They were getting a gift from God. >> Oh yeah.>> Yeah. Thank you. Please rise as you're able for thispledge of allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the UnitedStates of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation underGod, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Welcome everybody to the June 1st citycouncil meeting. and we begin every city council meeting with our open commentperiod. This is a time on our agenda for members of the public to speak on itemsthat we will not be taking public testimony during a public hearing laterin the agenda. Each person has up to two minutes to speak for a total of 20minutes. And I keep track uh with two methods. One is the red uh stopwatch onthe wall over there and then the stop light uh in front of us here. Uhparticipants are encouraged to limit comments generally to topics that arewithin the scope and jurisdiction of the council's ability to affect policy. Andcouncil members and staff do not respond directly to your comments during publiccomment, but will instead follow up on any specific requests separately. If youhave materials to share with the council, please give them to the cityclerk and quase over there. And uh you will be invited up to speak in the orderyou signed up. And we have Linda Parker. Is it Parker or Packet? Parker,welcome. And you may have to turn the microphone on.And you push that button and Yep, it's green. There you go.>> Thank [clears throat] you. Hello everybody. Nice to see you all. I wish Iwas coming here less frustrated, but it seems like every time I come to speak tothe council, I'm frustrated. Tonight's topic is the sports complex. Ihave been studying and researching and listening and reading about all of yourcomments. I don't understand how when we make a mistake that we just don't admitit and regroup. The estimated cost of the sports complex has doubled. We allknow it. Why not stop and regroup? We're putting a band-aid on. We're going to goto do this. we're going to do this now. We're going to scale back. We're notscaling back. We're paying twice as much for half the project. But now you guysare making the decision on how those dollars are being spent, not those of uswho vote for it. What you presented, I heard what the states say and ourleaders said that there's nothing that can be done. But I guarantee you there'sgot to be a lawyer or somebody that would be able to find a loophole thatwould be able to say, "Time to stop. Maybe we need to regroup." I don'tunderstand how the payforplay now is going to cover all of these new expensesthe dome wasn't prepared for. That's going to come out of property taxeswhich are at record highs where most of homeowners now are are some of yourhighest earners in Rochester. Families are having to move to apartments becausethey can't afford property taxes. All of this extra money, is it going to comeout of the general fund? I don't know because you guys haven't put out whereit's going to be. I think it's unfair to the citizen that you get to take themoney, we vote for it, now you've got it, and you get to redistribute it whereit needs to be. I wish my checkbook could do the same thing. I think it'sembarrassing, and the state of Minnesota seems to be out of control, and I keephoping that the city of Rochester is going to stand out as a shining example,but we seem to be doing the same thing. Take the money, spend it where you guyschoose to. I hope somewhere when these decisions behind closed doors you guyslook and re-evaluate it and say you know what let's we take the loss and let'scome up with a new plan. >> Thank you.>> Thank you very much. >> Uh that is all I have on my list. Anyoneelse wishing to uh speak during open comment period? Anyone else wishing tospeak during open comment period? I will close the open comment period and wewill uh move to our uh roll call. Clerk Caseil, please call the role.>> Good evening. Council member Keane >> here.>> Council member Miller >> here.>> Council member Wall >> here.>> Council member Frederick's >> here.>> Council member Palmer >> here.>> Council member Doring >> here.>> Council President Schubbring >> here.>> Mayor Norton, >> present.>> Thank you. Uh next up we have our city administrators report. AdministratorsElms. >> Thank you, Council President. Councilmembers, I always start the uh report with thanking our teammates for actingwith respect, integrity, safety, and excellence in everything they do. Anddid just want to comment um that our partners at Experience Rochester arestepping forward on your consent agenda this evening. There is a communityfestival permit for Fourth of July at Soldiers Field. Um so, did just want topoint that out for the community in case you were wondering. that is planning tomove forward depending on action later this evening um with our partners experat experience Rochester with some music starting at 5 or 5:30 in the evening onthe 4th of July followed by the traditional fireworks from the city ofRochester. Also, um if you are have a mailing address in the city ofRochester, we did mail out the summer fund and city resources magazine. Um, Ireceived it uh last week and uh if you didn't receive it, you can pick up acopy at city hall, the library or development services and infrastructurecenter soon. Um, it is also available online at rochesterm.gov.So, if you head to our website, you can get a digital version if that is yourpreference, but it is full of different activities that are happening thissummer. Uh, one of those activities is outdoor water recreation. So, thefacilities listed here are opening soon. Soldiers Field Aquatic Center on June5th. Silver Lake Pool, newly renovated, um, really almost entirely replaced, uh,is going to be opening on June 8th. Um, the McQuillin splash pad is open and asis the Lincoln splash pad and the Silver Lake splash pad will also be opening onJune 8th. Um, all of those are through um, August or Labor Day depending on theamenity. Also, the lakes will be opening. Uh for those of you interestedin the Valley Drive Northwest traffic management improvement conversation,that's going to be Tuesday, June 9th, 6:00 pm to 7:30 p.m. at the RochesterMonasuri School. Um there are going to be talking about traffic calming optionsfor five locations along Valley Drive between 41st Avenue and 46th AvenueNorthwest. Um and Thursdays, downtown will be starting up again starting onJune 11th uh through August 13th except for July 2nd. um 11 am to 8:30 pmdowntown on 1 Avenue Southwest from Center Street um to Historic Third andon Peace Plaza again this year. Um so something for all of us to look forwardto to brought to us by Rochester Downtown Association and the RiversideMusic Series is returning Sundays, July 12th through August 9th at Mayo Park.Music will begin at 700 p.m. Um food and beverage available for purchase fromvendors. It's free and open to the public um on those Sundays. And ofcourse, the forward concert series is also kicking off this Wednesday. Um thatwill also be at Mayo Park um the first of that series. So you can head on downWednesday to check out the forward concert series. That's series that isstarting this Wednesday and Wednesdays throughout the summer. And that's all Ihave. >> Thank you. Next up, we have the mayor'sreport. Mayor Norton, take it away. >> Yep. I've got just a couple ofannouncements um up front. June is gun violence awareness month and um everyyear the moms demand action ask for the dome lights to be lit and hold an event.So that will be coming up this month. Um play ball is a uh an event that themayor's office had sponsored last year and we're sponsoring again this year andthis is in conjunction with the US Conference of Mayors and the and MajorLeague Baseball. And so the honkers will give a training camp for boys and girlsbetween the ages of six and 12 at uh the honkers at the ball field over there. Umthe honkers will run it and um again it's 900 a.m. until noon and if youwould like your child or grandchild to participate you can just go to that umQR code or call the honkers, go to their website. There's a place to register.Um, last year we had 300 registrants and it poured rain and about half of themshowed up and got very wet. Um, this year we have over 200 registrantsalready. So, we're expecting to have a full house for that event. And, um, wejust would love to have um, again, you know, kind of with the 250 theme that wehave going this year, we'd like to get at least 250 kids um, at that event.Um, also moved to the market which is a a new offering this year. The village uhfood co-op has held an event uh at Rochester History Center. They've done amarket on Tuesdays. This year they are moving to Cascade Lake. So this is theirfirst time at Cascade Lake. Um they will be there and the move to the market partis as a result of a US Conference of Mayors grant that we won. um we came insecond or third, third place maybe in that and received $50,000 to support thefarmers market. So um if you move there walking or biking um there will be extrabucks for you to spend at the co-op. So we're really excited to have this newlocation and to be able to support u more active uh movement and healthyeating. So that will be starting here this next week out at Cascade Lake onTuesday nights. should also mention that on Sundays linked to the um uh concertsdowntown at the Riverside area, the Mayo Ball Field, the I'm sorry, the the MLKPark um on the side and south side of the park. Um therewill be a farmers market as well. It had to move a little bit from last year dueto the construction in the area, but that will be open Sunday nights justbefore 2 in the afternoon, I think, till 6:00 or 7 p.m. before the concertstarts. Um, also worth mentioning is Safe CityNights. Um, again, it just shows all the activities um just that the city isresponsible for that are happening this summer. Um, the Rochester PoliceDepartment holds a a community policing events this year. It's at fourlocations. Um it starts on June 9th at Gibbs Elementary and we'll remind folksum periodically but um two in July then and one in August. We're trying to getthem in all the quadrants of the city. Um 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. everyone iswelcome. Free food and activities for all.And then uh also in June is America 250 bike parade. And this was um somethingagain working with the US Conference of Mayors uh and the National League ofCities. We're trying to um hold local events to celebrate America's 250thbirthday. And so there will be a bike parade. Youth are invited at 10:30 tocome to Edison School on the parking lot there, decorate their bikes. Um We BikeRochester and BikeMn are hosting or helping they're helping me organize thisand they'll be they'll have decorations. So the first 250 youth that show up willhave decorations. They can decorate their bike. And then um parents,children, singles, couples, everyone's welcome um to do the bike parade at at11:30. And it'll be along the path that will be used for the parade later in theday and for the run that will be happening between the bike parade andthe citywide parade where everyone comes to gather candy.Lastly, board and commission vacancies. We do have one opening on the board ofappeals. So, if that is of interest, we would love having some applicants forthe board of appeals opening. That's all I've got.>> Thank you, mayor. Next up, we have the order of the agenda. Uh, are there anychanges to the agenda? Seeing none, is there a motion to approve the agenda?>> Moved by council member Fredericks and seconded by Council Member Wall. All infavor say I. I. >> Oppos say nay. Motion passes. Next, wehave the consent agenda. Council member Palmer has pulled item F11.Council member Doring is voting nay on item F7. Correct. I'll be uh voting nayon F7, the competitive uh negotiated sale of uh for of the tax bonds for theregional sports and wreck complex. I continue to believe that this project isnot what the vast majority of our community wants and or needs and I'mnervous about taking this on financially based on the proforma provided by ouroutside uh operator. I'm still not convinced of the economic viability ofthe regional sports complex. Thank you, council member. Uh so uh we have onepulled item. Uh, so I would invite a motion to approve in block items F1through F10 and F12 through F19. >> So moved.>> Second. >> Moved by Council Member uh Keane andseconded by Council Member Miller. Council member Wall.>> Thank you. We are awarding two contracts tonight. Uh engineers estimates at473,450. The bidding was favorable. came in at380,000 for a savings of 93,000 or 19.7%.It continues to work well for us. Thank you.