up to that private owner to determine what they want to sell those credits for. If they want to sell the credits for a loss, >> that that's up to them and that's just part of the program. If they want to set them really high and try and generate a profit, that's up to them. But if you have more people participating in this market, it's going to start balancing it out because you need to be competitive in the market. If you price yourself out of the market, you're not going to sell anything and get a return on your investment. If it's too cheap, you're losing money on that investment. So, that's again that market base. We're not going to review what they set for their pricing and all that. That would be up to them. Our role would be to make sure it's compliant, that it was constructed correctly, and that they met all the requirements of participating program >> and they're annually uh uh inspected. and and terms out city's recourse if they fail to keep up with what that means, right? But at that point, maybe the city could come in and make a backup decision offer, you know, all that would be outlined in the agreement to enter. So there would be a suspenders and and just to let you know, we have there's a lot more information that I brought forward, but again, we got to a point where we didn't want to spend more time and effort on this. that we come to support that we do have what draft agreements could look like, how people can calculate um the credit pricing to make sure they're getting the return on these and all those things are in draft form that bring back to council for >> great. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Council member Wall, >> did you did you have a question? >> You know, >> I did I did but I have uh lost it. So maybe [laughter] I will find it somewhere. >> Okay. Okay. Council council member Miller and I'll come back to you if you question that I think council member was asking earlier [laughter] imagine the hypothetical scenario where you have to have this generator of credit 50 years from now that needed to be redeveloped into something else it's no longer providing storm water management what happens the credit is that purchased in perpetuity So they have to be transferred. >> Yep. So one of the things that again as we have draft what we set up as draft whatever the recommendation will be is one by signing on to this you are agreeing to maintain and keep that BMP into pertu as long as it's tied to that the the development the reason that it was it was constructed. So for its useful life, right? Um if that property transfers ownership, the requirement that it be maintained under this program, transfer with it, just like it would be if somebody owns a storm water treatment pond right now that is required to be part of their building that goes with that stays with the land as part of any of those property acquisitions component. The second thing would be so if there's non-compliance say something happens and the site is non-compliant um the the purchaser the user of those credits um they'll have to either they will then have two years or you know under our ordinance or we could work with them to either find a new generator to have an agreement with or they will need to go construct their own water quality treatment system somewhere else. Um, and so that's something that that we would be tracking and then we would work with them to make sure that they're always in in lines. The other thing that that um that would also be allowed as long as these contracts happen in the right order is say somebody >> purchases credits at a 1.5 to one ratio and then a new site is built somewhere nearby and they can get it at a 1.2 to one. they can they can under the terms of their contract if they're allowed to get out of that they can terminate that and enter into a new from our standpoint they need to notify us because there's a compliance piece here. Um so we need to make sure that those contracts then are able to happen you know in the right order and that they maintain compliance that that whole time that answer questions. Council, >> Council Member Wall, >> does the >> and I'll have an example after I ask the question. >> Does the city ever uh forgive a storm water requirement? For instance, there's some infill and some developer comes in and has this project that we've just been desperate for in the city forever and fills a precise need that we have. Uh but the storm water is an issue. Do we ever forgive something like that? >> State requirements. >> We are not allowed to forgive that. Each project needs to comply with those requirements. we're held accountable if we were to have heard something that >> and I would say financially you may have opportunities to make sure that if the issue was supporting the credit that you could enter into some sort of development agreement that could still provide the compliance with storm water quality but do so in a way where the cost is not because I would imagine cost is still the issue or cost still um is it's a you is something that you could address in a different way that still has to also be comp mayor Norton. >> Sorry, I just have a [snorts] quick one. I think this is an interesting concept and I appreciate you bringing it forward and you know great. >> Um 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 it goes if it gets really really bad, what's the solution then? you bought the credits, you kept other parts of the city's water clean, but that particular area, the water is not really very good. I mean, what's is there a fix for that or do we >> I mean, so because the credit idea I mean, I like the credit idea, but I also think there could be a downside, which is maybe one part of town might >> one stream of water might not be as clean as the others, and are we okay with that or is there a different fix we would think about in the future? >> Um, yeah. Yeah, great question and and great concern. So, one, >> keep in mind every single project is required to do it outside unless they can. This this really is for the minority projects. It's just infeasible. So, we're there should be very few developments actually going through this this process. Um but in the situation especially again promoting infill's there's a there's an opportunity to help make that happen. The second is in most of the infill scenarios there's there isn't water quality treatment. A lot of them are already paved over. There's impervious surface. This is still going to be an improvement you know to to the system there. Third thing I would say is again it's the city's role in this knowing that water quality is important. This is the importance of us looking at where we can do these retrofits throughout the city and if we have these areas being able to do something closer. Um, as I started these sites are challenging. We've been looking at at a few of them. We've actually with public schools. We started looking at who has land next to surveys. Right. Right. That that's kind of the goal. Um the city does have um quite a bit of land right away green space next to impervious surfaces all throughout. The challenge is going to be trying to bring forward a costeffective project that meets requirements and so that I do think doing this the right way we can strategically as a participant in this program and a generative credits be able to help get ahead of that and spread it throughout the community. >> [laughter] >> So I have a followup question to kind of kind of what the mayor the line of discussion the mayor brought up. So, so our goal is infill of development and so if they do not they have all impervious surface >> and they don't have onsite uh ability to do the water treatment >> in our development plans. Would we still >> in a development say, "Well, we don't want you we want you to have some >> nonimperous surface at that development site. >> Is is are there guidelines for that?" So they're required to do as much as they can on it's not as prescriptive as >> they can they can do some engineering that goes into that but yes they definitely push do as much as you can outside whether that's a rain garden tree trenches green roofs reuse of of storm water you capture the storm water use it for irrigation you know those types of things Um, yes, they need to do as much as they can on site. Um, again, it will get there can be scenarios where it gets to the point it's just not feasible to be able to do it on site where they just, you know, physically can't comply because of what it would cost to be able to do it. Um, then that's the remaining piece that is participated in this room. >> Got it. Got it. