City Council - Regular Meeting

indoor recreation options and needs in the community. Um building upon previous uh work that's also taken place. So really appreciate uh Jenna, Abby, and Britney's work in this space. Um also our overall communications team. So we're going to go through the results of that um which are included for reference in your packet in the presentation um for about 10 or so minutes. uh take a pause to answer any questions that you might have and any clarifications or comments and then transition into a more uh focused conversation around options. And so I want to just really extend my appreciation uh to a few folks here that have really guided us and shepherded us to where we've gotten today. Uh we've been meeting with RCTC weekly um after the council encouraged the team to think about creative options for meeting our indoor recreation needs. So, Council President Schub, Mayor Norton, Council Member Wall, uh, City Administrator Zelms, uh, Ben Bolt, and myself all have spent every Monday morning for an hour and a half or plus or minus, uh, really trying to think creatively about how we can maximize the opportunities within these partnerships. We have some exciting concepts to share with you tonight. Um, we'll focus not only on the concepts in terms of the physical evolution of what might be able to happen in these different scenarios, but I don't want to also lose sight of the fact that we have a number of opportunities to just maximize and optimize and reimagine our existing partnerships, including marketing investments that you have all already made. RCTC has taken a strong uh leadership role and evolving their existing uh programming. So, you see a lot of, you know, walking and pickle ball and volleyball, etc. happening out there that wasn't happening before. Um, and just want to continue to, you know, build on that as well. Uh, I want to emphasize when we get to the concepts portion of the presentation that um, these would be further refined through preliminary design, a community working

group and uh, have more focused process around that. All the things you're going to see here are really like 5% design. So we need to take another level to refine budget estimates to refine the programming to refine the concepts um that we would have. Um so further due diligence is required there. I also want to just say uh before we get going option A when we get to that this evening uh likely is more challenging than what we anticipated. We got some difficult news on Friday. Uh with that um I'll talk more about that when we get to that point. But just to note um there may be some challenges with option A um when we get to that portion of the presentation. Uh lastly before I flip it over to the team um from a financing perspective. I know that's also an important part part of these projects. Um our options for financing also will be refined based on the preliminary direction you provide here this evening. um we would project to get that to the council after we get better estimates through preliminary design and through the refinement of the preferred alternative and evolution of the community working group. So just know that those two items walk together. Um and we're actively engaged with the city's public financial advisory team which includes our public finance legal counsel as well as our financial advisor. So, with that, I'm happy to turn it over to Jenna um to uh lead us through what we learned about indoor recreation needs in Rochester.

Awesome. Thanks, Aaron. Uh good afternoon, everyone. Um excited to share what we learned through the engagement process. Uh first, wanted to thank and highlight uh the other folks who helped with the engagement process. So, we have Abby Lure who is a PhD at Mayo. Um you might recognize her from the work that was done last fall with the healthy community. um partnership um or oh gosh yeah yeah and as well as uh Britney Bohart uh who is uh PhD candidate with Winona State. Did I get that right? Um and uh helpful to us. She had done some work last fall uh with the RCTC football team uh with food security. Um so great connection there and want to acknowledge Ben Bolt who is with us through all of the process with the community engagement as well. Um so with that uh first starting on as far as our focus with community engagement for this project it was really seeking to understand what folks would like to see kept changed or created. So we really focused the engagement on those three areas. As Erin indicated, um it was very helpful from to be starting from a place of what prior community engagement had been done, specifically understanding the community's interest in eight courts, the walking, jogging track, as well as indoor programming. Uh and I believe you're all aware of this that parks and recreation continues to work with community ed on additional engagement. Um we are working through that right now. The last update that I got about a week and a half ago is that we had over a thousand survey responses, which is great. Um, again, both the city park and wreck, um, as well as community ed was seeking to understand how folks get their information, um, where they might be feeling like they're light on getting information and what type of programming do they like with what's offered today and what would they like to see in the future. Uh, we had just about 15,000 survey responses, um, which was a strong level

of survey response. We had three public openhouse events. Those were at RCTC, uh, as well as two virtual meetings. I will say uh we had lighter attendance um both with the openhouse and the virtual meetings. Um many who attended had indicated that they had taken the survey online. So I will say that while we always hope to see more engagement in any of the through any of the methods that we do um I do think uh for those who at least uh seemed interested in the topic uh that they did participate uh through that survey. Uh I say that as well is that I think we had a strong level of promotion with the engagement opportunities. Uh great coverage uh by the press as you can see some clips there by way of the media release. Uh we also work to get the information out to a variety of community organizations and sports organizations. The chamber for example had shared that information out with members. Um RCTC also provided the information to their faculty, staff and students. Uh and then we had a boosted two different boosted social media ads. One about the engagement opportunities and one for the survey. Uh you can see either strong impressions or the number of clicks um with the folks connecting with that content. Um and just under 400 visits to the project website which is where we hosted all of this information. So I won't go through slide by slide as Erin indicated this was in the packet and hopefully you had a chance to look at it. Um I will say with our demographic information fairly similar to what we see with other surveys just in regards to age, gender, race, ethnicity, um uh living situation, um income, uh demographics related to disability. Sorry, I'm remembering I need to go through not my screen. uh as well as how folks identify um they could select more than one. So you're

seeing as far as adults uh older adults, parents or caregivers um and then the numbers in terms of those identifying as our CTC staff, faculty or students. So overall um really helpful information in regards to what improvements uh folks think this the facility could benefit from. I just want to call out um what we're continuing to see kind of across the board and that has to do with information and awareness. Um and I think that's really important for you as decision makers and as policy makers as you think about what do we have in our portfolio of spaces or options today um what might we need and some of that is what can we close the gap on just in terms of awareness and understanding um and how does that maybe coincide with what folks are saying they want. So, I can say anecdotally, one of um the couples that stopped by the open house had said they're new to Rochester within the last year or so. Uh they frequently use the walking and jogging track to do indoor walking um as they were connecting with their neighbors who have been in Rochester for eight years. Their neighbors were unaware um that there was an option for that indoor available to the public at RCTC. So, while one small example, I think, you know, that kind of puts the point of uh that potential information gap and where that might coincide with just a lack of awareness on what we do actually offer. And by that I mean both the city of Rochester and by way of our partners. Uh you can see as well folks and the feedback they provided about what they currently do like about the space. Uh this is really helpful in the context of what folks um find as a level of importance. Uh the two main ones to highlight um that being the turf within the dome that was also a very strong one that was mentioned at the in-person engagement as well as that track use. um

those both at 38% and uh 36% respectively um with others kind of across the board but those definitely being um strong ones. Then always a question of when do folks want access. I imagine this is not a surprise to folks is the weekday evenings really are um a strongly desired time um with the morning uh weekend times um and then kind of shaking out across the weekday uh and weekends between the afternoons and evenings. So again, you're seeing here asked in a little different of a way um but still really strong. Uh 530 folks noting what improvements could be made. Um this is just about 40% of respondents indicating that better communication about programs could be um uh improved um followed with more space, more drop in options etc. And then when we talk about indoor amenities um you can see the top uh part of the lines there that being very interested with the light blue being interested. Um so you're seeing expanded fitness um you're seeing indoor pickle ball. We also saw that through the comments an interest in indoor pickle ball um and a variety of other things be it the indoor playground um rock climbing etc. So then we also asked specifically about youth and adult programming you can see with youth programming uh the largest interest was with open gym or free play um the 381 respondents just are those that don't have children or that they that did not apply to them. um with the next being skills clinics and camps for adults. Um pickle ball or court-based activities was the strongest at 525 responses. The second being that walking or jogging programs

and then just as we talk about amenities and we'll note if you know RCTC and the fieldhouse some of these amenities exist today. So um as uh Erin mentioned um just in regards to conversation about fac about amenities um or the facility I would say that's something that as the project um engagement team this is an area that would be especially helpful as we drill down potentially into the future of thinking about the design thinking about the amenities you know what do locker rooms shower facilities mean to folks. um when you think about seating and lounge areas, how much has changed just in terms of folks using personal devices um and internet access. Um and so uh something even like that compared to spaces that might have been designed prior to laptops, cell phones um all of those things that we are using more often today. And then we asked folks about just their overall experience. um some open-ended uh questions uh responses that came from the RCTC students and faculty um in line with the community as well. And then um again won't go through all of these slides in detail, but we really appreciate the work that Abby and team had done with the health Rochester Healthy Community Partnership. Um they had completed community engagement work by way of a survey back in September and October of last year. Um you can this slide really highlights kind of the key learnings. um 204 respondents. Um really are folks aware of the lowcost indoor recreation recreation opportunities. The answer being no. Um and send then some uh recommendations as to how that could be uh addressed. Again, you're seeing the the thematic piece there with communication. Uh these slides go through the demographics. And what I will highlight here is while we had some um gaps in

terms of uh demographic information that matches to our community, the work that Abby and team had done uh really provided us some key insights um with uh folks of diverse racial backgrounds as well as housing. If you remember the demographics that we had from uh the survey most recently, those were the majority majority of respondents were owners compared to the majority of respondents in the surveys were renters. Um so again understanding that um as well as uh I think important to note with this slide I think the biggest takeaway that you can have with this is that in terms of familiarity you see a lot of green and that means not at all familiar. So I think really taking in of what we have available today and where um where do we have an opportunity to close the gap and one of those biggest places uh continues to be information and awareness. Then when we talk about frequent frequency of use again I imagine not surprising if you're looking at the previous slide that if you're not aware of it you're likely not using it. um that juxtapose to the interest. Um the yellow is not at all interested, blue slightly, red extremely or very interested. So again, that piece of kind of the through line there of what awareness do folks have, what are they currently using today? What would they like to use? So you can see the walking, jogging uh was the highest uh desired use. uh the second with swimming, the third with unstructured play and so forth. Uh as far as times, just note that there are a lot of there are similarities. Uh the survey got a little bit more specific in terms of the weekend mornings or afternoons. Um but again, the weekday evenings after 5:00 pm being of greatest interest.

And then uh Abby had also looked at some of the similarities and differences in terms of the primary language spoken at home and the way in which people would like to see or receive information. I think just important to note that um for those who are speaking in an language other than English as the primary at home um text and what app is of greater interest compared to those where English is the primary that being social media and parks and wreck website where both have interest in printed materials and email and if you recall if you received the presentation from Abby last year um out of social media Instagram had the highest level of interest. So getting to the overall uh summary uh you can see what was unique coming out of the fall 2025 survey that being affordability uh family and female friendly spaces multilingual signage and unstructured and flexible spaces. Uh what we saw with some key items for the spring uh youth sports is a very strong um desire as well as usage. our pickle ball folks would like to continue to see more indoor options. Um but resoundingly too uh that dome and turf are incredibly important to the community. I will also say um had a conversation with a mom who shared um that indoor soccer in the turf at RCTC right now is vital for her daughter and that if it was not available, they would be looking at where in the cities would they be headed. and that being that the sport and the ability to play in the winter is such a positive both for mental health and physical health that it just to that piece of um one particular example but um to the youth in our community as well as many other users. And finally, just to share where we saw the shared themes across both again that weekday evening, uh weekend mornings, improved communication and scheduling, um increased offerings, thinking about the

walking, jogging, as well as uh how we might bring in some circuit training in a flexible way. Um, and just as we think about updated facilities or what those facilities may be and our overall recommendations, some of these items that Erin had mentioned, uh, consider a community working group as, uh, this may advance, dive deeper into those amenities, really focus on building greater awareness, uh, as well as looking at opportunities to do some data collection, and that ultimately is to measure success. So, who are who's using the facilities today? Again, what gaps do we have? And then what helps us know if we've been successful? So, with that, I'll pass it back over to Erin.

