uh indoor recreation financing options and then we'll wrap it up with persons experiencing homelessness update. >> So with that I will uh turn it over to Jason Boon who is with uh Cohen Resnik and uh to discuss our audit. >> All right. Hello, Mayor Norton, Council President Schubbring, council members, um Jason Bon from Coen Resnik, uh here to uh review the results of the 2025 audit of the city's financial statements. Um I've got a slide deck of about 50 slides or so here. Um I'm going to move pretty expeditiously through them. We're going to take kind of a real high level, you know, look at at the activity for 2025. Uh but certainly as we go through if you have any specific questions don't hesitate to stop me and uh we'll address those at the point. I do have if anybody needs paper copies I do have those as well if anybody would like. So all right so advance the slide here. >> The clicker. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. So, we are issuing an unmodified opinion on the city's financial statements. Uh, many refer to that as a clean opinion. Just it means that based on the work that we did, our team did, uh, we feel comfortable issuing or, um, saying that the financial statements are fairly stated in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Uh just a reminder for council, there are a couple elements within the city's financial report that our firm conresnic did not uh audit. Uh that was the electric and water utility funds and the uh DMCC which is a blended component unit by accounting standards. Okay. So we they were audited by other auditors who issued unmodified opinions on their financial statements and then we rely on that opinion that they on the work that they did in issuing our overall opinion on the financial statements. Um the city does participate in the GFOA's certificate of achievement uh for financial excellence in financial reporting program. So that was a program started by the uh GFO many years ago to encourage governments to go above and beyond the minimum reporting requirements to provide more information more detail in their annual financial report and so the city participates in that. Uh we are submitting that for the 2025 report. Uh but we also did for 2024 we received the award uh which I think it was the 54th year in a row uh that the city has received it almost back to the beginning of the program I think. So that just demonstrates continues to demonstrate the city's commitment to quality financial reporting. In addition to issuing the opinion on the financial statements uh we are required to perform a special federal program audit. So this is uh procedures that we have to do just on federal grant dollars based on the volume that the city gets of federal grant dollars. Uh and this specific pre procedure is making sure we're in compliance with federal requirements. So uh we will do that in July August time frame and then we'll issue that report prior to his due date at the end of September of 26. And lastly uh we did sit down last week last Monday with the audit committee. Uh we went over the results of the audit. Um, we talked about accounting standards kind of both current and and future ones that are coming and reviewed the auditor's responsibility letter and I want to thank the uh people that participated in that audit committee for for meeting with us. Uh, that's a quick summary of the audit. Uh, everything went fine. We didn't have any issues that we feel like we need to bring to council's attention today. So we like to take this opportunity then since um um we've completed the audit procedures to then again take a look at kind of the highle uh review of the finances for 2025. So we are looking back in the rearview mirror, right? Uh but it'll give you some context and and uh uh some additional information as you move into your other discussions as we go on. So we're going to start out with governmental fund types and they're listed there. uh your general fund, your special revenue funds which have specific purposes for tracking them separately, our CIP fund, and then our debt service funds for the bonds, servicing of the bonds, and then we'll switch over to proprietary funds, which are enterprise funds, which are the utilities and the internal service funds. Um these are both are accounted for differently. They're full cruel accounting versus governmental accounting on the governmental funds. And then enterprise, um those types of funds are external customers. So the parking electric are all servicing for or providing services for external customers whereas internal service fund as the employee name implies is is utilized within the government itself. So getting her to click forward here. >> Oh, I'm too far ahead. Okay. I'll trust it and you'll tell me if it's not. All right. Um so first chart we're looking at here, chart five, um general fund revenues and expenditures. And just a little housekeeping before we start getting into the numbers. Um couple things. The most of the charts that you're going to see are are going to be pretty similar. They're they're grouped by year with three different columns with multiple information in each column. uh and the columns are generally going to be your revenues or sources of funds, your expenses in the second column and then uh the surplus or a deficit in any particular fund would be the last column. Some of the charts we add a fund balance column on there as well. Um the other thing you might notice if you've been in past presentations we did um we used to present about 10 years worth of data. Uh but we added you can see there's a table there'll be a table on every chart with the data underlying the chart. Uh so that's the information the numbers underlying the chart. uh and to comply with the new digital accessibility requirements. Uh we had to add that but that took up a little bit more real estate on each slide. So we we decided to reduce our presentation from 10 to 5 years. All right, starting out with the general fund. So looking at 2025 funding sources, uh we're about 133 million for 2025. uh that's made up of property taxes uh which was about 76 million uh in the purple in the blue uh is other revenues things like intergovernmental revenues grants we get from the federal and the state um license and permit revenue building permits charges for services the lodging tax investment income those are all aggregated in that category and then the yellow at the top of the bar there is is in of tax payments received from the utilities and that's detailed out in the third bullet there in the in the descriptions So a total of 133 million revenues or expenses were about 126 million and we had transfers out of 4 million. So we had about 130 million going out left us a surplus then in that first bullet of about 3.6 million. Uh the revenues did see an increase there in the second bullet of about 13 million. Uh the primary revenue increases were property tax levy was a $7.8 million increase which is about 11% increase over the year before. Overall, the levy increased by about 10% but 11% went to the general fund. Uh charges for services revenue was up about two million. Some of the big item there were um revenues received for offduty security services by I think police officers as well as plan check fees. License permit increase is primarily going to be building development, building permit activity increase of 1.1 million. And then countying standards, we had a police department entered into a software arrangement, a 5-year software arrangement. And when you make a commitment like that uh to pay those, it's going to be paid out over five years, but we're required to recognize the gross revenue and expense in the year of of the con signing of the contract or the agreement. And so that was it's showing as revenue of $2 million, but then there's corresponding expense of the same amount that's going to be in the expenditure section. Uh the expenditures in that next bullet increase by um $14 million. The largest amount there would be in public safety. that was up about 9.9 million. Combination primarily of police and fire. Uh fire was up 1.2 million but police was up eight and a half million uh for the year. Um part of that 8.5 million is that $2 million software contract uh that we are required to recognize. But then the remainder of that a significant chunk of that was employee related costs which included normal wage increases but we also did market uh adjustments during the year um for those in the police department. Um and then public works was up um 1.7 million. That was primarily maintenance related. And then general government 2.1 million uh which about a million of that was bold forward unbound related costs. And then information systems and human resources were each up about a half million. So the surplus then for the year was about $3.6 million. Uh that increased the fund balance. Then um did click forward. You want to run it for me? Okay. Uh did increase our fund balance from 50 uh about 54 million to 58 million. Uh but our expenditures with that increase in police costs and other costs uh increased at a a larger percentage than the fund balance percentage. And so our total percentage dropped from 48 to 46%. Um on the 2025 expenditures, our policy is 42% now less than five months or obviously above that. Uh but if we also look at another metric in that last bullet there, um if you look at the fund balance at the end of 25 compared to 2026 budget expenditures, we're right at that 42%. So if we're looking at it at compared to next year's expenditures, if you want to go to the next chart, um one of the reasons we set that 42% range and there's several reasons, but one is for cash flow purposes and uh this chart just demonstrates that. So property taxes, which is a major uh revenue source within the general fund um only comes in in June and and December. So we have to fund all the operations of the government. And so this just shows you the cash balance within the general fund each month until the dollars come in for for tax levy and start the cycle over again until levy dollars come in. So that's one of the reasons that we set that 42% target. Moving on from the general fund, um special revenue funds. Again, these are all listed here. Um we don't have a chart necessary on all of them, just on the larger ones. Uh if you want to go to the next chart. So we'll start out with the library. Library revenues this year were about 10.4 4 million expenses were were pretty similar. So the library operated at a surplus overall of about 36,000. So their fund balance didn't change much went from 3,621 to 3,657. Uh the revenues for the library are primarily from tax levy. So in the blue there, property taxes and then in the pink color that would be county uh levy. And just in that third bullet, a reminder that the county levy is only levied on properties outside of the city. So, we're not doubling up on levy for the library. And then user fees. Uh, so not a lot of user fees generated, but about a half a million dollars in the green at the top. Uh, so their fund balance ended the year at about $3.65 million, which is about 35% of their expenditures. Next up is municipal wreck. Municipal wreck uh includes all those activities in that first bullet there. Uh, so rec center, golf, parks. So this is all of it combined together. Then we'll we'll break down into a couple of of individual departments within there. But overall for the fund for municipal w fund, we had revenues of 17.5 million, which is about 11.2 million in property taxes and then $6 million in fees that we charge for for those activities. And then expenses were about 16.8 million in total. Uh so we had a surplus then of about 627,000 for the year. That increased the overall fund balance from about 3 million up to 3 almost 3.7 million. that worked out to be about 23% of expenditures. Um, and so I think this was one we've kind of been monitoring. Um, so back in 2021 after some years prior to that where we did some transfers out for capital purposes, we were at about 14% of fund balance. Well, we we've increased about 9% over the last four years. Uh, so um that's up to 23% at the end of 2025. So drilling down then within um the next. Okay. Um one of the departments, excuse me, my screen's not matching up with that. So confusing. Uh recreation department. So revenues. So the green are the user charges. So that's what we can charge for um operating out of the rec center. Uh the dark blue obviously is expenses and light blue is property tax levy. So if you look at it the what we charge there doesn't cover the cost. So we have to allocate levy to help support that. So revenues were 1.8 million expenses 1.7. So we have enough allocated levy for 2025 and we had about $99,000 surplus after property tax support. You go on to the next one. Graham Marina. Grammarine is a little different in that the um uh the shortfall, if you will, between user fees and costs are split equally between the county and the city. Okay? So, the city uh levies property taxes based on what they expect their contribution is going to be for the year. That's in the blue. The yellow is what we charge the or allocate to the county for the the the deficit. And then the if there's a little shortfall there, that's again the city contribution meaning we didn't have enough levy to to to cover those costs. uh revenues were um we did see an increase in user fees there aboutund 840 or excuse me 100 120,000 up to 842,000 but our expenses were up as well to offset that. Next up is golf. Golf is again revenues in the green. We're about 2.1 million. We do levy about 275 274,000 in property taxes there. Expenses were higher in 2025 so our deficit was about 243,000. Uh we looked at that expenditure increase uh was related to primarily employee costs. They um uh implemented new software. They did additional advertising and then the we'll look at this when we get to the equipment revolving fund, but their charges for uh vehicle and equipment charges were increased in 25 as well. Uh their revenues then the 2.1 million does cover about 80% of their costs overall though. And then last in the municipal wreck is park forestry and parkway maintenance. Uh so their revenues predominantly we don't charge a lot for using the park system. So property taxes help to cover the cost of maintaining uh the parks and then we do get a little bit of user fees of about 500,000 there. Uh but the amount of levy that we allocated um was in excess of what we needed uh by about 999,000. You can see in that last bold. So that's municipal wreck. Uh next up is airport airport. So this is just the operating revenues that we generate out at the airport. Okay. So the red represents commission revenues which is primarily parking lot and car rental commissions. Um and it amounted to about 2.5 million in 2025 up from 1.6 million in 2021. But just for some flavor if we go back to 2019 which isn't on the chart but our commission revenue was about >> Mr. Bon can you hold for a minute? Council, >> I just want to I I had some questions on parks if if is now is the right time or should we wait? Nope. >> Again. >> Sorry. Go ahead. >> Yeah. I I I want to understand just when you um there seems if you go back to your original there's these are subgroupings underneath the overall um municipal wreck and then there is that fund balance there. But I don't think the individual subpieces have their own fund balance. >> I don't know. Do they? the individual sub pieces do not all have their own fund balance. Um, golf would be the there's a few that have are an exception. >> Could you state that again, please? >> Yes, I can. So, the individual subgroups do not all have their own fund balances. um rec center, golf, grand marina, national volleyball center would have their own fund balances. >> Okay. And then they show up in their own fund balance or are they reflected in this municipal wreck balance? >> They're all rolled into municipal wreck system when it comes to looking at the financial report. >> Okay. And management wise, this is controlled at the park board and the park uh uh superintendent and whether whether funds get taken out of um recre out of uh municipal wreck fund balance. That would be decisions by that board and by that or is that where is that controlled and when the spending is out of the out of the municipal wreck fund balance? What is the business control? >> Mr. Whitman >> the few times that we uh do request a fund balance, it is presented for the park to the park board for approval. >> Okay. I I mean I'm going to note that it's really nice to see the fund balance come up over the years. It it makes me feel like we're under better control than we were. Uh but the one that I don't understand is Graham Marina because this is an area where it's we are sort of like helping someone else run a facility but then when we do deficit spending I'm unclear how that works. Does that come out of our fund balance then or how does that work when it's somebody else's initiative that we're working with? I'm trying to understand the um I understand that there's nominal uh levy that goes into it, but when I see us running deficits, I'm unclear if that's above and beyond what the levy spending we're doing is or where that comes from has come out of the wreck wreck um fund balance >> that uh well it reflects the agreement we have. We do we do at the end of the year we uh we share the deficit and uh if there is a if we in many years we we uh go beyond or we we actually are profitable and uh that's also reflected in the agreement how that is divided. >> Okay. Um let me I'll step away from this. I'm just I I I understand as we went through the different groupings but this one feels different because this is not an area that we run and control. it's somebody else is running it. So, this idea that it appears that we get revenue from the county. I I I can't get my head around it, but I I'll leave it for separate. I just wanted to bring it up as just to make sure I understand it. And factually, I guess I don't right now. So, I'll I'll do a followup with that. >> Thank you. >> If I could just add just real briefly. Um, so the way we present the chart, um, we show what the actual tax levy was that we originally decided before the year even started. >> Yep. >> Okay. That gets allocated. So we don't show the city putting additional money in to cover their 50% share. We just show that as being we didn't levy enough. That's why you see the deficit. But that deficit is split equally between. Now if you want to go back to the agreement and have that discussion about why we're covering part of the deficit, but that's the way the agreement was written. >> I I guess my problem is if this is a a program that's run out of the wreck fund balance, then I could see us that balance going up and down based on this agreement. What I'm struggling with is that is is that I feel like it's the county property that's doing that operation and we're providing the the labor or the expertise for running it. So, I I'm uncomfortable with that uh how how that ends up drawing money out of that fund balance where it's not levy spending, but it is city money going to there to run an operation. >> Do you want me to explain more or not? [laughter] >> Clear. There's a question but not an answer. This agreement and versions of it go all the way back to 1970s >> I think before that. I think there is an agreement all the way back from like the 50s. Uh so we jointly built the facility with the county and the hockey association or whatever it's called men Rochester hockey. Uh we operate the facility. We the county currently pays all of the capital like and reinvestment in the facilities because they own the facilities. The city share does the operation. So, we have control over how we're operating to a degree, but we also are required to operate relative to this series of agreements and all the funding sources for building the facilities and we could jointly change the rates etc. um to charge more. But some of this is unrelated to like this is whether we were operating it or the county was operating it there. I think there one of these years has the purchase of a Zambon in it. So some of those operational expenses and those are shared with the county when you go over. So I appreciate your cons not loving how it works. However, it probably is muting the cost because you have no capital cost in here as far as the facilities. So like if you owned the facility and operated the facility, then we would also have capital costs unless we had some sort of an agreement where someone else paid for all of the capital. Um, so that's part of that sharing agreement is that the facility investments happen through the county. >> Okay, last question. It would it be fair when I look at this chart and I see the negative uh $19,000, does that come out of the wreck fund balance and where does it go to? Does it go to I mean I there there must be some concept of a group that runs the rec center and I think that's the county but >> the city operates the rec center through the parks department. The county owns the facilities. So that black not levying enough for the total green yellow of the big blue bar. It just goes to any of the expenses within the blue bar. We could probably isolate exactly what that was. Like maybe cost of employee services. We maybe someone left and wasn't taking health insurance, someone came. We always budget for that. But like there could be an employee payout because somebody retired, for example. >> All right. I I I think I I think I understand it as a unique beast and I'll I'll go from there. >> Council member Miller. >> Yeah. Just following up on these fund balances. I'm glad to see the balance going up too, but it does seem like the property tax support is going up faster than the fund balance. So, I'm just curious uh like some of the other ones, do we have targets for the municipal wreck fund? How are we deciding how much additional property tax levy? I know it breaks down into other areas, but it does feel like we're just transferring property tax levy at a higher rate, which is making the fund balance go up for the overall I mean when the general cost of service goes up, generally the main source of revenue that you have to cover the cost of those services is tax levy unless there's an opportunity to increase the fee revenue and at some point the fee revenue has to also meet the market. So if the fee revenue is too much, for example, if we had a scholarship program for folks that the place where you would likely be able to raise funds for that is through the tax levy. So or you would need to shorten the hours, utilize it less, have less employees, have less level of service, things of that nature. >> So as employee costs go, like some of that is probably just the cost of employment going up. Not saying that that's simple, but the the reality is to mute that you would end up needing to have it less available, more fee revenue or >> Yeah. I guess looking at one of these facilities, the rec center, you see property tax support going up, customer charges going down, direct expenses up, and we still have an excess after tax support. But I mean, how do we look at the performance? How does the park department, park board look at the performance? of these individual areas. You uh [clears throat] we uh we adjust or look at the fees and programs that uh are going to be offered during the upcoming year and set our performance measures during that time. Uh generally we present that in front of the park board and um and uh we as uh administrators Elms mentioned we we do take a look at the fees but we're very careful to not outpace that above what uh the residents uh what our community can uh offer to offset the cost of the programs. And then I guess from a a performance standpoint, do you look at subsidy per user in any of these areas? >> Yes, we are working on that's one of the things we're working on right now is to set a uh revenue policy as it uh reflects on every program. And uh that policy looks at uh you know focusing on youth and senior programs as kind of the uh most subsidized activities that we offer as well as the park system in general keeping that as use uh fee uh free as possible. Uh and u then we you know tar upwards when it comes to golf, tennis and other activities. >> Sure. And as you develop those, would we expect to see just updates on kind of the level of tax support going in per user kind of understanding? And the the reason I ask is because most of these graphs look fairly stable over time, but it looks like golf operations is taking a dangerous shift upward faster than some of the other ones. And I'm just curious again like how we're looking at levy subsidy per user of that area of wreck. >> Yes. It's it's not reflected in the information you've received thus far. Uh we do a report to the park board annually showing uh our um uh cost per uh per activity as it relates to the luxury we receive. I think it's just also important to note that 2025 is likely an anomaly because we had an employee that was out on a extended medical leave and then also a retirement. So there's a payout that's in there and there's also temporary positions that backfilled that position. >> Okay. Ju just to add to council member Miller's point or part of his point which I heard was from a council standpoint if we're looking at the property tax support and we're looking at the customers charges and if we see see an imbalance there we're that's where we're going to we're going to dig in and I think from a council standpoint whether it's this fund or other funds If there's some way that we can have a dashboard where we can see how much uh levy support we're giving and how much uh how much uh fees that we're getting uh getting for that and if there's a a disparity there we that's where we're going to ask questions. So with that I think we were on the airport. >> Okay. So, it's on chart 15. So, I'll just kind of start over there. I think I was into it a little bit, but uh the red represents commission revenues. Uh $2.5 million in 2025. Uh that's primarily parking lot and car rentals. Uh I was mentioning that in 2019 our commission revenue prior to the pandemic was about $2.5 million. So, we've just gotten back to where we were pre- pandemic, but passenger traffic has not gotten back to where we were pre- pandemic at the airport. So, that's