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, council member to encourage and make it easier not that this really is an offramp for those unique scenarios. It's just when people end up in that situation, it can push them into not redeveloping because can't find a partner, you can't find land, can't do it. This helps do that. And again, from my standpoint, I see an opportunity for the city to be able to do projects in a way that can be funded by supporting development at the same time helping do infill. And so, we're able to check several boxes under this scenario. It's not for every scenario. It's the very few. We're going to have projects throughout the city, but where it does make sense, but I think this is a good >> So, so the goal is infill. So, if uh the council supports this and you pull together uh your implementation plan, >> how soon do would you think we could see a project come before us that says we're using this system? >> So, I mean I think so there's some steps we'd have to do to be able to implement this. um which which I would say you know goal would be to make it happen in the fall to be able to get there's some ordinance updates that we would want to be able to do with the lock in do some more transfer ratios that should go into ordinance so there some things we need to go through on that side I do think 37 street information infiltration basins could be the very first project and that is slated to come back to council around the August September time frame with permission to go for bids start construction we would have a project complete in 27 to have again a generator credits be available for either city use or again based on council feedback. So >> thanks. >> Thanks Council Member Miller then Frederick Rick. >> Very interesting. I appreciate you bringing it forward and I I would be in favor of us moving it forward at least into a pilot phase. And I guess my curious curiosity is at what touch point would it come back for review? Would it be after the first 100 credits are transferred? What types of projects were built that would have been otherwise unfeasible? Are we tracking this on the KPI report? How are we interacting with this program and making sure that you're saying that these are the right transfer ratios, this is the right system, how how is it coming back to us for review in the future? >> Um, great question. So, there's several council touch points. one one of the next steps would be we'd bring forward a policy. I included a draft policy to give you a vision of what that could look like in the packet. So draft policy would come forward again trade ratios would you would implement through um ordinance and so that would be council approved through that. Um, we certainly can provide updates on and we build the website, you know, to be able to track this and then every single every project that would fit underneath council under the development agreement approval. There's always a storm water piece in there who might have a storm water. This is going to be specifically called out in that development agreement. So, you'll see the ones participating in the program that way. We could certainly, you know, uh, if there's a action plan list or something to be able to fill out, either defer to Alison, >> I think you could. I I think every time you bring it forward though, you're going to want to know like where are we on our credit availability and also where are you on your next city will participate in this type of living? >> And that's what I was getting towards. I mean so say we sell there are 100 credits transferred percentage of that are public projects what percentage of that are private projects is it meeting the end goal right or how are we meeting the end goal through this >> are there any are we seeing like no 1.5 credits are being purchased right like is that too high too low are there are too many 1.5 credits being purchased >> transferred I mean Well, you two things. First, you think you're trying to create a website that would everyone know what is out there all the time. And I hear what you I think what I'm hearing you say is how do we connect this to >> utilizing a program like this only when necessary because we can't build on site to advance the other housing and affordability goals you can say. I guess my question is just ongoing review just the the question came up the mayor raised it maybe others did as well of >> all of the sudden >> this area of town has been converted into >> all storm pod retention and now it's being all the developments happening one place the cheapest land cheapest place to do this in a different place we created this market I don't think that's going to happen but I I mean I I'm thinking about the complexity of conversation and thinking about how media summarizes this and how the community understands this and how we give additional touch points to for our um confidence in this working for the program review and also the community that this is meeting the goals and what are the >> the pros and cons, right? How is this working in reality? I think it's sounds great. I think it's a super innovative idea. I'm glad that we're ready to pioneer something like this. Um but how do we offer reassurance to us and to the community in in a forwardlooking way? >> Um one I really want to emphasize this will be very few projects moving through this. I don't even see a lot of generators wanting to participate because it means having annual inspection certainty oversight and all that. I think there there's a potential what my standpoint I think it's important to create a structure where it's not just the same that generated credits you know there's a benefit to that. Um so one all the forward it's going to be yes our goal is to be have on the website so it's transparent that way. Um, annually we all of this needs to be implemented under our state permit with the Minnesota Fluish Control Agency. We go through an annual audit on that side. So there's checks and balances in place there to make sure that it's, you know, being implemented uh that we're staying in compliance with our with our permit. The other thing is I I'm certainly willing to build in a report back to council to say this is the number of projects that are participating in the program um and versus how many inquiries we have had. We can track number of people that reach out and say your credits are too expensive. I again from workflow standpoint I don't think that's going to be very large. something like that. >> Okay. Okay. We're gonna we're going to go to Council Member Doring and then we have Frederick's and >> Yeah. Yeah. I I I agree that this is a very innovative approach for a a problematic obstacle for some indiv. >> I'm just looking for a little bit of clarity about something that you said a little while ago because I've been stewing on it. I just want to make sure I understand. So 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. >> Yeah. Yeah. Good distinction there. Um, so clarification, the person that's in non-compliance has responsibility to bring the site back into compliance. We will be working directly with them. >> If we get to a point though >> where that does not happen, >> that does not happen. >> The the user of those credits would need to find someone else or do their own. We would work with them on that understanding, you know, the scenario that they're in. I think that's the other piece again is >> some of those things can be a disincentive to go for people either wanting to be a generator or even this is volunteer nobody is forced to participate in this if they choose to either meet it on site go find their own you know they can they can do that too so the importance is this is a voluntary program there's some risk >> associated with that but then we would also work with them in those scenarios to make sure the sites are all in compliance and compliance as all the >> Thank you for that clarification that alle was concerned. Council >> council member Frederick's >> 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 >> thank you I I agree I I think it's very innovative approach. Uh but to the point of the objective is to see development in those infill. And so >> I I say >> even though you say you're going to uh incorporate all this work and build this website and it's and into uh what you do now, >> there's some kind of rationale that you made that said, you know, this is going to help. it's going to loosen up some of that uh infill property and we'll see those >> uh coming into development and so that's what I'm looking forward to. >> Council council member Keane. >> Yeah, thanks. Um question on a infill project we did a couple years ago on 20th Street, Third Avenue Southwest where they were going to build six houses. I don't remember this, but some of them are built. They did a