>> Thank you for the wall report. With that,>> oh, Council Member uh Keane, go ahead. >> Yeah. Yeah. I just wanted to comment. Iknow there's a lot of important city business on it, but I wanted to call outF-16 is University of Minnesota Rochester funding. This is a combinationof uh DMC, but also sales tax funding from the past. Um, UMR has been one ofthe bright success stories over in Rochester over the last two decades andthe way it's kind of grown up and seeing this on here really does show that it'sbecome an important part of our both downtown but our our overall communityand our overall economy and I just wanted to call it out above and beyondthe normal consent agenda. >> Thank you for doing that uh councilmember Keane and also would like to recognize our friends at UMR for beinghere. Thank you. Uh with that all in favor say I. I>> post say nay. >> Motion passes with council member Doringvoting nay on item F7. >> Moving on to our public hearings. Wehave two public hearings on our agenda this evening. Uh public hearings uh alittle different than our open comment period. Uh uh so staff will firstintroduce uh or present uh the item and uh and then if there is an applicant orapplicant representative they will have up to 10 minutes to discuss the item andthen I will open the public hearing. Members of the public have five minuteseach uh and again encouraged to keep comments brief, concise, and uh and uhto the item in uh question. And then following the public hearing, theapplicant will have up to five minutes to respond to any questions that came upduring the public hearing or uh additional information. With that, Iwill go to item G1, which is a major land subdivision by Creek View MeadowsLLC to be known as Creek View Meadows 4th. Uh, Mr. Desmond McIll.>> Thank you, uh, Council President Schub, Mayor Norton, members of the council.Good evening. I'm Desmond McIll. I'm with Community Development. I'll beintroducing this item uh which is a major land subdivision preliminary platfor Creek View Meadows 4th which is the fourth phase uh for this project byCreek View Meadows LLC. The 12.6 acre site is located south of 18th Streetnorth of 20th Street and east of 37th Avenue Southeast uh in an R1 zoningdistrict. The general development plan was approved by city council in June of2020 and consists of uh 185 units having 139 single family lots and 46 attachedsingle family lots. Uh phase 4 of this development proposes 15 single familylots that are uh detached of various widths and depth. Uh it is located on alocal residential street. That residential street connects to 37thAvenue on the west side and 18th Street on the north. The proposed plat alsocontains three outlaws. Outlaw A is a parcel for developed storm waterfacilities um for phases one through four. Uhoutlaw B consists of delineated wetlands and outlaw C provides a parcel for stormwater facilities for future uh phases of the development. Uh this major landsubdivision is consistent with the general development plan and the R1zoning standards. Uh planning commission unanimouslyre recommended approval of the subject application at their May 13th meeting bya 50-0 vote. And um subject to four conditions of approval. Uh thatconcludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you haveafter the public hearing. >> Thank you. Mr. McIll, is there uh a theapplicant? Are they here? Please step forward, state your name, and you haveup to 10 minutes. >> Thank you, uh, Council President Schub,mayor, members of the council. My name is Ryan Schfeller with WSC Engineeringwith the engineering planning survey consultants on this project. Um, Desmonddid a great job explaining the project. Um, just a few more details. We held theneighborhood meeting on April 7th. No one attended that meeting, so we didn'treceive any opposition. Uh, we're acceptable. those four conditions. Theturn lane is actually going to be constructed on the coming weeks here andbe uh paved here shortly. Um again, any questions you have and we'll be able toanswer those. >> Thank you. We'll call you back after thepublic hearing. Uh with that, I will open the public hearing. Is there anyonewishing to be heard on this item? Anyone wishing to be heard on this item?Anyone wishing to be heard on this item? I will close the public hearing. InviteMr. Sean Felder to come back up and any closing comments that you have.>> Uh I will add the master pond and outlot C is going to serve the remaining phasesof Creek View Meadows, all those additional lots. So we're excited to getthat built and done with with this phase of development. So>> all right, >> happy to answer any questions.>> All right, council members, council member Keane.>> Uh just a clarification for staff. um in the suggested um resolution in theagenda, it doesn't call out the four conditions. Is that um I'm I want tomake sure we do call out the four conditions on the approval.Maybe I'm I'm looking at the agenda as or maybe I'm reading it wrong. >> Thank you. Uh they do appear to be thereon on our screen. >> Okay.>> Is that on the um council? This is on both the G1, the um request for councilaction, but also the overall agenda. I may I don't know why I'm missing it, butI'm looking right at it. >> Missing three outlines. Okay. So, youthink it's covered? I I I'll just make sure we we have four conditions. Thankyou. >> Any other comments on this? Is there amotion? I'll make a motion adopting a resolution approving major landsubdivision number CD2026-00007 PLAT by Creek View Meadows LLC to beknown as Creek View Meadows subdividing 12.6 acres into 15 residential lots andthree outlots. >> Second motion made by Council MemberFrederick's and seconded by Council Member Palmer. Any more to add, CouncilMember Frederick's? >> No, happy to see it in the ward. Uhthere's been a lot of nice work done in that subdivision already. I see thefamilies out outside using the heck out of the area. It's really nice to see howactive they are. It's like those kids don't have iPads or something. They'reactually outside playing. So, it's just nice to see and I'm happy to see morecoming to the area and then living it up out there. Hopefully, we can get them aa path to uh get to the main part of town easilier. Thank you,>> Council Member Palmer. Yeah, there are four conditions on here. It's not on theheading um like Mr. Kee wanted. >> So you uh you you're going to add thatto your amendment and >> I would love to if I knew how toproperly say it. >> I think your seconder said it and so>> you both agree. So the four conditions are are>> the four conditions. >> Got it. Council member Keane.>> Yeah. Again, these are in the they're correctly in the real resolution laterin the packet. It's just not in the suggested thing we had and I think it'sall covered. I just wanted to make sure we did it right.>> Council member Doring. >> And I was just going to follow up withthe same. >> Okay. All right. With that, all in favorsay I. I. >> Oppose say name. Motion passes.>> Next. Next up we have uh G2, which is amendments to the uh 2026 master feeschedule. Mr. Parish. >> Uh mayor, president, members of thecouncil. Um this is a request to amend the 2026 fee schedule which we do on anannual basis. Uh what this really is doing is just correcting a an oversightin terms of the look back period in terms of how we set one of the feeswhich is based off um some indexes within the engineering news record. Umpublic works director uh Neimire is also here if you have questions on this. Umbut we're just requesting that that adjustment be made. Uh and the requestedaction will be to approve an ordinance establishing the amended 26 fee scheduleas well as directing the city attorney's office to prepare the ordinance for theJuly 6th meeting. Thank you, Mr. Parish. Uh, this is a uhthis is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to be heard on this item, please stepforward. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to be heard on this,please step forward. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. InviteMr. Parish back up and invite my colleagues. Uh, any questions,comments? Is there a motion? Yeah. I'll move to approve an ordinanceestablishing the amended 2026 master fee schedule and directing the cityattorney's office to prepare an ordinance for the first reading on July6th of 2026. >> Motion made by council member Doring.There's seconded by council member Fredericks. Any more to add? Councilmember Keane. I >> I guess just a question or more of acomment than a question. Um again I appreciate you guys bringing this backup. I realize there was an error made back in December. We're getting itcorrected right now. But underneath this is the conflict between two two one ofour priorities but one of our policies. Our policy is that new development paysits own way and therefore we have to keep these fees up to date to cover ourcosts. At the same time, these rising fees are a detriment to trying to gethousing built. Is there any sort of wrestling going on to say how can westem this or what type of cost controls can we put in place so that we're notmoving in lock step as all these construction costs go up and babasically hindering one of our main policy objectives uh over the this yearand in the coming years? >> Yeah, your honor, I think from a policyperspective, I mean the fee is grounded in the notion that we, you know, doattempt some level of cost recovery with new development. In terms of how thatcould be managed, I'm going to defer to public works director Neer on that. >> So I would say just in general terms,you know, the team is always looking at those fees, right? Um obviously it'sclear to us that the community is looking umlooking to prioritize housing, right? So internal review of all of our fees andeverything is uh reviewed on an annual basis. these specific fe fees are scaledto that ENR index. Um so all we're trying to do is keep pace with inflationum with the fees that we're discussing here.>> I I appreciate that and I I didn't expect a hardcore answer, but I guess Ijust want to keep it in front of us that this is a a conflict that we're losingat right now. Council member Miller, >> I guess building on that, would our June22nd study session when we talk about the urban 3 analysis and our tiff policybe a good time to talk about what incentives and where we have adequateinfrastructure and where we have new infrastructure costs because there doesseem to be a differential and um we we talked about this with the the stormwater credit fee as how we incentivize and help infill development where wehave adequate infrastructure often built. So I'm just curious if if thereis a future place from a policy perspective where we have differentiatedfees whether they're in target opportunity zones or outside.>> Uh your honor I can I can start with that question. I believe urban 3 is nextweek right? So is that correct? >> June 22nd.>> Oh that is June 22nd. Okay. Um so yeah I mean certainly we've seen a preview ofthat information. And I think it's at a broad level it's going to be a goodopportunity for you all to um just understand you know the the impacts ofdifferent development types and the cost to provide service. Um but also you knowwhere a lot of your tax capacity comes from and you know get some notion of taxefficiency and tax per acre. Um I think in terms of you know where that leads usI think that's going to be part of you know your conversation and what you'dlike to see happen out of that as well. >> Absolutely and I appreciate that. I justwanted to anchor that discussion as a potential place to have a policydiscussion about these fees. I don't want to change them tonight to CouncilMember Keane's point, but I do think it is a a conflict and I appreciate himbringing up that tension. >> All in favor say I.>> I. Oppose say nay. Motion passes. Next up, we have reports andrecommendations H1, which is the phase 2 indoor recreation option and next steps.Mr. Parish and team, uh, President, mayor, members of the council, um,really appreciate the opportunity to be here today, uh, to give you a bit of anupdate on some of the conversations we've been having with regard to indoorrecreation options. Um, we've really spoke about this in many, uh, places andspaces. Um, just wanted to give you an update about uh where we've been, butalso a potential option that you can consider uh to meet some of the indoorrecreation needs. Uh, we discussed this fairly extensively at the an April studysession. At that time, there was some broad perspective and direction providedby the council to um ultimately focus our efforts in looking at um options forindoor recreation on our southern sites. uh to bring back some uh discussionpoints for you this evening to further refine that. Um as well as um in the inthe longer view as we get better information, bring back some recommendedfinancing and operational strategies, but also recognizing the fact that theexisting dome on the RCTC campus uh was indicated that it was going to be closedthis fall. Um continue our conversations around how we might collaborate withthem to um keep that open during [clears throat] the interim period. Justto ground you, we've had three or four significant planning efforts on indoorrecreation. I'm not going to go through all this. You've received thisinformation before. Um, but as you can see again with the turf transition andthe uh indoor dome uh the last survey we uh went through there was a fairlystrong indication and preference to uh have a turf option. Nothing that we'vewent through in our previous planning efforts. So the land that landscape haschanged. Um, but you also can see that there's this desire for multi-purposespace and fitness and and and court space. Uh, a lot of these uh, effortsand communication that we've received back have really been grounded in notjust, you know, the need to increase the uh, amount of indoor space that we have,but how do we communicate about it? How do we uh, let people know about theprogrammatic opportunities? Many people know about the facilities, but theprogrammatic opportunities um, we have opportunity to do better in terms of howwe communicate market. you've invested some resources in that um and the teamum you know at a later date can provide you some insights in how that's working.Other recurring themes in this uh in these conversations have