Your honor, I think this is the point maybe where we pause if you have any questions about what you heard here before we transition to options. I think the team's happy to take those. Council member,

thank you. I I think this is helpful and I appreciate the deeper dive, but I'm still seeing some areas that I'd hope to kind of think about that I I'm not hearing mentioned or studied. One is for survey respondents, where in the community are they located, where are they living, how far are they willing to travel, and what transportation options are available? I appreciate the survey of own versus rent housing, but I think it's also an important consideration to understand what transportation options people have access to that would be limiting or enabling um options. I I appreciated the the the comment that you made um Miss Bowman about um the importance of turf and indoor space, but then you said that that family would be willing to travel to the cities and that seems like a portion of our community who would travel for access to these amenities, but I also feel like that's taking a broader sense of the market and what may or may not be met. And I I'm not sensing that we're trying to compete with the cities for that, but provide better access to these amenities within our own area. So, I guess those are kind of my main points, but I'm also hearing this idea that people want um more flexible space. And I know we did the open gem pilot with Rochester public schools. It likely also suffered from communication and programming and other things. And I'm not necessarily seeing anything in this packet that recommends other potential pilots of space. I mean, I I know we're moving into recommendations of larger investment facilities that would be owned, operated by the city, but I I do wonder if that area of partnership is considered at a a smaller scale trial um to see what may or may not be um actually taken up by the community before we commit to building something on a perhaps um constrained time frame. your I can start with responding and

then pass it to Miss Bowman. Um and maybe Jenna, the thing to think about here is while we didn't explicitly address that, we did receive a number of sort of comments um from the community as well in a supplemental basis. I don't recall that being sort of a strong theme in terms of people expressing concern with access or transportation, but I would maybe just defer to Jenna because she may have, you know, had a deeper dive on that and more insights in that space. But I do think it's a relevant factor for us to consider going forward. So as we look at preliminary design of options um some sense of the ecosystem in terms of you know what the transportation options are um both conventional and and and non-conventional uh we certainly can do that as part of any preliminary design um have something that that's the topic for the community working group to further evaluate. So I think as we look at options in this next phase um that's certainly something that we could do a deeper dive on but I don't know Jenna do you recall anything

I guess to that point I I I'm curious about the survey potential of understanding do people want one central facility that provides all amenities or is the priority to have better access to a version a smaller scale indoor space but closer to where they live would people I mean it's the conversation of the the library recommendation of wanting branches. People in that survey process consistently were saying I I don't feel a connection to downtown. Downtown is difficult to access. I would rather that service be provided closer to me. Other challenges, but I I just wonder about some of the themes that we see emerge in other engagement areas considering the centralization versus distributed.

Yeah. I mean I think uh you could easily presume uh people would love to have these facilities very close to where they are right um it's just not as efficient to operate within that context and model and I think you are seeing sort of a regionalization of of these assets both for operational effic efficiency um but also so they can have impact and scale um you know that you might expect uh within the community. So I I think you could expect to see you know people wanting that proximity but at the same time um our ability to deliver that you know certainly would be constrained given the level of investment you might want to have and particularly from the programmatic perspective having a lot of good programmatic options um I think are are better delivered you know at a at a common facility. I think people also put it in context of what exists today and you know you're also benchmarking a little bit off of that. So if the the notion that the turf is going away, you know, was taken down last week or the week before and it's not going back up but for some intervention, you know, that's, you know, where we're at this moment in time, but it's a regional asset and it's, you know, available that way. So again, defer to Jenna on any more of those transportation related themes, but I think mostly people want to prioritize access to the level of amenities. Um, and then location is a factor, but I don't know that it's the driving factor. I'd also think you have to think about this in the context of what it means for our overall ecosystem of facilities. So, if we go down the road when we get into options of talking about um you know, six new gyms, eight new gyms available, what does that mean for the rec center? If pickle ball transitions into that facility and all of a sudden Monday through Thursday, most of the winter from 7 o'clock on it's pickle ball. You all of a sudden have more found time at the rec center and you can reconsider your programming there. So we also will have to pick that up as we look at the next phase. How do we optimize other assets with this evaluation?

Yeah, absolutely. And to that question, council member, I think overall the comment being that there's transportation options. there was not specific um details or comments provided as to proximity um or the type of transportation but I think as we were seeing with other projects as well you know that multimodal option uh to a level to safely get to and from um so that's what I would say to that um and and I apologize if my my comment of example um seemed out of reach I I was intending to convey uh overall what we heard I mean through a number of conversations uh to Erin's point just in regards to how important the dome and turf are and to to those who are able the level of links they would go to continue to provide those opportunities. So I think we can anticipate that for those who would not be in that same position to make that same decision um who are currently uh benefiting and and appreciating the dome and turf that that um stretches past all of those examples. Um

Council Member Keane. Uh thank you. Yeah. Um I I know we're going to go through these other options, but uh first I' I'd like it really is good for us to get this sort of like survey thing or that attempt to try to reach out and have real input um and not just like antidotal. So it's really good to see 1500 people doing this and I know we did the things reaching out at different events and getting a cross-section of it. So it's good to have that in front of us. Um, at the same time, I I will say that I get really worried when I see that thing about, oh, oh, it's a communications problem because in my time here, there's a lot of those and we haven't really cracked the nut yet to say, oh, when we have that, here's what we do, and then we solve these communication problems. Like, we get people to show up at things because now they don't throw away the paper that comes in the mail or the signs that are here or there. So I I don't feel that when I see something's a communication problem that oh that's good because we know how to solve those now because I haven't seen that. Um the thing that I still go back to in these sort of discussions is that idea of like the original idea of building community assets that can be this economic engine and then value to the community. Um, and to me those usually come from those partnerships with things like the soccer programs or the baseball programs or the uh whatever programs and then figuring out the other partners, our community ed and people like that that can bring people into these things. Um, but um I'll I'll say I do get worried when I see that um we have the walking thing, we've had it for years um but the use is low and then the people who want us to build new walking things say I didn't know about the other one. It just doesn't feel like smart investing if that's what's happening.

Council member Dory.

Yeah, I also really appreciate the data as we as we try to make decisions and and frame policy. Um, as things move forward, I would appreciate the community working group also doing a deep dive on on how people are describing affordable. Um, I I'm assuming, and this might be bad for me to assume, affordability means something differently to someone who is a homeowner than a renter. Um, but both groups have listed affordability as as a priority for them. So, I would love to hear um how we're using that term, how those different groups are uh applying that term because ultimately that's going to have to come back if we're if we're talking about public uh uh public dollars going into any sort of facility. uh that might lead to tax levy questions and I want to know operationally how how much we're being asked to subsidized uh subsidize these public spaces. So um I would just encourage the working group to do that as we move forward as well. I would just say and one of the things that I've really um kind of a drum beat in our uh group that have been meeting with RCTC. I always want to bring us back to the the um the sports and wreck ecosystem. And so what I'm and and looking at the survey results probably for the third time now. What really sticks out to me is information and awareness.

And I know that we uh put 70K into marketing last fall. I'd like to see, you know, what kind of bump did we see from that? And is there a visibility campaign that and more than as as uh council member Keane talked about more than just communication but visibility of all of our offerings. And so I'm really interested in that. I'm really interested in the ease of scheduling issues that people have and whether there is a uh a uh easier scheduling option and then as uh as uh others have talked about the partnerships very interested in what what the discussions in the 1000 survey from with community ed and can that be then brought into this marketing and then uh and then our partnerships and and then to uh Dr. I mean Dr. Uh, Council Member Doring, uh, he may have a PhD. I'm not sure.

I do not.

Uh, uh, as far as accessibility and the, uh, scholarships, sliding fee schedules, that piece and that ecosystem, the parks and wreck, really trying to change that culture. So, those are the pieces from the survey that that I'd really like to see highlighted and have us not lose sight of as we kind of zero in on maybe um specific facilities and RCTC. If I can just council member to respond. Um you may recall we had anticipated um jumping into some uh community engagement to inform some of the areas of uh the marketing communications that we would do with parks and recreation. we had put a pause on a good majority of that until we we moved through the uh engagement with community ed as that came forward and we saw that to be a great partnership and kind of asking the community once um I would say as we learn more about what that data tells us and now having this opportunity to overlay both with what uh Rochester Healthy Community Partnerships learned last fall as well as what we saw learned this spring I think we'll be in a great position to utilize that as we invest the majority of remaining funds yet this year. Um I would say in the spots that we have made some investment. Um we're still seeing exactly what that return um is looking like. I I imagine I'm saying what most of you know which is uh it takes a little bit for that to stick for some folks but the fact that we are present in marketing that today and building those partnerships I think will serve us well moving forward. Thank you. Continue.

All right. Um, as we talked about earlier, we've already partnered significantly on the RCTC campus. We've made a number of sales tax investments both in the dome, the sports center. Um, we operate the fields that are on that site. And so, uh, a lot of existing collaboration again that we're trying to optimize. As I mentioned before, option A, um, if you can see on this, uh, diagram, that would be, uh, you know, the dome is item one. The existing Fieldhouse Rochester Sports Center is building two. Uh, area three in the red would be an addition to that facility. Um, and then obviously a number of site improvements. This option really contemplated reinvesting in the sports center uh the dome and trying to preserve that but also build more capacity into the indoor recreation ecosystem. Uh the challenge that came up last Friday is is at one point in time RCTC has utilized state bonds in this facility and based on that the longest that they could uh do a ground lease for which we would need a ground lease for any of these investments on the campus to secure the financing um the longest they could do a ground lease around this area in red would be 15 years. And so if you're starting to talk about spending upwards of $55 million to secure a ground lease um less than 50 years, we've actually been talking about 75. Um there's been a lot of conversation in that space on what the right number is. Without state approval at the legislature this session, they can only go 30 years. Um so there is some active work happening in that space that would at least allow us the opportunity to negotiate to 50. Um but on this particular site, 15 is the number and that just doesn't seem tenable. So, I'm not going to go deep with you on this option, but realize a lot of our conversations have centered around the term of the ground lease um as well as uh priority scheduling and operations and third party operators and and so on. So, not going to go through the details

of that, but uh option A was an initial idea. Um and these represent all the additional investments. The addition was about 40 million. Um, and then the balance of the investments really what went into the existing assets uh to preserve the dome for continued use and for preserving the existing sports center for longer term use in the community. Council member uh council member Palmer, what wasn't building one and building two paid for by our sales tax dollars? They were partially paid for by our sales tax dollars. So what percentage?

Um I don't know off the top of my head to be honest with you. substantially for the dome but not 100% um and significantly for I can go all the way back to the first slide here but significantly for the uh sports center but not 100% and then again later on they did some reinvestment with state bond proceeds which kind of put us in this lower duration situation but fair point we've invested substantially in that maybe the point I didn't say the thing I didn't say is with our current operations in the sports center we are entitled to have public use after 5:00 in that facility. They obviously continue to allow walking and running in there and other community programming that they're doing. Um but on a rental basis, uh folks are allowed to use it after 5 and there's a number of folks that obviously do do that. Um and in the dome is run as a peer enterprise. So, uh they do tend to lease that from like 4 to 6 and then your two other prime hours of the evening are available for community use. So, um, but again, substantial sales tax investments over a couple different periods of time, and I happy to walk back or get more information for you, but, um, I'd say the majority of the investment was from local sales tax.

So, if we have a sales tax, how can they bond against our sales tax or how did they tie that up or is that we didn't know or it's not in the contract? What? Yeah. So, uh, they they utilize that for some improvement to the building. So the state is given what's called higher asset education funding. Um some of that flowed down into this building um as they operated and I mean we could retrospect these agreements and what we invested versus what we ultimately retained for utilization or how long our partnerships were in these spaces but you know really it's an exercise in looking forward in terms of what we can accomplish there. Um but

administr maybe just to add some clarity when these initial investments happened whether it was on the sports center so building two um or building one which is the the football field and dome those in all of the agreements that we have even when in the initial agreements for construction it was always intended that RCTC would own those and in perpetuity would be responsible for maintaining so in their maintenance in their perpetuity ity. They have they have invested some heaper bonding dollars into the sports center and we're trying to understand do they have those same constraints on the field and bubble or not. So they own these facilities. We have access to the facilities. We've had significant investment in the initial facilities, but they have the ongoing obligation as the owner of the facilities to continue to invest in them. And as part of those investments, they've used some of the state bonding dollars in the sports center fieldhouse.

Continue.