just generating additional fee revenue uh to get back to that point. Uh land and building rent in the yellow, that was 1.7 million. Landing fees in the green of 1.1 million. Uh that increased from 23 to 24. They instituted a new general aviation landing fee, which they didn't have previously. And then the gray I just want to point out is um other revenue, but it's primarily in that second to last bullet there. We got federal funding at the airport following the pandemic to help supplement costs there and it's been around 1 1.1 million each year. Well, 2025 is the last year that they're going to receive that funding. So that so next year when we look at this data set, um it's going to look a little different there. uh the chart uh airport operations overall on chart 16 then so revenues again the yellow is the operating revenues that we generated at the airport I just showed you on the previous chart we do levy about 600,000 toward the airport uh in that bullet there to cover the cost of utilities and customs and then the uh pink on the top is the investment income generated on the fund bats reserves the expenses in the blue we did a transfer out of about 400,000 I think for some hanger purchases uh but we ended up with a surplus of about a million and a half that then increased our fund balance on the next chart. Uh and the airport currently has about $15.2 million in fund balance at the end of 2025. And this is just the operations fund. There's a separate airport related CIP fund in included in the capital improvement uh fund. So that was airport moving on to transit next. So transit revenues in 2025 were up slightly at 15.5 million in total. Our expenses were about 15.1 million. We had about $350,000 surplus. In transit, that increased the fund balance. So, here's one where we added the fund balance in gray uh to 5.6 million. Um, if we look at the breakdown of the revenues, uh, just a reminder, transit, there's no property tax support that goes toward transit. It's all funded through federal and state grant dollars. Uh, as well as rider fees in the orange and then investment income, uh, primarily in the other income in the green. Uh so about almost just shy of 90% of the cost of of transit is covered through federal and state grants. Next up is the bioscience center. So this is floors four through eight. So the lower floors were tiff related. Uh this is 4 through 8. So we generate rental revenue there from net operations and then we use that to pay debt service for the construction of the building. So rental revenues were 2.6 million roughly about the same as the year before. uh and expenses were up a little bit at 1.7 million. So we had a surplus before we transferred out, which is the orange section for debt service. Uh we did increase that transfer out in 2025 by about a half a million dollars over the previous year to to help pay back in inter loan between um the the bond fund and the parking fund when we did a defeasence a number of years ago. Um and so that'll happen. And I think I don't know if that's going to be over three or four years that that'll probably be be paid back. Fund balance still though after that extra transfer was at 2.5 million at the end of 25. Those are the special revenue funds that we are covering. Next up is debt service. We're just going to look at these are all the individual bonds. Uh just kind of the outstanding balances of those bonds. So the first chart 21 is our EDA. So these are bonds issued by the EDA. uh they were for primarily for the bioscience center uh those top floors as well as uh we issued in 2020 a bond for the development services infrastructure center in the north precinct and so we're paying those back with rents in the case of the bioscience center and then uh through um levy to support the lease payment between the EDA and the city uh for the other bonds we owe in total combined between the two about 22.6 6 million uh 209 bond we issued this was for the TIFF portion of the bioscience center uh and we were able to pay that off in 2025. The TIF bond of 2017 uh was issued for uh construction of parking ramp six um and we're paying that back then with combination of increments as well as transfers from the parking fund. Uh that's paid down to 15.7 million at the end of 25. Uh we issued in 2010 some Build America bonds for construction of the public works and transit ops campus. Uh we refunded that in 2020. So that's the bond we're looking at here. Uh we owe about 13.2 million. Um and that'll be paid off in 2036. Uh we have lodging tax revenue bonds for the Mayo Civic Center expansion that were issued in 2015. Uh we paid those down. We owe 22.7 million at the end of 25. uh that reduction in 25 you can see was larger as we did have an additional principal payment that we made of about 5 million sales tax revenue bonds for the uh last sales tax authorization they were issued in 2015 and we were able to pay those off in 2025 as well with sales tax proceeds and lastly we've last three years we've issued abatement bonds in 2023 we issued bonds for park improvements at the pool soldiers uh field pool, Silver Lake, and other park improvements, and we're paying that back through that extra $2 million referendum levy that the park and wreck uh gets. Uh the 24 bonds were issued for the geothermal improvements that we did with the city buildings. And then the 25 bonds were issued to relocate the park maintenance building out to the public works and transit ops center. That was the only new bond issue uh this year was about $1 million. Sewer project has a big project going on, sewer fund. um that is drawing more debt down, but it wasn't a new debt. It was already established. And then lastly on the obligation side is just aformational chart for the net pension liabilities. So the city participates in PER for the employees. Uh it's a multi-employer plan. All the governments participate and county standards say that if they're underfunded or overfunded, we're required to show that on our financial statements. So it's our prora share. They do an actial study every year. Uh, but I'll just point you to the funding percentages in the last bullet there. They're based on their last acturial study, which was last June. Uh, they think they're over 90% funded for both the general fund and the police and fire fund. Next up is capital projects or CIP fund. Uh, this is just the fund balance. So, the fund balance didn't change uh significantly. It was 311 million for both years. Uh, but there was a lot of activity that happened during the year. Um so some uh dollars were spent, some were brought in. Uh so that bullet there lists out the of that 311 million. This is kind of where the dollars are earmarked for. Uh whether by council or whether restricted. Um so significant changes during the year. We spent about 14 million down in our infrastructure sales tax projects uh balance. We spent about 9 million in highways and streets down. Um this is just a reduction in that set aside. Um, park and wreck was down 7 million. Uh, but they were all offset by DMCC, which had a $32 million increase in that balance there. And that's sitting at 152 million at the end of 2025. Okay. Enterprise funds. So, we'll start out with parking. So, parking uh revenues, you can see there were about 10.6 million. That's made up of user fees of about 9.7 million, which was a an increase of about 1.6. 65 million uh and that's in both ramps and in non-metered uh parking. Uh so we had a change in our rate structure that occurred which um was in part parcel to the increase in the revenues there. Expenses were up a little bit as well. 7.2 million expenses. They have their inla tax payments of 800,000. And then debt service, as I mentioned earlier, they're they're transferring out to the bond fund to support the debt service on the parking ramp six construction. Uh surplus then for the year was about 1.4 million which added to uh their unrestricted net position which they have about 15.5 million at the end of 25. Next is electricity utility fund RPU. uh revenues there were 218 million made up of retail, wholesale, steam and capital contributions expenses were 172 million. So they had a surplus of 46.6 million in 2025. There was a 4% rate increase uh growth in in customers as well. If you look at water on the next chart, then water revenues increased quite a bit, but it was primarily in two areas. Uh one is in the in the pink there. their revenues. They they receive some settlement income during the year. Uh that added to there uh and then a capital contributions at the top which is a combination of developers who uh pay for infrastructure and then contribute it to the water fund for them to take care of after that or the city also does that where we pay for it in the CIP and then we'll transfer some of it to the water. Expenses were up a little bit. We had a surplus then because of that increased capital contributions of about 14.5 million in water. And then if you look at the next chart, their cash reserves. So the purple represents their unrestricted cash investments for both electric and water which was 162 million. And if you want to compare it to their total expenses, they had 185 million. Um and of the 162 million in cash about 146 is electric and about 16 million is water. But on the electric side, they are building cash reserves, I think, toward the end of their contract with Simpa and the capital needs that they're going to have um moving forward there as well as servicing their existing debt. And I think they have some significant capital that's going to take place in 2026. Sewer utility. Um, so revenues, operating revenues in the orange, other income in the green, and then capital contributions, again, developer and city contributions, uh, expenses. So, total revenues were about 50 million, expenses were about 23 and a half. Uh, so we had a $26 million surplus, um, including those capital contributions and other income. But if you go to the next chart and take a look at, so the green represents our cash balances there, and yellow is our operating expenses. But the cash, even though we had that surplus, we didn't see it necessarily in cash because they have a pretty significant project going on there with the revitalization. Um, it's a $90 million project. We're issuing debt for about 72 million of it. Uh, and then we're going to cover about 18 million of it within the fund reserves itself. Storm water, their revenues haven't had a rate change for a while there. So, but um we get uh user fees as well as investment income in the green which is in the primary portion of the other revenue and then capital contribution again from developers and city uh and so that fluctuates from year to year but for 2025 we had about 15.5 million in revenue and a surplus there about 6.7 million of that. Uh now in their case they didn't have as much capital needs. So if you look at the next chart that that surplus actually added to their cash balance as it increased from 32 up to almost $36 million. Um and you know depending like 2024 you didn't see they had a surplus as well but they their cash balance stayed about the same because they spent over $4 million in projects but in 25 we only spent a little over a million dollars. We'll wrap up our fund review with uh internal service funds. So chart 41 looks at equipment revolving. So the yellow represents departmental charges. So that's what the departments pay to the equipment revolving fund. So on the department side, that's an expense. It's a revenue over here in the equipment revolving. And then the green represents equipment acquisitions. So we spent 3.7 million in equipment acquisitions. Listed out the major items and the dollar amounts in that last bullet. uh but our departmental charges and I think this has been a concerted effort as well as we looked at equipment revolving and the reserves that we have there and the impact of inflation and especially in public safety area and the cost of replacing equipment. So we've been adjusting our formula for how we're charging out the departments uh to do two things. one, keep up with existing cost increases as well as kind of make up for getting maybe a little bit I don't I wouldn't know if you'd say behind, but we just looked at where we were relative to what we think it's going to cost to replace and realize that we we're going to need more there. So, with that, we'll look at two charts from now. The net position increased then by about a million dollars. Uh the next chart is similar. It's just covering information technology. Uh departmental charges weren't increased as much. Uh they're at 3.4 4 million uh acquisitions this year was 2.7 million. So we did increase our fund reserves there as well. And then if you look at the next chart um that revolving fund balance we've increased it from we were just above 8 million in 2021. We ended the year at 12.3 million which is about a million dollar increase. And then ITRF ended at 9.3 million as well. Then last the U self- insurance fund and uh the green represents cash and investment reserves and then the blue is the net position which the difference is basically an estimate of what the acred liabilities acred claims and oped obligation are that are funded through that fund. But I I'm focusing primarily on what our cash reserves that we have there. And that did increase by about $2.2 million uh this year up to 38 million. Uh if you look at the next chart then departmental charges uh in the yellow there were about 32.6 million. Our benefit expense uh was about 29 million um and so we did have a surplus which increased that cash reserve. Uh that third bullet there lists out the charges. So we've been um annually increasing our medical charges. Uh and by those amounts it was 5% for 2025. Just a few charts left then. uh market value, taxable market value. So, we're kind of looking at revenues, overall expenditures, the governmental funds on these last few charts. So, I put this chart in here to just highlight what's going on with the city. Obviously, we're a growing city uh with development and so on. So, the t taxable market value is increasing. We were up 6.7% uh this past year. So, keep that in mind as we look through the uh revenue charts. So, this first one takes a look at all revenues at the government fund level. So it doesn't include the utilities, but the first one is property taxes. So we, as I mentioned earlier, we had about a 10% increase in the levy. So that increased our collections from 100 to 110 million. That does include the $2 million uh park referendum levy. Tax increments were $11 million, about 10% of our overall levy is uh in those projects until those are completed. Uh nonpropy and sales taxes uh is 37.5 million. So about 25 of that is sales tax. About 12 12 and a half is lodging taxes. LGA just it's a small amount. We continue to include it on here, but uh if we went back years, it was going to be a more significant portion of the budget, but due to the formula and the growth in the city, um we're getting less than we were in 2021. And I think it goes down again a pretty good amount for 2026 as well. Um and then in tax payments, which would be those utility payments, which are 15.4 4 million charges for services were 19 a.5 million in total. Again, that's across all those activities and departments. Uh federal, state, county, school. So, basically all of our governmental revenues from other governments besides LGA. That was 108 million. It's run higher the last couple of years. Part of that's DMCC impact of dollars coming from the state as well as the uh grant dollars for the the airport runway um project. investment income. So, investment return has been better the last few years. This includes fair market value adjustments for the investments, but that was 18 and a half million. And then other revenues are going to be things like assessments, building permits, the rents we get at bioscience center, and then other miscellaneous revenues. It it's higher than previous year, but one big item in there would were credits that the city received for their converting from their steam to their geothermal project. they were able to apply for credits and they received those in 2025. Uh on the other side, our outlays are our expenditures on chart 49. Uh so general government there was at 22 million. We talked about that in the general fund. Police, fire, public safety. If you add those three categories together, it's about 77 million we spend in public safety, which is about 43% of the overall expenditures excluding cap outlay and debt service. Airport was 6 million, 14 million in transit. Um chart 50. Then we have park and wreck 16.5 million. Culture which is the library but also includes like music um art center, theater was about 12 million. Economic development and tourism was 10 and a.5 million. that that includes the cost that we um pay to the experience Rochester to run the Mayo civic center as well as other economic development. Public works was 19 million and then community reinvestment unallocated was 1.3 million. Next chart. Um so this just takes a look at primarily property taxes here because LGA has become such an insignificant component to the overall budget but we included it on there. used to be a more significant component but um but property taxes. So what we've done is taken the property tax collection amounts and divided it by the population estimate and it is estimate. We don't only do the census every 10 years but estimate of the population increase and then the CPI for inflation. Uh so if you look at compare 24 to 25 we did see an increase there of about $70. So we increased the levy about 10% but the population estimated population growth is only about 1%. Uh and then the CPI for the Midwest region was about 2.7%. So you can see the increase in the levy outpaced those two factors. Last couple of charts um so the city's required to report at the governmentwide level uh which is a full acrruel for all activities. So all the fund stuff we looked at is a current measurement focus of accounting and then the enterprise funds are full acrruel. They said we got to do it for all. So if you want to go to chart 53 um there's a statement in the report um that basically highlights the expenses which includes depreciation of the assets that we've constructed and built and paid for uh on a full acral basis. Then there's program revenues meaning we get fees uh specifically for these activities. And then we also get operating grants or contributions or capital grants or contributions and it comes to a net cost or a net surplus. And then those are covered with general revenues which is things like property taxes and and sales tax and LGA and so on. Um and so if we just go to the last chart then um chart 54. So if you look at um the activities the departments that we have transit airport economic development so on those activities transit and airport either generate their own revenues or they um get federal grant dollars or something to support those. So there's not a lot of local general revenues of the city that are going to support those activities. Economic development happens to be DMCC is grouped in that category. Then you look at the last five and those aren't able to charge um specifically users for those services. So we support those through property taxes. And so that's the dollar amount. The largest one being public safety uh which is about a $56 million net cost. Uh just a note on public works. It there was a larger increase in 2025 that was primarily related to um contribution that the city made to the county out of the sales tax authorization. And there was a commitment there. Um I think it was even was it the last one or the one before that? But there was about $10 million that was contributed to the county for infrastructure. Uh so last chart summary. Um so general fund looking at unassigned fund balance. We're in good shape there. 46% of 25 expenditures, 42% of 26 expenditures. Uh library fund ended at 35% fund balance. saw improvement in municipal wreck up to 23% as we discussed. Airport has 15 million in fund balance available for their local match for construction projects. Same with transit. They have 5.6 million for for capital. The CIP 311 million set aside as part of their CIP plan. We had the one bond issue for the um relocation of park maintenance building. Parking has 15.6 million in reserves. Electric and sewer both increased their reserves and they're servicing their their outstanding bonds. Saw an increase in self- insurance cash reserves about 2.2 million and uh equipment revolving increased from 11.3 to 12.3. So >> I guess I'll see if there's more questions. >> Any questions? Council member Miller. So, I know you talked about this a little bit at the beginning, uh, about that more striking increase particularly in police. Looking at slide 49 for the actuals, where did the budgeted 2025 come out? I know in the past we've budgeted lower for overtime and then it's come out actually higher. So, can you talk about like any impact from police overtime or unanticipated budgeted expenses? >> Yeah. So you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we finished underbudget in police overall. So it was a planned increase, but we >> we had a couple of things like the Sabita, which was that subscription based IT arrangement that was not really anticipated as part of the budget because that's more of a accounting reporting entry. >> Yeah. Um but I think uh over time we may have been a little higher but we we did also get um additional revenue sources to offset that from the offduty um security services that the police were providing. >> And I guess uh question for finance uh where would the 2026 budgeted bar end up in that chart? Is that like a new baseline where or where are we at for the 2026 approved budget of that police bar on slide 49? It looks like it's around 46 million and 25. >> Yeah. So like is that a is that a new normal or is that just going to be a blip when we look at it in future years? Um, I would say two million of that is a onetime >> okay >> increase. Yeah. But >> the rest is >> the rest of it was employee cost and that >> I mean some of it might have been overtime but I think the market rate adjustments from what my understanding was in our discussions um was fairly significant. >> Okay. >> There was a $5 an hour market rate adjustment. >> Mhm. So 44 million is a new baseline reset. I'm looking for that in the >> budget right now. It's a different document. >> If you're looking at the budget book, it's multiple departments you got to add together, too. So, it makes it a little bit harder because we combine this for reporting purposes. >> Um, but I think they could probably get that to you. >> We can we can discuss that in the next item as well. Any other questions on the audit? Seeing none. Thank you, Mr. Boon. Great job as usual. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. >> We will move on to our uh item A2, which is the 2027 recommended supplemental budget. Miss Selms, >> uh, Council President, would be okay if I sat here since we can't actually view it on that. >> You are [laughter] you are fine where you are. >> I don't want to struggle with back and forth. Can you hand me that? >> Yes. >> Thank you. Um, try to make sure I'm talking in the microphone. And now I just need to open my PowerPoint. Just give me one second. >> We are five minutes ahead of schedule. >> Great. That means I can try to get us 15 minutes ahead of schedule by the end of this. It's a beautiful day. >> It's not just dependent on you. >> All right. We are here to talk about the 2027 recommended supplemental budget. I will try to use a more exciting budget voice than I have in the past. I've been told by several people that it's very tiring to listen to my budget presentation. So, try to keep everyone engaged in the first um detailed look at where we're sitting with the recommended supplemental budget. A couple of things that would be helpful for you to be considering. Doesn't mean you can't consider other things. Um is whether or not um we want to continue to fund streets at the level that we had increased it to when we isolated the local government aid there, about $1.2 million. or it could be another amount if people aren't as comfortable with that. That would be increasing the levy beyond what is represented here. We would need to know that sooner than later because once you establish your preliminary levy, it can go down or stay the same. It cannot increase in the next year. Also, whether or not you would want to implement a convenience fee on credit cards, we do not have all of the details on exactly how we would recommend this. Um, finance is actively working on that. Um, but if we want to absorb it in the general in the levy funded funds, I would say that one of the things that increases the costs at golf, for example, is the credit card fee. Um, now it's gone completely. I don't know. >> There it is. Good review. >> Um, thank you. And then is there any do you have any other additional feedback about the 2027? Are there decision packages you would like more information about, etc.? Um, so just also we do try to focus our resources surrounding the strategic priorities and foundational principles, but we're also trying to operate as a city. So some of the things that you talked about in the audit are things you could consider in the budget. But we also have to consider, for example, if revenue increases beyond the market, you may actually get less revenue if you have less users of a facility and be utilizing more levy in order to offset um because when there is a market for all of these things and um we have to be cognizant of that. Um, just a reminder, we've been working on this. And a big thank you to Rachel Hodc, Josh Der, uh, Eston, to Brian, Aaron, uh, and all the department heads and budget gurus that have been working on the budget since February. Um, really, they've been working on this budget since February of 2025 because this is the second year of a two-year budget. Um, the last time you were here talking about budget was on April 13th. We did cover a few of these things. Um and then uh we're here to review the audit and the budget. Um two wonderful financial topics on the same day for those who love it. Um and uh wow, this is going to be interesting. Um did just want to remind you we currently have scheduled for you to um have several more study sessions. So we have time, but it's helpful to be able to delve deeper if you want more more depth um on the 24th of August and September 14th. And then um again I mentioned approval of the preliminary levy is scheduled for September 21st and a budget hearing to adopt the final budget scheduled on December 7th. Um so the supplemental budget process really focuses on things that we either weren't planning for or um things that we need to adjust um minor things. Um so really revisions not significant changes um although you are absolutely able to make significant changes if you like. Um the supplemental budget requests um um have been all reviewed. The uh there are no new decision packages included here, although there are some slight adjustments that are represented that we've talked about also in April. And then we don't update the six-year CIP. So we tend to stay with what the CIP was and we do that every two years. So, what you can see here is that right now in the recommended supplemental budget, we have a tax levy of $124,91,38. That is um a year-over-year increase, not a property tax rate, of 5.59%, which is less than what you saw in the trend. The trend that we um were looking at last year was 7.4%. Um so, we've had some positive changes within our budget assumptions. Um but not all of them were positive. um the general fund budget which is very reliant on the tax levy and has many 247 services in it like police and fire. Oftentimes public works can get wrapped up into 24-hour services too depending on the weather. Um that is sitting at 141,69,000 and change. And that is actually a pretty small increase about two 2.94%. Part of that is because the actual changes to employee services were less than what we had anticipated based on movement within we budget for a position at the rate that it's we anticipate. And so if somebody for example retires, leaves, if we're hire a new person, sometimes that can have positive implications. And we also have been having um lower costs related to some of our health insurance. So we've had some positive things, but that also can swing the other way in the future. So just always good to know that we would typically be in a trend of about four four or 5% for the general fund. Um but some positive things um have developed. Um the action plan, we have re reviewed that on February 23rd. Uh the next update um is on an August study session. So, if you're looking for some of those performance measures related to the action plan um for your strategic priorities and again the supplemental budget hearing and adoption scheduled for December 7th. Um so the tax levy year-over-year increase so the dollar amount needed if all of these things are funded is about a 5.59% increase as compared to what was collected in 20 26 the current year. Um they don't reflect those discussion items that I mentioned. So, if you were going to absorb continue to absorb the credit card fee, we would need to adjust the levy slightly for the levy funded accounts and then or or people aren't going to be able to potentially complete all of the projects that they intend in their budget. Um, local government aid impact to street reconstruction is also not included in that 5.59%. Again, the prior trend was showing that we would be about 7.4% 4% up in the levy, but we've had some positive developments um in um in the basically how you are funding doing your financials. You might recall also that this is the second year where we had adjusted the allocations. So that's a positive to the levy. Um we had um we did leave parking, storm and sewer at 2%. you discussed that when you were talking about your your payment in lie and that maybe they shouldn't be the same um for all but we also had indicated we wouldn't be implementing those until 2028. So we've had positive development on some of our our medical side and it does include what you discussed in April which is a max of 150,000 for golf operations. There's also $200,000 that goes for capital at golf. Um, so, so it's got the max there. Uh, 3% increase to temp salaries. We do not always adjust that every year and that creates challenges over time to be able to actually have the number of hours worked that are necessary for our temporary and seasonal work that happens. Um, the H Heartland Training Facility, we have some costs we need to absorb in the near-term property tax payments that will fall off but are currently going to be assessed. And then some adjustments for being able to maintain the facility. Um this the assistant city attorney 2 um is an adjustment that is a correction from a prior year when we made some adjustments but actually didn't include the position in the budget. Um building automation specialist and facility supervisor reclass and an addition of a position those are funded through energy savings. So offset by um by savings and utility costs. And then you will recall that we also talked about um the decision package from police that adjusted from having two officers to having one officer and a community outreach specialist. So that's all within um that dollar amount. Um something that you could use as a dashboard um but you don't have to. Uh is the fund reliance on the tax levy. So what this these are not in proportion to one another. So, for example, um the airport fund is about $6 million allin for the operational fund and the city funds about $650,000 of utilities and customs. But you'll recall the general fund is much larger, about $125 million of tax levy in a in the in the general fund. So, these aren't in proportion to one another. They're just in proportion to the total fund that you're looking at here. So um DMC projects do not have tax levy um towards them. Library is very reliant on property tax in large part because libraries are generally free. So to um fund the operation, it's generally going to be funded through general property tax. Um and you can see debt service on there. About 34% of that is related to tax levy. Um so the rest of that is funded by some other revenue source. Um, if that's helpful, how do you roll up to 5.59% increase year-over-year? Um, you can see the employee services is much less than it typically would be in part because we had positive development there. Again, that could change if if more people start taking health insurance, then we will have higher costs. Um, you um had a reduct I would say it went up by about 0.24% 24% because we had no longer have some of that holistic budget stability fund. You'll recall that the co dollars to be able to mitigate the costs of sort of coming out of [snorts] a pause in operations and a 0% levy. Um then we have the equipment revolving stabilization. So we're trying to continue to slowly increase the amount we're putting into that fund because everything is costing more. Um we do also um charge departments for surplus vehicles that were never purchased through the budget process. So that to encourage folks to really think about whether or not they need that vehicle. Uh capital improvement plan small very small increase there. And then um other which I think I had written down in the PowerPoint but we'll have to phone a friend if anyone asks me what that is. Um, and then the decision packages that you see on future pages are about 1.15% of that year-over-year increase in levy amount. Something positive, we do have new construction that's anticipated in the estimated market value. So any increase or even if you just had the same levy is first absorbed by the new construction. Um and then valuation adjustment whether that's commercial um residential, apartment, multif family um is going to absorb the rest of the increase um based on the value of each property. Um so it is just always important every year that the percent increase that we talk about when we talk about the levy going up is not the rate that you will see on your bill. It will primarily depend on um what how much your valuation changed relative to everyone else in your class of property. and then whether or not you're also having some of your homestead um uh value fall off because your value of your property is increasing. Something else that's positive is that we do have two tiff districts that we would anticipate being descertified at the end of the year. Um so you can see about $470,000 that also will immediately absorb about $470,000 of any increase to the levy because it's not just new con. It's sort of like having new construction. Um, but the county doesn't know that yet. So the prior slide does not include that. Um, so about a little over a quarter of any increase is going to be absorbed by new construction or the descertification of those two tiff districts. Administrators, can you clarify? So the the 466 uh that's uh anticipated for tax levy because of the tiff districts being completed. Is that included in the topline? >> It's not included. It's just going to absorb the initial tax. So >> I see. >> Yep. So it's going to help offset any impact to existing property owners. >> Got it. >> Well, I guess they are existing property owners. It's just that they're going their TIFF is going into the TIFF fund. >> It will mute the impact. And then this slide will This is the last year that you will ever see this slide. Um [laughter] we did decide to put it in just because we thought we should give it a goodbye. Um so over time, over the last um six years almost, you have been able to offset the cost of the levy um with those funds um slowly going down over time. Um, but that that time is now over, so you won't see this slide again. Um, but just kind of getting to some specifics here about the levy and whether or not the 5.59% is where you would want to stay or whether you have concerns about that. Um, is whether there's support for implementing a convenience fee on the credit card usage or increasing the tax levy by about 175,000. We do have credit card fees that are not in the general fund or that are not levy funded, but really we're concerned about the levy at this point um as we approach September. Uh and then also local government aid whether or not you would want to fund a little over a million dollars of buminous with a levy adjustment or perhaps you would want to get there overtime or not. We did break down the credit card fees slightly differently this time. So perhaps one of the more important places to look is the tax levy line which is three lines from the bottom a middle middle shade of blue. Um you can see that the budget that we have in 2027 is about 81,000 but the actual costs of the tax levy is about 243,000. So, what that means, and a lot of this happens, you can see in um building and inspection services and in municipal recreation, is that the levy is absorbing those costs, but they have to spend less out of their planned budget because they're paying more credit card fees than what they have allocated in that line item. I see a hand up, >> Mayor Norton. >> So, I know this is happening all across the country there. you go to stores now and there's of al ofen a credit card fee. My question is we also don't take cash at many places now. So we're we're in this weird place where we're we've sort of pushed people into doing credit for a lot of things and now we're going to charge them more. Are we wanting people to write checks instead? Um, how are people because because if we don't cover this, the constituent is going to, right? We're we're ask we're we may not call it a tax, but we're saying you're going to pay a fee to cover the cost of your credit card when we've, you know, we're giving them less and less options. Young people don't even have check checks. Literally don't they don't even know how to write one. So perhaps Miss Woodward could respond, but for example, the building inspection services, which is a pretty large fee absorption, they do allow people and actually encourage people to set up an account, which you just need your account number for. You don't need a you don't need a check if I recall. >> And we do also accept checks. So people can drop off and pay their fees via check. Most of them pay online through aella and use the credit card processing, but they can pay. And we also work with some of the larger um to set up a trust accounts for when they need to pay fees. >> Yeah. And the alternative is that everyone that lives here is helping to pay for someone to use their credit card or people have the convenience often times it's called a convenience fee of they're absorbing the convenience fee for their credit card. >> Council member Wall. >> And unless I didn't hear correctly, uh most of us have the ability to bill pay uh directly out of our accounts uh without that. That's no extra charge. >> Yes, that's correct. >> And I I would have to ask Mr. Whitman if what they do at parks. >> Very similar. >> Oh, I lost my microphone. [laughter] >> Thank you. Never had one. >> Okay. Yeah, they all of our participants have the option to uh pay in cash, check or or credit card. Uh most of our registration or participants in activities prefer the online and they they're willing to pay the credit card fee. Uh we do have for picnic shelter reservations quite a few groups show up in person just because they quite often have to um do business with both parks and recreation and the clerk's office and uh we we get a lot of checks uh for for those services. >> Mr. Chair, >> uh well we have Council Member Miller first. >> It's fine. It it might be the question that Mayor Norton is asking to and I know we've gone through some of this but line by line which of these would have an alternative to a credit card payment. So parking building inspection services yes municipal recreation yes but then the other ones >> I believe the city clerk yes and then but the city clerk is sitting behind me. Um the challenge we have with parking and I believe parking ticket has the option to pay with a check or cash that's also city clerk usually. And then um the main ones that are more challenging would be parking but we also have an arrangement with a service. So that's and it and it's not funded with levy funding. >> The primary things that we've moved to only using credit cards are things like the parking reps. Okay. And we also subsidize quite a bit of parking by free hours >> just >> having certain hours be free. Yes. >> Mayor Norton, >> I was just looking for clarity when um we were talking about people paying online. When you're paying online, you're still using your credit card or going through your bank. Are we not offering fees for those? It's only literally a transaction in a machine that you're talking about. >> If you use your credit card, whether that's online or in person. If you use a debit card, that's a different scenario. If you put in as an AC online, then that also does not have a fee. For example, when Rochester Public Utilities, but every credit card is slightly different. So, this is I think there's like 30 agreements that Mr. Anderson is working through. Um, which is why we don't have a detailed recommendation for you today. However, if we don't increase the levy funded accounts for those charges, then the the major impacts are going to be building inspection services not having really having the budget that you've approved, municipal recreation not really having the budget that you've approved, and the city clerk parking ticket collections, and again, we always like to have miscellaneous so that I have to phone a friend. um just various charges throughout the city where somebody might collect a fee. >> Council member Palmer. >> So, our RPU has a fee and and they just set that themselves, >> but there's a cost to us to have me show up at building and safety with cash or check because then somebody has to count it. Somebody has to drive it down to the bank and deposit it at the bank and then come back. And so, is it do we know the cost of doing that? or or do we just assume everybody's going to have that it's just an added cost if more people write checks? >> Mr. Anderson. >> Yes. Thank you, Council President. Uh we're aware that there's a fee for dealing with cash and there's you know a fee, a telet check and for processing checks. So there's basically a fee for everything. Um, one thing that we are taking a look at or what you know, my initial analysis has found out that even if we are able to pass along, so say there's about four major vendors that I'm currently taking a look at for the processing. Um, I was able to speak to one and they said, "Well, we we only pass along a 3%. That's it. We don't go any higher than 3% even though the state law says 5%." But I think our fees that we are absorbing are closer to like five five and a quarter%. So even if we do pass along a 3% fee from again my initial analysis, I think we're still absorbing some of the fees. >> I I guess my point is there's at least five departments that probably somebody has to add up the checks and the cash and take it to Wells Fargo and deposit it and come back and correct >> we don't have cheap employees and so there's a cost to do that. >> Uh there's for a lot of it I think there's a service that does that for us though too >> like that they do that for free. >> A security service? No, not at all. And I haven't had time to look into that one yet, but I'm I'm aware of what you're talking about, especially when it comes to parking and dealing with the the change in the money. Yes, we're still looking at that. >> And I'm I'm all for charging the fee. I mean, everybody's used to that, restaurants and businesses, so I'm fine with that. >> Council member Miller. >> Yeah, I'll just provide feedback. I think this makes sense. I'm in favor of it, especially for these areas that have alternatives to that people could avoid the fee if they choose. Council member Frederick's >> actually I was pointing to Keen. >> Oh, Council Member Keane. >> Yeah. Yeah. Again, I I want to just uh I think the goal here isn't so much to have them pay a different way or it it isn't to whether they absorb the thing or not. It's that the fees go away and that we don't have them anymore. Um I think right now the the way I understand what RPU, they didn't try to collect the extra 3% or $3 to offset. They said, "Do what you want to do. Whether you whether you want to pay with the credit card, that's fine. We're not trying to change your behavior, but we're just trying to make sure we cover our costs." And I think we're doing the same thing here. That's what that's what our intent is is that we don't pass along 600 and well, I guess I have to take parking out about 300,000 a little over $300,000 of what is the convenience of using your credit card to every other taxpayer. >> Yeah. the one that that I'm still getting struggling to get my head around. I know it's a enterprise but parking where that that transaction that's happening real time. I don't know what kind of I thought that is really it's almost like MCC saying we only want credit cards because we don't have a method of handling the other ways. >> Correct. That's why we're not recommending it for non- tax levby funded and we're also in a 5-year contract with IPS. So, and the way that they apply the fee is very different and whether they would be able to do that with their current system is a question mark. So, I'm trying to understand the difference then in the 2027 budget. Are we talking about $81,000 or the we keep on talking about the two or 300,000? >> What we're saying is if if you don't charge a credit card fee, we're $175,000 short of levy in order to be able to fund all of the things that are levy fund like the actual budget that you would be approving for. >> Okay. building inspection services, municipal recreation, city clerk, parking, ticket collections, which doesn't happen in parking, and miscellane whatever miscellane all the other little things, which is maybe not as big of an issue because it's probably across multiple departments, then they will not act they then they're going to be overspending their budget by probably more than $115,000 because people are paying by credit card more and more and more. So, they're either over they're but we don't let them overspend their budget. So they have to not spend on other things that they were anticipating. Sort of like shorting their budget by the dollar amounts in the third column. >> Okay. The thing that I thought Council Member Palmer was trying to get towards is there is this other side of this and this is why places like MCC have said no cash, no checks, credit only. Um is that an option that we've looked at for some of these things and then just set our prices accordingly? >> It's something that you could look at. Yeah, I'm not suggesting it, but I'm I'm trying to and my view is we already have those methods in place. We're just using them at 20% instead of 50% of the transactions. And I think that's where we get to. I think most things would go towards a bank transfer, uh, which is what RPU has moved much more to to to >> these are also not things that you pay monthly typically, >> right? That's what bothers me about these that they're not they're they're not things that you set up on a reoccurring basis like a like a monthly charge. A lot of them are onetime onetime fees for like the clerk's office's parking tickets where >> those are harder on me. >> I would say it's not like we've hired a cadre of people to other than having a security service that takes the actual bag of money. We're not hiring people to like handle that. It's a piece of some other job they're doing. That means they can't do something else. I'm not saying that's good or bad. It's just it's somewhat >> process is already in place and being paid for unless we stop taking cash. So, I I do see that as an offset. Um, yeah, I I'm still trying to get comfortable with this because I do find it to be um like that and I think we have to be telling them that we're charging them this fee and we had trouble with that with getting people to hear that before the fee started showing up. So, I think I think if we do this, we should expect some blowback of people saying like, "What are you charging me for? I don't know what's happening here." So, I'm uh uh again, I understand the logic behind doing it. um you know in the bigger I think there should be some sort of communication associated with it. Um but uh yeah I I do support the idea of not absorbing the credit card or the the credit fees across the entire uh levy payers and and focus the the fees on where they're coming from. >> Council member Frederick's >> if I'm hearing that we're eating five and a quarter% and we're going to ask for three, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I mean, ask for four because they have [clears throat] the option to a for nothing. Correct. There's no fee for that. >> There's a limit with one of the providers that we have. And again, I haven't had access because it's under uh >> this person's name. So, they said they only go up to three. So, I can't tell them to go to four because they they >> Generally speaking though, you have the opportunity to a use a checker and you don't have a fee. Correct. >> Uh with US Bank, not our primary for Wells Fargo. I [snorts] feel like we're dancing right now. Um, >> well, [laughter] I don't have all the information to present it to you. So, >> well, the point I'm making is it just seems like typical government fashion. Oh, we're losing 5.2% but we're going to charge three and uh we're going to make up for it in volume, but it just doesn't make sense to me. So, >> I think the concern is if you have a credit card provider, you either have to not accept that type of credit card if they are unwilling to pass through more than 3% or you have to have multiple different fees, which seems very confusing. >> Yes, it does. That's why I'm saying a 4% makes more sense because you see that very often. >> That then you'd have to not allow people to use the type of credit card that only allows you to recover three. >> Fun. Council member Palmer, >> I I'm not particularly sure what what you're actually saying, but I don't want us this is not a profit center. This is just to cover the cost to make it fair for all people who actually pay. So, that to me is is is a is what you're trying to do. It's not to make a little extra money. >> No, I'm not trying to cover. >> Okay. That's that's my point is, you know, in building and safety, I know there's some guys who will use their some people will use their credit card only because they get miles and they'll they'll do that or if you get a building permit for $100,000. I don't particularly want them showing up with cash. And so, you know, I mean, um, you know, they can write a check. >> I believe there's a certain amount where we don't allow them to provide cash. And actually, maybe even most of those folks set up a customer account. >> Correct. Okay. Um on this I am comfortable with the convenience fee. Uh it sounds like a reasonable decision anymore on the convenience fee issue. We do have the other issue that staff is asking us and move on >> about and which I think is probably has a little more impact. So >> yes, council member Keane >> just on the convenience fee I want to just to clarify RPU didn't charge a percent. they charge a flat fee which is a little it's much simpler but it does have the bad effect for the lower bills paying a higher percent. Um so that's something that we should be aware of. The percents are are probably more uh tra are things better but they are comp they are more complicated to explain. >> Yes. And some of these fees are like $25. So if you have 3% on a $25 bill it's very small. >> Yeah. So% >> if you have 3%. Yeah. >> Y. Thank you. >> A chart that finance made. That's beautiful. Um local government aid uh since 2019. It's just moving along. I told you I was going to keep you awake this time. >> I was just watching the stream or something. >> Yes, you can look at it online. It'll be there forever. Um so since 2019, this is what the local government aid has looked like. Um so wild vacasillations and how it has changed but that is direct relationship to the formula. Um I I guess one positive is we don't do well in the formula because we have a lot of development in Rochester and not every city has that. So not every city has that new construction. Not every city has had new construction for every year since 2019 or even since 2000. Um so it is set up as aid. Um we did have the