underground water retention tank. Does anyone remembering this? I don't I don't The reason I asked you now that I thought that was pretty innovative in your major that would you say would be required or would have doing this? Uh uh I don't know that specific you know scenario. I think so one whether or not that type of system would would comply with our requirements. I guess I don't know because there's both the water quality treatment component you need to be able to treat that first one in there's also the volume reduction. So um those some of those types of systems though are what you would have to look at. So big tank underground that separates out the solids. You have to be able to extract that and a lot of them would infiltrate. So I just don't know enough about that. And this was storm water control too because it was it's the hilly neighborhoods there where if the water ran off where they were doing all the development was more storm water than than filtration, but I just makes sure that when you put something into some place it would get around that idea of doing that storm water. So a project like that if we're speaking theoretically would still have to prove out that something like that wouldn't be feasible. Obviously that got installed in this case. So with the safeguards you know the hurdles that we put in place to qualify this process presumably we would have arrived at that feasible for that same option. I want to bring it up because I I do worry when I hear the language such there you can say it priority 132 start seeing like there's other options and that's what I think that agree with Tyler. I think the key there is they've demonstrated they can be compliance. So if they can do those types of projects now >> she knows I'm trying to shut it down. >> So that that's what concerns me. Um, I want to understand you talked about building the foster errands thing. We're doing that as a as a project already in the city of Rochester and then we're creating credits. We're not doing it because we can get the credits. >> So, keep in mind again it's in design. >> I got council approval. Our recommendation would be to do that project primarily because yes, there's a significant amount of storm water that flows through that site untreated and it's causing significant erosion issues and maintenance if we really think like you the example of the school district to the other property owners. Is there anybody going to look at this as a good business to get into or is this going to be something you're doing for other good reasons that you can now get this additional value? I think I think that's in in some cases it's probably going to be an added incentive on top of some of the other reasons. So, you know, again, I gave the example of maybe you have a business that has some space, they don't want to have it developed. >> Um, again, perspective, right? To me, you can construct a storm water treatment facility that looks really nice and people like it and things like that. So here's an opportunity and a way to generate some income to offset the cost of that of that project. And so it's an added bonus on top of the account. With that comes responsibilities right now. those those two >> we are the permit they have the municipal separate storm water systems >> to a point earlier regardless of where the pollution is coming from where it's measured in the city we have to be able to meet our limits so regardless of anyone ever buys into this the city generating value in water quality in a project like San Street is the primary reason that why you would do this and then there is additional value in being able to assist with those rare projects that are private potentially if this is approved that really cannot treat something outside. And no matter what, you're still getting increased quality water treatment throughout your city. But regardless of if this is ever used by the private sector, we have to treat the water regardless of how it's coming to the city. Yeah. Yeah. >> So the the pollution from any of the sites that we're talking about, if it all came from outside the city, we are responsible for treating it based on our partners in the states requiring us to do that and they don't care how much it costs. >> Okay. >> Okay. One more question. >> Made the point that that you really do want to see you don't want the city to be the provider. You want city to be a provider and others too as they want to. I I'm good with that. I think because I think I understand what you're trying to say. It's not like a captive thing that only only the city does. But I want to understand what you said like somebody buys these from like a private >> and they have an ongoing maintenance cost then too on top of it because they you did a cost that was 10,000 per foot acre or whatever it was. Um >> it's that and then some sort of perpetuity like 3% of that or >> how that is set up is between the generator. they will negotiate that contract. My standpoint again I I would primarily look at it as a generator under the city program recognizing that we are owning and operating these systems. How I would set up that payment structure is there's an upfront payment that covers you know be a calculated cost based on engineering permitting construction hard costs that we know those capital costs that go right into it. Then what I would negotiate with people is that annual fee to collect the funds again based on a per credit basis for operation and maintenance. >> So when that project sells off >> otherwise you're guessing and that's the most fiscally responsible way to set it up for the city. If a private entity wants to be a generator and they want to set it up different >> under the market based approach that that would be up to them how they would want to how they would want to set that up. It's just that at their rips, our role is to make sure the site funds that it meets the criteria to participate in in the program and that they're operating and maintaining the system the way they're supposed to. They can't come back and say I'm in non-compliance because I'm not generating enough revenue to pay for my own. That's on them, their responsibility to operate. >> Yeah, that's what I was trying to make sure that's a sustainable business. And I worry that I I see a lot of like outlot of retention ponds that I believe your team takes over on some of these bigger residential um development. So I'm trying to think of the this idea of a developer developing on you know into the lot and then having in perpetuity how he passes that responsibility on to the new owners. I don't know how that's going to work and has me u >> concern. >> All right. All right. Uh, great discussion. More discuss >> more discussion to come. >> You guys, you guys have what you need from us. >> I didn't hear anything specifically on the values of the transformation. So, I'm assuming you're okay with what? >> Yep. Yep. >> Sounds good. >> Sounds good. >> All right. All right. We're going to take an 8 minute break. Thank you. >> Thank you, gentlemen. college community expansive network of sidewalks and paths. So, someone had the foresight decades ago to ensure we were building sidewalks with new developments, which was great. Um we've continued to build out paths with both the flood control network and other recreational projects, but obviously as we've gone through this analysis, we still have gaps uh within the system. So >> as we're um working through our pavement management planning, you just recently uh approved the next half of the community for us to rate the street pavements. Um, we also want to look at adding on all of our paths to be able to go out and rate the pavement uh pavement of all of our current path network just to help inform going forward not only long-term maintenance but when do we when do we decide whether this next project being proposed is a good idea based on everything we have. So, um, you know, you know, and that comes down to both long-term just maintenance, but also we we continue to get more, uh, requests for winter maintenance, right? And and we've done a nice job between the public works and the parks teams. Um, the council gave us an additional position a number of years ago. We continue to grow the winter maintenance, but we still have, you know, complaints about winter maintenance, too. So, it's all part of the story. Um, as I get to the the funding slide, which was part of the CIA, um, we did add some >> a column to talk about policy. While you didn't ask for policy updates, there's a lot of policy questions that we need to be thinking about as we're um, looking at the data that we had. So, um, I do want to >> just level set here's what was in the the council initiated