really been theopportunity for informal play and recreation and more unstructuredactivities as well as really bringing a a strong notion of affordability intothe conversation. So that's um again part of that more uh specific insightsinto the indoor recreation options of course here indoor playground um courtspace pickle ball space were all um rated very highly. Uh and then um lastsummer we also had the partnership with the Rochester uh healthy communitypartnership um that really did some uh targeted qualitative outreach to um anumber of our diverse communities and demographics and and again similarconcepts there. Strong interest in informal activities like walking,swimming registered here. Um that's not something we're specifically talkingabout because we've you know had a number of other aquatics relatedconversations but just that unstructured play uh piece was really u really astrong value for the folks. Uh then lastly uh we have uh just a very slightpreview here this evening for you. Um our parks and communications andengagement team and our DEI team have really spent a good amount of timepartnering with the school district on their community education survey. Um andagain strong indoor demand for year-round recreation uh facilities andoptions more awareness more uh differentiation on how you communicateaffordability. So again recurring themes I'm not going to go through this on adetailed basis but really um this just says that depending on your yourdemographics you may have different communication preferences. Um, we haveopportunities again for, you know, perspectives based on income, um, andand how we communicate with families versus older adults. I mean, these allrequire differentiated strategies. Uh, here's just one slide that tries to pullall that survey data and past community outreach and engagement together. And,uh, just saying that we need to, you know, build greater awareness. Um, weneed to really be cognizant of affordability. Um, ease of registrationand access is important. Um again continued interest in flexible indoorand year-round wreck opportunities and then really just you know try to defineyou know what are our KPIs in this space. So shared themes really um youknow are in that casual wreck improve facilities affordability space much ofwhich you've heard before but continues to be reinforced. I also want to justlet you know that since our last conversation on this, we we did continueour discussion with RCTC about the potential uh for an indoor dome on theRCTC property. Um we were informed recently, I think uh as the council isaware, um that that's not something that um is currently an option at the RCTCcampus given the long-term nature of the ground lease that we would need. Um thesite that we had been focused on and directed to evaluate also would have hadits own set of challenges. Um we likely would have had to eliminate four umrectangle fields for existing soccer and lacrosse fields. Replacing thoseelsewhere, you know, probably run in the 6 to8 million range. So just understandlike that would have had its own uh set of challenges. Um but just right nowgiven the state of higher education um this kind of long-term investment didn'talign with RCTC's needs and I think we provided the communication uh to youpreviously. Um however we do want to emphasize that we want to have goodongoing collaboration there. So we still have relationships. We still have theability for the public to access the uh existing fieldhouse or the RochesterSports Center um after 5:00 and on weekends. We want to maintain that. Wewant to communicate better around that. There's still, you know, walkingoptions. Um we also, you know, want to um encourage some innovation in the uhability and how you access and register for the facility. So, we will stillmaintain that ongoing dialogue and collaboration with RCTC. And thenlastly, if you elect to continue to advance the design conversation on analternative uh dome structure, um we would try to have a conversation abouthow we could maintain that existing dome um over the next one or two winterseasons. That opens from November to April. Um as of now, um short of someother intervention, that is set to not open this fall. And so we'd like tocontinue that conversation until we can find a way to meet the community need.if this is a project that you're interested in pursuing. Uh that bringsus to uh what we spent more time on over this past um uh month or so. And that'sreally a a more substantial dome than what currently exists. Um it's it's anelevated experience uh compared to what we currently have. Um it's over twicethe size of the existing RCTC dome. So, if you think about um the existing uh uhfootprint of that being a large indoor turf space, this has a large indoor turfspace plus an additional uh area that's about twice the size of that turf space.And we'll talk about the indoor amenities specifically. Um we have aconcept about how it could fit on the Rochester Regional Sports and Recreationsite in the southeast. Um just want to draw your attention to some specifics onthat site. As you know, we're in construction on the regional sports andrec complex, which will feature eight u multi-purpose field or eight uh diamondfields, um two rectangle fields, pickle ball courts, as well as a a substantialplayground and lots of walking tracks. Also, the will walking area. Uh theWillow Creek Trail uh is also going to come through this site. So, that's aseparate project, but that will take you from Game Haven all the way throughHighway 52 and um generally allow you to access much of the uh other trailinfrastructure in Rochester. But kind of that gap that we have right now betweengetting through there and 52, the Willow Creek Trail project is proposed to dealwith that. Um, I'd also say from a site perspective, um, the parking beingcreated here allows you the opportunity to engage in some conversations about,um, this being a a park and ride type of transit facility and evaluating yourtransit access on this site. Um, it's well situated to serve, you know, thesoutheast and southwest portions of Rochester as well. My kids in thenorthwest, I travel this area quite a bit. Um, it takes me 8 to 10 minutes toget to northwest Rochester given the proximity to Highway 52. uh from thissite. So, you know, it may seem like it's a challenge to get to at times, butthe proximity to 63 and 52 um really do provide good vehicular access, and thatWillow Creek Trail will enhance the uh pedestrian and bike access uh to thesite. Uh specifically right now we have a fivemonth dome um that's available tothe community. Um because we have the uh turf field that has outdoor purposesthat doesn't typically get going till the middle of November. People are oftenready to get indoors before then. Um and they're ready to stay indoors longerthan the middle of April often. So this would be year round. Uh we havetemperature control issues in the existing dome. This dome would beinsulated and be able to maintain a reasonable temperature inside thefacility year round. And so uh that would be an enhance enhancement uh forsure and again year round. So you have the ability to program uh this facilityuh on a year- round basis. It would have a foundation. So I think from a notableperspective right now the existing building the only a reason that itcannot be year round is it doesn't have a foundation. Uh this would address thatum as well as um provide much needed space. There would be a existing uh youcan see it on the southern portion of the building. Uh there would be an areafor locker rooms and gathering space and queuing space and and and bathrooms etc.So you can see that on the uh on this particular uh slide as well. Um I wantto just uh note that there's other exciting things happening um in thisarea. some of the sewer investments that we're making are going to, you know,catalyze development um in this space and set the future tone for growth inthe area. Um and the it's important to note that you can think about othersites for this. Um but whether we're comparing this against RCTC or anothergreen field, we have a lot of existing costs embedded in this site that makethe potential project cost lower here. So, if you think about the fact that wehave shared parking with the outdoor amenities, if you think about the factthat we've already acquired the property, if you think about the factthat we have other shared utility and site development costs here, um anythingon a standalone basis elsewhere would cost considerably more. So, just youhave to take that into account as well. Um I want to say as we go through thedesign process, which we'll talk about in a moment, um we will be evaluatinggeothermal as an option. Uh we've been very successful with geothermalinstallations um in our downtown public district energy campus. Uh we're doingit at our maintenance uh center now and uh we believe the tax credits willcontinue to be in place um that would allow us for the potential uh geothermalinstallation um on this site as well. Uh couple things to think about. This isnot you know masonary or concrete construction. I mean, this is a afoundation with wing walls enclosed by a fabric dome. That that fabric does needto be replaced every 20 years. Um, all facilities like this have life cyclecosts. Part of our analysis that we'll bring back to you will try to give yousome understanding of the life cycle cost difference. Part of the challengeis is you're not going to be able to do 200 to 250,000 square feet, you know, ofconventional construction anywhere near this price. Um, so you'll have to, youknow, have some context for that as well. Um, but if you and you think aboutconventional construction, you also are going to have, you know, roofreplacement, other types of investments you're going to need to make in order tomaintain that. Um, but when we originally talked about this, uh, wewent weren't talking about indoor turf to this level. That's been a newevolution. This is likely your best option if you want to preserve, uh, anindoor turf, uh, availability. Um just moving on part of this process will alsoum help us to refine what programmatic expectations you have and what you wantto deliver in that building but also how we want to operate it. So right now wehave a third party operator for the outdoor portion. Uh we had thatforecasted for an indoor portion that we didn't proceed with at that time. Um sowe would start with that as the model. Um we would evaluate the third partyoperator model. However, we can also evaluate a a publicly delivered model inthat context or other models if the council's so inclined. Um, but we willalways use a publicly delivered model as the base. Um, and then that will helpyou understand what your operating deficit here uh likely is to uh to be.Uh, want to just uh continue on with some of the more specific slides. Again,uh full-size uh indoor rectangle field, soccer,lacrosse, exactly the same size in the existing. Uh we will go through a acommunitybased process with a work group and public open houses to further refinethis area, but you'd have a seating and play area that you could have sometransitional space in with existing courts. Um you have a number ofpotential uh courts that you can have as well as pickle ball facilities. Sogetting more definition to what people want to see in that seating and playarea and what's important to them uh will be an important part of thisprocess. Uh some pictures that we showed you previouslyuh would be further refined in this design process. Um and I'm not going togo through all these. These are slides that we went through at the studysession. Um but just to u yeah give you context. Um this really does give you anenhanced uh multi-purpose and turf space. Um, but of course there are costshere too and you know we'll flush those out as we go through and refine theoperating model. Um, I think I've covered most of these opportunities andchallenges um, as I've gone through the presentation, so I won't go throughthat. The only thing we really have is June 1, we are at a point on theexisting outdoor facility project where we need to make decisions aboutadjusting the parking and adjusting some of the utilities to make way for this.Um so that that is part of the time sensitivity here is if you want to makeroom for this on the site, we need to adjust the parking um in order for forthat to happen. Um I would say irrespective every project we bringforward to you that's at vertical construction like this um you're goingto have a lot of concrete here. There's a lot of concrete being used in thecommunity right now and there's a lot of construction happening. So it's a verydynamic bidding and cost escalation environment. So, as we go through thedesign process and get better designs and better bids, um, you know, we hopeto be able to make sure you have a number for this project that you canevaluate against the financing strategies. But, you know, we put anumber of $55 million out. Um, but again, that'll be informed by where thecost environment is at the time and, you know, where the community's designprocess takes you. So, that transitions us into a a potential schedule for thisproject. Uh the upper portion of this, I know this is a busy uh diagram. Theupper portion is engagement and community outreach. The bottom portionis really the construction and approval uh time frame. So community engagementwould take place between now all the way through September 4th. We have acommunity working group which I'm going to just uh show you right now. Um verysimilar to the outdoor um group that did an amazing job providing feedback intothat project. Um a little bit of an enhancement here, you know, given someof the turf uh stakeholders that are involved, but this is the kind of thebase group. Um our communications and engagement team will, as they've verycapably done in the past, facilitate this effort with consultant, you know,support for diagrams and and renderings, etc. Um, but we'll have a couple ofcommunity working group meetings, a couple of open houses, talk aboutaccessibility, affordability, year-round use, community benefit, what people wantto see out of this facility. Um, that those will take place um through thesummer um with a recommendation coming to you at your September 9th citycouncil meeting. At that meeting, uh what you would be able to do is reviewthe engagement um understand the preliminary design. uh we would have apreliminary cost estimate for you all to review and understand and then we wouldprovide along with that some recommendations on the approach tofinancing and initiating permitting. Uh once that's complete, we would then ifyou endorse where we're at at that point in time, we could then proceed with theuh the bidding and permitting process, ultimately bringing you back a a bid anda recommended and final financing approval at your December 14th meeting.And then onward down the line, construction starts in 27, concludes in28. Uh with that, um the team and I are happy to answer questions. These are therequested actions for you to consider this evening if you would like toproceed with the next phase of due diligence here.