hold harmless that happened in 2024. Um and now we are going back to 2023 because the hold harmless is over and you so you can kind of see that in that chart. Um so what we did in 2024 when we had the unexpected dollars come back through the legislative process was isolate the vast majority of that to increase the amount of buminous pavement that we could put funding towards each year because it's a capital project. If you had put this towards say two new police well you'd get more than two police officers but you two police officers two cars maybe an assistant like now you have this new way of doing business and it's more challenging when it's on an operational cost. Is this important to our operation? Yes. Is it we we did not have the same amount of funding going there before 2024. Um so that was about the total LGA reduction is a little over $1.2 million or 24% of the LGA. Um but we had about 1 million a little over 1 million allocated towards the CIP project for annual by 2 minutes street reconstruction. Um the remaining 166,000 is absorbed in that 5.59% levy adjustment um in the operational cost. And then um the 2007 CIP also has 910,000 allocated. So that's how much was going in before we made that adjustment for LGA and tried to isolate that towards a project. So we more than doubled how much is available in order to be able to provide the Milan overlay um street reconstruction line. >> Can you hold a minute, Mel? Uh, Council Member Palmer. >> So, explain to me how the sales tax extension um, which is new money is is is allocated to roads. >> So, the new sales tax is for reconstruction. This is sort of the annual maintenance of the roadways. And the way that that was worded, I might have to phone a friend because I don't have it in front of me, but it talked about reconstruction of roads. So, you can't build a new road with it. And I would I think the intent is that that's for major reconstruction projects. For example, Center Street. >> Yeah, it it is actually similar funding. I mean, it again, you'll see in subsequent slides that we're still significantly behind our annual, you know, need in this space. Um, but both are for, you know, street reconstruction. The sales tax, obviously, you're prioritizing projects. Um, some are larger reconstructions on state aid roads. There's a lot of emphasis on state aid roads for that. This is really emphasizing more residential road reconstruction. So areas that are in the, you know, 80% of our roadway network that don't have a funding source for reconstruction. So this basically brings your res, your residential road reconstruction budget to zero. Um, you don't have another funding source for that. Your state aid and your sales tax are predominantly focused on your larger streets. Not that you can't use your sales tax for collector streets, more residential streets, but it was designed to be more regional in nature when that was approved. >> Well, the the LGA, my understanding, if I remember correctly, is that a couple years ago we said, "Don't put it in the budget because it's undependable. So, we're going to throw it at the roads." That doesn't mean we're going to throw it at the roads all the time, but we we have this reconstruction for sales tax extension. That's where that should be going to. And it shouldn't matter if it's if it's a state a road because we're getting state aid and and it should be for the residential jobs and we're not building new roads with it. I mean most of the developers build 90% of our roads. So I I don't know why we would even consider adding more to the tax levy. >> Yeah, your honor. This is for the existing residential roads that are due for reconstruction that at some point, you know, the developers gifted us these 30, 40, 50 years ago and there is a need at some point to reconstruct those roads. But um again, sales tax can be relevant here. It is helpful. That's a new funding source since we allocated this originally. And as city administrator Elms indicated very correctly, like this was designed to not be impactful to operations when or if it went away and it it has gone away. I'm just follow just follow up. I mean 36th Avenue out in Northwest Rochester Manor hasn't been rebuilt and it's 65 years old. So you know at some point we've been paying property taxes for that. We mill an overlay. Typically what we're really replacing roads with is when the sewer or the water goes bad. And so then we're going in these neighborhoods and they pay a small percent. But but so I'm I'm I don't understand where the confusion is or why we'd want to add [clears throat] more property tax. >> Yeah, your honor, I maybe defer to the public works team on specific projects, but yes, utilities often drive reconstruction, but at some point streets need to be reconstructed. Multiple factors in play uh for that, but at some point you do have to um you know ensure reconstruction, whatever the time frame is. So, just to clarify, uh, Council Member Palmer's initial question. So, are you saying we cannot use the, uh, sales tax funds that we have for streets for our mill and overlay in our residential streets? >> I'm not saying that. >> Yeah. I mean again the the team is prioritizing those funds and you know they've allocated and recommended projects and again you're you still have a finite pool of resources there. Um but could you Yes. Milan overlay is generally well supported in the budget. Uh milling overlay isn't a reconstruction. So you can't mill and overlay forever. At some point you got to reconstruct. But we have significant state aid dollars and other dollars in the CIP that are allocated for a fairly well developed milan overlay problem. This is again street reconstruction at some point you're going to need to do that and you'll need it more and more in the future. >> Thank you. Thank you council um Mayor Norton and then we have council member Wall and council member Keane. >> So I'm glad we're having this discussion although I didn't think we'd be having it quite in the detail we are today. um our road um health has been a significant concern of mine and I find myself uh agreeing with council member Palmer which he'll probably run from the room screaming because of this but I actually think um we have we have a huge citywide problem with local roads. They are in horrible repair. Milan Overlay in my opinion has not been working well at all. I watched it on my own street in about one year. It was a complete mess again. And the gal that was here from urban whatever told us that we should consider not doing millan overlay that we should recon spend the money on reconstructing the street and then you've got another x amount of years. That was not >> she she made the comment that that mil we might want to look at mill and overlay is not a a good investment >> recstruction. >> Yeah, you do need to do mill and overlay. It's a critical part of extending the life of a road to 50 to 60 years. So you actually there is a whole formula for how you should do milan overlay seal those kinds of things in order to push out the reconstruction. The issue is at some point you do have to reconstru because we have been doing millon overlay so long and we're not doing the reconstruction on roads and instead we're waiting until we're at a point where there are roads all over this community that are crumbling that [clears throat] need to be reconstructed and that sales tax money that we collected in my opinion when I went up and talked to the legislature was not about any major roads. was about roads and I think I thought I think the community thought that meant their roads too that are crumbling and need work. And so I really hope we can get to the bottom of this and not just continue to rely on milan overlay that just pushed the problem down further and further and further without really repairing. >> I don't want this to sound combative, but you have to do millan overlay in order to maintain your streets. It is a critical part of the street maintenance program and you have to fund reconstruction. >> I understand that. But when we spend money on a millin overlay again and again and then you're in tearing up streets because of as was mentioned sewer and all the other things that are h under happening underground. We have spent a ton of money on roads that could have been used on a reconstruction project to fix it all and be done with it for 50 years. And that is not happening. And our roads are crumbling. And people are tired of it. I get calls all the time about the roads on people's >> just I don't want there to be such inaccuracy on the record. You have to mill an overlay in order to maintain your roads. >> I I think we are not here to discuss the merits of milling overlay. We are here to discuss whether or not we want to uh to add to our levy uh 1.2 2 million for the uh reconstruction of roads, however we do them. And so the question and I think I'm hearing from the mayor, I heard from from uh from council member Palmer and I would agree myself is I would like us to look at that halfsent sales tax road reconstruction fund and whether that is a place for us to go for this rather than tax levy. So with that, I'm going to go to council member wall and then council member Keen and I don't and council member Miller. How much road reconstruction will one 1.2 million get us? >> And to clarify, we're looking at bridging the shortfall of 1,76,000. I'm not saying you have to do that. Um, but I would need to have I don't think I don't think public works is here. >> Yep. Sorry. >> So, that's a great question. I don't know off the top of my head how many miles that that will get us. Um, but generally speaking, you know, again, this would cover what it already >> can you get closer to your microphone there. >> Try and lean in. >> There we go. >> Um, so to answer your first question, I don't know exactly how many miles this this will get us. I can talk to Dylan Dumbrossski and and get back to you on that. Um the what this will cover is um what has been covered by the LGA. It's largely used in those projects in which um there are assessments being applied and then the utilities are covering their portion of it and the remainder of that is what this fund is used for. There are some limitations as um Aaron had mentioned with the the local sales tax and trying to find the regional nature of that. um recognizing it's not just strictly limited to regional, but that does come into play as we evaluate that. Um and so it would cover the existing portion of that. Keep in mind that based on the 2019 report, we had a 16 to20 million annual shortfall. Um this further um makes that that even worse, adding another million on top of that. Um those numbers do consider um the the local sales tax. So, it helps a little bit, but it doesn't get us nearly as far as we need to to cover that gap. >> Could I clarify some? >> I just wanted I think I confused this. The $910,000 is what has always been in the budget for the Millan overlay. The $1 million was allocated towards reconstruction. So, I sort of bungled that slide and I think I've created a problem. I just want to clarify it. >> Thank you. >> And if I heard Mr. perish correctly. We have zero budgeted dollars for this item beyond this uh million76. >> Yes, >> Council Member Keane. >> Yeah, I I'm struggling with this one. Maintaining our streets is critical responsibility for infrastructure for for any municipality. Um but I agree that when we did the when we had the uh hold harmless and we moved this into streets, it was so that it wasn't critically into the budget. Now, we're using the the activity of losing that and and then putting it critically into the budget forever. I'd rather do this as more of an decision packet in 2027 when we're doing a full thing and lay it out against our other um responsibilities and make sure it's it's that I don't like this feels like we're doing it as a one-off. >> Yes, I I could appreciate that. And we wanted to make sure that you were aware of it. It is a policy item that we need a decision like we don't want to make the decision for you, I guess. And so it also could be that you want to consider later on whether during this budget process or in the future that you would slowly get up to the million dollars or some other amount. Um so it is there I mean you don't have to replace the whole million dollars considering it wasn't there before 2024. you could consider whether I mean you don't have to but you could consider whether you want to get there in four years or whether you want to get you know wait till 2028 and then and move from there. >> Yeah. So so that that's my input that I would but as far as this partial and things like that I guess the other thing I'd want to throw into this most of the reconstruction we do is through uh the enterprise things the the assets under underground with be it storm sewer or water delivery or sewer. Um but right now we have an algorithm and a process that we share costs across those groups and it's sort of bothersome that public works takes the lion share of that because they have the you know finishing the road on top even though they're not generally the ones saying these are the roads that need to be reconstructed and I think there's some fairness there that we probably need to work out to be if if you're the one saying um this road needs to be reconstructed because we've had four water breaks in the last three years. You shouldn't just have the responsibility of paying for your water line. You should take more of the cost of driving this project. And I think there's a right now there's a policy that exists across and it's across the enterprise funds like uh sewer and storm water and they they pay a smaller percent. And I think this is one of the reasons why we do have roads that we look at and say, "Hey, we want to get to those, but we don't get to them because we only have enough budget work to do the work with the utilities that are driving." And those need to be done, too. I'm not saying they don't need to be done. It's just we don't get to the other streets that we want to get to. Um, and I think those are bigger sort of policy things that we need to work out. And I I don't feel right approving this or giving the go ahead that we need to move a new levy money into this in 20 for the 2027 supplemental budget because it's a supplemental budget and it doesn't have the rigor of all the other compares. >> Council member Miller. Yeah, I I largely agree with that and I would also point to the fact that we've had a conversation about our our trail networks and not having a sustainable funding source and I would like to look at this a bit more comprehensively of understanding how we're developing sustainables transportation funding sources for maintenance. I do think the urban 3 um report is is helpful here because we have to understand our long-term liabilities. We talk about annexation, when we talk about new development, how are we generating sufficient tax base to pay for the ongoing maintenance over time? And I would wonder even if our action plan gives us an opportunity to tie some sort of measure of increased uh tax capacity, new development, something to unlock funding and phase this in over time. But I I wouldn't be in favor of um just shifting this to the levy right now. >> Any more on uh this issue? Seeing none. Uh, >> uh, Mr. Lux, go ahead. >> I just have one quick clarification. I I pulled up the quick budget. We still do have 910,000 in reconstruction that would be available. This is the million that was going to be covered by LGA. So, there's still a small amount, approximately half that is already built in there that we could still advance some projects, but not as much as what we would like or had been planned. >> Thank you. Uh, Council Member Palmer, go ahead. >> So, if you live in a newer neighborhood and and they didn't do the inspections correctly, you have a road that is is um standing water and people don't like that. And so somehow we've got to go backwards and fix that from 10 to 15 years ago. Superior Drive is an example of that. They had to redig Superior Drive up. They went down about four feet to get to good soil. And again, I'll go back to 36th Avenue. Literally was built the year I was born. And they haven't done anything but millor and chip seal it. And so there's there there's some problem with some of our roads. And some of the worst roads we have are roads that we inherited when we did the sewer project down in southeast Rochester and they were they were annexed in and they have no sidewalk. They are very small roads. So not all roads are the same and not all the problem is the same. And so I agree with Mr. Keane. Let's let's look at a policy position next year and and let's come up with a policy that works. And Mr. Miller's right. our infrastructure on on on um trails. It's 90 miles of of of trails and and some of them need to be rebuilt. >> So, if it was built the year you were born, it must have been cobblestone, right? [laughter] >> It was dirt. >> Well, helpful discussion. [laughter] So, I'm hearing comfort in us continuing with a convenience fee for credit cards, but but we will wait until 2028 and do work in between to talk about um pavement overlay, both funding for streets, for trails, and also whether that's all how much is allocated to the utilities who you have to build the road back on top of. >> All right, >> just a few more. I think I still might be able to gain 10 minutes. Um but it's up to you. Um so we don't have any changes to outside agencies here. You'll recall there was there were some adjustments between 26 and 2027. Um and we didn't do a process this year to um that is intended just to be supportive funding for these agencies. It's not intended for them to fully rely on it. Um the 2027 decision packages we kind of we had talked through that also based on the conversation in April. We didn't advance anything um regarding public music. Um these are the decision packages that are within um both the levy and non- levy funded um funds um the specific packages. And you can also see that the um community service police officer and one community outreach specialist that the funding amount and the um information about that changed there. I did just want to point out that there was a question earlier today about um if you didn't fund any of the tax levy supported decision packages, it would reduce that year-over-year levy increase by 1.94%. I don't know where I was getting my math from earlier today, but I got this from finance and it's right. Um and then I also um did want to point out that um within this if you look at the third line there is um funding there of $700,000 that's to complete your um enterprise resource planning software project which is currently underway. So it would be concerned if we cut that. Um if just so if you didn't remove that if there's any desire to remove any of it um then you would be reducing the levy adjustment by 1.35% if you took if someone if there was four of you that wanted to reduce all of these decision packages. [snorts] Uh I do and I don't know if I should wait until Chief Franklin comes up at uh the fourth item here, but I did have some questions on uh both the the the community outreach officer and the officer position and uh kind of my I I I'd like to have some clarity on currently I believe it's a part-time community outreach officer and so are we adding a full-time to that. And my question is, you know, is that enough or is there more? And then I did have some questions on the issue of overtime that we heard earlier and what the department is doing to uh to deal with that issue. >> President, >> there you go. Council President certainly willing to answer that now or you can wait for now. It's a budget issue. >> Okay. So in reference to uh the community service police officer, community services is just the division it's assigned to. So it is a full-fledged police officer. In our original budget request, we had two police officers requested to be assigned within our community services division to be assigned to our community action team, which one of their primary functions is um handling problem properties. Um but most mostly one of their primary functions is dealing with people experiencing homelessness. Um as a result of hiring um our embedded kind of homeless navigator Terry Dos within the organization I think we've more than proved concept proof of concept of the value of that position um alongside of police officers working hand inand together. So, we're going to cover some of that in the presentation. Uh, but what you see in front of you is an adjustment downward from two officers to we still feel we need the one officer to sustain the level of work that we have in front of us, but we are also asking for budgetary funding for that embedded homeless navigator in our organization. Currently, that position uh is is funded through um public safety funds that will expire at the end of the year. So short of a budget uh allocation that position actually goes away in 2027. >> So to clarify so so uh are we getting additional uh resource time resource for that role that that's been filled so valuably? >> It's a great question. Uh so what this is reflective of it it would be a net neutral for the community outreach specialist because we already have that under the other funding source. Uh so it's either fund that or that goes away. So that'll be a net net neutral, but it would be a plus one FTE police officer assigned within the community services division to the CAT team. >> Got it. Uh and it and the other issue that I brought up the overtime issue which came up earlier to I know there's some work happening in the department on that front. If there's anything you can share. >> Yeah, certainly. Um we're we're pilot testing internally. Um we're taking a very aggressive approach to trying to u manage our overtime understanding that overtime just like other entities, public works, fire department, us, uh when we're short staffed, you know, we have certain minimum staffing levels on the street. Um we have seven officers currently in our academy. Uh so technically, and we still have one opening, so technically we're eight officers short. We don't fully realize those officers even though we've hired them until they're fully trained. um and it takes about six to eight months to get them fully trained and on the street fully functioning as police officers. So there's always kind of that gap that has to be maintained in reference to funding or excuse me staffing the street rather. So, but with that, uh, we're we're testing, um, really a pretty innovative training model where we're trying to utilize on duty time to train our officers and do our inservice training uh, with legal updates, use of force, things like that. Um, in reference to buy down some of that overtime, whereas last year we paid officers to come in on their off time. We're trying to leverage downtime on duty time to um kind of spread out the training. So, it's smaller increments of training rather than kind of bulk training on on on days. So, that's one of the ways that we're managing the overtime. Uh and again, we're just being a little bit more judicious in that and saying, uh when do we really need the staffing and how can we staff it? We still need those minimums and we still have to maintain those minimums. Uh, but who could we possibly pull? Uh, maybe maybe there's a detective that we could pull out of the bureau that maybe has a little bit of a lighter day and put them on the street to help plug the gap. >> Council member Miller. >> Yeah, I I appreciate the information and yet I feel like I'm still struggling to get my head around exactly sort of the the long-term strategic operational analysis of what fully staffed is. I mean, one of the things that I continue to hear in the community is why is there not more enforcement for traffic? Um, and I know that's an area that's it's been talked about here and there, but I've asked about this before for just operational analysis of all public safety. I feel like we've gotten a a clear plan that we've talked about with fire, like a a long-term plan to open a, you know, an additional fire station, move an engine. That feels more tangible to me than this discussion. I just wonder if we can bring this back at another time to better understand some of these challenges. I I I'm definitely interested in how we're managing overtime, how we're budgeting for overtime, where that actual to budget is coming out, but I'll just say I'm struggling with the sort of management level discussion versus like where we are at a policy level. >> Happy to come back at a later time. Um, if I could briefly address your traffic enforcement concern, the way it works operationally right now is we do not currently have a dedicated traffic unit or officers um that are dedicated to that short of the one grantfunded officer that we have, but uh they're assigned primarily for DWI interdiction, which is a state DPS, Department of Public Safety grant. Uh that's their primary role. Certainly there's some traffic enforcement mixed in there as as that's uh related to DWIS. Uh so we do have that one position. Uh as we continue to grow um as an organization and trying to meet the demands and needs of the city, I agree we do need to look at a dedicated traffic unit as that continues to be uh concerns and I hear concerns from you and other citizens as well. But uh so traffic enforcement is done uh in between calls for service when time permits. >> Council member Palmer. >> Well, thank you. Um I mean obviously safety of of of the public and the officers are most important and my understanding is if you're short of staff, you're saving money on that end. So then your overtime budget goes up and and it's kind of a balancing act of what you're trying to do. And so it's not like um we're just fully staffed and overtime is overtime. Um am I getting that correct? >> Yeah. And and I apologize. I cannot remember the gentleman's gentleman's name that presented, but he he kind of touched on that a little bit that at the end of the year it balanced out fairly close. Yes, we were over in overtime, but we had some employee services savings that helped balance and offset some of that out. You are correct. >> Okay. And then I know I've had a discussion before, but to me um we use the drone um um program a lot and and I would like to see some savings