So option B is an RCTC. All of these options have the potential to be partnerships with RCTC. So option B would say we're going to preserve the existing dome, operate the dome, do an expansion similar to the expansion we were talking about in option A, uh four courts, and again trying to meet the programming needs that were articulated in our engagement. Um that could lend itself to more standalone operations. operations were a strong thread of our conversation and different perspectives on wanting to retain operations as they were versus evolving to a third party operating model. Um, but this is a also a $55 million project. It would still have to have the dome uh be a fivemonth dome because they run their outdoor football seasons, etc. on the stadium as they do today. Um, so compared to option C, which is a year- round dome, this would still be a seasonal dome. Um, but you get the proximity to the u existing recreation center. Uh, so again, approximately $55 million uh for that. Um, we have the potential to operate that as a city. Um, I think, you know, public rental in the fieldhouse would continue till after 5. So with our current agreement, we still preserve that opportunity. Um, RCTC would continue to have the capital costs with the fieldhouse, operating costs with the fieldhouse and then we retain future responsibility for any capital and operating in the dome and the expansion. Um, with uh with this some of the things that we have to think through is RCTC in the dome still prefers schedule priority to 6:00. So really we are talking about two prime hours of evening availability. So back to what you know Miss Bowman's presentation earlier, most of our desire for you know community utilization is in the evening. Um we would have to

continue to discuss around that. And again, if we can't get up to 50 years of a ground lease in order to put that around this particular property, spending $55 million um without securing your investment long term would probably put us in about the same situation we're at today where we made significant investments and we don't have something to sort of attach to and have a longer term perspective in. Um so I think that's a challenge. There's also other challenges with potential termination of, you know, if we get a license or easement for parking. Sometimes those tend to be shorter duration, but they're important to make the facilities work. So, you know, we need to have that legislative approval to make anything work. Um, I this applies to anything you're talking about right now. If we say we're going to wait a year, construction escalation is in the five to 10% category. So we lose two and a half to$5 million of purchasing power every year we wait on these types of uh decisions. So that also is a factor. Minstate board would have to approve this. Uh but those key are the key terms. Duration of the ground lease I think it has to be at least 50 years. Um that's down from 75 which we've been talking about but um we'd have to get legislation to accomplish that. Um, moving on to the year- round dome uh concept. Um, somehow those slides are in a different order than what I have here. Um, moving on to the year- round dome concept. Um, this could be on the RCTC property. It could be on the um south site. So, where the existing regional sports and recck complex is, this is as placed on the regional sports and recck complex. If you think about the current RCTC dome, that's about 100,000 square feet. Um, this has the potential to be 200 to 250,000 square feet. Um, it is year round. So, if you know, there's a number

of domes in the Twin Cities area that are year- round domes. We had a great conversation with the team in West St. Paul around the operations of their facility. Um, it seems like they have a lot of uh, you know, good synergy there. I think this really uh this option really does uh meet a lot of the programmatic needs you talked about in terms of a more space for more flexible options, more city-driven programming. Um you have a fullsize turf soccer field so you preserve the turf not for 5 months for 12 months. Here you have a foundation around the facility so it stays inflated year round. The dome is insulated. So, right now, our current condition, if it gets to be about zero degrees, it might be 3540 degrees in the facility. Um, this allows for 68 to 72 degree temperatures in the winter. Um, we've done some preliminary analysis on utility costs and expense. Um, you know, we look at electrification of the system in order to tie into RCTC's renewable or RPU's renewable transition in 2030. Um, but as you can see, um, if you look, there's six basketball courts or multi-purpose courts. You could also put two of those in the blue. Uh, that just does didn't show through the right way in the presentation to have kind of a flexible transition zone that you could program for, we'll call it more informal community programming, but if you were running a big tournament, you could flip those into two courts. Uh, the area in blue also would be for seating as well as indoor play, an indoor play area. So, I think you have a lot of options. And then on the right, um, you have a lot of options for pickle ball, indoor pickle ball, which, you know, that's a a well utilized thing in the community and certainly showed up well in the responses. So, just a lot of programmable space here. Um, and so just wanted to kind of outline that idea. We feel like we could do that project on the south site for approximately $55 million. Now, if we would have made that decision as a

standalone decision, I just want to know both this and the RCTC sites, the way you get to 55 million on these is by the fact that the land is not costing you anything because you've already invested in that. You've already invested in the site improvements and utilities and roads in order to make these things work. And so, you know, if you would have done this as a standalone project before, it would have been much more expensive than 55 million over 65 million. So we are trying to take advantage of existing investments with this idea. Um in our conversations with RCTC um a lot of the options for site placement have been sort of ruled out. Um so you know we are trying to navigate that and have further conversations with them and that we'll talk more about that during the recommendation but um you can just see some of what you know the indoor concepts could look like there. There's the dome that was done in Mano similar idea. Um just again looking at the summary here, I talked through most of this. This could roll into um a standalone operated facility or it could roll into the regional sports and recck complex governance model. Um we have a very high level again just initial due diligence very much is subject to further design but a utilities estimate of 350,000 annually. um and other operating costs that are, you know, we'll call it non-staffing operating costs at 145,000. Um again, we think this option really does align strongly and is consistent with the original indoor concept that we talked about. Um most of those programmatic are are are there, but it also gives us the opportunity to preserve the turf space. Um which is, you know, shown to be important and an evolution since our original conversations in this space. Uh I won't go through all of these. Um but again I I do think uh one of the bigger challenges we're going to navigate in this space is if we are going to do this on the regional sports and recreation complex site, we would

need to make a decision by about June 1st. So at your June 1st city council meeting, um we would need to have something from you all that said please make these adjustments to the site because the parking isn't in the right place for this right now. Um, as you can see on the the diagram, I'll just back that up. Uh, the the parking isn't exactly on the right place for that. Um, we would have to shift some of the utilities before, you know, they get too far into the grading. Um, so those two items, you know, would be cost savings or adjustments we need to make now so we don't incur significant additional future costs to to make that adjustment. If you decided that you wanted to just do them to preserve the option, you can do that. you just might end up with kind of a funny parking orientation because you but for that you would have this very significant middle space that would have been reserved for the building and the relationship to the existing uh fields wouldn't be as strong. So with that our working recommendation uh really is to uh pursue an RCTC focused option um which could be option B or option C. Um to do that we need the legislation for 50 years. Uh we need agreements that are generally acceptable to recommend to you and the RCT or the minstate board by May 25th. We have drafts of those agreements that we've been doing to walk with the partnership. They would need to be modified of course. Um and then we would bring back to the council a working project budget approach to financing um after we did more preliminary design, you know, on the option. Uh and then if we don't have an RCTC option by the 25th of May, um we would on your June 1st meeting bring you an option to uh adjust the south site um to preserve the option to do that and then begin the design process uh there ultimately. So with that, I'm happy to stand for any questions that the council has.

Council member Frederick's. Thank you. I'm a I'm a fan of one if you can get a 50-year lease because I like the option to have programming tied in with the volleyball center. They're both on that side for a court type uh venue. Uh and I just I guess I'm a fan of traditional construction. Uh the next question I have the question that's just an opinion, but the question I have is the fabric on that dome. How what's the what's the life on that? Uh approximately 20 years. 20 years. And what's the replacement cost in that each 20 years?

Yeah. So on the existing uh site I think we're at like carrying a number of like 1.6 million Zach if I remember that right. Um this is bigger. So every 20 years you do have a cost. Now you have a cost you think. Huh? About double would be the cost. I think so. Yeah I think that's fair. And then you but you also have every 30 years to replace a roof or you know name the name name the thing with traditional construction. Cost won't be near that. Um at least I hope not. I mean honestly like center is more the the library roof replacement was like upwards of $2 million and that's a much smaller footprint obviously than what we're talking about here. So

two compared to 38 though is a pretty I mean you're saying 3.8 to do that right now plus 10% a year. Yeah. I mean there is some there is some differential for sure. Yeah. But I would also say some of the wear and tear on these uh from the tear down put up. There's a lot of u challenges with that and a lot of wear and tear that's unnecessary particularly with the way they're stored. So, but agree you would have to think about the idea in 20 years that you would need to replace that. Well, this one would stay in place. It wouldn't be coming down each year and going back up and all that. Okay. Just Yeah. I just want to weigh that out. I'm not trying to poke holes on it. Yeah. No.

Council member Palmer. Well, I was just going to say to Mr. Frederick, we've done $2 million roofs in about four different We've done $2 million roofs in about four different spots in Rochester already. So, um the building across the street, that building over there, and the rec center. And so, um I I have some problems with this only because of the of of being burnt once is kind of a hard way to to move ahead. and and you've said at least once we're at 5% design. Um you given us a dollar amount of 55 million. I mean are we at 110 million? Are we why why do you think 55 million is going to do it when last time it didn't?

Yeah. I mean I obviously I I want to manage expectations here. you know, realizing sometimes uh the construction estimates m miss and sometimes you want to do more than what we've talked about here and that's always part of the conversation in terms of you know what the design process yields like there may be scope beyond what we talked about here um and there just may be things that come up so I have some level of confidence it's not like you know we did work with you know some construction management teams you know to generate the initial numbers but we're also sort of designing to a budget here. Um, and I think you're going to scale your project to the budget versus the alternative. I mean, I think that's the approach we've taken to date, but if you came and said we really need to have 300,000 square feet because of ABC, ABC, CC, and D, just a different conversation. So, that's why we were trying to manage expectations there. I mean, literally got burned from the last consultant that told us we could do this all and and we're sitting here um with people who tell us, "Well, I saw this and I saw this and I saw this and now I'm seeing pictures of eight or 10 pickle ball courts and for some reason we do six, we're going to hear about it or we're going to have eight basketball courts or we're going to hear about it." You know, and the last consultant I always use the example said the line was $1 million and turned out to be five. So,

you understand where I'm a little leerary on on what we're doing here and and and what we're trying to do. Um I appreciate the RCTC um information, but to me it doesn't seem like it's it's a a deal that's worth going if we worked on it since last April. uh we've been in negotiations with them and um you know if this is a site we own and and put it out there and do that would be I think your better bet because um I'll go back to RCTC and their marketing it's it's been absolutely not working for us and it and that's very difficult. Yeah, maybe just one thing um to add to Council Member Palmer's comments and I appreciate um you know, we've all have a lot of emotional energy wrapped up in into this project and you know, there's certain things that haven't gone how we wanted them to, right? Um but I would also say some of the bigger risk areas on the southside in particular are are accommodated for here already. We we know what the land acquisition price was. That's accommodated for in the existing project budget. We we have a good sense of the geotechnical situation on that site. Um we are moving ahead with all the site design which is where a lot of your challenges come up. The grading's accounted for. We were making that pad ready already. So um we have gotten consultation and estimates from the dome manufacturer for the fabric which is a large portion of this project cost. Um, so we're we're not, you know, we're coming to this with some level of rigor, but again, I just, you know, I can't manage if evolution of the project andor, you know, the price of concrete gets crazy because this is a fairly concrete intensive exercise for the foundation. So those that that's your big variable here. But a lot of the things we normally um have challenges on projects, we're clear of those on the southside at least. So, so our our um Rochester Athletic Club has a dome. You play tennis in that dome. Um they don't

air condition it, so it's a little warm in the summertime, playable, but they don't they only have space heaters. They're not they're not The temperature isn't 72 degrees or 68 degrees. Why do you think that we need to be at this? I mean, if you're going to be there to participate and you're inside, why do we need to have that high utility bill? I mean, I think that's something we can certainly evaluate. Um, you know, you can always manage your temperature control, but, you know, there's moisture issues you have to deal with on this site, and you have to keep it inflated somehow, too. That's part of the process, and what kind of air you're using for that. Um, but certainly, you know, we can evaluate that as we move along, but they're not I mean, these are utility intensive exercises, but it's not appreciably different than some of the indoor facilities we have either. if you look at we can do that benchmarking for you as we move forward. Um but any of the indoor facilities at all this scale are going to be in this space. So

Okay. Thank you, Council Member Miller. Sure. I I appreciate hearing from staff on this, but in the process where we discussed this, we specifically directed Council President Schub, Council Member Wall, and the mayor to work on this process as well as a an extension of our council conversation. And so I haven't yet heard from either of them on these options. And I'm curious their perspective from a few angles, the partnership opportunity with RCTC and how this project has evolved from perhaps an initial concept to these recommendations and how your perspective in that process has been.

Sure. I can start. Uh and uh what I would say is and it's I'll be very transparent. It has been uh kind of up and down discussions that we've had and we've gotten some some positive feedback and then we've gotten some kind of barriers that have happened. The way I look at it is I I know that we can do a better job of uh bringing access to the RCTC site. we have a stake in that uh uh facility and the ground and the and the ball fields around it. So, so bringing greater visibility, greater marketing to that facility to make sure that it uh it uh is maximizing its potential and uh and helping reduce the current deficit that uh that RCT TC incurs. So bringing greater attention to that facility as I said earlier the entire ecosystem is important as far as partnerships. Then with the the options as as Mr. Parish said uh option A we got kind of kind of a no on that one just a day or two ago. We all got it at the same time. So that one is not as much of an option. the the what I call the Uber dome. It's between do we find a site on the RCTC campus that will accommodate a 50-year ground lease? That is one option. And then there's the the southern option. And and one of the

questions that I have and uh because these this is fastm moving is what are the the the cost differences between putting it on the RCTC site and putting it on the uh southern sites and what are those cost benefits? Are there benefits? Transportation is a key piece to it. Uh location is a key piece to it. So that's where I'm at on it. Uh and uh I'll I'll let Council Member Wall give his thoughts.