action. um refine what was a real quick uh analysis that was completed by the the GIS group um in conjunction with our our community development and public works teams um looking at prioritization based on street classification density collaborate with the pedestrian and bicycle advisory committee and our mode shift coordinator to improve criteria and then come back to you to present the results and uh talk about funding strategies. So, we worked as I noted with really a huge huge shout out to the GIS team. Uh they spent a lot of time uh you know digging into the different layers we have um and the criteria we're going to lay out today. Uh but worked with Irene's team, Tyler and myself and others in public works, but also we met parks. We reviewed this as it relates to the park system master plan to ensure we weren't in, you know, conflicting with what they're looking at long term. um connecting uh whether through parks or between parks as part of their overall system. >> So really tonight, >> you know, you know, want to get your feedback on the criteria uh the way we conducted the analysis. We we gave uh weighted or we did not weight it. We we scored things 0 to three, the different criteria I'm going to talk about. Um they were all weighted equally. So, um, you took you just scored it and we have the six criteria and you add it up and that's what'll you'll see on the mapping that we're going to share. >> Um, but I we'd like you to be thinking about >> are there other criteria? Are these the right criteria? Um, >> do you have certain waiting you want to put on one criteria or another or multiple that are that are higher than certain criteria? We did present this to the as noted in the request to the pedestrian bicycle advisory committee in April. They were in agreement with the six that you see. They did not have additional criteria that they wanted to to see considered. >> Other feedback from from that group was >> if there's further work desired by the council that comes out of tonight's uh discussion, um they would like to be involved and engaged in that process going forward. So, so I'll walk through the different criteria. Access to key destinations was um the first one. Um looking at grocery stores, schools, parks, child care, mixed use. You see everything listed here. So, we kind of broke it out in quarter mile chunks. >> The further you were away, the higher you scored from these key destinations. Uh next one was safety need. So we recently uh Roco completed a safety action plan and that plan identifies corridors throughout the community as tier 1, two or threeier. Tier one being the highest priority from a safety perspective and a need for improvement. So we use that um one two and three. So if it was a tier one, it scored the highest as a three um and you know reduced as it as it increased in tier. So um those tiers consider crash history consider the type of roadway and what you'd expect to see on those roadway and then also the feedback that Rokov received from the public as they were engaging around the different corridors within the community >> and the county honestly it was obviously covering the whole county >> seconds next to looking at um >> access to transportation options. So we utilized Minda has a priority areas for walking score u pause is the acronym. So we use we use that they it's something they've done statewide and and looked at walkability neighborhoods it rel as it relates to equity um >> environmental justice issues. So we use that um and and because we were able to get that data from MIDOT um the next criteria you see is is it how how does it relate to our primary uh transit network and ability to access transit. Um the further you were from the pime primary transit network the higher you scored because again more disconnected harder to connect to things. Um, next one was we looked at is it vacant land that's development ready so it can happen in the future with with that uh development of that land. Um, and and looking at working with the planning team on where do we have areas for future growth that we could, you know, identify projects that could fill these gaps. And then finally, similar to our sidewalk gap fill program, we used uh gaps um based on distance. So anything so that if you recall, the sidewalk gap fill is only 600 or less. So anything 600 or less scored zero or one. It was I don't have the exact breakdown. Um 0 to 2011 and then up to 600. But then anything greater than 600 scored two and then three. Um, so similar to gap, we looked at the gaps but in a broader range than the the sidewalk program >> with that each >> just are the criteria themselves weighted in any way? >> They are not. So that's something we want to hear. Do do you feel like one of these should be or multiple should be weighted higher than another? Um, we just went flat tonight. Um, >> okay. Again, this is our first run at slicing >> slicing this data. Um, you'll see some numbers ranging all the way up to 13 is the highest partial score and um have this being the first time you know I mean each of them has some sort of discontinuity if it's scoring some somewhere. So, um it's just that you'll see some that are much greater than than others throughout the different quadrants of the community. >> Just a question. Thank you for this review. It does feel like in line with the CIA. I guess one of the questions I had when we talked about this in November was how many people are impacted by the current gap. It is that encapsulated any way in these criteria like um if there are a thousand people and there is a disconnect is that parcel emerging in any greater way because there are more people disconnected from a destination the transit network etc. or would a parcel with a 10,00 unit residence or 10,00 unit apartment building score equally to a single family home? >> It is just based on parcel. So, it's not taking population into account. >> Okay. So, >> would it be possible in any way to take population into account either current projected? >> I'm going to defer to Miss Woodward. Yeah, we could add population overlaying of where there's um greater population density and put that in the map as well. >> Yeah, I guess I I would love to see something like that census track some sort of equity in that definition of equity uh consideration. Um but yeah, I think this this looks good. >> Okay, >> thank you. Um, so I'm just going to briefly >> I'd agree with having higher density areas like served technically first because it just makes sense, but before that for me would actually be safety just like if there's imminent safety concerns. I mean, obviously there's people that are disconnected, but their routes may be safer than the ones that maybe have 500, 200, because there are some areas I I'm genuinely concerned someone's going to get killed. I really am. And and you're happen to be close to on first slide, so I'll just let you talk. >> Yeah. And that would that would shake out because safety is again one of those criteria. So that depending on the corridor, it's it's going to score higher. Um >> Okay. Just quickly to clarify, are you advocating that maybe safety would get a higher weight? >> Yes. >> Against the other is headed with Okay. >> Definitely. >> Council Barbara Palmer. >> In the past when people have talked about safety and you say there's been no accidents and the reason that there's no accidents, we just avoid it. So that's kind of a a mixture that that kind of throws a monkey wrench into it. And and I agree with what Mr. Miller was saying about um the people served. I mean, how many? Because like at Bridge at Bridge View, that's a whole subdivision that can't get anywhere. And so that's more important to me than maybe one or two single family dwellings that So that's the safety thing that bothers me. >> And I don't Sorry. >> Go ahead, council member. And I guess to follow up on like council member Frederick's point of the people that aren't served by the transportation network are more likely to be um people without access to personal vehicles which are fully connected to our transportation network. Um but I would rate uh destinations particularly public schools as higher. That would be my preference is thinking about waiting destinations. So, particularly for um public schools that have a walk boundary of, you know, ranging from one to 1.5 miles or maybe I'm a little off on that, but if somebody is not able to access that key destination, particularly a student, I would like to see that weighted higher than somebody who is unable to walk to a a less essential service or or get to on the active transportation network. Again, that doesn't give you a specific criteria adjustment, but I I do think that our underserved by