on that to say, you know, um I did the drone so I didn't need to go into overtime or or some kind of a um a policy in there that that we know that not just for for public safety but also for for um saving some money. The last question I had or that was a statement I guess but a question for you was last time you were here I think for the homeless we talked about I think about $2 million out of a budget handling the homeless um population. Is is that about the right number? >> Uh I'll I'll do some math real quick. We have a we have a couple slides on that. >> Why don't we hold that one foration? Yeah. >> Okay. Because it's not just your department. It's also park and wreck who sends their people out there to to clean up um um camps which is very expensive. that that is. >> So, we'll hold that for until our >> other um >> if you wish. I believe Mr. Parish has the numbers from the question during the audit about um year-over-year differences for PD. What's the 2026 budget? >> Go ahead, Mr. Parish. >> Uh yes, your honor and and agree just we do try to look at the employee services as a whole. I mean, I know you can look at the line items, but as referenced here by the group, you know, we're looking at regular salaries. if we're under staff there, sometimes we will have overtime, but we do look at that to make sure it all nets out appropriately and and then this reimbured overtime is a very significant, you know, issue. And we're paid for that. It's a benefit to the community. You can see a lot of the traffic control happening with the clinic right now is a benefit to our residents and patients. So, you know, that that all is looked at on a monthly basis to determine, you know, if we're we're on course there. uh from a budget perspective in 25 and we've we've trended tended to hit budget you know as we net all these things out um very close um in 25 the budget was 39 million and 26 it was 41.8 8. It would have been more substantial of an increase in 26, but when we went through our um reduction exercise, um there was a fairly substantial adjustment in the PD budget by about $2 million. So the but for that adjustment, the growth would have been larger that particular year. Um so again, 41.8 million in 26. Um and then 27 were 45.1. The vast majority of that is about $2.4 million in employee services growth. Again, this happens across all the the enterprise. You know, we have adjustments in health insurance, we have adjustments in parah and compensation, all that. Um, but that also reflects the decision package to adjust to positions uh as well. So, um, that's the that's the trend there. Um, we we have been discussing the potential for a broader evaluation. I think, you know, we can we'll have more conversation with that in the council in the future. Certainly committed to doing that, too. >> Thank you, Mr. Parish. Uh other >> I was going to land on this slide and say do you have any other feedback? I think we had a very solid discussion about the LGA discussion and that we will work on that for the future. And then um the convenience fee >> uh council member Palmer >> I'm not in favor of the 20 funding the decision package that I see right now. One of the things on there is a contingency for the E ERP project and that's a contingency and we may or may not need that and that's why we have a overall contingency fund but if I can say $1.4 million I'm I'm more than willing to do that. >> Council member Miller, you you look like you had a question. Council member Keane. Yeah, again I think these are things that we approved in the doing our work in 2025 for the two-year budget or these are that's how I'm reading this chart. >> These were presented in the 2026 2027 2-year budget, but you still have to approve your levy every year and so you get to decide if you want to continue to keep these here, >> right? But in the numbers we've seen so far, these are assumed in >> Yes, those are in the 5.59%. >> And I too had that same question that I'm surprised not I mean I know what the ERP project is. I know these things can are unwieldy and there might be need for contingency, but I am surprised to see contingency as a decision packet because then it's in there into perpetuity. >> Maybe Mr. Parish could answer that. >> Yeah, I mean contingency is probably a a bad way to say that. I mean, we we developed an overall project budget um that we felt would be necessary to deliver it, but there's also some reconciliation of the annual licensing costs that we're going to have going forward, too. So, I would view this as a collective need of the budget. It is um not uh set up, I believe, as a one-time package, but we can confirm that for you and get more information when we bring the recommended budget back in August. Um but but generally, that is part of what we had contemplated for the overall ERP project, which we funded and are advanced, you know, through at this point. >> Right. Right. So, and that was my comment that it and maybe it is a titling problem as opposed to a spending problem. But, um, yeah, I I again, we can re review these again, but I I I wanted to make the point that I think these are baseline considered in unless we make changes. >> That's typically how we approach it. Yes, you would be taking them out. And I did just want to clarify the ERP much like um Mr. Boon shared during the audit, software as a service has ongoing licensing costs that you need to pay for. So you would have implemented a project that you can't use. >> Council member Miller. Yeah, it's it's not an item here, but we've talked about it in the past in the budget process. And so, not for today, but hopefully during the the August or September discussions how we support community festivals, uh, both through the community building fund, what the right level is, how that has functioned because we talked about what level to support it at last year, increased it. It does seem like that was quickly still used up early on in the year. So, how we're managing that in the 27, but also community festivals like Rochester Fest, Fourth Fest, what the level of support is and how those are supported by the city. >> We can um bring you the information that's about the um outside agencies funding. That's typically where we put that. Um although they don't all have agreements and they aren't all considered outside agencies, that for example, Rochester Fest is somewhat of a legacy from celebration of a city. Um, but we can bring some of that information to you. I did want to point out that the building community fund, the grants, um, that Ms. Matala does have plans in the 5-year update, which I think is maybe at the end of the month, um to share information on some intent to adjust and to have that be open like quarterly so that they're not considering um grants as they come in, but rather much like your discussion, considering them more in batches because there's sometimes things at the end of the year that they're like, well, we probably would have funded that over this other thing, but so they are looking at changes to that and the current funding level for that is $100,000. 000. >> Council member Wall, maybe even just a little bit more specific following up on Mr. Miller's comment, uh, to fund the fourth fest this year, I think we used contingency funds and went through uh, uh, Experience Rochester. Is there something in that budget for the coming years? The way we actually ended up doing that is that we had we never actually took the dollars out because there was a lot of I couldn't quite tell if I was going to need to figure out the 4th of July during the last budget. Um so there was about $20,000 in um public music, but we also have access funds from when we were having to put the stage up at Riverside in the public music budget. So it will it will not require contingency. No, we do not have funds budgeted, but we could reallocate some of those funds in order to be able to support um the if they would like to continue to put on uh Fourth Vest having um Experience Rochester do that. I don't think it would need to be an increase. >> Council member Palmer. >> Well, I I would agree with Mr. all that we need to do something for experienced Rochester or I thought they did a great job and I think we need to continue that and if that comes out of the music budget that's that's one thing. Um but I don't know maybe we need to look at Riverside um on Sunday nights and see if if they can do it cheaper or better or differently than we're doing it currently. >> If you wanted to look at that I think you'd be looking at a pretty wholesale change to public music which is fine. I just want to make sure that if there's comfort level with the rest of the council doing that. I I'm comfortable doing that. I just want to make sure I'm not running down a rabbit hole. I will say that Experience Rochester is on your study session agenda for I should probably have this in front of me. um coming up in the future to talk about Chateau Theater and that might be a good discussion to have there also with them actually with us because I don't want to speak on their behalf. Um that is coming on July 27th. >> Did council member Keane? >> Yeah, I'm I'm just going to react to the discussion going on. I I want to kind of speak of that. I I don't want us to get into micromanaging other department budgets in these sort of discussions. Like you say, there might be a good reason to look at the um the downtown events or the music events, but to do this like in a budget meeting on the fly without the staff involved, I I I don't want to support that. And maybe by being silent, I felt like I was. So, I wanted to speak up. >> Council member Miller. >> And I guess just to clarify my position, I I'm not necessarily uh I'm not Endorsing Mr. Palmer's recommendation, I'm I'm saying I would like to look at our budget support of summer festivals, summer programming across multiple departments. And that's why I brought community building fund in there as well through Miss Matella's office because I think all of those things are supporting cultural and outdoor public events and just understand how we're comprehensively supporting that and how we're modifying that so it's relevant for the community going forward. >> Council member Doring. Yeah, I I would agree that I would appreciate these conversations based in data and not just theor theoretical abstracts. So, um I would I would I would love to see uh the information that both uh council member Keen and I I really council member Miller has requested to come back to us for further discussion. Any further uh feedback for the recommended supplemental budget which we will hear again in August? Seeing none, we will take a uh 8 minute break. February of 25, the council asked us to evaluate options to um do phase two of the regional sports and recreation complex, which we're now calling the Rochester Sportslex. Um that was really with a desire to meet some indoor recreation needs that we felt were unmet. Um, subsequent to that, there's been a lot of evolutions in our community since uh, this has happened, of course, you know, we had the YMCA, we've had, um, you know, private facilities closed, we've had the dome announced that they weren't uh, going to be reopening this fall. Um, so we've had some conversations with RCTC. Um, weren't able to really advance uh, an indoor option there given a variety of constraints that you've all heard about. Um, and then we did get confirmation in 26 that the dome will not be reopening this fall. Um, just really want to talk to you about the policy considerations. Um, really this is just an ask of you to say, you know, do you want to consider utilizing any of these financing authorities to continue the conversation on indoor wreck? This is really just an opportunity for you to say like one of these is, you know, the right idea at the right time. Maybe it's the right idea at the wrong time or maybe it's just the wrong idea all over, you know. So, um, just really want to get your feedback on on that. Also, just want to emphasize coming out of our previous conversation in June that we, you know, have made as many changes as we can to the Rochester Sportslex site plan that would allow for a future dome installation, but there are many that are not costneutral and that we are, you know, continue to advance the original design for that project. Um, and we just have to pick up those items in the future. Uh, lot of evaluation in the indoor rec space. Uh we've we've talked about this, but really just want to emphasize those continued Keith shared themes. Of course, affordability, community access, and flexibility, um opportunities for casual recreation, uh flexible scheduling, better communications around what we have were all themes that we heard in the four or so different efforts of outreach that we had on this topic. Um, one option uh to meet indoor recreation needs, of course, is the the notion of a dome on the uh Sports Plex site. Uh, I'm not going to go through that. We've talked about that, but for context, you know, that could be up to 250,000 square feet of indoor turf space, six um indoor or eight indoor basketball courts, sport courts, uh indoor pickle ball, indoor play area, um you know, significant amount of square footage. Uh by contrast with the original uh facility that was discussed on the Sports Plex site, that was about 130,000 square feet, no indoor turf. Again, subsequent to all this, the indoor turf that people have grown to utilize and enjoy in Rochester is no longer available. Um, there are obviously costs uh to this. Uh, the request at the previous meeting was to uh consider pursuit costs or evaluation costs. Um, and again, we wanted to pause on that um with the understanding that you wanted to have a better community conversation around financing if you wanted to go down that road. Um so we're here to kind of have that conversation tonight. Um so again not going deep diving you know on that because you've seen that. Um at that previous meeting as well there was some conversation around um our arts investments and you know are we doing uh enough there in that space. I wanted to just highlight some of those because I think you know you go through the budget processes and we sort of live yeartoear on these things. Um but really um sometimes when you take a step back what some people might think is limited investment you know really is substantial investment. Uh so civic center and again I'm going to say these can cut across a variety of things. They're not all you know easily categorized into one bucket. Um, but you know, if you look at our civic center investment, um, which does bring a wide variety of, uh, arts and cultural options to the community, uh, we collect about $12 million plus or minus of lodging tax. Uh, there's three different buckets. We'll talk about that later. Um, but we do provide about $4 million per year to the Mayo Civic Center for operations. Um, and out of that you get, you know, events, you get, you know, Bob Dylan, you get comedy, you get a variety of these other things that come in, uh, to the civic center. Uh, you also have a lot of venues in that facility uh, that can host people. So, in the, uh, arena, for example, you can host up to 5,000. I'm not trying to give you perspective on what people view as the user experience of this, but it is. I'm just giving you headcount numbers. um you can get 5,000 in the arena, 3,000 in the auditorium, and a little over a thousand in presentation hall. Um so we we can accommodate large numbers of users in those groups. Um in those areas as well about a year or so ago, you received the facility condition assessment for the civic center. Um there's about $38 million of deferred maintenance needs there. About 15 million of that is just basic roofs, HVAC, plumbing, mechanical work. um 10 million of that or so is interior renovation work that would want to happen. Um all sort of prioritized and colorcoded. Um but that's the 10-year projected need in that space. So just want to kind of level set with you that you know we have ongoing requirements in all of our facilities and the civic center at over you know 200,000 square feet is a major uh facility in Rochester. uh looking at you know one of the things I know there's obviously this larger community conversation around you know can we do uh presentation quality uh orchestra and and other sort of large stage events. One of the big gaps that's been identified is the stage space um with the existing civic center. Um, one option for you if we really want to compare $70 million, which is the current estimate for the facility at Graham Park, um, at $ 160,000 square feet, um, which I think 70 is probably a light number, at least with the numbers we're getting, uh, for those kinds of project costs. um is is can you have some opportunity to re-evaluate um stage configuration whether that be in the auditorium or we just did this in presentation hall again a nice a nice facility but lacks the right amount of stage space um and just you know obviously users you know want to be able to use it in certain ways and there's you know operational things but just don't want to look past what you have um on these things um so there is you know some rethinking if you ever wanted to go down that road of you know what could that look like as well. Uh this is just a quick mockup by our team saying like the presentation hall or presentation stage, you know, could be adjusted. Uh other areas that we talk about in terms of arts and culture um here, you know, we certainly have the art center, civic theater, and chateau theater. Just operationally, you know, with the one roof, we have $379,000 per year of investment there. a little over 100,000, you know, on the chateau, but we've put substantial money into the acquisition and subsequent renovation of the chateau. I mean, that's probably plus or minus $10 million. Um, you think about the previous investments we've made through sales tax and civic theater and the art center as well. Um, and and we've at times in his in the history of Rochester made substantial investments in those uh spaces. Uh, you'll have more opportunity to consider investment in the chateau at your July meeting as well. Um so I wanted to talk also I mean we we at the operational level you know uh funds fairly significant arts and cultural activities in the library um in public music and the community connector grant program. So the library has an annual budget of over 10.5 million dollars. You know I think it plus or minus 9 million of that is tax levy supported um and maybe a little more than that. We know about that with the county contribution. uh public music is at about 1.1 million which is something that you don't see nationally like public our investment in public music is somewhat unprecedented I have not come across another public music department um and so at a point in Rochester's time in history you you know there's a community decision to say we want to have this we want to do these things and we want to be able to promote it um but those two are very substantial then the smaller you know investments in arts and cultural programming happening out of the community connector grant program are also meaningful. Um he supports things like Latino Fest etc. Um and have had really great, you know, great uh wide range of smaller activations that are done privately which are meaningful as well. Uh [clears throat] again, this is where you can start to see things cutting across a variety of areas. So if you think about our 125 live investment, we we funded that um for construction. Um certainly active senior living um or active senior, you know, work happening there. Um but also lots of arts and cultural programs that happen at that facility as well. There's lots of groups. Um there's pottery that happens. There's a pottery studio. There's, you know, a variety of other, you know, clubs and etc embedded into that. And the history center is more of a heritage uh provision, but you know, we fund that as well. So between the 47,500 for the history center and $450,000 in annual operating expenses to 125 Live, which that's both their utilities that we cover and our operational contribution. Um we make substantial investments in in that space as well. And then just across our our public construction projects, we have a variety of uh public art uh that's you know incorporated in. So, anything from, you know, the four or five international artists that were incorporated into Heart of the City at a $20 million project, which is more of a public realm, but again, four anchoring international artists uh with that to, you know, Cascade Lake to Arts for Trails, which we don't necessarily fund, but we provide, you know, spaces in parks for um and think of anything with like the North Broadway construction. I mean, we're integrating public art into a variety of our construction projects going forward in the future. So, just wanted to kind of level set that um just for awareness. Um but then on to financing options. So, that's really what we want to talk about tonight. Uh certainly anytime you have these conversations, property tax always an option. You all just had a great uh conversation about like property tax and the competing priorities for that. Um this isn't recommended. I'm just, you know, giving it to you for reference. Um I'm not even going to go through all these numbers for you, but like you can see at different um uh but debt issuance levels what you would need in order to support debt in those areas. So uh again, just wanted to provide that for reference. Maybe the more notable area of uh emphasis for this evening is there is a cities of the first class sales tax legislation um that applies to Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Duth um and Rochester. Um that allows you to do a couple things. Uh, and I'll just say, uh, when you asked us in February of 2025 to look at options for financing indoor wreck, um, this was not something that we knew about, um, this was something that came up in the course of our due diligence in this topic. Um and so from that perspective uh we you know weren't aware of that in the sales tax vote when we you know went through the legislative process the vote process. This is something as we were looking for options at your request that we came came across. Um this does allow us to um collect for the full duration of our sales tax. So right now our sales tax is authorized for 24 years. Uh this allows us to collect for that full 24 years. I'll talk more about the projection about that that the finance teams put together in a moment. Um however it is limited to really two items. So the second highlight there um talks about it being eligible for sports facilities which you know again indoor recreation options certainly eligible for that or convention and civic center. So I would say at a very basic level that would qualify for what you have across the street here. I guess you have a great view of it out the window. um that would qualify as you know right now we consider that our convention and civic center uh in Rochester. Um what kind of revenue opportunity do you have there? Uh so really three points of reference. Uh first our existing obligations. The current sales tax was approved at 205 million plus any interest costs we acrew with the issuance of the regional sports and rec complex debt or Rochester sports debt. Um our estimated obligations are 241.5. The other areas have been contemplated as pay as you go. Um so 241.5 million is that that'll probably be satisfied in 134 years given the current level of collections. Um if you go out to the full 24 years, uh we would project that you would uh collect about $394.5 million. Um I think this projection is very conservative. So you can see that on the right side of the screen. Um, two things to note there and why it's conservative. We only do 1% escalation of that sales tax. So again, sales tax can be, you know, uh, go up and down. Um, but, uh, generally speaking, 1% over 24 years is pretty conservative for us in terms of what we've seen historically. Um, I'd also say, um, for years 26 all the way out to 2032, we're projecting at less than we're collecting right now. Um, so last year we collected over 16 million. Uh, we don't get back to that level until 2032. Just again another conservative way we projected. So again, I think you can come to this with some degree of confidence. With this conservative model, this would still give you $153 million to think about um what you wanted to do. U whether it be sports center or convention civic center. Uh this just shows you a cash flow for how you could maintain the four categories with uh the existing $25 million allocation plus um the uh potential for a phase two um for indoor wreck. Um I'm not going to go through this detail basis, but like again it does allow you to uh work pretty effectively through um all categories. Um so that's your uh cities of the first class authorization that if you so choose you can further explore don't have to but you have that option it's available within the existing law. Um we also just wanted to highlight because there was some discussion about um you know again what can what can you do uh and just wanted to bring this to your attention uh just so you can start thinking about it. it's a little bit more operative in a few years. Um, but our our lodging tax legislation um does also give us some flexibility. So, we have three buckets of lodging tax. So, I want to try to go over that quickly. Um, there's a little bit of a misprint on the bottom. So, I'll talk about that in a sec, but our three buckets of lodging tax, we have 1% which is for destination marketing or is designed to go to Experience Rochester. 