Yeah. Thank you. And thank you uh Mr. Miller. Uh having had a front row seat uh for uh five and a half months. Uh first I would offer commendations uh to Mr. Parish and Mr. Bolt and administrator Zelms for the hard work that they have put in on behalf of the staff uh and providing innovation uh trying to find different iteration after iteration after iteration after iteration uh for consideration uh with uh RCTC officials. I certainly commend council president Schubbring and Mayor uh Norton for their personal conversations that they have had with RCTC leaders with Minnesota state board members and uh there was one more oh and with legislators uh that would seek to help move this uh project forward on the uh RCT campus. uh we have run into those barriers uh repeatedly and I continually have uh uh pushed the mantra that we need willing partners in whatever we do. Uh I think that our most willing partners are the people of uh Rochester who desperately want uh some of this indoor especially winter uh space uh that uh we as a council need to move forward in a way that will uh truly be able to answer in a way that will make it efficient and uh not present so many barriers for us uh both now and into the future. So I I perceive that is where we are going as this group of five or six city officials that have been meeting with four or five RCTC folk uh week in and week out. Um I appreciate that we need a great deal more community involvement

and and costs and uh assessment of uh funding funding uh for this that is uh to come as has been promised by Mr. Parish. Um we have uh covered uh so much ground uh and I think that we are headed toward a more certain future because we've been able to eliminate so many pieces of this puzzle uh in the past five and a half months of uh incessant meeting. We took Christmas off. what what he said. Thank you. Council member,

if I may, as a follow-up to that, you brought up the idea of a willing partner. Uh do you feel like there is a lack of willingness on the part of RCTC and the only reason I ask that is because I agree and that's the sense that I got in some way reviewing these slides and I'll I'll just note we have another higher ed partner in the room who mentions recreation in their presentation. And I just wonder in this broader conversation, what is the right long-term partnership? And it sounds like there are quite some challenges with the RCTC structure of land. And it seems like maybe I'm reading into this, but there seem to be more challenges than opportunities and these ground lease terms and the governance structures and perhaps even the willingness. I I'll just note that I don't see any RCTC representatives and unless I'm mistaken in the audience today and I wonder if either of you might speak more to that.

I'd love to.

Uh uh actually uh that that has been uh suggested. Uh I think there's been at least three other community partners that have been suggested as possibilities uh and needing a great and willing partnership. On behalf of RCTC, I will say uh I served as an administrator at Augenberg College, now Augsburg University, at a time in which resources uh were uh constrained. And uh I would say that uh for RCTC uh probably is true for UMR as well. Uh their their chief goal is to educate people. uh for the people who deal with finance uh at RCTC their chief goal is to ensure that they have the financial viability to uh enter the next two and five and 10 and 20 years so that uh perhaps uh what I perceive as barriers uh is fairly logical on their part uh because providing community access to recreation probably doesn't rank on their top 10 things to do, right?

I'll just add and I just want to commend this council for last October really making the commitment to have these discussions with RCTC. in the uh discussions that we've had to with them, we have always been transparent that uh that we had other options that it wasn't just going to be RCTC option. I would uh echo what council member Wall said as far as commending our team and that's the entire team including the mayor and everybody else that's here that the resolve of our team uh and what we're looking at is do we have that support? The resol resolve that we have is that the community wants wants something that is focused on this and our commitment to making something that works both for the community financially for the city and uh and has a long-term uh advantage to all of us is I think gotten stronger. And if I might just shift then, I I I hear that we have a $55 million dollar budget, but I don't hear potential funding sources. And I'm just curious about creating expectations that now we have a project with a a budget perhaps roughly, but I just worry about the expectations that we're creating here and now showing potential concepts even at 5% design. And I don't know what my question is in that, but how how might you reassure us, Mr. Parish, about the path that we're on?

Yeah. I mean, I think this is a I always like to tell new teammates that join the city like we make our sausage in public, right? So, you know, and in different contexts, you know, we would have, you know, more discreet iterative conversations, but we need your policy guidance in order to have these iterative conversations. And we we make our sausage in public. So, you know, right, wrong or indifferent with that. Um, it's the right way to do it. it's what we value and but at the same time you know it's iterative we we need to understand are we pointing in the right direction so we can get you good and better information um and then we can evolve that recommendation because what might work for option one let's say so we're not referring to anything here a financing path may not be viable for that but for option two it might be so we just need some context that we're pointing you in the right direction and then we'll bring back you know those next things and we'll further iterate from five to 50 to 100% and ultimately hope to bring you something back and maybe just a point of privilege. I I have appreciated I think this is a good example of how a staff council partnership can work. Um you know I think everybody has made their maximum effort here. Um no more so than the elected officials that you know were were serving here and all the work that they put in on this and continue to do so. Um and and you know if we don't if we are in a situation you know just the partnership might not line up. Um if we are in that situation I I I still think we're looking at options for you know what can we do to enhance and maximize optimize what we have as the council president has said. Um what can we do to ensure that there isn't a year off of the dome if we are going down an option C path where could we find a way to get the dome up? We may have to take some risk in that as a city, but to preserve and have some continuity in that over the next one to two construction cycles before a new facility could come on board. So, you know, we're definitely having those conversations. We still

have strong partnership on the fields um and still want to, you know, obviously have collaboration. So, I think we're really trying to look at this from a multiaceted perspective. Council member Keane, thank you. First just and I know these are you're 5% in all this but you mentioned some of the cost of the known the rpu the other ones about a million dollars is the is the operation projected and I'm going to make this up like three four 5% of the cost of a project and then the question is would we project with our city municipal experience that this is going to have an impact on the levy this is going to come back to the city to run

yeah we'll look at this financially from two perspectives we'll look at the the annual operations, right? I mean, no different than what we were looking at in the regional sports and recreation context, you know, what is our proforma for indoor, outdoor, it also matters where it is. So, you know, we're iterating in both of these spaces. Um, and whether we have a private provider, etc. um here. Um so I think you have to be okay with the idea that it could but you know we will try to do an when we bring the preliminary design back. Part of that is some operating projection like you received with the original information to say this is what you could expect for a deficit or this is what we're projecting for surplus and you at least make an informed decision you know saying yes I want to proceed with the project with that understanding. So that's part of the process. I

again I didn't know don't expect an answer that says this is what the dollars are. I know they don't know that, but I want to bring that into this conversation because that's part of why we went more outdoor than indoor because clearly indoor and then winter is a higher expense and clearly, you know, when you have this sort of indoor space even in a dome, um you're going to have higher uh carrying costs. Um the question sort of and and there's no answer for this here either but are there perceived rents enough for those basketball courts at night or on weekends or for those that indoor is there enough there or when you get back to the cost part of this it says like no this is clearly subsidized and we ought to have that in the front of our minds as we go into this.

Yeah. I mean what we uh also again not to put it back to the group and the community working group and the council but um to the extent that you want affordability um to the extent that you want informal programming which is what you heard in your survey results um that can come with the the lack of ability to generate income that offsets your operating costs. So we need to find the intersection of revenue and producing activity to support operations and that opportunity to make sure we have affordability as we'll attempt to define that for you. So

thank you and not looking for an answer but I just want to get that into the discussion. Um so a couple things when I look at this right now um a couple of things. One is I have tried to watch through my peers what's been going on with the RCT and I'm scared off from it. I'm uh I am uncomfortable coming back with no matter where we get sales tax or other sort of funding to say this is a good way for us to invest city resources because of the time horizons that that aren't there. And because of that, I've focused my attention on option C being built at our new complex. Um and like we say, we're not talking about we're going to do it or we're not going to do it, but two things on it. One is I really do think it addresses some of that things we were hearing last like a last summer and fall about the problems with the one we were going with it. Now it has the indoor thing. It has all that community aspect of evening usage but it also is a tournament sort of thing and it's got it is a better good assets. I've been talking to people about are the domes really like secondary citizens compared to you know these other places and they're not. they they can be run really well and and then there is the playground space. So, I think I I like the direction. Um, and because of that, I want to make sure we do what we can between now and June to make sure we stay on that path. I think that's different than making a decision. I think what we're doing is just keeping that option open. Um I um as as far as um going back on this, I I still believe that the the best way to kind of combine this stuff would be some sort of partnerships with our major sports groups, but also our park and wreck running this space and programming. I think that connects the two parts of having that good like tournament sort of space, but also making it available for others. I think that's when you start getting into partners and and hiring someone else to do it and having the profit motive into it. I just think we lose uh control of that. But those are

the things I'm worried about sitting here. I I do worry that we're going to make commitments to the 2030 uh levy without knowing it and then being surprised when it hits. We should assume that this discussion has those potential. Uh hopefully not, but potential there.

Council member Doring. Yeah, Council Member Keane just uh highlighted a lot of what I had been thinking here as well. Um I had heard in this presentation as well as as as conversations with colleagues who have who have been at the table with RCTC that ultimately we have a very hesitant partner there. Um and and and part of that is is just uh caused by legislation and and the reality of the space. So um if we were going to go forward, I'd be much more comfortable pursuing option C. uh at this point uh because there is a modicum of control there for for the city. Um I do have a question though. Um if if this were to come back to us by June 1st and we abandoned uh pursuing the RCTC relationship, how how much further in the design process could we be? Could we be any further into the design process to help inform our decision? I think we are by that point in time we would have some additional information that would assuming we can develop some level of consensus with RCTC about where in their property because it's a very large it's a large footprint 250,000 square feet it's like 700 some feet long and 300 some feet wide or I mean I'm don't quote the dimensions but it's big um and so you know it's not the easiest you know thing to place on a site and and you got utilities and parking and all these other things you got to navigate So, um, with that being said, we will try to give you a comparison if we can develop some consensus with RCTC about this is what an RCTC option would look like. This is what the south site would look like and the adjustments we would have to make in order to make that happen.

Could I clarify? I think what I heard you saying is for the south site. Yep. I think we could definitely if we're focusing in on the south site that you could get more more specifics. And maybe if I could just also clarify, I don't think that we'd be I don't think this was your intent to either fully abandoning the RCTC relationship, but really we would be much more narrowly focused on existing facilities and trying to still maximize access to the facilities that have existed for some time in partnership with RCTC in the city. Um, but I guess maybe just for clarification, what I heard being said was would we have be able to focus more on the south site? Could if we were more focused there, could we get Yeah. better like further along on design?

I mean, Zach, I mean, you're working on a lot of that stuff now, so I believe that's to be true. Yeah. Council member Wall,

and I would add just a little bit to what Miss Elms has said and uh maybe it was just an unfortunate uh set of words. We don't intend to abandon our relationship with RCTC. We still expect to use the fieldhouse and have community access. We have city uh investment in that. uh all the fields we have out there are incredibly important to our youth sports program. And further uh we have said uh in our uh Monday meetings that our city has no interest but to have the very best RCTC possible and the very best UMR possible. Uh we we think we can win together.

Yeah. Just to reiter to restate in another other other words what council member Wall said. I think we will continue our discussions with RCTC. they will know what direction that we're looking at. as far as capital costs, but that partnership and really making sure that that there is access that there is ease of uh of scheduling and that uh there is visibility for the offerings there as as well as the outdoor fields and uh and uh making that uh a better uh service for for us as well. So those discussions will continue and there will be a new enhanced RCTC partnership with the city. We just may not have a major capital project down there.

Yeah. Uh thank you for for for clarifying that. That was my intent. Uh so thank you for providing that clarifying information. Uh Council Member Palmer, um let's just assume we go to C. Is there a way for us to help out with a dome that's existing there and so we don't lose that piece of property in Rochester um in the winter time? Um you know, Council Palmer, I think the fabric there is, you know, getting to the end of useful life. Um there's been challenges with storage over the years, etc. You know, with that, um I think we certainly want to entertain a conversation about the interim period so we don't lose service. Um I'm not sure that you have a lot of opportunity beyond that.

What's the cost to replace their dome right now? Um the cost to replace the I there's HVAC issues etc. But I think we were carrying three and a half to $4 million in those estimates we included in the packet. And if I may, I think part of the challenge is that it does not appear that there is strong interest from the current operator owner of that facility to continue to do that. Okay, great discussion. Thank you everybody. Uh, Council Member O'Keeen, go ahead. I I just want to make sure. I mean, in the study session, we're supposed to give guidance here. Do does the staff feel like they have what they need to Yes. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Keane, for confirming that. Next, we have a comprehensive surface water management plan final draft. Mr. Luxe, pretty clear.