current transportation options really gets to my intent with the CIA to understand how many people are impacted and who is impacted, who who is cut off from daily life because of lack of access to transportation. And I think that there's probably somewhere in the census track data and also the school walk boundaries that are important in those destination in that access to destination frame. >> And I think I think we'll let >> I guess I correct I would just do schools. I wouldn't do whether or not they're private or not because like the math and science academy on 16th Street Southwest is a tough area to to walk and and you know I would hate to leave them out just because they're not a public school. So >> yeah, and that's we'll have another slide coming up that gets at some of that deeper dive that you know we could go into if there's desire >> desire to advance the the work we've done to date. >> So again I'm going to just quickly jump through. You can see that the reddish orang-ish yellowish those are the highest scoring parcels. So the most disconnected um blue being much um much more connected. Uh so here's southeast this this Marion Road sort of corridor which again township areas that were annexed that did not have the requirements to build sidewalks and like we would have had within our um city subdivisions and city code. Um so this is a you know this is an area that really lights up if you think of a sort of heat map and where it's scoring highly. Um northeast uh a lot of this area was obviously um connect or developed under the old land development manual where we would have required um sidewalks and that connectivity. So you know it's newer it but as you can see you get on the periphery you get areas that are um similar to some of the others that we've talked about already tonight that are are further um from both transit and everything else we've talked through with the criteria. And so there are some areas further northeast that along 48 that are not well connected. Northwest again was more in that you know 90s 2000s some of the newer developments in the community where we have access to safe places to walk to bike to connect to transit routes. Um not a lot of um areas that score as high in the northwest. you do see a couple areas, you know, kind of west of Highway 52 um that can be somewhat isolated. Southwest, we have some pockets in southwest again um areas that were township that were annexed, don't currently have sidewalks, there isn't there aren't paths, transit might be further away. Um and yet you have schools nearby that you know people can't safely get to if we even on this slide there's Bamber Valley isn't school very close to some of the orange and red you see another areas you know further southwest out towards the airport um just areas that were you know quite honestly some sprawl has occurred and out on the periphery of the community and they're well connected within their neighborhood but it's you know if you want to get somewhere where you're probably going to have to get into your vehicle to get there if it's it's far enough away. So, again, >> number Dylan, are there maps for the areas of Rochester that are not uh in the presentation? >> So, that's one one thing I was going to mention. Our GIS team developed a dashboard online so we we could provide if there's a desire access to the so you could it's all online. You could get in there. um we'll have to get you the access to the ARGIS online um work with um GIS group, but then you can scroll all over and really, you know, zoom in, zoom out. Um we just wanted to take some snapshots to to give you an idea of of what the mapping looks like. And then, you know, if we were to make updates, it's all sort of real time. um you run run the analysis and um it'll update the scoring and the colors and so it's pretty awesome what the team's put together quite honestly. >> Council member Fredericks, >> I just want to ask a question of the president and you guys. Is it the wrong time to address a couple things than those images that you just showed? Is it the wrong time? Is there going to be a better time? Because I don't want to get way in the weeds if we're going to just keep we need to keep rolling here. You can ask your question now. >> If you can go back to slide southeast, the one with the most orange and yeah, that one. Um, okay. Marian Road. First of all, we put in the new splash pad. Very nice. Mr. Miller and I have had this conversation. I really appreci his analytical abilities because I'm not that guy. So, it's great resource to have on this council. But, okay. Okay, on Marion Road, we put in that nice splash pad. To get to that splash pad from the east side, they got to go all the way down to Longfellow School, go across the street, and go all the way back up. It's not going to happen. There's going to be people going across that street. Uh, it's not cool. They're going I don't need to go into all the details, but I personally witness I live at the Marion Apartments on Marion Road. I watch, by the way, I love how much the basketball court's being used over there. It's being used a ton. It's awesome, and they seem to be taking care of it. So, I'm really happy to see that. Okay. 20th Street. Okay. People are walking on the road at dark and they're crisscrossing the street to try and avoid cars. Someone's going to hit them. People are on their phones texting and driving. I'm super concerned. Like I it's it's ugly because And then it's then it's like you say, it's a runway. People are driving 60 in on it. It's a 40 mph speed limit. Should be a 30 and spitt city limits there, you know. And I talked to the county about it. Oh, it's, you know, talk to the city, tell them to take it over. I get in this stupid back and forth. I did say that out loud. But it's like, do we do we genuinely care about these people? Do we really? Because look, it it is all disconnected and and people are walking on roads everywhere. Someone's going to get, you know, people that my biggest concern is I'm driving down the road and I'm seeing people like, "Oh my god, people are walking right there." So that's my concern. >> Yeah. and I >> aired it out and and it's and I'll talk about it all you want at a later date if you want to talk about it. >> And one of the the later slides I'll I'll mention some of those challenges that we you know as we do a deeper dive and identify barriers quite honestly but the Marian one is the splash pad is it's good you bring that up. We actually just met with the county yesterday. We're working on design for uh intersection improvement at the current signal by Longfellow as well as some improvements on the the where the old Longfellow access was. um to help people safely get across Marion Road. It's going to be something that'll come back in front of the council, county and city. It will be a joint 5050 project where county contributes 50%, city contributes 50% to that. So that that will come back to you. Um preliminary as we talked through it with them, we talked about a project hopefully we could do it next year. Um it's not currently in the CIP though. So that's >> because the kids in those communities are using the playground at Longfellow. They're using that splash pad. It's an active community with kids outside. >> That's >> Yeah. >> So, >> thank you, Council Member Council Member Miller. >> Yeah, I I appreciate Council Member Frederick's bringing that up. I've been very concerned about Marian Road and I would almost put a criteria presence of a county road as a criteria >> because I've talked extensively with our county commissioners about the fact that they do not have a complete streets policy even for streets that they control within city limits and it is a safety issue. Um, but I I also appreciate that Council Member Frederick's is bringing up uh children particularly who are vulnerable who are trying to access destinations for recreation and for school as again like a primary more important criteria because those are the like within a distance of that destination, the ones most likely to be trying to access it on foot, unable to access a vehicle to get there and most likely to be impacted by the safety conditions. Okay. Um, continuing moving along. So, this is the slide I did reference. So, if if we were directed to do a, you know, a deeper dive and refine what has currently been presented, you know, the sort of things we're going to look at are, you know, is it a topography challenge that's that's becoming a barrier to something? Is there an environmental constraint? Um, is it financial? Is it just a truly a barrier where we're going to have to do a some sort of grade separated crossing which those are not cheap? Is there a better alternative? Um