3% uh right now currently goes for we'll call it experience Rochester and civic center operations. Um and then we have an additional 3% that is focused on debt service for when we did the MCC expansion um a few years ago here. Um with that uh in 25 we collected about 11.67. So that shouldn't be just the 3% that is actually all of those put into one. So that's um just that's the total numbers uh we're projecting for the 3% that I'm going to talk about in a minute here that is for the debt service that's about $5 million per year. So think about that um when we move on to this next slide. also in our law uh when we got that the lodging tax extension done and there was a rewrite of this around the DMC era um it's allowed for debt service for the civic center and we can use it for pay as you go uh investments in the civic center for we'll call it rehab landscaping skyway again around the civic center but also just think about any physical investment in the civic center we can generally cover with this 5 million per year. As the auditor previously mentioned, our debt obligations are going to be um going to be satisfied in about 2034. So, in 2034 on, um it might be earlier, but 2034 conservatively, um you would be able to use that $5 million for capital reinvestment in the civic center or to redo a stage or to upgrade the arena seating or those are all policy conversations that you're going to want to have. Um but again, you have a fairly significant amount of deferred maintenance there, too. So balancing all that off. Uh we also have other funding in the current agreement. Um about a million is going to capital. Um so it's not like we're investing zero in capital in the civic center either. So wanted to just make you aware of that authority. Um but really sort of land you on the the concept of you know is this an idea that you'd want to consider? Um if you do um what how do you want to have the community conversation around that? I mean certainly there's another level of this conversation that wants to happen with community feedback and engagement. If you are interested we would bring you back a strategy that outlined how that could happen and make some recommendations there. Uh also I just want to emphasize I think you all received an email today just based on some questions. I think there was a question around Cub. Uh could that be used for indoor wreck? Um you can do anything uh with the right amount of funding and investment. I'm not sure. in in right price, right? And it's not actively on the market this minute, but um we've certainly have done our fair share of adaptive reuses of building. Some successful, some not. Um but uh there are some challenges with that. Uh you uh it's 80,000 square feet. Um so in the context of this discussion, uh the existing dome, the existing turf space is, you know, just under 100,000 square feet. You're not doing turf in that building. You could do some gyms potentially at that square footage. Um, however, uh, the ceiling height's not great. It's not ideal. Um, you're probably 18 to 20 feet on ceiling height, which would be more recreational in nature. You wouldn't want to do anything competitive. It wouldn't be a good fit for volleyball. Um, the other part of that is there's columns all over that thing. So, you've got about 13, 14, 15 columns, whatever it is. Um, configuring gym space within that. So, the shortest distance is like in the 20 feet foot range or 23 foot range. longer is 30. For gym spaces, you want fif, you know, conceivably 50 to 70. So, your gym configurations, your court configurations wouldn't be ideal in that situation. So, just want to lay that out. Certainly, we can always do more evaluation, but on its face, it seems very challenging. So, >> I've got a question, just a clarifying question on the lodging tax to start off. So you you first we have a 3% lodging tax, but then you talked about 1% for marketing, another 3% for operations. So, I'm unclear as to what is our lodging tax. And then I and then as kind of follow-up questions is is it a a legislative initiative if we were to ask to increase that to 4%. Uh and would that then uh would we then more rapidly cover our debt? >> Yeah. So the the correct answer is is that um all of those authorities are creatures of legislative action and we have one of the longest continuously operating lodging taxes in the state. Um and they are bucketed that way. Um so if we wanted to go to four we would have to you know request that authority from the legislature and certainly can do that. Um you know there is sort of a qu and then there so I'm I'm getting off topic here. Sorry. Um so yes on the 4% you would go uh the 1% if you think about a lot of u experienced Rochester like organizations they're called CVBS or destination marketing organizations that 1% would go to fund their operations and not just for the civic center. We think about it a lot because of the way it's funds the civic center now, but a lot of communities really just do it as heads on beds, marketing to marketing your community, total promotion, total marketing. Um, no real operational considerations for facilities. That's probably the vast majority of communities in our state use their CVBlodging tax money that way. Um, and we have this other authority then that allows us to go 3% for experienced Rochester and civic center operations. And then the last is 3% or about $5 million is for that debt service >> and the total lodging tax local lodging tax is 7%. Bucketed in that way it is with different total is seven three and one with different >> authorizations for use. >> Yeah. Council member Palmer. >> And it's my understanding that our It's my understanding that our lodging tax is the highest in the state. Is that right? >> I I don't know the answer to that. Um it's higher than most, but I don't know the if I don't know if it's the highest. >> And one of the reasons we don't re usually like to raise it is because it's basically male clinic patients and we're trying to keep it as reasonable as possible. So, let's um let's go back to what you're you're suggesting here. Uh cities of the first class uh $40 million project. Is that correct? It has to be the minimum. >> That is also correct. I did not mention that. >> Okay. So, if we wanted to do a $65 million extension, would it take us about six years to to pay for that? Um um indoor sports, the phase two of the indoor sports. Yeah, certainly the debt service associated with the indoor sports at 153. Um, you have a lot of room. You can go at least 65 million if you wanted to go that high, but again, we don't have the exact number, but you certainly could could do it if you were trying to save up for it. You have construction escalation you have to deal with, of course. >> So, you have 153 million available um if we went to the full 24 years. If you took the um Chateau Civic Center that we have in Rochester and into the $40 million project there, would that also qualify? I mean, do you just put the name civic center on it and or is there a definition for civic center? >> Yeah, I mean, ultimately the council is going to be the arbiter of that, but you know, you have to withstand the scrutiny of public opinion and legislative perspective on that. So, I would be somewhat judicious about calling everything a civic center um when you have one. Um, but certainly that's that's part of your policy conversation. >> But the other problem on that would be, and I'm just I'm just asking a question, is is how would you spend $40 million at the civic at at the chateau? >> Because I think the need right now is about 15 million, isn't it? >> Yeah. I mean, it I'm sure there's people that could think of ways to do that. Um, but uh >> well, not well, but being reasonable and and prudent with the taxpayer dollars. I mean, >> yeah. I mean it would I mean it would be an expensive investment that you'd have to want to maintain in perpetuity. Go ahead, >> Mayor Norton. >> So, a couple couple things. Um when we the newspaper articles started coming out about this, I got calls from several people and one of the calls pointed out to me and I'm just going to reiterate this as a fact. We said we were going to build the sports complex, regional sports complex for $65 million. And now we're talking about over a hundred million on a sports complex that the community did not anticipate and was told it would be 65 and they aren't getting what they want for that 65. I think we have all sorts of problems just within that bucket um of issues. This is you're you're doubling the price nearly doubling the price of a sports complex you said you could do for 65 initially. Granted things change as you moved along and and decided what you wanted to do with the baseball diamonds. Um the Southeast location again no accessibility to kids on a easy basis. So that came up. I want to remind people in the administration and at the table here, I will not be here to give you my unsolicited advice in the future about legislative matters, but our legislators are interested in and also would be willing to make changes to the language in the law. So just because today it says the things that we have written in front of us and that we were told all that can be changed as well as a determination about whether a performing arts center or whether some other center would be considered civic in nature or not. Maybe it maybe you can't justify in your head that it would be. The legislators are ready to go forward to make changes in the legislation to try to help us make [snorts] just like these were put in for initially duth and Minneapolis and St. Paul and [clears throat] then Rochester became a city of the first class. All that legislation can be changed in a session with the help of our local legislators. Um I also uh wanted to add the item of um community engagement. Yes, I think we are jumping the gun assuming the community wants a hundred plus million dollar sports complex. I think we could ask if we're going to make any sort of changes with another 55 million or more, we should ask the community what they want just like we did with the initial four items. And I think whether it be a ballot question, maybe that's the direction to go since we did that for the first time about the options for spending this. I think the community deserves to weigh in. um they feel like they haven't been heard to this point and I think this is an opportunity for us to weigh in but I feel like there's a real mismatch between what the recommendation in front of us is and I know it's just a concept and idea and what this [clears throat] community initially wanted and expected and what you're proposing now I think it's a mismatch with this community and what this community wants so I We turned down an opportunity to add a fifth item to the sales tax extension when we could have done it the second time we went forward. And I feel like that's a little bit about where we are now. We're talking about adding something else. Either adding to what we currently have or a whole another concept. And I just I think we need to be really careful about assuming what our community wants. Um and think long and hard about how we move forward on this. So I'll just end it there. >> Council member Miller. >> Yeah. Just a question. So if we do nothing and we're collecting at this rate, when we collect the 241 million, the authorization ends. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> It could end. >> Yeah, it could end. uh what we have typically done historically as a community a couple years ahead of that um we've discussed what the next sales tax [clears throat] extension might be and then tried to get the legislative approval and then position it for voter approval two three like in this case we started this conversation for the original sales tax or the this one that was just enacted in like 2019 2020 uh because it takes time to navigate all the steps >> and and so assuming the conservative projection that point would be reached in what year? >> Um, you know, I I think you're plus or minus 13 or 14 years from now. Yeah. >> So, in about 10 years, we could be going back to the community to to envision what sorts of projects we would go and say the community needs these things. Could be street maintenance, could be flood control again, could be other things, but really do an intensive process. So, we're we're we're potentially considering a legislative authority that would allow this us to extend this and extend that process farther in time. So, I just want to note that this is not 153 million of no impact money, right? It does impact future projects for future councils, for future community needs. Uh, the other thing I I just keep going back to is when we did the strategic priorities process, we we we changed them somewhat. And my colleague, Council Member Keen, was adamant that we add transformational capital projects, noting that we have a lot of projects going on right now and limited capacity and we really have to focus on delivering what we've committed to. And then the other one that several of us advocated for reframing was inclusive growth management. And I think of both of those in this timing question and I I just don't feel the community behind us saying go ahead and do this too. And so I I think it's really interesting. I I'm glad that it was discovered. Um but short of finding a way to sell this project or ask the community a version of what would investment be meaningful? Should we invest now in a expansion of civic convention center facilities? Should we do a sports complex phase two? Is there a way to do that as a ballot question just asking based on existing authority to go and say option A, option B, option or nothing? >> Your honor, um, yeah, I wanted to address that with the mayor's comment as well. And, um, I don't think you have the ability to do it as a ballot question. I mean, in order to do a ballot, you know, you have to have a specific authority behind that, and it has to be something that is actionable that way. And I don't believe there's a specific authority. You can't do a what we call an advisory referendum >> um on a topic. Uh as you if you could imagine if that was permissible, you'd see those all over the place, right? I think that the real option if you really wanted to do something similar to what you're talking about, um would be to consider a statistically reliable survey like we're doing with the community survey now. Um, and we've done this before on other topics. If you recall, we think we did it on golf or, you know, we've done it on other other topics that, you know, generated enthusiasm in the community. Um, that probably is your best option and you could lay out a range of ideas, see where folks, you know, land. I think you'd want to be somewhat constrained in terms of what you what also aligns with your priorities. Um, but certainly a statistically reliable survey could could be part of your engagement strategy and that's something we've talked about the staff level if we were to bring something back to you. >> To that to that can I just interject for a second to that point? We have the community survey that's going out. Are there recreational activity questions in that survey that uh that is ready to go out in the next few weeks? >> Yeah, it's it's out now. um and at a high level. We did some last year sort of trying to inform the the process that we were in last year. Uh but this would be a better standalone effort. Um just so you could go deeper. We will have some high level things but you also have to remember with the community survey we're asking I don't know if it's 60 80 questions whatever it is on all categories of city government. I think it'd be better just to a good investment. And it's probably $30,000 plus or minus to do something like that as a >> Okay, back to Council Member Miller. And >> and from a timing perspective on this legislative authorization, there's nothing special about the time period we're in now. It's it's during the authorization. Is that correct? We could exercise this at any point theoretically. >> Yeah. Yes. And though here's what I would say to that. >> Construction escalation costs. >> Um there no um yes on that. But I'd also say legislation changes all the time and people may change that. You know, in the future they may say, "Well, cities of the first class sales tax legislation isn't something we thought we wanted to have forever." Um, it was a creature of the time uh when this was created. Um, you've seen significant changes in the local sales tax legislation landscape since you've adopted this. Um, when and we had a major point of consternation when we went through this process. In the past, we've did 12 15 projects. Um the legislature limited us uh to well three I think it was um we went four if I remember right or somewhere in that nature and it it [clears throat] felt different for people. So there was we're just coming out of a sales tax moratorum, no sales tax provisions adopted in this year's budget. So I the future can be uncertain in these things for sure. >> Definitely. Um, and I guess where I would just say I I am at this point is when we go to the legislature for sales tax authorization, there's a lot of effort, a lot of community engagement, a lot of refinement of the council to then devise this series of projects. And then because we need the community to vote, should the legislature authorize us to go to the ballot, we then have to sell these projects to the community and and tell that case. And so if we were to move forward with something like this, I think without that robust community selling the project, making sure it's refined and meeting the needs of the community, I would not be in favor of advancing any series of $40 million plus projects under this authorization. I would also just note again with the transformational capital projects, we have a lot of stuff going on right now with construction and in this particular period up to 2030. I I continue to hear from the community that are kind of tired of new things, >> wondering what else is changing, and I I wonder about this rate of change and progress and how we're keeping people engaged. And so, I just don't feel the urgency to do it right now. I think it's a very interesting authorization. I think it's a great opportunity, but looking back to our priorities for those two reasons, I I would want to do it as a more intentional public engagement process and make sure that this is the right project for the community. >> Council member Wall, [snorts] >> thank you, Mr. Miller. Uh I think that uh you probably just said what I was going to say particularly the question about and I appreciate Aaron's answer uh couldn't we consider this in 5 years or eight years when it and legislation can change but is there an immediacy to the decision that we have to make it happen right now? Um I am in the same camp as Mr. Miller that I would find it difficult to uh put forward any kind of large project in the tens of millions of dollars because I don't think the community is ready for it. Uh I've already knocked on,200 doors. Uh and it doesn't come up very often really. Uh but I think more often in social media it comes up uh rather than in personal conversation at least uh for me. Um I when we had the disappointment of the 65 million not going as far as uh we had been led to believe it could uh I was of the opinion at that point and maybe I'm coming back to that opinion that we be as responsible as we can with the 65 million and we show the community how this can work for the community and then uh as as we find success in that perhaps a community is more willing to take a look at expanding into different kinds of uh opportunities. Indoor dome that that's going to be a pain for uh our community for sure, an indoor dome. Uh but maybe an absence of two or three years will change some community sentiment. I I don't know that, but I would be uh happy to wait on this kind of discussion. >> Council member Keane. Yeah, I I had a couple questions first and I think I uh on the sales tax extension and this idea of the cities of the first class, is there an example of one of the other cities using this in any big way? >> Um yes, I I'm not going to recall the project specifically, but it was one of those things at the time that was came out of the US Bank legislation. Yep. It was written for a very specific purpose but as can happen a city of the first class you know benefited at the time in 2012 when this happened they made it available to others we now have the potential to benefit from other for it as well. Um so >> so there was a specific project done in St. Paul or is that in Minneapolis? >> I believe it was St. Paul but I could I'll follow up with the group. >> Okay. I I didn't know it was used. I just thought it was there. Um, and then on this discussion with lodging tax, I might have read too much into it, but is that it looked like it was less of a sports plex sort of thing and more of a community performing arts function. Is there language in there that sort of like drives it one way and basically keeps it from the other side? >> Yeah. I mean, I think it really keeps it within the confines of the civic center. >> Yep. Um, and and I just wanted to forecast the idea that if you ever thought you needed to make renovations to that to accommodate community need, you have some potential source of funding for that. >> Okay. All right. I up front. Now, I know I want to just go through these like on the you gave the three options with the property tax thing, it really does not make sense. I mean, even when we were doing the sales tax, I viewed there was two projects there that were but for only we're only going to do if the sales tax come. Uh but the other two were really those were city you know the thing with uh flood control and with uh streets those were things that we would have had to come up with new ways of doing but I don't consider this something that belongs in the uh to be weighed in the on the property tax. Um as far as the the um discussion on lodging tax it's interesting but at the same time it does sound like there's legislative things and it almost takes us off this whole sports plex discussion into in a different direction. And I think it did come up in our discussions in in June. So I understand why it's here. >> Yeah. >> Uh as far as the sales tax extension, yeah, I I just do not feel the authority based on the votes that we had that that we here in a group or that I as a member of a group could support that with the idea that don't worry, it's legal. So I I don't think I would go that way. Um, and I do like the idea of um, like as much as the escalation of construction, let's do what we've got on the plate right now and do it well and then find out where we're at in 2031 and see what, you know, what kind of successes or failures we've had and what the next things are to do. >> Yeah. >> Council member Frederick's, >> sorry. >> Oh, did you have a follow-up question? >> Well, I wanted to get Yeah. And I also just um I I wanted to see if like is that what you're hearing from others or is that do you >> Yeah, your honor, I I'm just trying to navigate you through this conversation and and this is a discretionary project. Um but I also think from a policy perspective from from your from your seat having clarity um you know on the fact that uh this is an option that we're not pursuing and so people understand that we won't have a dome next year so the soccer landscape will change the indoor senior softball landscape will change for people um name the you know parks will make decisions uh based on what they need to accommodate in other areas um for facilities etc. These are quality of life discussions and I and no I'm concerned about them. But um the other thing I wanted to talk about again and if someone can help me with this today or another time this idea of reliable surveys and what the community really wants. I through this whole you know three-year odyssey. It's really difficult thing for me to get my head around even to the point that the sales tax we had a like under 55% approval and we say oh good we have we have this like uh authority now to do this. That's that's less than you know we're just above half of the citizens saying this. So when is it that you really have this like what this we use this term what what our residents want and unfortunately many of us have our own set of people we talk to or don't talk to and and so I I really have struggled with getting my head around that. Um and the last comment is I still think we're we've we've sort of simplified this discussion down to indoor and outdoor but I still think we're not talking about the same things. When we talk indoor, there's a group of us talking about like community assets that can be used at a, you know, at a certain level. You brought up, you know, doesn't come up as a main driving force, but the YMCA closing and that's a that conjures up in people a sort of asset that's dramatically different than an eight basketball court that also has two gyms. And we just we seem to have simplified the discussion down to indoor or outdoor. And I I think it's a lot I don't I think we have a lot more tentacles in the community with different opinions on that than what our discussion is is representing. >> Council member Frederick's, >> I like the idea of anything that gives our weekend economy a shot in the arm. Friday through Sunday, we see a large difference in traffic in our community. I mean, I I like the idea of having the sports community um action in town. It's it's a good vibrant uh crowd. They bring a lot of great things. They spend a lot of money. They do great things for our economy. I like that. This particular project, I just don't feel good about it right now. I don't feel like we have a well thoughtout plan. Um I don't I don't feel good about the way it presents myself. Um, I don't have a great idea what it what it should look like or anything like that. That's not my expertise. But yeah, and I'm sitting here thinking, when are we going to run out of workers to get this stuff done? It's like crazy what's going on in our community. And I do uh I am very comfortable walking down the hill slow and drawing an easy breath. If it's a little bit more in a few years and we get a lot better product, it just makes sense. Just makes sense rather than do it quick and be like, "Oh, we should have done this. We should have done that. Why didn't we do this? Why didn't we do that? I just I just don't think we need to do that. Just use a little common sense and take our time and do it do it right if we do it. I don't know. And and I will add this comment. I don't know how why I'm saying all that ever came into into play. This was supposed to be tournament facilities. This is supposed to be a revenue generator for this community with some benefit to the community when not in use for those things. It's not supposed to be our leader. It's not supposed to be what we lead with. That was my understanding. So, and I don't think that's really changed. So, I I do