When you look like a dip, you got to act like one. All right. Good evening, council president, council members. Thank you for having us tonight. Aaron Lux and with me is Troy Ericson. He's our water resources manager. We'll be co-presenting tonight. Starting to lose my voice. You're going to hear a lot more from him than myself. So, I'll try and follow along here. Um, so hopefully you've all we've been to council about a year ago to give you an update on this. So hopefully you're familiar with uh this isn't a new topic for you. Um we'll do a quick refresher though. The comprehensive surface water management plan describes our current surface water and groundwater resources and how storm water impacts those. So we're looking at both what's happening on on our surface as well as impacts underground. It identifies all of our local, state, and federal regulatory requirements. We're heavily regulated both by the federal EPA, the state pollution control agency, and then local requirements and even things like wetland protection. um acts, things like that. It also establishes goals and pri um policies that are aligned with the city's principles and strategic priorities. We made sure we've updated those as those have advanced um with with uh council um adoption there. And then it guides our camp capital improvement investments and development standards. So, this does not change standards, but it will guide um future standards as we have discussions on that. And then you'll hear a lot from Troy on how it will um help us uh select our capital improvement vest investments as we move forward. Um and then it covers a wide range of topics. Um everything from water quality to flooding to groundwater protection, how we're handling construction storm water, primarily with erosion, sediment control, and then also public education is a big component of of what we do.

want to emphasize what it doesn't do is again it doesn't change any development permitting or engineering standards. This is a a guiding document that will be used um any of those other changes um other than I guess engineering standards would all come back to to council but we'd use this in making decisions on whether or not we change those. It also doesn't change any of our um storm water utility rates. Uh that would come forward as a separate utility rate evaluation process and recommendation to council. And it also doesn't mandate any projects, notably capital improvement projects. So why is an updated plan needed? We currently have one and it's from 1999. Um, and a lot has changed since 1999 and it doesn't reflect today's challenges, notably around a lot of the regulatory changes that have happened as well as Rochester's growth. um it didn't consider anything related to destination medical center as well as a lot of the supporting development that came with that. We've had two updated um these are state and federal MS4 um permits that that now have additional requirements. There's also been what are called total maximum daily load studies where they look at the amount of pollutants in our receiving water bodies and a need to reduce the amount of pollutants entering those to hopefully restore them to what they call an unimpaired state. uh which means they're healthy receiving water bodies. Um there's been a lot of changing weather patterns. Um and then also the city has its planning to succeed 2040 comp plan which called for an update to this plan um in coordination with that. We did an extensive amount of um engagement and outreach activities notably in the first two years of the process um with the public a lot of internal teammates. Uh we brought in developers and their consulting engineers um several surveys and questionnaires. We also did it it we didn't go through the full codeesign

efforts but we used a uh community advisory group uh very very similar to that codeesign process. Um we developed an interactive uh ARGIS online hub that is still active uh today and encourage you to take a look at that. Um, we did a lot of visual strategic uh mapping workshops and and I as I look around the room, I know we've had a few council members that actively participated in those uh sessions as well. Um, and then we did uh stakeholder public forums and an open house right across the the river here to gather feedback from the community on what their priorities are um as well as get an idea of of the services that they expect um related to that. We then took all that information and broke it down into five focus areas and then a lot of subfocus areas. So we called them issues, but another word for that is either a topic or or sub subfocus area. First and foremost, well, I guess in no particular order, but um to protect the natural environment. So again, that's our surface waters, our ground waters, both quality and quantity. And then natural habitat specifically as it relates to connectivity um is a a big struggle, things that our community is losing now. improve climate resilience. Uh establish effective policy and program procedures. This is the boots on the ground and that's why it's the biggest category. So this is all the regulatory requirements, permitting requirements, capital improvement projects, things like that. Improve our stakeholder awareness and and support. A big piece of that is outreach education um and public participation. Uh good example of that is little bit better that we have going on right now and a lot of community members are participating in that. and then establish fiscal responsibility. And this really looks at asset management. Um if you think about we just had a couple weeks ago, we brought forward a project that looked at rehabilitating all of our storm water catch basins when we did mill and overlay projects. That becomes a big expense. All the manholes that you see.

So really looking at how do we make sure that we can um upfront think about the infrastructure that is being built and then the long-term cost associated with that and make decisions upfront before they become too expensive on the back end. And so the the last thing I'm going to cover before I turn it over to Troy is we had a a robust discussion with community members and elected officials um around community expectations uh related to level of service. And it really gets into what is that performance standards that our residents expect? Whether it's related to when they're driving down a street, how often is that street flooded? Is it every single rain event? Is it once every 10 years? Things of that nature. The condition of our storm water ponds. Many of those are an asset to communities. They want to mem well-maintained. They want uh native grasses and and um flowers and things like that. So, what are the the level of expectations from our community members? Um, and and what you'll hear, we really looked at and what we heard is specifically from rain events. It's those two-year events. So, those nuisance conditions, they see it every time. The street corner is always flooded. I always have water running through my backyard. It happens on a regular basis. We call those nuisance conditions that really they see the most. Or the extreme flood scenario where we have significant property damage. And that's the area where they really say you got to protect against those two. And obviously there's a wide range in between there. Troy, I'll turn it to you here. All right. Thank you, Erin. So I'm going to talk about it's really four key plan components that really make it unique and those four include integrated storm water management uh the evaluation of the entire drainage area planning by uh drainage districts and then our asset management capital improvement planning got the hang of that. Um so first off I want to intro introduce to you the

approach I guess it's called integrated storm water management. So integrated storm water management is the practice of thinking about all factors that affect sorry precipitation as it moves from the landscape to a receiving water body. Um really what what that means or what what we're trying to accomplish with this concept is is trying to mimic nature but really within the confines of what we've already established in our in our codes and ordinances and that kind of thing. So for example um you know again it it accounts for all components of storm water management. So rate control, volume control, water quality and and groundwater impact. So those are all all aspects that we already account for in our orances and design standards. However, what this integrated storm water management approach does is it puts it in a logical sequence. So, we're trying to capitalize on on, you know, on on some connections there that work within um our existing, you know, regulatory environment. Um, you can see on the bottom there's there's an example of the natural water cycle and then you um the next one over in the middle is the conventional urban water cycle and then on the right there's a sustainable urban water cycle. And kind of the biggest difference there is really what amounts to the amount of runoff. So really what what nature does is is allows water to infiltrate to keep water in its place. So that's what we want to capitalize on. So um in in every case it's not possible in Rochester but where we can we want to take advantage of that and that helps for water quality and and really downstream impacts like erosion and flooding. So looking at sorry okay looking at this a little further a big part of integrated storm water management is the implementation of green infrastructure. But again, it has to be in a context that works. Um the um this approach again, it relies heavily on on what we already do today with gray

infrastructure. So that mean like like um traditional storm sewers, culverts um and bridges. But then um as we move into the watershed, there's a you know, we look to rely on um you know, what's termed engineered assets. So um you know things like infiltration um basins and things like that. But and then as we move all the way over to um natural assets. So being able to utilize um you like wetlands and and existing um you know drainageways that already have a tre a tremendous amount of benefit to uh you know to the storm water management and conveyance through the system. So again it's it's really looking at things you know from from in context with respect to the existing danger and and working that through and and really it calls this for you know proactive development in that sense. So um you know we we did investigate this concept with you know project that's been um that we've looked at for for some time uh looking at the headarters of of Kings Run. So um in northwest Rochester and the uh graphic on the left um shows kind of the traditional approach where we look at at you know basically a large detention basin that's that's intended to reduce flooding. Okay. So it really fulfills one purpose. It was just put there not really you know we understand the drain area that that that um flows to it but beyond that that's kind of where it sits. It does its job, attenuates flows and you know and protects downstream. The graphic on the right shows Oh, I am so sorry.

Okay,

I didn't catch that. I apologize. I saw some confused looks. Okay. Anyway, uh getting back to that. Um the graphic on the right shows the integrated storm water approach where again some of the um you know some of the natural assets within the watershed are preserved um and and you know downstream it's built within in again with with what we call coal benefits multiple benefits. So, for example, this could be done potentially with in cooperation with parks and having some, you know, whether it's athletic fields or walking trails that go around it, but but really with a um with a an area that's really designed to allow um flood waters to to pull up and slowly release over time to protect downstream.

All right. I think one thing to to note there, Troy, is you can see the size of the original pond, the the blue cell there is significantly smaller when you can hold water close to its source. And so by preserving a lot of the natural areas, not allowing encroachment on some of our our riverways or or steeper slopes um and holding it close to land, you can get away with with smaller ponds that do allow for that fluctuation um when water reaches it. So yeah. Yep. Great point. That's another advantage of that. Council member Palmer,

let me let me figure if I understand this correctly that you um all of our new subdivisions that we have all have retention bonds that are paid for by the developer which is actually paid for by the homeowner. Correct. So go ahead. By and large it's true. There are some exceptions where where we have built regional facilities. um know for example Pebble Creek, there's a large um pond that was built uh within the last few years that serves the the development in northeast quadrant of that, but but the developer paid for that.

Uh they uh the did not pay directly for that particular pond. Um they will there's there's swim pack fees that will contribute to that over time but but by and large the developer will will um ultimately pay for the the storm water management uh infrastructure water will pay for it. So I guess where I'm getting from is last 25 years we basically have had retention ponds put in all these all the new development. So the rain that just fell today out here where's that water go? It goes to the Zumbro. Correct. There's no retention ponds here. There's no retention ponds in any of the existing neighborhoods at all, is there? There's not. Um

Okay. So, at Soldiers Field, we did a a retention pond um upgrade on the pipe. So, are is are those homeowners in that area going to pay then for the upgrade in the in the storm water? They will pay with our storm water utility fee that funds those projects for the the the pond that was put in. If it speaks specifically to Soldiers Field, that was done um ultimately um for I guess for a project that will occur sometime in the future for 10th Street and the new regulatory requirements that that require storm water management for that. So to to address exactly what you're saying to address um uh storm water management areas where none exist,

but they're not I'm paying I I live in a neighborhood that paid for their own retention pond. So my money is going to go to that area. Why don't they have to pay for the area that's affected more than just the regular uh monthly fee?

Yeah. So the way our our program is set up, so any developments will either pay to build their their own storm water ponds as required and conveyance systems as required on the development or they'll pay into our what we call a swim pack fee and in some cases it's both depending on the the scenario. So development is paying for development in terms of storm water management. Um residents and commercial properties also pay a storm water utility fee that is built for every parcel and that is used to operate and maintain the collection system. In some cases it is used for capital projects to do retrofits in areas where we have street flooding and we might need to you know divert that storm water either and build a pond or do some infiltration. Um but the majority of that is for operation and maintenance of the existing collection system.

Okay. I guess what I'm trying to say to say it clearly in the last 30 years the residents have paid for their retention pond and and and so now we're going back to existing areas. If you did one for downtown, why would you want to use that fund for that? Shouldn't there be a special fee to the people that actually get the benefit from that? Not sure I'm fully understanding. If I have a question, let's say I'm at metal metal creek or metal um park and they don't have retention pond and all of a sudden you decide you want to put one in there. You're taking it out of the fee that the whole city pays. Shouldn't there be a special fee just for that particular that benefiting those particular homes? Administrator zones were you going to add? So one thing I

Yep. So one, we're not talking about fees tonight or the fee structure or how it's paid or any of any of that. that'll come later as part of a um a rate study associated with it and we can look at how whether or not we recommend continuing forward with the current process or we change it. So tonight is not intended to get into any fee discussions on how how anything would be paid for as part of this plan. That's a that's a separate council action that comes later.

Go ahead. Unless everyone is clear, I think that the concern is that if as we continue to adjust our our surface water management plan, is that going to create halves and have nots where we have existing developments that have ensured based on all of their approval process that they are retaining the water that they are creating on site. And if there are places around town where there is something that's being constructed with the ongoing monthly operations and maintenance fee, we should have very clear like guidelines for if that's happening, is it just to serve one piece of the community or is there some other distributed problem that is been created that's going to have multiple benefit? And what I'm hearing Mr. Lux dine say is that those are things that they would take into account if we see major changes with the final surface water management plan that says we need to say no we will never pay for like a a specific storm u drainage basin with the ongoing monthly fees again we need to have some other process that might come forward I don't know that that would be the case but there are situations throughout any place where water goes where it's not just one location that's either contributing to the problem or receiving the value of the solution. And so what I'm hearing is we need to tie those very strictly to the funding sources that we have available.