[cough and clears throat] Excuse me. Um first is just generallyendorsing like this is a direction you're interested in going. So that'sitem one. Item two would be authorizing a contract with TSP architects um atjust over $948,000. Um that allows you to get the designwork done in order to continue to advance the project. um continue to keepyour construction schedule and so on. Um we yield in domes uh they have someconstruction service they would be brought on the team at risk. Uh we wouldlook to do an RFP for construction manager at risk. They ultimately giveyou your gross maximum price. Um and that again helps you have confidence inthe numbers that they're actually estimating and positioning themselves tobid uh at the project. uh these costs would go into the project cost umultimately. However, if you elect, you know, in in this September to say thisisn't for us at this time, um those costs would have to be paid for out ofthe holistic budget stability fund. There's about $2.8 million there. Umthose costs, you know, would need to have a place to land in that case. Ifthey roll into your recommended financing or preferred financingstrategy, those funds would not need to be touched. So, uh, six just talks aboutsomething we've already discussed in terms of key council approval dates, andthen seven just says we want to keep working on interim options for the dome.So, with that, we're happy to stand for questions.>> Uh, Mayor Norton, >> so from my perspective, this is verypremature and fast. Um, I had anticipated from the last study sessionthat something might brought before to say yes, we could or couldn't dosomething out there. I'm just shocked that a solution has been found and thatit's being presented without any discussion about anything. And I willjust say one, I'm really disappointed um thatwhile we did get a very what I would consider curtail um from a member of theadministration at RCTC, we have not closed the loop um to have a meeting andfind out if there were other options, if the administrator agreed with the otheradministrator's email. And I would have very much preferred before wehave even said these things that we would have closed the loop with RCTCfirst to asssure that there weren't workarounds because several of us havetalked to folks at the state level and Minsku or whatever it's called now levelthat it wasn't a closed door. So that's one disappointment. I'm still concernedabout the troubling location far outs southeast.While I do um agree that indoor space is needed andI recall in the back of my mind when I said I didn't think we should chooseSoutheast that if we did there should be an indoor location. Um and and that'swhat you're bringing forward here. Um, I'm still not convinced that what thecommunity is asking for is in there because I don't think I I haven't heardenough discussion about what will be there because it was only a little overa month ago, we were talking about a building at RCTC and then the idea of adome was thrown in there last minute and now for the last month it's all talkabout dome and you know a dome is as you've mentioned a 20-year lifeexpectancy for a roof that will have to be or the dome material have to bereplaced every 20 We're already seeing that as a problemover at RCTC. Uh granted, it's a a a different kind of dome, but that has isdesperately in need of replacement. Um and that will be true in 20 years. So,we will be handing off some expenses to future councils. Um and and I had hopedwe would have a more comprehensive look at other sites that the city owns. Um,what can what could we of all the things that you had on the screen that thecommunity said they wanted and some that they do want that weren't on that listlike curling and some of the rest of it. Are there current facilities that weeither own or that are available in the community that could be enhanced? Itdoesn't all have to be at one place necessarily. Is there room at the reccenter for instance, not only to en enhance the offerings that we have, butto put put an addition there? Um given that there's a brand new parking garagegoing to go in. Um I would have and I hope we can still have some discussionin that regard. Um rather than just grabbing this thing that you've put infront of us today and and say run with it. Um I I will feel better if we'veexhausted the you know take a comprehensive look at all we needeverything everyone wants and other possibilities before we say yes to this.Um and lastly one of the things two things one is you mentioned the holisticuh you always have this funky name for it>> budget stability fund >> holistic budget stability fund which asI recall was the ARPA funds. Now, are there ARPA funds left or have wecontinued using this terminology and put other funds in there? And if so, whetherit be ARPA funds or I think I would like to hear a little bit more about wherethe 30 million is coming from because the taxpayers, as uh Miss Parkermentioned earlier, think it's coming from levies or taxes. Um, I have beentold that's not the case, but I think this community deserves to hear a thatit's not going to be on their taxes um for either building or ongoingexpenses and b um where is it coming from? The community deserves to knowthat. So, um those are a couple of the points. I'm just I'm just I was deeplydisturbed when I when I saw this on the agenda because I thought I did expect areport back about Southeast. I did not expect not only a report back but an,you know, an immediate ask for, you know, around a million dollars and thenan obligation for 30, 40, 50 million more in the future.>> Yeah, your honor, I appreciate that. And I mean, I think this is u, you know,it's going to be a conversation that, you know, you're trying to blend in avariety of of needs and perspectives. Um, we always intended and hoped to havean indoor option on the Southeast site. I mean, that was part of the originalproposal. Unfortunately, you know, the the numbers didn't allow for that. Umit's a dynamic changing environment. The we've been with this for a long time. Umthe turf news is relatively new news. That's different. You know, things havechanged. Um I think if there's other sites and options, I I can't think ofthem to be honest with you that don't involve, you know, utilities and newgrading and buying a site unless we're talking about the site we own in theNorthwest. um just from a size perspective, whether it's this domeconcept or the uh the other concept that was originally fitted for the site. Umthey're just uh I'm not not thinking of any, you know, sites that areimmediately available that haven't been sort of ruled out in other conversationsfor other uses. Right. So open to that, but um I'm I'm not thinking of them atthis point in time. um that doesn't involve a whole new cost structure andstrategy for this. Um I think the RCTC, you know, piece is I appreciate theclear as kind approach they've taken finally. I mean, we've been having lotsof conversations. I thought the email we received was pretty clear. It was copiedto the president and I haven't heard any different that there's any disagreementum on the perspective included within that email. Um if that happens to changeum you know, I guess we can re-engage in that conversation. Um but at this pointI I have to accept that as the direction that they provided until they tell usdifferently. Um and if they do you know we can obviously re-engage. Also thoughwant to tell you that um there's a a mountain of challenges with doing thisproject on that site. First of which is you know taking out four existing fieldsin an area that is well utilized and you know people value. Um the second is westill would have to negotiate within a framework that you know that allowed fora ground lease that we would want to sign and they would want to sign. Umthat all would take a very significant amount of time given the approvalprocesses. Um given the level of progress we made from November of thislast year to now, I might be able to bring you that back in a number ofyears. you know, I mean, just as it would take probably an amount of time umthat the current construction pricing and current other things, you know,would make that challenging. Not impossible, but there's a lot ofconcessions you'd have to want to think about in order to do that effectively onthat site. So, just, you know, want to lay that out there. Certainly couldwork, but it's just on a different kind of uh immediiacy and and time horizon.As far as the holistic budget stability funds, um that is not necessarily ARPAfunds, um we do have funds that we are putting in there if we have revenuesover expenditures in the annual budget process. Um we did code certain fundsfrom the ARPA and original CARES funding uh to purposes and then transferred levymoney into that fund as offsets for what we used as eligible expenses there. Butgenerally speaking, um the more recent capitalization of that fund has beenthrough um coming in under budget for the year um and and realizing yourgeneral fund fund balances on target with where you want that to be. So Ithink those are your main capitalizations, but it's a yes and>> so to follow up, Mr. Chair, >> I'm gonna actually go to council membersand we will >> haven't answered all the questions.>> We will get to those. I have a list of your questions. Council member Palmer.>> Thank you. As you speak, you always raise morequestions and and I appreciate what the mayor is trying to do here. Umthe first basic question is is what would be the cost just to do theunderground just to to to to get your site work done. Do you have an idea whatthat would cost? Um,Customer Palmer, I if I'm understanding your question, I I don't know thatthere's a a net differential on the cost to make the changes, if that's whatyou're asking. Like just something you could do to make sure it's placeholderto allow for some future conversation. >> Sewer sewer line big enough? Is thewater line big enough? Is it is it graded enough? Would your whole holisticbudget stability fund cover part of that? So, if we decided,let's put a pause on this. let's let's get this construction work done and andit's a gamble, but you at least would be able to sit down and and figure out whatyou want to do later on with the building.>> Yeah, I think if you position the site to work later, I I don't know that thosecosts would be material. We'd have to do some additional work there. Um what Iwould say is is just it might look funny for quite some period of time becauseyou would be leaving some open spaces on the site that you wouldn't intuitivelylooking at it makes sense to have the parking here versus elsewhere. But umyeah, it could be done and I think at a fairly reasonable cost.>> Okay. >> Yeah.>> Um I mean you've heard people with afrustration over the original plan and what we're trying to do. Um have we justwritten down or or provided to the community why the original thoughtprocess didn't work and why the budget was so high and and and why we're at thespot we are at right now with with basically doubling the cost. what wethought it was going to be because I know for a fact that it wasn't a a baitand switch. It was an honest we had our money coming or ourconsultants told us this is what it was going to cost and that's what we wentwith that and we were only 10% designed at that time. Um even this design thatyou're showing today is probably 10% designed.