want to see it be something that with a secondary benefit being facilities we can use when it's not being used for tournament play and things like that. Council member Dory, >> I also am not ready to move forward uh with this project, which is is hard for me to say because uh I have heard overwhelmingly from the community uh for the desire for indoor recreational opportunities. I I appreciate uh Council Member Keen's uh last statement about there seems to be a a disconnect uh from the community that I'm hearing from primarily that wants a place for recreation rather than a a tournamentbuilt facility. Right. So, uh I appreciate the the hard spot that you're in. You've you've you've heard our feedback throughout the course of this process about the community wanting indoor recreation opportunities. you've presented a project to us. You've you've done your due diligence that way. And I'm I'm I'm sure it's not the easiest thing to hear us kind of say, h we're not quite ready with that. Um I don't think I don't uh based on the conversations that I I hear in the community, I don't think that there it would be support to to to to build a project of this scope or magnitude. Uh just throwing it on the property levy. Um I property tax levy. I that's a no-go going for me. The I also agree that the lodging text stuff is interesting to me. Um but I I need to do more due diligence to understand that. I appreciate you bringing us forward the options of uh continuing to collect the sales tax beyond the current scope of of what we promised the community that we were going to collect it for at this point. Um um but I think I've I've said before as well, just because we can do something doesn't mean we should do something. Uh and that's kind of where I'm at with this without increased community conversations, making sure uh that this community understands the ramifications of moving forward in in that collection of sales tax. So, uh, I' I'd be willing to to wait for a while to make to ensure that th those community, uh, conversations could happen, uh, in a very robust way, but at at at this point, I'm not ready to to move forward. Thank you, council member. Uh, and I I guess just to kind of wrap this up, I would say we're kind of in a place where we're sports complex fatigue. I feel it from the community and I think uh just kind of picking up on what all of my colleagues have said, I think I think what we need is something real to show the community and we do have the facility being built and it is opening next year and uh success for that will be the best thing for any future extension on that. I would go back to and one I I I I appreciate council member Doring really giving the staff uh uh cred on this because you did do what we asked. This has been an issue that we've talked about, this council has talked about for over a year and a half. And uh part of me is I am really fatigued with relitigating that 2023 vote. The majority of us here were not here at the time. But what I can say is that our staff listened to us when we said we do want the community is interested in indoor and you folks were very creative. We worked for months and months with RCTC on looking for options there and through that process this was discovered. I also want to say that what we've also talked about is really looking at increasing the visibility and marketing of our recreational uh facilities holistically. I think that's what we need to focus on in the in the short term in the next year and that includes visibility of our partnership with RCTC that still is a partnership. uh we will see some kind of impact with not having the indoor uh uh turf field uh dome that uh RCTC uh decided not to put up after this year. So that we will feel that effect. But I I do want to keep drilling on. Let's get tighter on what that visibility campaign is for all of our uh all of our recreational activities. And um take a pause on this for now. With that, Council Member Millie, do you have >> Yeah. One closing comment if I may. I I appreciated the conversation and presentation about how we support arts and culture in the community. What I would just note though is that where sports and recreation falls clearly under one department of of parks and wreck, I think public music holds part of it and then there's a gap on the other support. And I I think that's something we're going to have to figure out over a longer term of how do we support arts and culture from an official government perspective and that might look like an evolution of public music. It might look like an evolution of another department, but I do think it is a missing piece of of official support. Thank you for that. With that, uh, let's move on to, uh, Chief Franklin and persons experiencing homelessness. >> And unlike our first three topics, Chief, you only have half the amount of time. Well, good evening, uh, council president, council members, mayor, uh, city administration. Thanks for this opportunity. This was your request for us to come back and report on all of our efforts. Really uh the purpose of this presentation is really just to illustrate uh what we're doing from a police perspective. The type of outreach uh that our officers in our Rochester Police Department homeless navigator uh are doing with individuals who quite frankly require uh really the greatest level of service within our community. Um I am incredibly proud of the work uh that these individuals are doing. Uh and I'm excited to present this to you today. Uh, I'm going to let uh I'm just going to do a quick opening here and I'm going to let uh Captain Jennifer Hodgejman do most of the speaking, but I also brought Lieutenant Greg Jerdau who in my opinion uh probably knows more about uh people experiencing homelessness in this community than anybody I've I've met before. Greg, in my opinion, is a subject matter expert. Uh he has dove into this issue headon and uh with courage and professionalism. I appreciate that. Uh, Captain Hodgejman heads up our community services division which houses that uh, community action team. Uh, before I turn it over to them, uh, just real quick, I do need to go back to council president Schub's question or that now that I kind of have further clarification. You are correct, sir. Terry Dose right now is funded as a 0.5 under a contract. If this is approved, this budget request is approved. That is a net 0.5 gain as an FTE position. So, I just wanted to offer that. >> Thanks for that clarification, Chief. >> Appreciate that. Uh, with that, um, I'll just kind of jump in here on the first slide. Again, uh, I'm incredibly proud of the work, uh, that these guys are doing on an absolute daily basis. I think you're going to see that, uh, as we engage, uh, this population within our community, a very difficult, complex issue uh, that that quite frankly cities our size struggle with across the country uh, as we do. But, uh, we do it with compassion and respect. And I think you're going to see that reflected in this presentation here. And with that, I will turn it over to Captain Hodman. >> Thank you, Chief. >> All right. Uh thank you again for the opportunity, mayor, Mr. President, council members, administrators elms, for this opportunity to come uh before you and give a an update on our response to homelessness here in Rochester. I'd like to begin by acknowledging what everyone here knows. Homelessness is a very complex issue, right? And as Chief Franklin said, our approach is guided by compassion and respect while we also recognize that accountability and uh enforcement remain necessary components of an effective response. So what are what are we doing? Our role is much broader than just simply responding to calls for service. Our officers are regularly engaging uh individuals experiencing homelessness. We're providing information about available resources. We're attempting to connect people with services and we're working collaboratively with our city, county, and community partners. One thing that I want to emphasize here is that our response to homelessness involves more than uh just one person, one unit, one division. Um it's not simply the responsibility of those people. Patrol officers are responding to calls every day involving homelessness. Our community outreach specialists are dealing on a daily basis with those individuals in our community who are experiencing mental health crisises. Our CAT team is addressing chronic issues, problems, um problem locations, camps, and since March of of 2025, um our contracted homeless outreach navigator, who you all know as Terry Dose, um as you will see [clears throat] throughout this presentation, has added another important layer for us in our response to homelessness here in Rochester. So together all these resources allow us to be much more intentional and strategic with our resources. So here uh for the police department we uh use what we call a threee approach and our approach begins with education. We want individuals to understand what the laws are, the the services that are available, what resources exist in our communities and what expectations resist or exist, excuse me, uh regarding ordinances and the use of those public spaces. Whenever possible, our first interaction is always to educate about providing information and creating opportunities for voluntary compli um compliance. The second approach is encouragement. This is the second step for us. We provide someone with resource with a resource guide is one thing, right? But successfully connecting someone with services is completely different. um our patrol officers, our CAT team, our homeless outreach navigator, they all work to encourage individuals to accept services, make referrals, and conduct follow-up. The persistence is important because we know that someone might not accept services that first time or even the 10th time. [snorts] The last step in this is enforcement. And enforcement is used obviously when education and encouragement have not been successful and when officers have probable cause to believe that crimes have been committed or activities have occurred. We are intentional about the sequence of this approach. However, compassion and accountability are not mutually exclusive. Uh there are circumstances where enforcement is necessary to protect public spaces, protect uh community expectations, and address criminal behavior that we're seeing. So, the next video that we're going to show you is a success story that we have by the name of Matt. And Matt is an individual who we've dealt with for several several years. Uh he was an individual who you've all heard us talk frequently about the top 10 list and kind of how you go on and off the top 10. Um is really all related and I'll show you here in a couple slides related to contacts and hours for service. And again, it's our most uh resourceheavy individuals, the ones that are requiring the most attention from law enforcement and our and from Terry. And so Matt was one of those individuals. And a couple weeks ago, he sent a a text message picture to Officer Venter and it was just him with this huge beaming smile and it showed a full set of brand new denture teeth that he was so excited that he was finally able to get. Now Matt is now in housing. He has a full-time job. He's successful and he's hoping to continue that momentum. And have we stopped our contact with Matt? Absolutely not. So, this contact, this relationship that was built has gone on for a very long time to the point that, hey, his his number one contact when he gets his new teeth is to send the officer a picture of it. Um, I will say that he's very softspoken. So, hopefully the volume is turned up enough uh that we we can hear him. Otherwise, we might have to restart it. I was living on the side of IV, the 30 37th IV on in a tent and uh you know our team decided to show up. >> I think that was one of the times we started really getting drooling to try to accept some help. Yeah. Went right back in that corner. >> I was sitting in my tent. They walked up. They were talking to me. I mean it was 30° outside the windchillus 50. wanted to go out and visit Matt. His only request from us would be to bring him hand sanitizer because the hand sanitizer starts a quick little fire which would keep him warm during the winter months when it got to those brutal temperatures. >> I tend to isolate myself from everybody from the whole world. That's just the way that's just what drives did to me. >> We let him know how much it meant to us for him to do better and therefore he would do better. He didn't even care about himself enough anymore to overcome. But I think with with knowing that it mattered to us that that changed and made a difference. >> Yeah. I think coming from the perspective of a police officer showing that compassion that we do care about individuals and we want to see them succeed and we can offer them everything that we can but uh we need their assistance to also help with that transition. So for him it was just that constant contact uh building that friendship, that relationship. I mean, I live in an apartment now that I pay for it. Um, I got a job that, you know, supports me enough to have enough food. I'm saving a teeny bit of money. It's not much, but hopefully it'll be enough for me to buy a car, actually get my life back together. You should be very proud of what you've accomplished over the last call it year and a half, right? So I mean you have some speed bumps which everybody does and you got over those and you continue to push forward. >> I wouldn't be anywhere near where I'm at right now if they hadn't come out and tried to save me. >> Thank you. All right. So that that that's one success story. Going forward, what does that top 10 list look like, right? Um here is just representational of the amount of people that have the most police contacts in one particular month. Okay? So you'll see the range of this this particular month's top 10 ranges all the way from some people have 29 contacts, some people have 10 contacts. Now these contacts are calls for service. These are not the contacts that the the CAT officers are having with these individuals. These calls for service are coming in from dispatch. They're coming in from citizens. These are quality of life issues. These are people being disruptive. It's public nuisance. It's trespassing. The next slide is the amount of hours that some of those individuals are taking of officers time. These are again our most heavily resourced dependent individuals all the way from 22 hours down to 11 hours. You guys have seen some of um some of these brief updates if you will and this is just kind of a snippet of what Terry provides to leadership about who she's been dealing with this month on the top 10 list. And um what I want to emphasize here and you can read from all these different paragraphs of people is that it requires persistent relationship building. It's Terry getting out there on a daily basis. It's the CAT team officers getting out there re-engaging with officers, reminding them of the services that are available. It's not always a linear progress, right? Like some the success is going to look different depending on that individual. You can see from some of these um some of these summaries that they're not all individuals that are even originally from here. And I think that's a trend that we're going to continue to see as some of the outlying communities surrounding us don't have the resources uh to address some of these issues. We're going to start getting those people who are coming here from like one of them is Winona County. And so there's this kind of conflict going on between is this an county individual, is this a a Wabasha or Winona County individual and who pays for those services that they're going to be getting in terms of treatment and stuff like that. The other thing that's very important to point out here as you'll see from some of these summaries is the these are messy. These these lives of these individuals are messy and it's not just as simple as placing them into housing. It's ensuring that they have substance abuse treatment. They have the resources necessary to get into mental health. um help and sometimes that comes from being placed in jail so everybody can kind of level set and get started from ground zero and that's where Terry also will do a lot of her work is getting into jails um our jail here and connecting with these individuals who maybe now are ready to go to treatment or maybe now are ready to have rule 20 evaluations done >> can you hold a minute council member Miller >> just for clarification can you define what a rule 20 evaluation does. [laughter] >> So, rule rule 20 uh evaluations, and correct me if I'm I'm wrong on that, are quite complicated, but it requires a court to determine that somebody is not mentally capable of providing some of those decisions for themselves and therefore kind of takes the court system will take that over for them and most often times it is placing them in maybe a facility or putting restrictions or conditions on them remaining in the community. Now, the difficult thing about that is the amount of and we we had the number. I apologize. I can I can get it for you as well. We had the number that Mstead County uh recently had seen in terms of rule 20s where if it was like approximately 75, the amount that maybe actually went through were like five or 10. And the reason for that is is because if you're allowed the opportunity to stay in the community to to make sure that you're doing this, this, and this, and you actually do it, you're not going to get committed. So, there's kind of that that loophole there for us. However, one of the great things about us having um Terry Dose in this position and having that social worker in that position is that gives us a seat at those tables where they're having those discussions about these are the people that need the rule 20 evaluations and here's how we're going to get them services because this I see them every day. I'm out there, you know, making sure that they're doing there are a couple individuals who will have summaries here that that need it um that are living in the community that are doing what they need to do in terms of what the court expects of them and so they're allowing being allowed to stay here in the community and not being committed. Great question. So this slide here is probably one of the most significant data points of the entire presentation. And this highlights really that from January of 2025 to Mar to May of 26, 81 different individuals have cycled through our top 10 most contacted lists. Through our persistent and focused outreach, 54 of those 81, nearly 67%, they've all transitioned off the list in one month, which is is pretty amazing. Um, even more importantly though is that 41 of those 54 individuals have remained off the list. Okay, so that means nearly 76% of the individuals who initially trans transitioned off the list have sustained that progress. And that's not just because we drop away and allow them to do things. It's because we're continuing to have that contact with them. Terry's continuing to see them. We see them out and about. We're continuing that dialogue and we have that relationship that we've built. So, like we said earlier, this isn't just dependent on the CAT team and isn't just dependent on Terry Dose. Patrol also has um a part in in what's going on in the response to homelessness here in Rochester. And this this slide here highlights that in May alone, patrol officers um approximately 760 hours were spent working with the homeless population. And again, this is going to be calls for service that are generated from the community. This is going to be times when maybe we don't have Terry here or our CAT team members are gone. This is maybe the weekend. This is on holidays. Um, to put that into perspective though, that 760 hours that those officers could be responding to other calls for service within the community that they're not able to do that. In May, we had um 536 or 538, sorry, incidents involving um homeless individuals. [clears throat] And that represented a 2.67 increase for us just in the month of May. [snorts] Um we recognize obviously that incidents are not the full story. That it's why we that's why we look at the number of contacts. We look at the location. We look at the the officer hours, individuals involved, and we look at the outcomes. >> Council member Miller, >> just for clarification, 200 2.67% six seven% increase compared with May of the prior year, the prior month. What is the increase from? >> April or yeah, April. >> April. Okay. >> Previous month. I we haven't have the numbers yet for for June. So, what else is the CAT team doing? So, again, we have a continued presence that we're maintaining in the Skyways. Um, this slide here kind of highlights the reason that it's important for us to maintain that that presence because the last thing that we want is it for everything to divert back to the way it originally was, right? And so if the concern is is that if we completely just walked away from that that skyway presence that these conditions could return. Greg's here and he can maybe talk a little bit about the camping response if there's questions about that. But I I wanted to bring this up because there always seems to be questions or a misconception about once a camp is reported that it's like immediately um removed and that's not actually what occurs. There's an entire process that we go through and a lot of it again goes back to those three E. We're educating them. You know, we're encouraging them and then we're enforcing it. So it gets, you know, a a camp gets reported and then our officers, then the CAT team will go out and take a look at it and then we're posting the cleanup time and then we have to come back and clean up whatever is left and that's not just a burden that the police department shares, you know, we're sharing that with public works and with parks. Anything else you want to add on that? >> No. >> Okay. the camping ordinance. Um, as you guys know, the camping ordinance, right, is prohibitive of camping on city property and city rideaways. The number of detected camps that we've had has been decreased significantly um since the ordinance went into effect. So, in general, the camps that we are seeing are smaller, they're cleaner, and they're more mobile. This slide here shows that it illustrates the difference between where we were and kind of where we are today. So that's what the the pictures on the left before the ordinance. This is what most of our camps used to look like. And now this is the recent stuff that we're seeing. Terry wanted to be here. However, she's in Iceland this week with her daughter. So we got a video that we had her record on on um [clears throat] what she does. >> I am a social worker. Um, I am the homeless outreach navigator currently for the Rochester Police Department. I do a lot of walking in the streets, um, the skyways. This is, this was a very popular place, um, in the winter. >> We go to places where I can find folks that are unhoused and try to help them get connected to services and resources, housing, um, substance use, treatment, food. I get a lot of steps in. Um there's I sometimes hit my um 10,000 steps in the morning. I usually walk um I would say two two and a half miles in the morning um between the skyways and um outside when it's nice out. I try not to be outside too much when it's really cold, but um I do bundle up and head outside cuz I know I know some spots where folks like to >> like to hide out and stay warm. The beauty of the work that I do is if I need an officer to go with me, I've got one. I can grab somebody, we we hit the streets. So, some of those folks that are a little bit more difficult or that struggle a little more with mental health and and substance use um particularly the substance use um I have access and I can take officers with me as needed and that has been um a very um wellreceived and um useful tool for me. We've um worked on building those relationships, the officers and myself. A lot of them are business people um down in the Skyway. There's also the security guards in the Skyway have been very helpful as well. They have eyes where we don't have them all the time. You know, we do our walkthroughs in the morning. Um but they're usually there all day and so they usually tell us if someone's struggling, if someone if they know someone is hiding under the stairwell or if they need some help. By building those relationships with folks in the community, it has helped us to find people and access people and build rapport with those unhoused folks. I met a gentleman um down in the subway. Actually, we were down in the subway and I have been trying for months, probably I'm going to say almost closer to a year, to gain some rapport with this guy. >> I don't know. I don't know if he'll consent to talk or not, but I do need to have a chat with him. but he sees us and he darts away, you know, and I've I've tried and tried, but just recently, for whatever reason, he has chatted with me a little bit. And when we saw him today, um I asked you not to go down there cuz I didn't want to scare him away with the camera, but he agreed to meet me at the library. >> So, what time you usually head to the library about 10:00? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I'll meet you over there a little bit later and we'll sit down and get that filled out. Okay. Terry, remember Terry? >> And he was there at the library at 10 o'clock this morning. Um I sat with him for an hour. I got I did the coordinated entry um paperwork. Um he signed some releases for me. He agreed to um see a doctor. He agreed to have a diagnostic assessment, which these are all tools that we can um use to help him get help. Catch a lot of folks over at the Salvation Army. I'm over there, I would say, daily um lately. I tend to go there late morning or close to the lunch hour um because a lot of people go there to eat. I have have had good luck there. Staff have been super helpful. Um we just work together to get folks some help. And then at the very end of the day, I come back up to the north station at the end of my day. Um I make phone calls. I do any referrals. I refer people a lot to the dart team for the county housing. Um I refer a lot of people for mental health help for case management. I just feel it's been a big effort by RPD too to to really work on this. And the officers that um in particular from the CAT team that work on this, they are um a lot of heart. You know, they don't go at it from a um legal or punitive view. They go at it from we want to help you and here's Terry. What can she do for you? It's just been a great combination. We've um accomplished a lot. All right. Uh, >> Council Member Frederick's, >> I greatly appreciate the proactive re approach versus the reactive. It's incredible. And I and and relationships is what makes change happen. And I just really appreciate that aspect that that's the avenue you go about it. I witnessed it firsthand. I went out with one of your officers early morning, went through the skyways. where my patients would have ended. I mean, his started it was unreal. I could not believe calling everybody by first name, going through things with them, helping them pick up their stuff. I was amazed. It that sort of compassion goes a long ways and that is how you get through to people and get them to let their guard down, build some trust, and make some change. It's impressive. So, I just wanted to ask, is there anything more we could do to help you out? >> Yeah, I think that plays into the to the next slide. Um, council member, uh, first of all, we we don't want to lose the momentum that we have. You know, I think as Captain Hajman said, uh, we feel that if we do stop walking the skyways, we do stop engaging, that we'll kind of lose the hill, per se, if you will. So, I think we need to keep our foot on the gas, uh, in reference to this. It's why we need the additional officer and why we need this FDA position. That's why we're asking for it. um understanding that we've you know provided I believe proof proof of concept and the value of having this navigator embedded alongside of the police department has been incredibly uh valuable. It's why we pivoted from two police officers to our current ask in front of you today. Um I I think there needs to be further analysis of you know of the different resources in town and how we can work together uh better and the potential impact that those resources are actually having on town particularly uh any new additional resources that are brought into town. I think there needs to be kind of a collaborative discussion in reference to those. Um and then uh you know with that the second lens there is accountability for all the services being rendered down here and how we again come together for this holistic collaborative approach of solving probably one of the most difficult problems out there for most comm uh council member Miller. >> Sure. Uh just a question logistically if um Terry dose is currently 0.5 FTE and you're asking for a full FTE what is the additional capability of that additional.5 is this a single person is this that that person would be able to talk with the top 20 >> 50 some other like number is it an ability to engage with providers and partners that is not within the scope of ours today is it something else or some combination Great question. Um, actually, um, we did actually apply for a grant for, uh, another contract, uh, navigator. Um, unfortunately, we were just notified, I think a week or two ago, that we did not get that grant. Uh, part of the discussion that I had with the city administrator was, well, if you get that grant, you still need this FTE position. The best way I can answer that question is, yeah, we need them both there. The bottom line is there is actually uh more there's enough work there for probably one and a half two FTEEs uh above and beyond just the 0.5 that we have. There's more work in front of us than Terry can actually do as a.5 employee is the best way I can answer that question. So we [snorts] would just continue the same efforts just just more. >> And I I guess as a followup and you don't have to commit to this but when we asked when you were last here I asked well how soon can you scale this up? And so I'm I'm glad to see that the request is to scale this up. Does that mean keeping Terry in the role and then moving her to a full-time? >> I would prefer if she never retires. So at some point you are correct. We need to figure out how do we duplicate that. >> Sure. >> Um and just to just to add maybe a little bit more context too is part of this certainly Terry Dos is the magic sauce. I mean she is wonderful. She's a gifted individual that has the ability to connect with people, build trust, and then and then help guide them into services. Um but the strategy behind the top 10 is you know is really is a is a pretty smart strategy in the fact that we have to um have a targeted approach. Not targeted from punitive but targeted from hey you know you're coming across our radar the most and and these again these are the people that need the greatest level of service within our community that the most service resistant and how do we get to them and that's part of the the strategy the brilliance behind the top 10 piece. Uh and and again, as the captain said, um we're very proud of our success rate and uh again, is it going to hold? We'll see. We'll see. Uh and if people come back on the list, 100% they have. >> And I would add to that if you at any given time, I think within the county and the city of Rochester, there's a couple hundred people that are unhoused or waiting to get into housing. We are focusing right now on the ones that are creating the most social harm for our community members, and that that's what makes up the top 10. >> Okay. And I know we've talked a lot about the homeless navigator or this homeless outreach coordinator position. What is the capability that an additional Cso offers in this space or how do how do should we interpret this pairing of the request? >> So it's it's not a cso, it's a police officer. This one is for the So, we modified the decision packet from two officers for the CAT team to Terry as a full that position as a full-time and um uh our CAT officer. And the CAT officer is if you maybe want to speak to that all the different things that we have planned for that person. Okay. >> Yeah. In this particular role, uh as with Matt, what you'll find is when you go out and you're you're talking to some people who have lived some pretty rough lifestyles and had some pretty bad things happen to end up where they are. And when you can go out, you can connect with that person and bring it back. It'd be very similar to you going to your doctor and the next time you have to go see a new doctor and you have to tell a very personal thing about yourself to person after person, you're going to be frustrated very quick. That's where we put the right person in that spot like Matt and I have done and some of the other officers on CAT team is you get to know the individual and you like I said, you know how to build that person back up like Matt Short. So he didn't always like us, but he's very happy that we kept pushing and pushing on him to get to where he is. like he says, he wouldn't be in the position he is without us. But you're not going to get that by sending a different officer every time and somebody having to start over their story because they're just not going to start the story over. They're just going to walk away and leave. That's the importance of having that designated person and to pair them with somebody like Terry who has the ability, the resources where she can make things happen right now that we just don't have that ability. and she has the time to work with the jail and get down there when people are sober and work with them at that point and work with the courts and help work with uh commitment processes that those are things police officers we just >> we struggle that's where this was really kind of helpful. So when we started this and the top 10 it's not like a top 10 really what it was is the chief came to me and said we got a problem like help me out like fix this. So I looked at I said okay it was we were having our numbers our contacts it was like 30 40 contacts per person of the highest ones and I said okay well how do you tackle a big problem like how do you eat an elephant one bite at a time so that's really what was I was trying to how do I narrow it down to a bite amount and I said what if we just took the 10 people that are causing the most social harm at any given time and we focus on helping these people and that's where's a lot of people if you've been downtown over years ago you would have seen the same people every day over and over and over and that's what we were seeing. And the chief said, "What do you need?" I said, "Chief, I need a missing link. I need that social worker who's right there with us to help me navigate this that I can get that person, the social worker to help make connections to which treatment facility might be right or which service might be right or if get them connected to a commitment if possible, if that's the appropriate approach." And that's where we got Terry involved and our numbers started to go down and from 30 and 40 contacts per person. We were very close. One month I was really excited. We almost had single digits as our top numbers. >> So that >> we have uh a full dance card here. Uh so we have council member Palmer, Wall, Doring, Frederick's, Keen, and Mayor Norton. So Council Member Palmer, >> I'll make it quick. Thank you. >> Just I got three things real quick. Um camping ordinance, I'm assuming, is is working well and we need to keep the camping ordinance going. Um number two, how are you working with the county? I've always been critical that they haven't done much. um compliment the mayor because she got us to have a an evening shelter in the summertime where the county didn't want to do it. Um is the county stepping up and doing what they should be doing or do we need more help from them? >> I would say that we have since we have started working with this this kind of a model with Terry, our collaboration with the county and external providers has increased exponentially. we are having success and other people are noticing that too and they're getting in on some of that as well. And so again um we're we're require we're asking maybe social workers to to handle things a little bit differently to do things a little bit differently to maybe focus on outreach and the county is stepping up and and we're getting a lot of those resources um from from them to be able to do so. So so that has increased going forward um with the increase of FTE for that position. I would I would expect that we would have greater collaboration and we would have the ability to participate more with collaborative meetings, uh, planning things, stuff like that that right now there just isn't the time of the day for her to be able to do that stuff. >> Council member Wall, >> I simply add my thanks to RPD for treating everybody with respect and compassion. Thank you for all you do. >> Absolutely. >> Council member Doring. Yeah, I I just have a few clarifying uh questions and a statement as well. A according to the Any Path Home uh by name list, there's 300 individuals who are uh single adult individuals who are experiencing homelessness in Mstead County with the vast majority of those uh living in the city of Rochester. Um, uh, earlier in the presentation you put, uh, 538 contact hours, uh, with individuals experiencing homelessness. Wondering if you can tell me what percentage of those hours was allocated to the top 10. >> Uh, I can loop back with you and get that data. I'd have to I'd have to buy forget that. >> Okay. I I I'd appreciate that cuz sometimes there's the perception that all of our homeless population is causing >> immense problems in this community and that that reality simply is not true. >> That that is the top 10. >> Okay. And I would agree with you that is not accurate. Yes. That all of them are by far and large. No, they're not >> correct. And I just want to get that narrative changed in the public sphere as well. And then chief, you had you at the end of your statement, you talked about the impact of additional resources and what impact that could have on the community uh in terms of reaching people in this space. I was wondering if you could unpack that statement for me a little bit. >> Are you talking about the budget ask? >> It was on that slide or you had you had said something like we want to be more collaborative to fully understand the impact of additional resources allocated to serve this population. Were you talking about additional service providers, additional capital expenditures? Can you just elaborate on that a little bit more? >> Sure. As you look at the different service providers, um it's not just issues, concerns, problems are not just isolated to inside the four walls of those buildings. Uh so whether you're talking about the landing, uh the Salvation Army Catholic Charities, uh sometimes those issues spread out into the parking lots into other neighborhoods. Um and uh I I'll be flat honest with you. We have significant issues uh in and around, you know, the landing the warming center as their people kind of funnel in there. And so there's there's downline downstream issues that we that fall to us based on these service providers. And I think that's where we need to start having some of those more collaborative conversations of how can we collectively deal with those issues outside those four walls. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Council Member Frederick's. >> My mind goes right to solutions, of course. And I'm sitting here thinking, training two people while we have this rockstar, having them having her train the next two in line, so to speak, cuz obviously we can't do that. A typical police officer probably can't do that. We need her to train in her predecessors. >> That that'll definitely be part of the, you know, if this, if this is funded, that'll definitely be part of the equation is, you know, how do we sustain this? >> Yeah. Heaven forbid we lose her, then we got this >> vacuum. >> Our unicorns gone. >> Council member Keane. >> Yeah. Thanks. There's uh interesting stuff. I I did want to go just, you know, on on the >> Thank you. uh educate, encourage, but on that enforcement, are we using like the enforcement and on the camping ban? I know I checked at one point a year or two into it and we hadn't made arrests on that, but we're using it. When you use enforcement, I want to clarify what does that mean? Does that mean arrests or what does it mean? >> Let me jump at that. I I think um you you are correct. The the camping ordinance is working. a significantly reduced number of camps in this community and and as the picture showed, it's reduced the size and scope and complexity of those because they're realizing that once we post those camps, they need to move and and that that ordinance gives us that authority to move and sweep those camps. Uh not dissimilar, quite frankly, if you've read any of the news recently, the city of St. Paul is doing a major camp sweep uh uh in in the near future. And so having those rules, having those boundaries are absolutely essential. Same with the skyway ordinance that we talked about that has made significant diff that has made a significant difference. And again, so we certainly do take the compassionate approach, but we also need the rules and the boundary otherwise uh people are less inclined to cooperate and uh in behavior. No, I I agree. And again, I was able to support the campaign man, but I want to understand I think when you're using the word enforcement, maybe we're using it as what we're really having the authority to uh uh to to come to bear or or or does it really mean no, we are retaining we're we're pertaining people and putting holding them for 24 hours. Are we doing things like that? Is that happening? >> If there's criminal conduct, yes, we're certainly dealing with that. We're we're taking appropriate law enforcement action. Um, okay. But I I don't think year to date we've or have we written a >> we no that that was that ended up being dismissed. There was some miscommunication on the understanding of the officer that wrote that. Um, okay. So that that's been dismissed. But I will add that we we have a lot of collaboration and communication that goes on with the city attorney's office regarding these individuals who are really needing to get some assistance. And sometimes it is this person needs to be arrested so they can have some time to sit in jail, detox, whatever it is. And Terry will have that conversation with the city attorney's office. And we've had a lot of success in doing it that way. >> Okay. >> So, it's not necessarily just a decision we all of a sudden make. It's kind of a collaborative decision. >> Yeah. No, I just want to understand that enforcement. And I think that I wanted to clarify that that I think enforcement doesn't mean arresting and going to court and things. Those things I think we we know they're not going to that's just is not the solution. Um, I want to follow up on Council Member Palmer a little bit with the county. I expected to hear a little bit more about the Any Path Home and the this new initiative and I know we're this is really an update from our police force about what we're doing, but I I think I I just want to clarify that this is like bringing these different groups together. Um, I I don't know. I'm I'm looking for it to bridge some of these problems with the things that happen around the landing because they're a part of this or some of these other groups here. Is that is that helping or is it just a group that we try to inform what we're doing or is it we it really is collaborative? >> That's a complicated question. Um so if you look at any path home as more of like a clearing house, right, of kind of like this is where everybody goes and from there people get dispersed into various different housing options. So it exists. Yes. and it is being successful and it's great for tracking those numbers and for being able to show us out of that number these are the people who are maybe homeless with families and they need to go into specific kind of housing. That's what they're going to be doing. Um they're not necessarily going to be dealing with the people that we've highlighted here on a monthly basis. They may know them, but these individuals might never rise to that point where they're going to be available to get any kind of housing through Any Path Home. >> Yeah. No, and I I I appreciate that everyone's in their lane and as the city side of this, we do have some of the enforcement and some of that like feet on the street. So, I appreciate that. >> Council member Keen, I'm going to allow Council Member Doring to fill in since he is our representative on any path. I would I would say that uh one of the interesting uh interactions with uh RPD and any path home is an a public spaces uh work group that's really working on addressing the effects that some of our more um uh [gasps] some of our homeless population that requires more um effort uh the the ramifications of their presence are having in our our public spaces. So there's lots of discussions about how to clean up, how to how to light places so folks aren't okay. >> Congregating in places. So there is there is some beginning work and collaboration in that particular task force with any path home. I don't know if that was what you were looking for. >> No, no, I'm glad I think Council Member Palmer touched on it of saying like we did do we have those those are those connections being made? And I I think the answer is yes. And but like I said, we're still in our own lanes, too. I I don't expect this group to become, you know, to be reassigned into something else. We have to stay in our lanes. Um my my last comment is just on you my admiration for and I think some of this comes from leadership, but the it's amazing the touch some of the officers have in this because going through this in the Skyway or in these other neighborhoods, it it really has to be difficult. And I and I'm I'm really impressed that the especially these younger guys can have that sort of outreach to people who need that at the time. but are not always treating our people with respect back to them. So, I think that reflects leadership, but also the character of the people we're hiring. >> I I I couldn't agree more and thank you very much. I appreciate that comment. We are very careful and selective in who we pick for the CAT team and they have to have a true genuine desire to want to help those individuals be successful. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Thank you, uh, Mayor Norton. So I think a lot has been said but for those of you who were not here when we started this path back in 2018 19 um it was a very different looking situation. We literally those were easy pictures showing the housing in the skyways. They were filled with people living in our skyways. It was a very difficult time and it was new to the city and um we didn't have any path home. I'm so grateful that the county and that we have a representative here um that's working on that because for people who are unhoused and they simply um have fallen on hard times. Could be personal, could be financial, whatever. Sometimes it's easier to and we were from the very beginning finding more success getting some of those folks housed. What we're talking about today is kind of a different population of people who were resistant um as the gentleman that was up there. But sometimes you have to keep being there for someone until they're ready, which is one of the things I think that the police officers have done is being there. There are folks who um have issues may be so significant that finding housing is very nearly impossible um until they're ready to get the help. And this is what this has done. You know, it's hard to hear the top 10 or whatever sometimes. I know I think that rubs some of us the wrong way. Um but they are the the 10 most challenging um persons experiencing homelessness who are are in legal trouble quite often. Um, and that's who we're talking about here. and and I really appreciated uh Council Member Keane's comments because having watched this evolve over the many years I've been mayor, it is night and day difference and truly the compassionate folks that have been hired by RPD and that have been assigned to these uh roles have made a huge difference in the outcomes that we're seeing and why that group of 50 80 people I don't remember how many was something with a one at the have are no longer on the list who are able to get help who are in chemical dependency treatments. I've seen you know sometimes they finally are like I'm ready today right and then you're able to help get them where they need to go. It is a night and day difference. So, um it's been a challenging path and and I felt um really fortunate to have w to been a part of the change because literally at the beginning it was does anybody in the city deal with the homeless population? No one. Does anybody at the county deal with the homeless population? No one. No one was focusing on it. No one. And from that start to where we are now is a night and day difference. and we haven't solved the problem 100%. I'm still waiting to find the community that has, but we're on a a much better path. And I think between any path home and the and the compassion that we're seeing um for our our toughest um folks experiencing homelessness is going to continue to make a big difference. And thank you. Appreciate it. >> Thank you, mayor. And just I one point that I wanted to add taking off on uh what the mayor was talking about is also I want to commend you uh on uh the work that you're doing across jurisdictions. You were at Chief Franklin was at our OCJC earlier the last week and challenging. We talked about rule 20 uh uh uh cases and just there there are a lot of challenges working with major health providers and the county and really uh the chief is taking a lead on really building those partnerships and getting answers for these individuals who who are struggling whether they're rural 20 or close to rural 20 and I one of the things that I really appreciate you uh sharing is that we've heard a lot about the top 10 and what you presented to us today was really showing how people it's not a stagnant top 10. It is people that are moving off of that and that really says progress to me. So, uh thank you very much and uh keep up the good work. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> And now I always put administrator Zelms on the spot. No, she's got it up there. >> That was the clerk. Um, [laughter] thank you. They know that I I can't do it myself. Um, so upcoming on the 27th, we mentioned the Chateau operating model and CIP update, and you also have RPU, water, and power supply plan update. I also wanted to note on here, if we can go to the next slide, I'm hoping there is one. Nope, there isn't. That's okay. Um, in your packet there is the rest of the year of study sessions. So, I did just want to note that we are working on um, getting an uh, final sort of update and feedback from better public meetings. And so, um, if Mr. Blahos is available on August 10th, we do have some time available on that meeting. That might be um, a good opportunity for him to be able to present. Um, but we will check and see if he's available. And then um if you look forward in the year, one of the things that the group had has had talked about was using a fifth Monday maybe twice a year or at least trying it um to not have a study session but to do a town hall. And one of the things we're talking about for your calendaring is potentially doing that on November 30th. That is a fifth Monday. And so I realize not everyone might be available. It would be in a similar style you on the 9th of November. you all. Sorry, something's popping up on my computer. On the 9th of November, you are going to have the feedback from the community survey. And so, what we had talked about is having that be a town hall about the community survey. So, you'd have been presented the information during your study session earlier in the month. You would also talk about how you might want to curate some of the the meeting. We will need to find a meeting space probably before, two weeks before. Um, but just wanted to uh share that for awareness that we're working on that. >> All right. Thank you. And we are adjourned. >> Definitely busy that day.