Correct. Thank you. And the one thing I will add, our ordinances do spell out how the storm swim pack can be used and then also the storm water utility fee and it's not black and white for every scenario. So we look, we evaluate each one and then select which for uh source funding source is appropriate. I'll also give a precursor. Next month I will be back with um one way of how we might be able to fund some of these retrofits um in areas. So you'll hear more about a innovative uh idea that we've been working on. I'm not shocked. Continue.

All right. Okay. Uh the next you know key component of of this plan is the is the evaluation of the tire drainage area. Now um as you're well aware Rochester sits kind of in a bowl with with multiple tributaries that um that ultimately tie into uh the south fork of the Zumbro River. Um you can see in this figure there's uh 10 drainage districts. So by and large most of them um are are present around a particular tributary the exception being the South Fork Zumbro River um which is one one drainage area which was not modeled in its entirety due to its sheer size. So um some exceptions were made to that. Now, this is important because we're um we're looking at at, you know, we want to we want to make sure we're we're accounting for all the influences of of the larger danger area on the city and conversely what the you know, how the city impacts, you know, uh the surrounding townships as well. Um there's, you know, great great level of of detail that goes into there. Um so this the storm water storm water management plan largely deals with with the impacts on the landscape outside of the the central drainage corridors and it's more in the central drainage corridors are more consumed with like the say the flood control project and things like that. So there's a a difference but they're ultimately uh ties together there. Um with that said our next next um component is planning by drainage district. So, and I am behind here on that. Sorry. Um, um, is again planning by drainage district. Before I get into that though, one thing for each drain district, we looked at this in a in a unique way through the lens of of a risk assessment. Now, risk is it's a it's the the product of the

probability of occurrence and then what are those consequences of that. So, um, we had a quantitative way of looking at at risk and and how we approach that. Um this graphic illustrates that. Um we looked at this again at the you know the first drain district we looked at was uh the Cascade Creek drain district. So that's you know for there number of reasons why we chose that. A lot of it had to do with the amount of development occurring in there projects um different things. Um but with that um as I mentioned we looked at at the Cascade Creek Drain District and we ultimately divided that into 87 subwaterheds and evaluated each one for risk across uh you know wide array of of uh rainfall events ranging from the two-year event all the way up to a 100redyear event. Now um you know this probably looks a little confusing seeing this but um really what this illustrates it goes back to what Aaron had noted. Um Rochester is really set up well for large large events like along the the stream corridor in terms of flooding. we're we're well, you know, um there's been a lot of work gone into preserve and protect um areas along there, but what this really shows is that um smaller events have a you know, I won't say a higher um it's not not not a larger flooding problem, but what they they create um nuisance conditions, you know, more often. Hence, they're scoring higher in this in this um assessment. So you'll see two year there's more of darker colored um subwaterershed say than in the 100year. Okay. So what that's telling us is that there's there's more um there's there's again the the um there's more opportunity for those nuisance conditions and that's really what we're we're trying to pick up on. Um and then looking at those across the the realm of

or the continuum rather of of uh rainfall events. So by looking at that we then see this next um this next slide which really it's the it's the sum of risks. Okay. And then ultimately we're looking at um the prioritization. So we see the the subwaterheds for which you know had in this case we looked at at the five um the five highest subwaterheds with respect to risk and those that are hatched came to the forefront. So um when you when you delve into that we see this next this next slide um you'll see kind of the results of our hydraulic modeling. Ultimately that's what we're looking to do to to create hydraulic model which um digitally illustrates you know the impact of of flooding and then um throughout the landscape. So you can see on the left um now this this particular area um is by I guess most notably um John Marshall. So you can see the track and and that kind of thing. And you can see I believe it's 13th Avenue. There's a lot of um you know blue areas that shows that actually illustrates like areas that um during current conditions will experience some degree of flooding there. Um you can see along Seventh Street right where that intersects you know some more flooding. So that's the sort of level of detail that this model will will will pull out and um ultimately you know that's the sort of information we're going to look to develop um you know capital projects and understand you know the the effect on on residents and and others. Um the the graphic on the right shows uh shows the uh same situation with projects applied and I'll get into some of those details with this next slide. All right. Um this this uh table

illustrates it's a summation of I guess the three different types of of um approaches. So the implementation of green infrastructure. So that would be like rain gardens, tree trenches, uh infiltration bases, storage both underground and surface storage. So in terms of ponds, underground would be like like chambers and things um that are are commonly used um on site for developments. And then of course pipe upsizing. So increasing the conveyance capacity, you know, through storm sewers in our streets. Um so this looks very generally at at solving you know all those problems within the drainage district and along with capital costs that would um would be necessary to to do that. Now the intent is not to to undergo every one of those projects that ultimately be prioritized especially when we start looking around the city but um it's again idea of the the magnitude of of um improvements that would be necessary for that. All right. So ultimately, you know, um you know, as I mentioned, the the drainage district assessment, it's it's a means of of um assessing capital improvement projects that have a uh a means of prioritizing their relevance, you know, one project relative to another. Um one thing, you know, I guess as part of this planning effort that that rose to the forefront in terms of being an important topic is asset management. Um now what what we ultimately want to do is build out our asset management program and that allow us to have the proactive review and assessment of existing infrastructure which then will allow timely development implementation and implementation of capital improvement projects. Um but as part of that um we've became very familiar with something called the envision rating system. So what what that means is when we when we

have a project uh the envision rating system it's it's a framework that allows comparison alternatives that incorporate sustainability um components and you know there's a number of of factors that that come into play with that. But um you know a lot of things that we already incorporate into our our current standards. But it's just a way of looking at projects again to come up with with if we're looking at at a particular project and an alternative, it's a way of further refining that to make it as sustainable as possible and have the most benefit um you know in terms of its impact if it's flooding or water quality, but also in terms of its impact on the community. All right. And with that, the asset management and capital improvement planning process is really defined by our ability to assess the, you know, the landscape through our our modeling efforts. Um, and then as I mentioned, we're we're we're summarizing a number of projects that that require a degree of refinement. um evaluating those um with respect to Envision rating system and then um as we implement those projects um observing and documenting really what what the level service how does it change the the way they um you know they they impact the level of service within our community. So whether it's street flooding or um you know if it's if it's um you know ponding and the impact you know overall so um you know there number of things that um that we take in account but the point is this process is iterative. So once we implement projects you know those will be plugged back into the modeling and we see the benefit of course and that will reshuffle how how projects are prioritized. So it's a it's a iterative process you know that's that's very involved but it brings um forward just an opportunity with with

using the best information available to ultimately uh define and create the best projects or most costefficient products for the ensuing benefit with that and you can just keep driving for the last two slides here. Oh sure thing. Yeah.

Um so Troy just summarized the four main areas. Those are going to be the the big buckets that you're going to we're going to send the plan to you this week, by the way, which is why we're showcasing it here. So, you'll be able to read through that in in much more detail, but those are the the big buckets concepts that are part of the plan. Um uh to summarize it all, so it'll provide a a clear long-term plan on how we're going to look at managing storm water, protecting our water resources that aligns with the council priorities, the planning to succeed 2040, and all of our other regulatory requirements. and it's looking 25 years ahead as well. So, kind of bringing it up to date and and looking forward. It's promoting that integrated storm water management approach, uh, as Troy noted. So, looking at mimicking natural systems as as much as we can, um, looking at green infrastructure and recognizing we we have to have gray infrastructure. Um, and that's a part of every single development, but doing so in a way that improves water quality, reduces flooding, um, and supports our objectives in a fiscally responsible way. um it evaluates the watershed conditions. One thing um I don't know if you notice this on the map, we actually are looking outside of the city limits and even our growth projections because a big thing that impacts Rochester is what's coming from outside. So, and as we grow um taking a look at that, it maintains our current development cost associated with with storm water management. So, looking at that, uh recognizing the goals of the council is not to drive up development costs. It's actually looking for ways to reduce that and we've already made some adjustments based on the information we've been finding as we went through this to help reduce some of those costs. It sets clear goals and and actions um going forward. Um establishes that partnership between city departments. I didn't talk a lot about that, but that was one of the key things. We brought in all the different departments and talked to the emergency management and parks and community development and and how making sure that this plan recognizing that storm water touches so many different things is being coordinated across um

departments. Um and then it it really promotes that storm water infra infrastructure that promotes co- benefits again. So we're not looking to solve one problem or treat for one thing. We're looking at multiple co- benefits that come with that at a cost-effective price. So, um, you'll receive the, uh, proposed final draft of the comp plan this week. Um, our goal is to bring it, our plan is to bring it to council then the last council meeting in May, um, as part of a reports and recommendation. Certainly, if you have questions between now and then, reach out to Troy and I so that we can work through those. Um, and then after that, we'll be seeking a a request for adoption of of the plan. Um, then you'll see all of these require council action. Um, as Troy said, so we've completed Cascade Creek. We're working on Kings Run right now, and we'll work through the rest of those drainage districts. So, every time uh we hire a consultant to do that next model, you'll see that come to come to council. And then we'll update our asset management and capital improvement plans. So, you'll see those annually, the the capital improvement plan um components as they move forward. And then in 2027, um uh we'll be able to do a utility rate study. Our current rate study is I think nine years old right now. Um and so we need to get that uh updated and that'll be coming back then to council in 2027. We'll look at uh ways to be able to fund existing infrastructure as well as future and and again each of these requires council action will be coming forward to you. So with that uh take any questions.

Thank you. Uh council member Wall. Thank you, Aaron and Troy. Uh, very informative. Uh, I perhaps uh am lost in the enormity of, uh, this task. As I understand it, catchment 315 alone would require $7.5 million of capital cost. That's one catchment of 78 in one of 10 districts. How many catchments uh, do we have that require that kind of investment?

Right. So I want I want to be clear about that the the again the example that was set forth there it does show you know that large that large um you know cost associated with it. So that would be to correct every area of flooding in there. So the I mean so so clearly that's not realistic moving forward you know especially across the city. um uh you know each one of those will require you know again the the projects need to be um you know these were done on a on a high level. So we identified you know um you know like say flood areas that that could be addressed through I guess one of three ways or a combination of those. So, we would look at those and I think it it's it's an opportunity, you know, we we have these to say there's like 20 areas within that particular subdist, but we would we would look at those, find the ones that that, you know, have the most the merit have, you know, have the most nuisance and look through that. So, um we don't intend to, you know, that's not realistic coming forward with with that big of or that many projects. And we're not saying it's necessary, but it does bring to light, you know, if we were to fix all those, that's what what the what the, you know, cost would be expected.

Yeah. So, a simplified version. We're looking for those that are going to bubble up to the top that are causing the biggest problems, whether it's property damage or the the nuisance conditions, and then be able to evaluate that against what is the most cost-effective fix both in terms of the capital cost, but then if you also saw, we also looked at the life cycle maintenance cost of that. So, it allows us to be more strategic in where we're going to invest so that we are addressing the largest issue at the most cost-effective point looking at the capital as well as long-term maintenance costs. Council member Palmer,

so you showed Cascade Creek, which doesn't have any flood control retention ponds on it. Um, we had the old golf course that we've updated with DNR money, I believe, and we matched a little bit. We've got the Negan property coming on board which will then we'll have retention ponds which will then have the the the floodway taken care of. So, so isn't that going to affect what's going downstream on Seventh Street? That's one of my questions. The next question is when you talk about news nuisance cost, I saw the one on 11th Avenue. I mean, if so, you can't go through the intersection for an hour as it drains through. But but property cost, are we talking houses are being flooded or are we talking my front yard is wet for for a day or two? So to answer your first question first, so the the projects that'll be done in Cascade, um ultimately will reduce the amount of water flowing through there, slow it down and re settle out a lot of the pollutants that come through, but it the issues that we're facing um by John Marshall is more it's capacity of that system. Too much water is hitting that street too fast and pushing its way. it's not not flooding back up in there if that makes sense. So, two separate issues and so that project isn't going to directly improve or make a have a benefit for John Marshall.

So, so are we talking a wet road um I can't pass through it for an hour or are we talking that um I've got a basement that's flooded? So, like in that scenario, most of it is wet roads are flooded up to rightway touching private property. Some of it, you know, in those scenarios are coming right up to private property um impacts. And so that's where we start to look at the risk associated with that. And so that was just one scenario there. We're not talking about houses flooded and all that in that scenario that I think Mr. Wall used the number $7 million to to not have a wet road. Is that what we're talking about?