>> Yeah. Not even 10%. Yeah. And so, >> you know, that's what gets us in troublewith the community is that they see this and all of a sudden someone a year fromnow is going to say, "Well, where are the pickle ball courts? Where is thespectator spot?" And I mean, I can understand where people get frustratedwith that. I mean, do you see that? >> Yeah. No, I I understand. You also haveto have something to say, I want to spend a million dollars to kind of pointtoward. And so, it's an iterative conversation. But, yeah, I mean, thereis a reason why we're reluctant to say this is exactly how it would be financedbecause we don't have a good cost estimate. and how much you're going tofinance on this project really does sort of drive in to you know what what howgood is your estimate and you know in terms of what are your options you haveto definitely relate those just back to how we got to this point I think therewas a question in there about that um yeah it was unfortunate we got anunfortunate initial estimate on the option that the $65 million project thatsaid we could do indoor and outdoor um maybe a slight gap to be closed therebut we didn't get a good a good estimate. And then as we went throughthe next phase of design and construction and further evaluation withthe project, um it became clear that we weren't going to be able to do bothphases of the project. Now, at that time, the council provided distinctdirection to say we want to, you know, we want to phase this. We don't want tolose sight of the fact and here we are talking about what phase two wants tolook like. Um, but it really was, yeah, just an unfortunate estimate that werelied on in good faith and, um, you know, it's been challenging ever since.Now, I'd say if we were talking about a similar facility that was for about130,000 square feet, which was mostly um, eight indoor gyms, uh, that add tothis project, and I'm just going to make I'm not going to, this is not adefinitive number, but it's not 55 million. It's substantially more than 55million if we wanted to do that. and no turf in that scenario. So, um,conventional construction, eight gyms, even what we're talking about back then,um, you know, is a much larger project. We were pricing out a metal building, agrade of construction less, um, at at more than $55 million for this and lessless space. So, just it's been an evolution, but clearly that one badestimate, you know, been challenging. >> So, the dome that you're proposingis about the size of the fleet farm that's out there south of town whichwhich that's I I know that for a fact. So I mean for people to to look at thatand go wow that's a huge building if you start just looking at the walls um whichI thought was kind of a curious thing. So RCTC I know we worked with them forover a year um we tried to work with them and and it didn't work out but wedo have a um commitment with them. We have a we gave them sales tax dollars tobuild those buildings. What are we going to do to get that market in better after5:00 since we have control or we can use that building after 5:00? There's veryfew people who have ever been there, let alone know that that's available or inthe morning that that's available. Yeah, >> good evening. Uh Jenna Bowman,communications engagement. Um great question, Council President Palmer. Ithink uh we have seen some opportunities already as we were moving through thecolder weather months to work with RCTC uh to help promote those opportunities.We did see um some positive uh response to that and I would hope that as wecontinue to work with the RCTC uh folks that we can make additional strides umas uh mentioned by Mr. Parish, uh we will be coming back to uh you all aswell as the park board to give an update on uh what we have been doing. And Ithink you're all aware we were uh did not anticipate uh but I think greatopportunity with community ed to work together on that survey so that now aswe review that data as well come back to you and say here's what we've learnedand what we've done here's what we've further learned in connecting with thecommunity and here's how we would intend to use the dollars that you've allocatedas well. So, um it really will be about continuous information sharing through avariety of um channels, but I think um would just fully agree that we havecontinued to see time and time again that there's an awareness uh gap and weneed to address it. >> Okay. Um Mr. Parish, in yourpresentation, I think if I read it right, there's about a half a milliondollars of cost just to run a building withoutany programming in that building. Um, in if I remember correctly, uh, the reccenter, we're about $800,000 a year in property tax. Do you have any idea whatwe would want to have for for out of the property tax to actually operate eventsand and and do things there? >> Yeah. And again, I think that's part ofthis evaluation is, you know, updating the proforma. You saw a proforma for theprevious uh court-based facility. Uh, we would have to, you know, put that in. II would just to be, you know, reflective of this. I mean, there's likely somesubsidy going to be required here to operate this. Um, you have to balanceout your values here. You know, people are talking about wanting programmingand unstructured programming and affordability. That comes with a cost.Um, and uh, you know, we are going to be taking on a fairly large amount ofsquare footage. So, I I do expect that there will be, you know, be some levelof deficit, but there are going to be revenues to offset, right? I mean theexisting bubble you know runs a deficit but it you know also generatesreasonable revenue there. So I think it's just a lot of these facilities areabout how do we manage the deficit um and what can we expect in that space andif you want more affordability more unstructured time we probably have to bewilling to think about some level of deficit but we'll try to bring that backto you once we get a better sense of the program after the engagement. And justmy last question would be um with our current facility that we have out there,we have a thirdparty operator operating that. Are they out promoting this? Arethey looking for sponsorships for the fields and and is that revenue that theyretain? Is that revenue that we would retain? How do we how do how did we getsome some financial backing there? >> Yeah. So, I mean, they're definitely uhyou know, beginning to do outreach in terms of you know, bringing events andtournaments, you know, into that facility. Now we're only partially openum come you know next year and then fully open you know the following. So uhthere there's some onboarding time for that. Um we do know that they've engagedwith the group to solicit sponsorship and they're out doing some of that andhaving some level of preliminary interest and success. The same thingwould happen with a facility like this. So those things can be material in termsof offsetting construction costs or offsetting operating costs. I mean, Ithink our orientation or my recommendation to you is to look at opoffsetting your operating costs with those sponsorships, but um I thinkthere's that potential. We have a nice logo, you know, on the on the facility.Um but that could be someone else's logo, you know. I mean, I think if yougo to to naming rights and all that, those are definitely areas that we'regoing to want to explore. Um but they go into a common budget. Uh we contractthem to do the operations. They have some incentives to, you know, be in asurplus situation. the incentives don't kick in if they'rein a deficit situation. So, we've tried to structure the agreement. With thatbeing said, we do these on a five-year basis. Uh so, things aren't going theway we want them to go, we reevaluate where we're at every five years and say,"Yeah, this is really working out great or no, you know, a public model isbetter or doing another RFP is a better option.">> And you you skipped along a little bit on on opening next year um partially forthe fields. Is that because of the the artificial turf? It's hard to get. Is itis there a rationale or how much is going to be open? Is it going to be opennext June? Is it going to be open next September? What what's your guess?>> Yeah. Has it been here? >> I'd rather not guess. I'll just>> rather not guess either, but good evening uh council and mayor. So, uhtimeline right now is that we would have four fields and the rectangle fieldsopen by next April, May. So, we'll have most nearly all of the outdoor season umwith it open just the scale of the full project with 10 artificial turf fieldsand all the grading and other things, utilities, all of that. We the timelinejust the kind of scale of construction doesn't allow for to have the entirefacility open by next spring. So then all fields would be open by spring of2028. >> Thank you. Thank you,>> Council Member Keane. >> Uh thank you. Yeah, I'm just going to bevery like small up front here just in the sevenpoint action in front of usthere. We don't talk about the operating model. Um, and we probably would needsomething like that. You referenced like there's going to be some sort ofoperating um subsidy, but I'm looking for the the the process place for thosedecisions about how much um you know, structured versus unstructured,municipal versus contracted. Is that like is that in that September meeting?Is that in December? That's further out. We need to make the commitments beforewe're there. >> Yeah, we certainly would, you know, hopeto have that available for the September meeting. You know, just the workingestimate based on the program and what's being recommended, just an update of theoriginal proforma. And then obviously, you know, as you move toward gettingbids uh on the 14th of December, you know, we'd continue to update thosedocuments. But yeah, we'd want you to make a decision to go ahead on the 14thbecause there's another substantial amount of money to get you fromSeptember to December in terms of construction documents, almost anothermillion dollars. So, you know, we don't want to go down that road if you're notfeeling good about how it's going to be operated, what the design looks like,and you know, is this meet the need that you perceive to be in the community? Oneof the reasons we did lean towards the outdoor was because we did think theoperating ongoing operating expenses was much lower than having indoor space inMinnesota. Is that still an assumption or is that I mean I'm making theassumption that with indoor space even dome indoor space the operating expensesare higher uh and hopefully the usage is more but the operating expenses arehigher. >> I think that's fair.>> Okay. Um, another mistake I made going into this when we were going waiting forthe operating model on the outdoor sports thing, I still have in myoversimplified mind, I thought operating model also included how do the non umnon- tournament sort of community people get access to the asset. I thought thatwas part of the operating model. Can you talk about how if you have these courtsand you have this somebody trying to, you know, um, enlist these tournamentsand these other kind of paying customers, how does the Rochester YouthBasketball contract for it? Is there something we're going to do to make it acivic asset or is that considered we're in full cost recovery by then andthey're paying customer like anybody else?>> Yeah, I mean, it's going to be a blended strategy. You're definitely going tohave a fee for service. you know, the soccer club is going to want to use theturf and you're going to rent the turf by the hour. Um, same thing with court,same thing with pickle ball. Like there's, you know, almost all of ourrecreation options have a fee for service element. And there's some valuein that. And I think part of this conversation is going to want to say,how do you scholarship people into these options? How do you provide thatopportunity? And as we were talking through with the indoor options at RCTC,you know, how do you provide unstructured time within that? So it'snot it's not exclusive, right? You can do time for associations and time forunstructured. So the West St. Paul Dome is an example. Um they have open domewhere if you just want to come in and kick a ball around or use the battingcages, that's certainly an opportunity or have a birthday party or whatever.That's certainly an opportunity for people to do that. That's scheduled.they actually do that um in a lot of their time in the summer because theydon't have a lot of we'll call it paid time in that environment. So, you know,these open dome times, same thing with your gym time, like if it's notscheduled, like it can be opened or that area on theuh sort of we'll call it the the seating and play area. I think that is designedprimarily to be unstructured. Yeah. >> And not exclusive. And so what amenitieswant to happen in there? Whether it's an indoor playground, whether it's, youknow, the kinds of fixtures and furniture that allow people to have thatunstructured time. I think that's what we're asking the community working groupto solve through and provide input on. But I think it's a it's both, you know.