external agency challenges. Is it a mindot highway? Is it a county road that you know we have to have willing partners to work through a project? So all of that we'd have to take into consideration. But really as we started to dig into funding considerations, you know, like I mentioned earlier, there are a lot of policy considerations that come with this because, you know, there's impacts to the current budget and where we're um allocating our funds to different pavement management and other projects. So, um we could just continue to allow these gaps to be filled with both future development like we noted where there's vacant land andor projects that we have that will um be presented within the CIP. Um we aren't recommending revamping the SID program. We don't think honestly the statute really would allow for it if we're going beyond sidewalks and there's a lot of areas where it's not abudding, you know, your frontage where it just isn't going to fit that program. Um, obviously grant opportunities, we always look for those, but we have to have in the back of our mind what is what is the funding source for that match because they usually don't have uh when it comes to construction and implementation, there's always going to be a 20% match typically um look at shifting um or expanding existing funding, but there's trade-offs and that's a lot of those policy considerations we have on the the right side of the screen. Um, we could modif we could talk about modifying the sidewalk gap program to include paths. Um, as we discussed with the parks department, as we identify projects that could fill some of these gaps that are in their parks master plan, we could talk with them about their referendum funding if whether that makes sense and whether it would be eligible funding source. But really a lot of the discussion is the right side of this the screen here as we think about the things you need to be considering with when it comes down to service priority funding maintenance and how do we want to grow um while it wasn't explicit in the CIA. We wanted to make certain that we we note these and you you're thinking about them um and what the different trade-offs might be. And I guess I would let Tyler and Irene add a little bit more to that if they'd like. >> Sure. Thanks, Dylan. Um, I'll go back to the bullet on the lefth hand side that was referenced about, you know, existing funding levels and trade-offs, right? Um, we have a lot of miles of path and sidewalk and street in Rochester that frankly we struggle to maintain where we're at right now. So, um, you know, while we want to make sure that all users have a safe experience in town and this heat map is concerning to us as well, we think about this in terms of what can we accomplish, right? Um, outside of existing funding levels, it's hard to pick winners and losers um against other priorities, right? That um we mentioned the SID program and if we pulled that in and tried to um rearrange that, they would probably, you know, another problem would show up within that program. Um, so we want to make sure that as we're presenting this, the the council's um, keeping all of those things in mind that we need to balance this against the things that are already occurring and the challenges we have in maintaining the paths we have now. Snow removal comes up frequently. Um, we don't currently have a very robust program to maintain the paths that we've built over the last decades. Um we've had a um pretty consistent um I would say commitment in the community to initially fund construction of paths, but we haven't had a very robust way to follow up with maintenance on a um you know reliable cycle. This starts to dovetail into other conversations about path maintenance which are coming to the council as well. But um you know to just look at the map and say we should go fill that gap seems um a little bit too straightforward. Um there's a lot of considerations that go into if we want to start chasing down some of these gaps. >> And I I I would just add you know we did a pavement management plan in 2019 and we've talked about this number. There's sort of this unfunded liability of 16 to 20 million. Sales tax we've you know we're generating estimated you know 3.1ish a year. So that helps reduce that unfunded liability. But you know, we're already struggling to maintain our roadway pavements. We're going to when we collect the second half, we're going to we intend to initiate an update to that pavement management program where we incorporate paths too, so we can understand how does it all play together and and yeah, and then it becomes, you know, are there trade-offs with pulling some back from our pavement so we can focus more on walking and biking and connecting. So those are the discussions we're going to need to have. Council member Wall, [clears throat] >> thank you. Most, not all, but most people would believe that their own neighborhood is the most important and the gap that they identify is that which will make it greater for the kids in the neighborhood or for other people uh transporting. Uh I just had a very thoughtful email from a fellow who recently moved to Ward three and identified an 800 foot gap uh that I passed on. Um it appears to me that there's a asphalt trail on the south side of the road but no trail on the north side of the road where he has witnessed kids uh traveling through waist high weeds and all. How do how do we deal with individuals and their perceived need for city action to better ensure safety especially for kids? Well, I mean, our team whenever we get those sort of requests a lot, you all know you get a lot of requests for intersection evaluations, pedestrian crossings, intersection control, whatever it might be, you know, our team's going to look at that and do an engineering evaluation and understand what makes the most sense. Is it something with that we have within a current program? Is it do we know we have an upcoming capital improvement project that will address it? um we take all that into consideration and you know prioritize and bring that back to you for projects. Yeah. So I told this uh person that we were his timing was great and we were going to be discussing that at a council meeting the next day. I think it was only yesterday. uh and I will report back to him uh our conversation here and I know that you will uh get to him and the email that I sent as well. Uh but this GIS thing I think might be uh kind of helpful to so that people can see the scope of the issue across the city and say well maybe my neighborhood >> ain't so bad >> isn't as bad as I thought it was. I don't know. Is that a possibility? >> Yeah. >> Can I just add something? I think the other thing that could be interesting because going back to the slide we looked at in Southeast Rochester, the way that the city developed is not consistent, right? We didn't develop Southeast Rochester. We inherited Southeast Rochester, which is great. We have a larger Rochester. We have water quality in a different way in that area. Um, but also it didn't develop to city standards generally. So being able to build sidewalks there could be challenging paths may be more likely and people that live in different areas as you're well aware from sidewalk gaps as well as trails. Um not everybody likes to have the trail or the sidewalk. So there's also that concept of how connected, where is it, are there key areas and being able to understand that could be helpful because getting to all of that red is really expensive. But are there key destinations where it's creates better connectivity but also in keeping with the type of neighborhood that is there which is more rural development. >> Yeah. And I should have shared this I um you know just looking back on a couple recent just path projects we're at 700,000 to 825,000 per mile. That's going to continue to go up. So, it's it, you know, these aren't we don't have endless funding to just really quickly fill all these gaps. Unfortunately, >> Council Member Palmer, then Council Member Miller, then Council Member Keane. >> I I appreciate the winter ones and and I get the biggest complaint is on the county road 22 where the county has a road and people complain because it's in the Rochester, we should plow it. Um, but saying that the one of the reasons for me doing the CIA was this this bridge view subdivision out in southeast Rochester. You either go on Highway 14 or you go on College View Road and we're building a new apartment building up there and the path is going to be put in, but it's going to end. And so you're just going to dump people at the end there. So that's frustrating that and I call it an orphan subdivision because it's built prior to 2008. things went