So So again, these are the conversations that we need to have. One is the level of service and expectations. Are people okay? Because it comes down to investment. Are people okay with a street being flooded for an hour or two hours being impassible? Uh limiting any pedestrians or in some cases, yes, impacting private property. We just showed you one scenario. These are the the discussions that we'll conversations that we will be having in terms of level of risk, which is why we went through, you know, Troy gave you that scenario of evaluating risk. Protecting property is going to rise to the top. So, if we have those scenarios, that's where we're going to look for those investments um as we go throughout the city. Um the second is going to be what are people willing to to pay for in order to address some of what could be a nuisance condition like a flooded street that is impassible with stranded cars, things like that. But that's a discussion on are we willing to invest in those areas to minimize that impact or not.

Council member Keane. Uh, thanks. Yeah, I guess I I got a good uh education on some of the storm water things back in 2019. It's one of the only times in the last 10 years that we had a real test of some of our of our systems. Um, considering the way Rochester, you said in a bowl, see all all the water coming in from like three different directions and only going out in one. Is that a unique aspect to our 50 mile city or is there every city's got its own things and our storm water spending is very similar to another city of our size? Um I would say generally Rochester is a little bit unique in terms of the size um of the city with the bowl effect that that we have everything coming down to the South Fork of the Zumbra River

being that that pinch point and talked a lot about the flooding impacts. That's why we had the floods in the ' 50s60s and 70s and why there was such a huge investment in the flood control system is because of the unique nature um of Rochester. Now, there are comparable communities that have some similar challenges. Um, even smaller ones that Rushford, for example, they they're in a similar situation with the Rook River, right?

Well, what I was thinking of was the topography. Like most of Minnesota is more flat prairie where in southeast you have a lot more of the the rolling hills, which to me is a causes flooding concerns whether in place people build on top on ridges or they build near water sources. And those are the different things. Rochester I feel does have a unique risks built along the water things and the bowl um and some of our topography here with the the drop downs. Yes. Yeah. Certainly unique. And when it comes to storm water, there's a couple things just to keep in mind. A lot of it again is holding water where it lands. The faster that water hits the ground and flows to our rivers, you're going to have natural pinpoints within the the system that is going to cause flooding.

Okay? And so the best way to manage it is minimize the amount of pvious surface, you know, the amount of runoff, slow the water down as best as you can to hold it on on site and then strategically move it through the system um which is what our flood control system, you know, largely does. So what this plan does is it takes that into consideration. we look at how can we help um rain water, storm water move throughout the city of Rochester and lessen the impacts whether it's on private property right of way um or you know like the flooding flooding type scenarios.

You guys talked a little bit about having this model and I heard simulation but I'm probably taking it further than it is. Does that mean we can simulate six inches of rain over three hours in this part of northwest Rochester? Yes, that's that's exactly what it does. Um, we're use Yeah, we're using not to get too much in the details, but we're using a kind of industry stand for that and allows you to, you know, again, once you have a, you know, existing model set up, calibrated, allows you to input either like past storms that we've experienced through uh radar based rainfall estimates or design storms. So, we can look at all that, determine the determine and understand what those impacts are.

Okay. Yeah. All right. Um, I've been lucky enough to work with you guys on a couple projects where existing neighborhoods, existing flood control, but underperforming um, for whatever reason, too small of a catch base and something like that. So, I've appreciated and some of the neighbors have too, this idea that we can come in and figure some of that stuff out and have some of the funds to do that. So, I think that's the benefit of having this storm water uh, enterprise. Now the question is we have these fees that we've been paying over the years that are end up being used for these projects. As you look forward, are they covering what we need to do? Are they coming up short? Is this another thing that we need? Uh I mean, again, I'm not looking to do the rate study here, but does it look like we're okay with the way we've been funding this?

That's why we need to do the rate study in 2027. Um and we'll have information that come out of the models that we'll be able to run to help um give us a better estimate both on the capital costs and then the long-term operation and maintenance cost as well. Right now um we've been able to have adequate funding to support the needs. Um but we are seeing uh the impacts of um changing climate patterns, you know, precipitation events, things like that um that we hadn't seen before. And so uh but okay, does that answer your question?

I um yeah, I'm not looking for a yes or no. I just didn't know if uh because of the changing climate patterns, there's no way we're keeping up with it. Or it depends on that policy question that says, you willing to put up with two hours of flooding on Seventh Street, or do you want to say absolutely not? I think those policy things play into what the rates are. So I I I just trying to bring up the as a topic opposed to trying to solve it here. Yep. Is we are not proposing any changes to the utility fees or development fees at this point in time. We'll do a study and bring it back to to council and those additional policy discussions will come in. Then council member Miller,

just a short question on uh the each drainage district model. So one is developed, one is in process. There are 10 total, right? How long does each model take to develop and how long is the useful life of that model once developed? Right. uh the development process kind of the the biggest issue with the development is getting all the like the infrastructure data from the city you know to the consultant or you know or internally either you know um bring that up but it's probably realistically it's probably 9 months to a year for for the completion of of the of the of the model um with back and forth and that kind of thing. Um

those are typically done sequentially then.

Yes. some some now just and there's a a bit of a caveat to that um given the nature that um for example if you look at at like Bear Creek and there's um Badger Run there's a number that have are our tributary each so we will do those as a kind of a lump together so they won't it won't be like you know 10 years out it'll be that that um you know grouped you know to get done um together so so probably I guess in total I don't recall corre uh exactly I believe it's like four four modeling efforts will be necessary for that. Um the use so with with that being said, the models will be the intent will be to update them as development occurs within the city. So that should keep them up to date. That's always a challenge with any modeling effort. Um there's good as information in them, but that's our intent to to maintain those as development occurs.

Okay. How is the prioritization of which one's next? Right. We went through an extensive uh uh process in terms of prioritization. Um so and I I touched on that. It's a number of things. It had to do with um you know, I guess I'm trying to remember back all the all the details of that. Um yeah, I know the the priority list and that went into it is in the plan and we can pull that out separately for you unless you can recall off the top of your head. I've Yeah, I I don't recall the generally complexity population. Exactly. We did we looked at at those those things um

develop development demands um in the area. So that's why we looked at Kings Run with Northwest North as a priority as well as Cascade in that area as we looked at kind of the West Umbro area. Um downtown was had been listed but we were able to uh build a model as we worked with Bold Forward Unbound and the development in the downtown area. So, we already have a a good model as a starting point for for our downtown area. So, thank you. All right. Thank you, gentlemen, for you. One last comment. Uh, Council Member Wall, Ju,

just a thank you. Uh, I live on one of those city retention ponds and I'm thankful for it for a lot of different reasons. I spend way too much time looking out my window at storms, eslife. I mean it is those retention ponds are really valuable I think. So thank you. Y you're welcome. Thank you gentlemen. Thank you. We will take a six minute break.

All right, we are back and uh just to kind of clarify even though we don't see ourselves on the screens there that according to Christian we are on the air. So with that, uh, thank you, Council President. Josh Johnson, joined here with Chancellor Carol.

I'll give the, uh, brief introduction, then I'll hand it off to Council, uh, Chancellor Carol, excuse me, to introduce her team and, uh, go into the exciting exciting update we have for you. So, uh, University of Minnesota Rochester is at a at a pivotal m pivotal moment. Uh, I'd say downtown Rochester's in an extremely exciting moment. Uh, and this all is a pretty critical component. I didn't mean to be that iterative there, but um for uh uh for our workforce housing needs for both today and growing into the future. Um, so going back 15 years, um, what started as a community vision has really turned into a national uh, model for delivering, you know, um, education. Um, and what makes us unique, as we all know, is that there's no demarcation between the UMR and our downtown. the students that attend UMR uh live, learn, work, volunteer all in our downtown core. Uh not only they provide um you know vibrancy and um uh and you know integrate their their their youth into our downtown. Um but they also are increasingly deciding to stay here in Rochester and that's important. um as we create uh more healthcare opportunities uh we need to capture that talent uh and fill our pipeline of workforce development. Um that of course leads to a challenge and it's a good challenge. We'd rather be talking about needing to grow rather than the alternative. Um but that brings us here today is the need for you know facilities. The UMR is at its capacity. Um so that's what we're going to presenting on. Um none of this progress can happen without partnerships. um going back to 2013 when we approved the sales tax for you know the purchase of the UMR uh campus area as well as other um campus improvements in classroom space. Um even more recently when we were doing discovery walk and I was a project manager on that. I was extremely appreciative that

UMR allowed us to use a piece of their their campus for staging for that construction. uh and up recently to when um experience Rochester the city and UMR uh they need some you know classroom space right now and we've got some office space in civic center a great partnership opportunity there um and most recently with uh biolabs and Mortonson and DMC in the city and UMR realizing that in order to support that biolab ecosystem we need workforce to backfill you know that need so that then leads us into the campus expansion request at a future date So, just a reminder, today's uh to go over uh preview of the anticipated request for uh sales tax and and DMC funding. Um but today's an update, so no formal request. Um

Oh, caught me. It's my one slide. I basically covered everything that was on there and I'll hand it to Chancellor Carol. Thank you so much.

Welcome, Chancellor. Thank you so much, city council presidents and members and staff. Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the future of the Rochester campus of the University of Minnesota. My colleagues Jack Brian Feldman and Katie Pel join me today and we begin with gratitude. Gratitude especially for the citizens of Rochester and their decades of determination that brought the University of Minnesota to this community and their city sales tax dollars have fueled the early development of this campus. Did you hear me say thank you?

Yes, we did. And it was in big white letters behind you.

Fantastic. All right. But we're also grateful to Rochester's elected officials, including each of you, as well as our valued partners, the city of Rochester staff and DMC and Mayo Clinic, and the wider ecosystem of employers and educational institutions. At UMR, we live by three principles. Students are at the center. Research informs practice and importantly, partners make it possible. And thank you very much for being our partners. Together, the University of Minnesota, the citizens of Rochester, and the leaders of this community have accomplished a rare feat, the successful launch of a public university campus. This campus was designed to reflect this city. Health focused, innovationdriven, and worldclass. Our place matters. We live in an extraordinary city, but not just because we're growing, but also because there is inspiration all around us that sustains our culture of compassion and commitment. Stories of invention and discovery of lives saved and lives dramatically improved. So last week in the the skyway between the Student Life Center and University Square, a student weighed me down. And to get to me, she was dodging patients in wheelchairs. And I was fighting my way through a bunch of people with blue tags and scrubs trying to get to steam. And she's saying, "Chazel, Carol, chas Carol. What? What happened?" I asked. And she said, "I've got to see a kidney." So this UMR student then me for introducing her to someone in transplant who made it possible for her to walk from her dorm room to observe the gift of life in surgery and her drive to be part of scientific miracles like that just exploded. Now I don't tell that story because it's unusual here. It's

quite the opposite. Our place matters. And as this inspirational city of health you all are leading has grown over the last decade, so has your hometown University of Minnesota campus. Our journey is unusual. Very few public university campuses have started in this century. After decades of citizen advocacy, Governor Pente, the legislature, and the university's board of regents declared in 2006, right, 20 years ago, that a Rochester campus of the University of Minnesota would be established here. Many people in this community worked with the first chancellor to determine how this campus would distinguish itself and how we would reflect America's city of health. Different from the university's Twin City campus and other regional campuses, we specialized in two different ways. First, with our academic programs, serving students who want to make a difference in the world through careers in health. And then we also needed to be distinguished in our research. So, we did something no other campus on the planet has done. focused faculty research on student learning, applying research to practice to drive student success. We were determined to be different on purpose. We began serving students in 2009. That first graduating class in 2013 had 57 souls. Now over,00 University of Minnesota students are served in Rochester with the aspiration to grow to 2500. With current facilities at capacity, that means we need to expand for one primary purpose, developing the human potential of significantly more students. Importantly, our brilliant students come from a wide variety of backgrounds. Over