>> Okay. I I I appreciate that and I I realize it's not something that we'regoing to have a, you know, a set plan of September if we go in this direction. Atthe same time, I I really do think it's onus. there's onus on us to figure outhow to create incentives if there's an operator that they make it more civicoriented the way we've done with the civic center. So I'm I'm really bringingthese up more to think about it that way. But so I I think I've got my myanswer. I did want to just I I really struggle with this idea of I'm reallyglad we're doing a lot of community engagement, but that whole comment onwhat the community wants and I just have come to the conclusion that there arejust in inordinate number of independent communities um and this thing startedout coming much more as an economic development project that was reallythere to help our our hospitality industry and now we also want theseother benefits for local community assets and I think it is possible to getus to both of it. But as an example, do we have good like youth sports input andcollaboration with this? Do we still have like I know we're really strugglingwith the community input and how that happens and how we connect to them andhow they get to the event, but do we have the other original players arelooking at this and going, "Yes, this is we're bending in the right direction.">> Yeah, your honor, I think that's part of this process again to to kind ofreaffirm. I mean, we were out and had all those questions and conversationswhen we were looking at the original indoor facility and you know, I think alot of that perspective has rolled forward into this and the needs we'retrying to meet have rolled forward into this. Um, but I think you know,validating that and understanding like this is a different concept, you know,again because the turf evolution and trying to meet that need is come beforeyou now as well. So I think they'll I think yes there is some perspective thatthese are needs and um we want to validate that and just make sure in thisenvironment that that perspective is refined.>> Very good. Those are the kind of things I'll hold on my comments on the otherthings. These are the things I'll be watching for like in September that wealso along with the community do do the people that we originally set out to tryto serve the the chamber and the the hospitality thing. They they thinkthey're getting what they want and we're able to get this other sort of the assetthings because I I don't I don't want to set the goal of you know everybody'shappy because it's just not going to happen. But I also want to make surethat as we make these decisions we have that aperture open and wide enough forall the different opinions. Thank you. I want to listen to my peers now.>> Council member Miller. >> Yeah, I'll just start with where I amand then I have some questions. At the study session, as the mayor said, myunderstanding was the urgency was really what is the potential decision to leaveroom at the south site. It was not clear to me that we would be asked at thismeeting for more than a million dollars of investment authorized to move thisforward because it felt like construction is moving forward. If we'regoing to ever have the possibility of this type of concept at that south site,we would just need to adjust parking and utilities. So, I would be fine doingthat. I am not in a place where I'm ready to move this forward at this rateat this cost. And the reason is if we go back to the sales tax, it was an authorauthorization of $65 million for a sports and recreation center. We askedpeople what they wanted if we were to spend $65 million on sports andrecreation. Many people told us Endor we weren't able to provide that and so wewent in this direction with the potential and I even remember councilmember Keen saying we should be clear to the community there's no guarantee of aphase two we are authorizing a phase one and so now we have this new opportunitybut we haven't told people what the funding can be used for I don't knowwhat the funding is unclear if this is restricted to sports and recreation andso if that were the case then I feel like yes we have good communityengagement if that funding could be used for othercommunity needs. The mayor did a Rochester Vision 2050 survey. I'vetalked with plenty of people that are interested in cults uh cultural and artsprogramming and investments and other aspects of our community beyond sportsand recreation. And I feel like even the way this community working group modelis structured here, we're presenting a concept that's already fully realized inits concept and asking them to make tweaks within the building. And I don'tfeel like that's a pathway that we re rebuild trust with the community. And soI'll just I'm interested in my peers conversation on this, but I think theelephant in the room is what is this potential funding source? Is it propertytax? I would appreciate comments that would clarify that it's not property taxgoing into this if it if it's not. But I think we really have to have a betterconversation about how $55 million could be invested for the best need for themost pressing needs of our community and not say, well, we have engagement abouta prior $65 million authorization for a sports and recreation center and so wecan expand that. And I'll I'll just say too, I I received a question today uhfrom somebody who's active in the space and said, "Where was this $55 million inthe prior discussion? why why wasn't it available to not say, "Well, we can't doboth, but here's how we could do both." So, I I feel like we're moving ahead ofthe community, and I'm not comfortable with that, and I'll I'll leave mycomments there for now and look for what my peers have to say.>> Thank you, council member. I'm going to weigh in now as well because I think alot of my thinking is along the same lines as council member Miller wastalking about. I really have trouble justifying a million dollars when wedon't know if we're even going to do this. It feels like we're putting thecart before before the horse. I uh I really want to see community engagement,but I also want to see community engagement on the funding model. I wantI want our constituents to say yes, we do want to spend this and whether it's amix of uh of uh property tax or uh other funding sources, I think we need to bevery transparent about what those potential funding sources are. And whenit comes to the design and getting us higher design, I'm don't quiteunderstand how how that's going to help us with the funding model because withthe original 65 million in sales uh tax dollars, that was set. That was our cap.And so we did design up to that. Couldn't we do design up to 50 or 55million and have uh have you folks come back to us whether it's September orearlier than that and say these this is the funding model that we propose for uhproviding this amenity to this community. And and I say that as someonewho really encouraged the team to expedite this because I heard from uhthe community that they felt they were getting indoors. So, uh, myself andCouncil Member Wall and and Mayor Norton spent five months, not a whole year,Council Member, uh, Palmer, but five months really encouraging and working,uh, to try to get some kind of re-imagination of something on the RCTCcampus. I do believe, unfortunately, mayor, that the the message that we gotlast week was a final no for now. And so that is not an option for us. But Istill I want more greater transparency on this funding model before I evencommit a million dollars to it. And then just one other thing that I I think I Iam very proud of the work that folks have done on on uh surveying thecommunity uh community ed uh and the work that we've done with RCTC on whatwe want to see and the the message we get loud and clear is we want greatervisibility of the offerings that we have across the spectrum. So what I reallywant to see in conjunction with capital project like this is what is our planfor marketing our uh entire sports and wreck facilitiesuh that includes RCTC the rec center and uh the uh regional sports center andpotentially this project. So with that I will uh stop and uh turn it over tocouncil member Wall. Thank you. Boy, this is complicated. Uhgoes back years. Uh goes back through a community vote. It goes back through uhfailed uh expectations uh with the money that is available to us through thesales tax. uh with many of the people on thecouncil here, uh I would be concerned if there were property tax dollars thatwere going into the building of this. And of course, part of therecommendation uh that we're being asked for is for uh the staff to go back andand uh flesh out exactly how this thing could be financedu with the proviso that property taxes were not used in the building. I'm notnecessarily saying in the operating I think that is a another issue that wewill deal with but in the building uh I would be more amanable to uh at least intaking these next steps to see what is true and what is possible for us giventhe funding sources that we have available. So that's the funding part.Uh Erin, you started going down uh a road that I thought was helpful. Uh andI think you can complete that story in comparison of the building that uh wasbeing promoted at the time of the vote and uh the building that is being uh uhpromoted at this point. For instance, the number of courts, the number ofindoor pickle ball courts, the large play area, the turf. Uh could you do acomparison on those uh two buildings? >> Yeah. Um mayor, president, members ofcouncil. So again, uh the original idea really was for eight um indoor gyms, uh130,000 square feet, some, you know, queuing space, pre-unction space withinthat. And then within that, you could program courts in many ways, but itreally was eight courts. There wasn't a lot more to it than that.um you know there was a room for some some meetings and birthday parties andthings like that. Um the pickle ball piece of that wasn't dedicated like itis here. It would have taken place on those courts. So you would have hadshared use. Um in this case uh the number of courts uh is the same uh at 8.Uh there wasn't really any indoor playground or any of that seating andplay area which is a substantial area. And of course uh there was a a piecethat you know allowed turf to be added on later. Um but that was not part ofthe original scope at that point in time. And so yeah, I mean again if youjust think about I know Council Palmer used Fleet Farm as the analogy um reallyuh think about the existing uh dome if you've been in there and just think it'smore than twice the size of that. So you have the existing dome and this area thespace to the right um really is additional space that you have theopportunity to program in many many ways. Uh so I I do think it's anenhancement. Um and again this this whole journey for us all has beenchallenging and we had a YMCA closed. We had a bad estimate. We've tried topartner in many other different places. It was hard to find the property. I meanyou all went through a very substantial you know property acquisition you knowphase of this project and so yeah it's like anything good great projects arenever easy. Um if if you wouldn't mind I I I'm happy to provide some more contexton financing. Um and I mean maybe just preface this and say you don't have todo any of this right like this is really just and I'm not here saying like hey wegot to do this. I'm I'm trying to be responsive to the idea that um you'veidentified need we've a you asked us to come for with options at a point in timeand um you know but this is this is a discretionary investment um now it's aquality of life thing and we're in the quality of life business and so you knowyou think about that um that's important um and again I think maybe just becauseof this has been such a tricky project that you know we're a little gunshy toovercommit to, you know, trying to develop a financing strategy forsomething I don't have a number for. And so, you know, it's like anything if youwant this and we estimate right now it could be 55 million. Um, that's onething, but we haven't gone through a design process. So, I would like to getyou better information before we have the opportunity to do that. Um, so it isa, you know, you know, a confidence thing in terms ofsome of this. um also can say like you could you're you may always set a budgetof 55 million. Um we did that with the regional sports and rec complex is likewe want to design we have $65 million to work with. We've done projects that waytoo. Um so that's certainly an option. Um but we also like to give you the roomto make the decision of I would like to invest more. I want to stick to thisbudget because that's just the number. Um so I think there's there's thosethings. With that being said, um you know, there's a handful of financingoptions that we present. We certainly can work that into the design phase andhave, you know, public engagement around uh the financing options that we likelywould present um in September. Happy to do that if that's what you'd like to do.And it it's just going to have this big qualifier like on the bottom like imagesare concepts and will be refined as the design and budget evolve. like, youknow, we just are trying to manage expectations. Um, and there's reallyjust a handful of options. There's not a there's not a a significant number ofthem. I mean, it could be a property, you know, tax finance facility. I don'tthink that's what you're asking me to do, but like if you were to ask me tocome with options, that's one option. You know, that's always a thing you canconsider. Um, there's P3 models where you basically say, you know, we'll, youknow, get a private investment. um that will cost you something per year. Itcould be offset by some amount of operations, but you're likely having tofind a way to pay for that in some way, shape, or form, right? Um and then theother probably more leading idea is to um prioritize our sales tax above the$25 million that we have collected. So there is statutory authority that doesallow us to invest in a regional sports and rec complex not to council memberMiller's question earlier not in you know just a wide variety of communitypriorities. It's a very distinct authority has to be over $40 million. Ithas to be focused either on a civic center like think Mayo civic center or aregional sports and recck facility. So those are like the two criteria for thatfunding. Um there is a law that allows us to do that based on our existingauthorization. We have the ability to overcolctum for uh anything above $25 million and ourcurrent sales tax is projected with the years that we have available to it tocollect much more than $25 million. So um againneed a target uh want to understand that. But those are the the types ofideas that we would be bringing for you um to consider in September.