to hell and and and we need to get this taken care of. And I didn't see it on the map on on it didn't come up on this one, but somehow we've got to do a better job of connecting when we put new apartment buildings up. One of the things you put in there was modified the sidewalk gap one is is is can we do sidewalk and do a path and and where do we make that determination? And I'm a little baffled by the the trails that that I've been on. I'd say 95% of them are in pretty damn good shape. probably the only exception is one at Seventh Street along um Silver Lake um by the old snow dump. Um but most of them are are pretty good shape that that I don't see where you know it's a big concern. I I think when we get when we can gather that the pavement rating, um it's it's going to show that we do have more challenges and imperfections in our path system than might be imagined and and not necessarily for the able-bodied person who can, you know, get over that heaved path that's got roots growing through it. But, um there's a lot of that that's occurring as I as I, you know, just move around the path system. So that's why we want to collect the data and really understand where our biggest needs are. Like if you go up by 41st Street, north side of on the south side of the street, but north of Target that I mean that's an example of a path that's in terrible condition. We had one like that in your Costco along West Circle Drive that the maintenance our maintenance team um repaired and and paid did an overlay and it's great now, but that one by Target is just another example of there. We had we do have some that are in near disrepair quite honestly. Well, the ones along the flood control project, aren't we using flood control dollars to fix those? >> We we are. So, you know, thankfully we we did a nice job when the flood control project happened to incorporate recreation into that and we have a a funding stream that helps with the maintenance along that corridor. >> So, go go back to my original question. This Bridge View subdivision, how do I how do I get into into Rochester? How do I get to RCTC where there are trails? There's trails right there at at Cing Road 20 East Circle Drive and and there's a path right there >> safely. You have to drive your car down to RCTC and and then rec, you know, recreate from that point on or and yeah, it's we have others as you could see as I was scanning through the map. Uh even some of those in southwest Rochester, you you get to Highway 63, you can't get past 52. Once we have the Willow Creek path project, that'll help some of that, but they're kind of isolated to to what they have in those areas. Um, at least they have some shopping and other amenities. >> Well, but at Bridge View, we're adding more as you go east. We're adding more houses. We're adding to the problem. And again, you're going to hit the school property and then the trail is going to end. It doesn't take much more to to to get that done. Can we force the school district to put put the path in? >> Okay, we have uh Mr. Neemire and then we're going to go to Council Member Bur. Council President, my comment was going to go back to a previous question, so I'll make sure that one that [clears throat] one gets answered. >> Uh I mean, we c we can't force them to to build pedestrian facilities there. And I mean, our typical approach would be when that project happens, as we noted, when the development occurs, that could be the point at which we achieve that. and you continue to work through these policy considerations and prioritizing certain areas and how much is reasonable to either not rep prioritize and adjust generally the tax levy in order to be able to pri provide some of those things. It probably doesn't happen overnight, but what are the ways that this council wants to prioritize any of those gaps? And what we're explaining is we have challenges with pavement maintenance, both road and trail. And it's likely that if you're going to fill gaps, you are going to increase costs both for capital for those. But you could come up with something that's reasonable. We've done this throughout the history of Rochester. It's how we got here today. Um, and we also want you to know that as you grow that system, we don't want to forget the maintenance cost of any capital that we put in because just because something looks great now does not mean that it will be in 20, 30, 40, and 50 years. So, if we plan ahead for that, then you don't have some of those cliffs. >> And I I still go back to Bridgeville. I got 600 houses or 600 people living out there that you can't you Highway 14 is your route. I don't think anybody wants a person walking along Highway 14. Well, I think if if you know if [snorts] we're directed to do a little some additional analysis, if we bring pop if I heard population is one that seems I'm seeing head nods like that probably will help get at, you know, as we rescore, we'll see where it then lands um compared to others. >> Okay, we're going to go to Council Member Palmer. I think you you made your point, Council Member Miller. >> Thank you. I just reiterate some of these points. I think as a next step, GIS map transparency is a great next step to make sure that people are able to uh us included understand the scoring how it lays out beyond these screenshots. I'm glad to hear that maintenance of uh pavement condition of trails is coming in. I even think about the the quality improvement that happened around Cascade Lake last year filling in the expansion joints. Much better experience. Um definitely would love to see how we incorporate population getting to people impacted census track and proximity to a school as like key parts of understanding who is more likely to be impacted by that gap in transportation. Um I think like key destinations definitely schools but to council member Palmer's example also RCTC Cory Hill Nature Center other destinations that are approximate but disconnected. um you know with our growth pattern. We just had this conversation at the DMC tour with the collaborative session looking at the potential of um new development of contributing to our tax base. And I would wonder with you know parkland dedication or other programs of working with developers how we um make sure that our system is connected uh even when a new development is our is benefiting from existing investments. So, we have great investments in the DMC district, a lot of investment incentive to grow there. Um, but my hope would be that that growth pattern helps us create a more robust connected system for the whole community because even if you live in that district, you were likely to want to use the Bear Creek Trail, the Douglas Trail, all of these places that go beyond, which goes to then the economic development aspect of this. We have the Med City Marathon, numerous 5Ks, the Med City Meander that all utilize this trail system and are planning their routes depending on where there is a quality connection to the trail. Um, my family and I did the 30-mi route on the Med City Meander this past weekend. We did not go into Northwest Rochester. Um, and I think the quality of connections in southeast Rochester, northwest Rochester are are different than than other parts of the city. And I I think understanding the connectedness um you know and understanding the the community benefit I would not s uh recommend that we modify the sidewalk improvement district model either but I think it does recognize that the benefit of a connected sidewalk network extends beyond the individual property owner to a district and I think this similarly a funding model should understand uh a community benefit to a complete connected and well-maintained trail network. And I I I hope we can move in that direction. And then you know as a final point and when we think about the jurisdictional challenges, Roco is a place where these different road owners, transportation network owners come together and I would just uh mention that the Homestead County parks and trails master plan process is happening. I hope that this process can at least help inform or create some opportunities for collaboration and understand how that project is directed and what recommendations it lays out so that we're working as a community and not saying, "Well, that's a county road, that's a county parcel, that's a school parcel." I think we have some partners in the space. Um, and I think uh I would think that Rochester public schools and other school systems have some uh shared values and uh safe access particularly for those students who are walking or biking to school and not generating a cost for busing as those boundaries have increased over time. So those are my points. I >> Thank you, Council Member. We're going to go to Council Member Keen and then Council Member Doring. >> Uh thanks. Yeah, I I uh really did find it interesting to see the maps and just to see that sort of thing. But um but I also realized as you said it was based on criteria. It wasn't weighted. And what I've heard from this meeting is like do we have the right weighted and the right criteria? I've heard public safety is obviously higher, but this whole thing about population and and I almost think it's like the trade-off between I is it reasonable to move to the outer edges of Rochester and say give me a clean connection to the to the networks and all that. Uh is it I mean I'm watching right now the amount of population moving west of 60th Avenue and that's going to be a probably a 40 50 mph street. It's we're we're and I look at this when when I heard my peers kind of going for this council action and we call it gap analysis. I think of gaps as not so much the the sidewalks as much as how can I get from this neighborhood to a safe trail head. Um, and there are places that it's really good. I mean, slightly difficult to do that, but to me, getting access to those and getting on a trail and then I know we've done some some investments over the years of trying to say once you're on the trail, we try to keep it connected. We don't we don't have places where you just run out of sidewalk or jump in the street. There are places like that. Um, but I do want to get into in my view of gaps. A lot of times I think of it as um West Circle Drive, Highway 52. I consider them walls that are blocking population from one side to the other. And there's a lot of those that sort of like how do I get to these assets? Um it's different than the criteria we used right now. Um it's it it's different because I think we will see those older neighborhoods who are built without sidewalks saying that's where the investment needs. And I I guess I would want more understanding before we did something like that. Um I don't I um I I think there's a I council member Palmer talked about we owe that to them to get to the city resources. I understand that. But these are also people who are deciding to be on the edge of town. And I've had these hard discussions about you can't move out to that area and expect a city bus for, you know, three times an hour. It's just it's just we're not a big enough community to do that. that and I think the the trail thing is going we're going to run into that. Um I also want to be careful having these discussions outside of the constraints of a budget discussion. I really like that you put in these funding considerations, but it's easier to say we got to do all this stuff when it's we're not looking at trading off against street quality and we're probably already looking at a seven and a half% levy thing. So, um I worry that we get too now let's do this, now let's do this. And I think we have to kind of like pull back our our our interest to make sure we're doing the right things, but the things we can do within a reasonable budget instead of sending this team off to like let's go through and redo this, reduce, and we'll look at the maps and look at the maps and then say, are we going to change the cap from 9 million to 11 million? I I don't think we're going to. Um, so that's the kind of stuff that makes it hard on me. I really like the idea that this uh one of the things that was talked in there is like using these other resources like the the bike and pedestrian, but also we have a mode shift like on staff now. We have to bring those to bear on this and get to the point that um you know I might peruse the community and hear from certain people but we should have professional opinions on these are the five biggest problem areas or these are the areas that if if um if we had an extra we're going to do an investment in 2027 these would be the ones and some not just criteria is good but also like get that professional judgment. So thanks >> thank you council member council member Doring. Yeah, I was going to echo a lot of what uh Council Member Keane just said. Uh that being said, I would argue that just because a sidewalk or a trail exists doesn't mean there's not a gap for members of our community. I'm thinking in particularly those who are have mobility challenges, right? So, I really appreciate the sidewalk improvement district uh implementation to address some of those concerns. Uh, but I would love to bring in a a a professional who who deals specifically with that population to help identify where the gaps are in our system that don't allow people to recreate if they have uh mobility issues. Um, I think that would be >> existing. Yeah, totally existing. Not even new. Uh, I think that would be a fascinating u overlay along our our map as well. Thank you, council member. I just want to echo some of a lot of what I've heard. I think, you know, safety and density are important uh waiting factors and I really liked uh council member Keen's idea of really you folks, the professionals come back to us and say these are the priority areas. We heard, you know, impassioned uh plead from council member uh Frederick's on along Marian Road. We heard uh uh council member Palmer and the connection across from RCTC and there are others. Uh, but to see the heat map, I mean, it is scary, but I think we need a lot more prioritization if we're going to say, "Okay, we're going to trade something off because this this area really has some safety concerns and it's got a density of of traffic there, whether it's uh pedestrian traffic or or uh gaps from uh pedestrian cycling. So with that, uh, Council Member Miller, >> and I guess a final comment on the funding as well. When I think of one of the reasons that my intention of bringing this forward with Council Member Palmer was to highlight the the gaps and the challenges and the current conditions because we will have budget discussions, which obviously are important. We will also set our legislative priorities. And the reason that we have sales tax funding going to road maintenance and road condition is because we made that a legislative priority, went to the legislature and got an alternate funding source to maintain part of our roads and help uh close that gap in deferred maintenance. So, I I think having this discussion, it doesn't obligate us to a certain expense, but it helps us get us a better handle around what where we are today and what this future vision is for our community and how we close that gap over time or those gaps as it were. So, thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Balmer. >> Oh, go ahead. I'm sorry. Um, Parkland Parkland dedication. We're looking at maybe adding trails to that and I think community development and parks is working towards that. The other one is is one of our priorities was to change um right now you have to subdivide property to to get parkland dedication. So for example the old YMCA site they contributed nothing to Parkland and and somehow we've asked for that to be done and we need to work together to get that done but adding trails to Parkland dedication would be helpful. Miss Woodward, >> I I just want to note that um it was an action plan item to look at parkland dedication. So um the parks department and community development have had some initial discussions. We will be coming back before council to kind of review high level policy in terms of what needs to be incorporated into parkland dedication. What we currently have is existing and what are those options. So that is something that we're working to get on the calendar. >> Do you have a timeline on that? July, >> not quite July, but we were we're identifying a couple calendar options and working together to get something on the calendar. >> All right. Thank you, gentlemen. Great report. Great discussion. Uh, next study sessions, Miss Zelms. >> Thank you, clerk. I so appreciate your help when I don't have this open. Um so your next study session is on the 8th of June and um you will have an update for the fire strategic plan um and some information they had from an overview that they did, excuse me, an operational review that they did. um a discussion about Mayo Field and um the obviously there will be a new site north um with the joint maintenance facility that then provides some opportunities for you to discuss the general area that is the current parks maintenance facility as well as Mayo Field and then um a 2026 legislative session update. Um and I just did want to note that it looks like we will potentially be going over that evening on the ETH. um we do have some um need to meet in closed session. So um I'm hoping that you will consider that for your calendar timing. All right. Thank you. We are adjourned.