>> Thank you. >> I I still have two more questions.>> Council member Wall, >> thank you. And I really appreciate uhthat uh uh better explanation. I think that uh adds to some clarity anyway ofwhat might be possible in the future. Uh going back to the building itself, uhone of the big ads, there are many ads, but the big ad of course is the turf.And uh if we were to build this, it would be a direct replacement for theRCTC dome, and we would have the only dome in town that would uh accommodatewhat RTC currently hosts. Would that be uh correct?>> Yes. And we do not see that the RCTC dome is going it's limping right now anduh it'll be on crutches soon and not not very good in the years to come.>> Yeah, that's correct. I mean, we're waiting for an evaluation of the dome toeven determine if interim use is an option. Um but it's one or two yearsthat you know we feel without some substantial investment. Um and there'sgoing to be a request of the city to make you know that investment to coverthe interim operations and so you'll have to determine that. I mean maybethat's the other bit of urgency here. I know we talked a little bit abouturgency. Um I mean I think the two things you have to consider on whetheryou want to proceed with this project just so you know you have all theperspective one is um you know do we want to be in a perpetual cycle oftrying to do an interim situation on the dome? I I don't think RCTC wants to dothat. I don't know that. We can talk to them more about it. Um but you knowthey've very distinctly said we are out of the dome business this fall. we'relikely going to be asked to cover the deficit a couple hundred thousanddollars plus or minus, you know, again to be determined. But um do you continueto do that if you don't have a strategy to go anywhere with this conversation,right? Or or do you just say we don't have a dome in the community? Like Ithink that's where we were at but for you know this conversation. Um the otheris just you do have to bear in mind too um the appreciation of our revenuesources sales tax in particular probably is a lot slower than constructionescalation. So you do have diminishing buying power as you move through this.So we we say construction escalation is you know in the 10% range probably. Imean it could be more could be less but for planning purposes we'll say 10%. Umyou lose buying power. So the 250 that you see up there might be 200 you knownext year and it might be something less than that the following year. So youjust have to realize the you know when you wait you have the potential to loseimpact too. >> And my last question is a simple one. Uhif this item were to pass how would people indicate their interest in sserving on the community working group? We uh typically have had uh that flowthrough our communications and engagement team and you know there's abase of people that are familiar with the site and you know have served on theuh the previous outdoor option but I think it would just be contacting Jennaand seeing if there's >> sort of contact communications. Thankyou >> council member uh Keane.>> Again I just to move our discussion along I I want to propose putting amotion on the table and then if we amend it or however it goes if that issuitable. Go ahead. I'd like to move to approve the seven-part motion to proceedwith phase two to address funding, design work, requests for proposals,financing ideas, and interim RCTC dome extensions.>> Is uh motion made by council member Keane? Is there a second?>> Second. >> Council member Keane.>> All right. So, I'll give my like overview and we'll see where this goes.But back in 2023, we came up with uh four projects for the sales tax and umwe went first to the state to get permission to take these to the votersand that that was the process. Um, I think it's clear now that we errored inthat process by sharing what what I what we thought were concepts uh andpossibilities that could be a part of the regional sports section before wehad done the hard work of finding land and buying land and improving land andgetting to the point that we knew that what our capability was with $65million. And I think the city I think I've heard from cityadministrator Parish yeah we realize now that we've probably got ahead ofourselves with some of that. Um and then what we did was come back with a smallerplan that was within our within our funding stuff. Um I I think in my viewof coming here tonight the decision and the proposals in front of us are tryingto do better. We we have to do more design and planning work before we startcommitting to what we think we can do. um we need to adjust the current planswith things like parking so that we don't end up coming deciding six monthsfrom now to do something and then finding out we need to tear up thingslike the build once problems. Um and I wish I could give insurance asuranceshere that we would not fund any of this type of work based on tax levy. Um, Iknow that I wouldn't want to I would not support that, but I'm one of seven andthat may go that way. But my sense from being up here for over the years is thiscouncil wouldn't go that way. Um, I think what part of the work here is thisum finding out what these other funding sources are. Uh, federal and state arealways options for these things. But I think what we talked about now withsales tax, but the other one we've talked about in the hospitality industryhas talked about this that they have examples other places where um um thepro private sector through advertising or other sort of things is a is a is agood um input and maybe as as uh Mr. Parish says maybe more for operationsthan for than for building. Um I I think we have to be careful when we say wewant to listen to what the community wants. there are so many differentbifurcated parts of the community. Um, and I think the majority right now wouldsay stop spending. Um, but I think what I'm always concerned with is not just,you know, it it's sort of what where the sources of the funds are coming from andare those sources what they're being used for? And and again, that's why Iwould say right now with tax levy, I think we would stay away from that andfocus that on city services and and um um and public safety. Thank you,>> Council Member Miller. >> Yeah, I appreciate the motion. I I won'tbe supporting it tonight, but um I I did want to go back to Mr. Parish, yourmention that the leading financing idea has some restrictions, but I didn't hearyou say that it's only restricted to sports facilities. And I look at ourcivic center and it has performing arts space, it has an art center, it hasflexible event space. And I also think of other communityefforts and I I hear from constituents often that we don't invest that much inarts and cultural spaces for people. And so I am uncomfortable moving forwardwith further investment in sports tonightwithout a deeper dive into potential uses be they limited with somerestrictions by the authorization of how could a scale of funding like thispotentially be used and add an asset to our community. And I would just go backto when we had the conversation over multiple meetings about what are thecouncil's priorities and what are our um strategic priorities and foundationalprinciples. The idea of inclusivity in the decision-m and in the growthmanagement came out in both and we adjusted them in that direction and I amhighly concerned that if we move this motion forward as as proposed that weare losing further trust in those areas. So I will not be supporting thistonight. I would like us to hold hold space at the site and have a bettercommunity conversation about what could be done with that leading financingidea. >> Council member Doring.>> Yeah, I won't I also will not be supporting this motion tonight for manyother reasons that uh Mr. Miller just shared as well. Uh I am concerned aboutthe financing model relying on the extending the sales tax even a littlefurther or collecting more sales tax. uh just because we can do something doesn'tmean we should do something and I'm I'm concerned about that especially withoutuh increased community engagement or con increased community knowledge aboutthat. I would agree with the with the idea of holding space uh at our southsite for future indoor uh development. I just don't think we're here [snorts] atat at this point. I I do recognize urgency uh for that. Um, but I think wecan come up with some uh additional creative solutions in the interim as wecontinue to uh sus out what the community wants with with uh uh a hugebuild of indoor space. I also hear from the community about concerns about notinvesting in in in cultural uh amenities or arts amenities in this community. So,I would love to explore that a little bit further. I would encourage us if weengage with a community working group that we actually ask those uh differentsegments of that community working group to nominate spokespeople for thosecommunity groups uh rather than just real uh relying on the same voices weheard in the first phase of the project. Uh in increased engagement in that waybrings more buyin and more voices to the table and that is essential to me. So uhthose are my thoughts uh this this evening. Again, I will not be supportingthe motion. >> Thank you, council member. I'll just uhsay [clears throat] I will not be supportingthis motion for a very targeted reason. It's like I said, I feel we're puttingthe cart be for the horse. I don't I think we need to have uh communityengagement on the funding models that you, Mr. parish outlined verbally for usand have a greater discussion on uh amongst this body as well as in thecommunity on do we want to spend that and use those resources for this indoorand I say that as someone who has worked really hard over the last year toexpedite this discussion and to uh to uh give us some options on indoor. I I Ilike the model. I think we also and also need to know more about um the uh the uhall-weather dome. We should uh visit some that are in operation and take alook at them. And one of my favorite terms is glide path this discussion withour with our uh constituents on uh on this is a uh a a very viable option forindoor and uh and really sell it to our community and uh but I I really feelhesitant to commit even a million dollars before having that discussion.Council member Frederick's. Thank you. Remember when you were a kid and youused to get on a steep hill and think you're going to run down it real fastand you just get going and you lose your footing and you start doing somersaultsand all kinds of stuff. That's kind of how I feel. I'm very much for anythingto add economic stimulus to this community for thebusinesses for everybody. I'm any I'm all about overall health, physicalhealth, health of our community as well. I'd just like to slow down just a littlebit. That's the only reason I'm going to vote no tonight is because I just I justwant to slow down a little bit. That's it. >> With that, uh uh Queso, could you callthe role? >> Oh, uh Council Member uh Wall, go ahead.I'm sorry. >> Just a point of order. Uh I would liketo know precisely what the motion is. Uh there were seven parts, but I just wantto know precisely what the motion is. Council member Keane,>> again tried to write it up without reading the whole thing back to us, butI move to approve seven-part motion to proceed with the phase 2 sports complex,address funding, design work, request for proposals, financing ideas, andinterim RCTC dome extension. >> Thank you.>> As as presented >> as presented as present on our screens.Uh, council president, can I just get clarity because I heard a desire forsomething different and if you vote no on this motion without amending it, Idon't know if you have the opportunity to vote on something different.Clerk Caseil, if this motion goes down, are we able to uh to uh put forth analternative uh proposal? I would say that if you wanted to dosomething else, you should probably amend the motion so the topic does notum fail completely tonight at this point.>> Thank you. Is there any amendments to this motion?I I'll propose an amended motion to adjust the site for the existingregional sports and recreation complex, particularly the parking areas, to allowfor a footprint of a potential future indoor space.>> Second >> and to request [laughter] Thank you,Council Member Palmer. And to request additional review of funding models at afuture study session or council meeting. Second.>> So that w that was an amendment by council member uh Miller and seconded bywas it council me Palmer? Council member Miller, can you clarify your your amend?Sure. >> Well, I let me ask you a question. Withyour amendment, are you removing items one, two, three, four, and five from theaction requested on our screens? >> Say those numbers one more time, please.It's one through five. It's the funding piece.>> It's I would clarify that I understand six as presented here is is a financingoption for this design. I would clarify that I would like afinancing discussion of the potential funding source and how it could be usedbe it this project or other statutory options within that authorization.And it doesn't have to be at the September 9th city council member citycouncil meeting. That's fine if it is. But I would like us also, as Iunderstood during the study session where we last discussed this, to just dothe immediate work of utility location and making sure that we're not buildinga parking lot where something could be in the future.>> Those are the two actions I'm suggesting we take. And I I want to ask thequestion again bec is your action striking>> I would suggest I'm striking the entire list of seven here.>> Okay. >> And proposing alternate actions that wehave a deeper dive into the funding model.>> Point of order. I would suggest that's a substitute motion and not an amendmentto a motion. >> Okay. I think uh if you saved um one of thepoints, >> how about we save seven?>> There you go. >> Pursue interimm options for existingRCTC dome ex extension of that beyond this season.>> Is there clarity on the amendment? Council member Palmer?>> Yes, I'm very clear. No, no. I I guess I I understand that again trying to I meanthis is more manipulative just keeping seven, but there was also the I thoughtembedded in what council member Miller said and also make the arrangements atthe south site to and that's not in the motion right now. So I would suggestthat we can keep seven and amend it to add actions of bring a a future councildiscussion of potential funding sources and their possible uses.And as it can be number three in this list prior nine is to um authorize there relocation of parking etc on the existing site to leave space[snorts] for future indoor construction. I am going since we are at uh roughly 8uh 7:45 I am going to take at uh have a10-minute break and I'm going to uh ask Council Member Miller and Council MemberPalmer to work with Clerk Caseil to write up this uh amendment. We're onbreak. Can I borrow a sheet of notebook paper?I can't rip it. All right, we're going to uh we're going toget back get started and uh Council Member Miller, can you uh read youramendment? >> Sure. So an amendment a motion to amendby striking numbers one through six of the main motion leaving item seven andadding two additional requested actions. Adjust the RSRC site to allow for afootprint for a potential future indoor space and request additional review offunding models at a future study session or city council meeting.>> And uh council member Palmer, are you good with that? Okay. So we have a uhamendment. Any further discussion on this amendment? Council member Keane,>> just to clarify on the adjust the RCT site, is there a cost associated withthat or that's not a cost? Your >> we would bring backtwo. >> Go ahead. Uh your mic.>> Yeah, your honor. Um appreciate the question because during the the breakhad the opportunity to kind of group up with the team and there there will besome additional costs there. I I don't know that that should influence we can'ttell you what those are. I think what we will do is make every modification wecan um in order to best position that for future use. But it's not to say thatthere's not going to be any cost with that in the future that there might besome site disruption and modifications that end up having to happen. But justrespecting the fact that you're, you know, clearly not in a position tounderstand what that is. Um but I just want to forecast that, you know, thereprobably would be some additional costs um in the future for that.That's good clarification. Thank you, >> Clerk. Queso, can you call the role?>> Council member Keane, >> I.>> Council member Miller, >> I.>> Council member Wall, >> I.>> Council member Frederick's >> I.>> Council member Palmer, >> I.>> Council member Doring, >> I.>> Council President Schubang, >> I.>> Okay, the amendment passes 70. So, uh, and we're back to the original motion.Uh, and that was made by council member Keen.>> Back to the amended motion. >> Back to the original. Yeah, amendedmotion. >> So, any further discussion on that? Allin favor say I. >> I.>> Oppose say nay. Motion passes. Thank you.Moving on to H2, which is the contract approval plan for enhanced public realmdelivery. And this is an item that was pulled by both council member Palmer andMiller. Council member Palmer, do would you like to start?>> Well, thank you. Um, what what is the funding source for thismoney? >> Who's going to take that? Um, that uh>> take the question. Thank you. Um, it will be DMC funding.>> And is this only going to be in the current DMC area?>> That is correct. Um, there is a map on the within the RFQ on page nine thatidentifies the streets that'll be examined and they are all within thecurrent DMC boundaries. >> That's what I just wanted to hear. Um,I'm not in favor of this only because a lot of reasons, but the biggest reasonis that I think that we have staff and we have male clinic people working. Idon't think we need to add more people to this. And I'll give you kind of anexample that we've had two recently that having more than a lot of peopleinvolved and nobody really wants to take responsibility. And one of them would befor the St. Mary's Electrical that cost us $900,000 in the Peace Plaza. Andeverybody's playing to everybody else on these issues that these this is whatwent wrong. So I think adding one more group to this doesn't make any sense.And so I won't be supporting this um request.>> Council member Miller. So, I pulled this for a different reason and I had hadsome conversation with Miss Woodward U, but I was hoping that you could clarifythe process of the RFQ narrowing down the applicants and then narrowing downfinalists and making the recommendation. Could you talk about the the frameworkfor that, who was involved and and give us a better sense of how thisrecommendation came to be for this consultant?>> Certainly. So, there was an RFQ process or request for qualifications. We madeit pretty widely open. We received 10 proposals. Um there was an an initialreview and scoring with a number of items. I think there were about sixdifferent items that we were asked folks to score included representatives acrosscity departments including parks, public works, community development along withDMC um folks and Mayo looking at them. We had a [snorts] discussion andnarrowed it down based on who scored highest and then we ultimatelyinterviewed two firms. Um further asking some clarifying questions about scopeand innovation and how public engagement and then we narrowed that down throughthat interview process and made the recommendation for Gamble andAssociates. And at both stages of that were the different stakeholdersevaluating the proposals or the the the firms and then the interview responsesindependently or was that done in a group?>> We review well that initially everybody scored them individually and then webrought that together to have a discussion and then through theinterview process after the interviews there were group discussions.>> Okay. So was it a unanimous decision? Was it consensus? What were some of thetension points of one versus the other? Could you>> generally was consensus part of what we were looking at is who really understoodthe scope of work, understood the timeline, really understood also theengagement efforts. One um I would say proposal had more of doing a largerengagement, but we also recognized there's been a lot of engagement done todate and we wanted to build off of the existing engagement so that we're nottiring folks out of repeating some of that same information. alsounderstanding the complexities of we have a tight timeline with uh Mayoconstruction happening and being able to get these design elements together to beable to give them to the project managers who are going to be looking atthese infrastructure projects and how all that's going to work together reallywell. >> Okay. And that's what it seemed like tome too uh from some conversations I had. Uh, but I I guess one of my concerns andI I'm happy to support this tonight, but I I I feel like often we move withurgency as things come up and I I know that innovation was part of that RFQand I I read through both of the proposals and I it's unclear to me thatwe're choosing a firm that is is really bringing core innovation and I I hopethat that's the case when they actually deliver this project, but I I wouldn'twant us to lose sight of innovation, especially when we've gone through thisprocess with the DMC EDA to develop these three areas, innovation beingreally one of our strong areas and design for well-being and I I just wantto make sure that those are well represented and I know the otherconsultant is actively engaged with that has done recent plan review and I I Isee how there could be advantages to both firms in different ways and I againI just don't want one to miss all of the the requirements um just becauseexpediency and they're already engaged >> the the requirement will be to providean innovation and really looking at different tiers and how does that getincorporated throughout the design. So that element is required of theconsultant to complete and that will be some items that we will make sure as wekind of move forward that that is part of it and also probably likely part ofthe engagement of what does that innovation really look like throughoutthis process. >> Okay.>> Is there a motion on this item? >> Sure. I I'll make a motion approving acontract with Gamble and Associates for the development of a plan for theenhanced public realm downtown adjacent to Mayo Bold Forward Unbound. Mo>> motion made by council member Miller. >> Second.>> Seconded by council member Doring. Any more to add, council member Miller?>> No, I appreciate the opportunity to have this discussion in a public setting. Iknow there's a lot of um competing factors that go into any ofthese recommendations and I I just want us to make sure that we operate from aclear set of principles and don't get thrown off course as things get urgentand I know that that's come up with uh council member Keen talking about umtransformative capital projects and really keeping to timelines and I knowthat the $38 million for this area was approved a while ago and then we didn'tgo out to RFQ you until a lot closer to it. And it feels like maybe we'vecreated some of this urgency and again I I'm happy to support this firm. I justwant to make sure that we stick to the core principles and don't get thrown offcourse in a very busy uh project environment.>> Other thoughts? I would just echo I I and not in particular with this projectbut I the urgency and the action plan because there are so many uh so manyplans that we've done whether it's uh the small area plans around uh thisbuilding or the small area plan uh at uh Ampy and Kmart and they they're greatplans. are they're very uh creative, but then there's nothing to lift them offand and uh this is a little different because it isn't a development project,but uh it's that action plan that happens after the plan is developed thatI'm really interested in seeing and and hearing more about. Miss Woodward, doyou have a response to that? >> Yeah, if you don't mind. Um so all ofthis work will directly correlate to projects. So part of what we're tryingto do with this plan is to identify what these elements are going to be in theoverall streetscape design that will directly link to construction projectsthat are also going to include underground infrastructure. So it'sreally doing the upfront work with this so that those projects are ready to goand on schedule and on time as well. So these this work will directly link towhat will be in those construction projects.>> Thank you for that. Any further comments? All in favor say I. I>> oppose say nay. >> Nay.>> Motion passes 522 with council members wall and Palmer voting nay.>> Uh with that uh ordinance second reading. Go ahead Mr. Spindler. Craig.>> Thank you Mr. President. Item K1 and ordinance of the Rochester City Codeapproving the renaming of roadway section located at the intersection of45th Street Southeast and St. Bridget Road Southeast and runs eastwardly toSports Complex site to Game Day Drive Southeast.>> I'll move approval. >> Second.>> Motion made by Council Member Keen and seconded by Council Member Wall. All infavor say I. >> I.>> Oppos say nay. Motion passes. >> Item K2, an ordinance amending section3-1-17 of chapter 3-1 of title 3 of theRochester Code of ordinances relating to dangerous dogs.>> Move approval. >> Second. Motion made by council memberMiller and seconded by council member Doring. All in favor say I.>> I. >> Oppose say name. Motion passes. Is therea motion to adjurnn? >> Mr. Chair.>> Oh, I'm sorry. Does someone have a >> other business? I did not hear aboutother business, but go ahead to Mayor Norton.>> I just want to uh remind the council that I'm taking off on Wednesdayafternoon to go to the US Conference of Mayors to forward a resolution forworkforce development. Um, and we'll be back after. And there are two items thatI am not willing to put my name on. Item F7 and K1 that will be in my box. AndMr. Chair, I would ask that you sign those. Both related to the sportscomplex. >> Uh, thank you, uh, Madame Mayor. Uh, isthere any other business? Seeing none, is there a motion to adjurnn?>> So moved. >> Uh, second.>> Second. >> Motion made by council member Miller andseconded by council member Frederick's. All in favor say I.>> Post say nay. We are adjourned.