80% are motan. That's roughly split evenly between rural and urban. And over twothirds are from groups historically underrepresented in higher education. That's the first generation to go to college in their families, lowincome and their families or students of color. That's over twothirds of our student body. And with these differences, they share a common passion to make a difference in the world through a career in health. To educate these young people, we need space. And many of you know UMR started with small leases in just a couple little places, right? And that partnership approach to campus facilities has continued. We're now in seven buildings in downtown Rochester, all mixed use, all with long-term leases. This inspiring learning environment is fueled by the intentional placement of university spaces. We are a downtown campus again on purpose keeping students in walkable proximity to uh kidneys, right? Uh and something we call workbased learning which is critical because they are near the sector they will serve. And inside these spaces we are harnessing the power of experiential or what some people call realworld learning. Learning where students work shoulder-to-shoulder with their future employers. These opportunities accelerate students readiness for impactful careers. So, our University of Minnesota students are not just studying in downtown Rochester to ignite their own futures. They are also impacting Rochester and the health and life sciences ecosystem even while they are still students. Our annual economic impact 89.9 million. That's from 2025. Through our long-term leases, we pay property taxes over about $700,000. Of course, we're addressing dire

workforce needs, and over 50% of graduates were employed at Mayo Clinic last year at commencement. Did you get that one? All right. Now, about twothirds of our students go on to our graduates go on to advanced study. And the typical path is to stop out and work at Mayo for a year, two, three before going on to their professional degrees. Our med school acceptance rate is very high, 68%. The majority of UMR students are 18 to 22 years old. You remember those years? Yeah. They are serious about academics as they live and learn and work and play in downtown Rochester. their youth and energy and curiosity and healthy lifestyles. I'm so proud of our students are an asset to downtown. While they are students, they're engaged in volunteering, in part-time employment, in internships and research labs, and more. They're a force for good in this city long before they graduate. UMR's impact also includes contributing to the reputation of the city as a place of innovation. We were named an opportunity campus. That's a national recognition. Only 15% of university campuses based on the diversity of our graduates and their salaries being at least 50% above the median, an opportunity campus. And that one-of-a-kind research focus on student learning has made us innovation leaders in higher ed. We were called to testify to Congress about the model. We've had substantial national media coverage later this week. PBS is coming from DC looking at our get forward faster model. These are new designs that decrease student costs while increasing student success and those student success outcomes are everything to us. Uh very

important multiple years uh we have had no achievement gap in com completion. So timely completion no achievement gap remember that variety of backgrounds of our students. This is a very unusual outcome. It's because we're applying research to practice. The eventual return on investment of this high value value college degree is not only for the student. The more graduates in health, the wider array of types of communities they serve, the better the health outcomes in Minnesota. That's long-term impact, but it's realistic. So, our students when they graduate are going into all kinds of patient careers. Yes. But also mental health. Um 80% of Minnesota counties have a shortage there. They're going into healthcare administration and public health and healthcare research and digital health and everything medtech and biotech as well. It is our daily commitment that the impact of this campus will surpass the high expectations of the citizen advocates who dreamed and worked to bring a University of Minnesota campus to this city. So what's next? Well, the growth of the community and the growth of this campus are intertwined in part because we share priorities. The highest aspirations of the University of Minnesota which are described in our strategic roadmap elevate extraordinary 2030 include the following three imperatives. Serving communities by driving economic and workforce development with Minnesota employers. Expanding the health and health care workforce. Got it. Innovating to transform the future of learning. Generating a workforce educated to meet emerging and critical talent needs. And why does innovation in education matter? The

bottom line, more students succeed. And graduating on time affects affordability. It really matters. And the final imperative with which we so resonate, advancing our excellence to lead the discovery and application of sustainable solutions improving environmental and human health. So in this time of growth for Rochester, spurred on by the bold actions of DMC, the city, Mayo Clinic, and others, the University of Minnesota is ready to expand our impact, our commitment to be a driving force in the future of Minnesota's health and life sciences workforce, and our leadership role in creating a healthier Minnesota. And all of that requires that we expand our footprint in downtown Rochester. Our near-term three-part vision for a University of Minnesota Rochester campus footprint that includes capacity for bolder enrollment growth and serves as a national model of health and sustainability has grown out of our campus and climate action plan that had broad community impact input and was approved by the regions in 2024. So, the plan includes additional lab classroom space, and this is absolutely our most pressing need, an academic building like no other, and a student residential and recreation district. First, a proposal is in progress to lease and build out additional lab classroom space in Discovery Square to ensure we can increase enrollment and sustain our worldclass education and student success outcomes. This initial phase will consolidate and expand our lab facilities, augmenting our existing long-term leases in Discovery Square. Intentionally side by side with Bolab's new spaces, we will be co-creating programs designed to optimally prepare students for lab

internships, research roles, and life sciences entrepreneurship. The sustained presence of the University of Minnesota in Discovery Square will significantly contribute to its continued success, demonstrating a robust talent pipeline to both existing and future tenants. This need is pressing. Our rigorous undergraduate STEM education requires all students to take multiple lab classes to be prepared for their future careers. Other spaces we are leasing cannot accommodate lab classrooms. Only Discovery Square was built in a way that will make more lab space possible. Other new spaces will not have to be built to include labs. So consolidating that type of space contributes to affordability of the rest of our facilities expansion. The buildout of our current lease spaces in Discovery Square was also supported in part by city sales tax dollars. Again, we thank you. Without investment to make this new space possible, we would have to cap enrollment and that would mean squandering human potential. Remember, every additional UMR student is a future health professionals. So, if we are able to secure needed investment, this 30-year lease will go to our board of regents for approval in June, and construction will start later this summer with a tenative timeline for opening in fall 2027. The next phase of the proposed expansion will be a new academic building intended to be the campus centerpiece. This facility will be designed to accommodate Boulder enrollment growth, serve as a national model of health and sustainability, and advance the university's core commitment to transforming the future of learning through research-based innovation. As we

continue to pursue investment to make this building possible, we anticipate releasing an RFP for the design of this facility in the next few months. The location has not been determined. The facility will include four primary elements focused on fueling student success. First, the facility will be home to state-of-the-art AI enhanced active learning classrooms specifically engineered to facilitate student success through immersive interdisciplinary and employer integrated experiential learning. Second, the academic house. This is a centralized dedicated space that co-locates multidisciplinary faculty and student success coaches. Our first academic house was constructed in part with city sales tax funds in 318 commons. That was a pivot after the planned building project with the Y was pandemic interrupted. Again, thank you. The current space is a model for generating strong student success. And this next space, this next academic house will be designed to maximize student faculty interaction, provide accessible career exploration and well-being resources, and foster dynamic collaboration spaces across disciplines and with our education and employer partners. The new academic building will also feature a largecale gathering space designed as the central campus crossroads addressing our distributed downtown footprint for a campus currently integrated across mixeduse buildings. This singular space is essential. That is according to UMR students who spoke out as we crafted our campus and climate action plan. This gathering space will serve as the primary connection point for the entire UMR community, facilitating interactions

that generate a strong sense of belonging. Now, belonging is a critical variable in our research. It's not just fluffy stuff. It fuels deep learning, supports student well-being, and drives timely degree completion, which is key to affordability. This space is essential. We also envision this academic building as the home to the University of Minnesota's new National Institute for Learning Innovation Research, leveraging the unique focus of UMR's faculty. This state-of-the-art center will catalyze research on student learning and development, drawing K12 and other higher ed partners in the region and ultimately from across the state and country. UMR professor Dr. Cassidy Terrell recently described the kinds of learning innovation scholars will pursue and share in this space. She says, "I'm curious about how we can use new technologies to increase cognitive capacity for learners to create more room in their brains so they can think more clearly, organize information more readily, and thrive while they learn." I would like more room in my brain. I don't know about you, but I I hope she gets right on that. This new space will serve as the university's primary hub for discovering and disseminating actionable practices to other educators directly advancing the university's strategic imperative to transform the future of learning. So first lab classroom expansion in discovery square the imperative next step absolutely essential for any future growth. Second, an academic building like no other. And the final part of this three-part facilities expansion, a student residential and recreational district to be advanced through a public private partnership project in the UMR and

recreation subdist near Soldiers Field. This P3 development will ensure student housing that supports UMR's evidence-based emphasis on community and well-being. During the campus and climate action plan process, students provided substantive input clearly indicating that housing with some separation from their study and work would be preferable for that sense of community and for their overall well-being. This project will also fill gaps in recreation access. included a muchneeded gymnasium to support our burgeoning UMR sports programs complemented by adjacency to the diverse and wonderful wonderfully expanded activities available at Soldiers Field. Our goal is to release an RFP later in 2026. Concurrently, we are actively securing additional temporary space to ensure staff and faculty have the resources they need to sustain educational quality for every student while these projects move forward. We're grateful for the partnership with Experienced Rochester to ensure we have space to accommodate current students. For the past decade, the University of Minnesota Rochester has successfully forged a unique community campus strategy with support from the city. Our campus is purposefully integrated within the downtown core. This allows for our students to be deeply immersed in an extraordinary place that helps them move in the direction of their dreams. It also enhances the vibrancy of this extraordinary place as brilliant minds choose to learn and grow their skills here and generational talent consider calling Rochester home. The University of Minnesota Rochester is ripe with opportunity on a trajectory of growth. We are poised to dramatically address surging workforce demand, to continue to grow and strengthen our economic impact

for Rochester and to be a vital force that turns learning into value for individuals and communities. As partners with our city, we share this vision for talent pipeline growth, health and health care, economic development, and sustainability, beginning with the expansion of lab classrooms in Discovery Square. Just imagine what a profound force for good we can continue to be.

Thank you, Chancellor. I'll I'll wrap us up and uh hit on the next steps on the timeline. So, you'll see on the screen above um April 27th, we are here. Um next steps will be I'll be taking a stop during the city council bus tour and stopping with University of Minnesota Rochester to hear more. Um on May 21st, the funding request for DMC funds will be presented at DMCC board meeting. On June 1st, we expect to have that uh request at city council at city council meeting. And then on June 11th, um it'll go to the University of Minnesota Board of Regents for approval. And then we can open up for Q&A.

And can I just clarify one thing? Um when we're referencing um the release of city sales tax funds, that is prior designated funds from the 2012 authorization that remain available for UMR. So, welcome your questions, comments, observations, guidance, or wisdom or all of the above. Council member Wall. So, I I want to uh make sure I heard it correctly because of one of the questions I had. The sales tax money perhaps being requested is already in the bank from 2012.

That's correct. and this and the uses that UMR are referencing were the intended uses of those at that time. Thanks. That's great. Um maybe a little bit of an indelicate question. And the third uh proposal indicates that you would build on the land that uh already owns uh down by Soldiers Field. The second one I think that you said you haven't identified where it would likely be much closer to the current academic offerings than Soldiers Field or what what is UMR thinking?

We're exploring a variety of options and uh they will be in the downtown uh core somewhere between University Square and Soldiers Field. Okay. Would they would they be in the historic district? Um, are those some of the options? We would surely not uh do anything to disrespect the historic buildings that are currently up. Thank you. That that's that's a great answer. I think if you just do like a a triangle around where their current sites are, you can probably find out. Uh, Council Member Keane, they truly have not decided or No, we have serious exploration underway.

Yep. Yes, Council Member Keane.

Yeah, thank you for being here with your team today. So, I appreciate the the the early eyes on the plans going on and all the uh approvals that have to happen before we really get to to doing real things. Uh, a little bit of disappointment when I hear talking about some of the uh partnerships. I guess I've come around to Discovery Square being like I didn't picture that being um space. I I had a different vision of what Discovery Square was going to be used for, but I also do understand that idea of like the value of the academics being in with these other projects. Um and I again I don't know exactly on the public private partnership, but I did want to talk the UMR. I at one point I saw a map that had UMR1 on it and again it was it was just a concept thing. Um but I think that's what you're talking about now or are you talking about because you didn't put that down as a public private partners that sounds like UMR is building a building. Do you think I'm hearing that right?

First let's talk about Discovery Square. Okay. So uh a a reminder of the kinds of space that we need immediately. These are lab classrooms and our current lease spaces are not built for lab classrooms. Uh and in fact there's some pressure there uh given what we're already doing. Discovery Square is built for labs and those adjacencies as I've mentioned open up all kinds of opportunities not only for the biotech and medtech groups that are coming in but very much so for our students. Uh so we are already in Discovery Square and benefiting dramatically from that. So that for example tenants can use the shared spaces. This coming Friday we have our research symposium. We are able to use the event space there. So it's it's been a wonderful arrangement and uh to contain th those spaces to our labs uh makes really good financial sense for us. Okay.

And now you can repeat your second question. My my second question again I I talked about you know I've been watching this for the for the whole 14 years um more than that but um saying when you said the um

uh I I think of it as a UMR1 as a as an owned building not a public not a partnership not a not a 30-year lease and I'm asking if you think I have that right. So, we're about to release an RFP for design and I think both options are are open. What we'll be looking at primarily is the absolute bottom line because affordability for students is a really important part of our model. And I don't know Jack if you want to say more about that.

Yeah. And I think another uh aspect of that too is the certainty that we need for delivery of our facilities. And you know as we've experienced with you know the the project that we had in 2019 that you know exigent circumstances had it fall through you know I think something where we can control the controllables is if we were to plant a flag with the first building that that's not leased and it's it's more traditionally delivered I I think the academic building might be that. Um but as Chancellor Carol said P3 is still on the table for the academic building as well if the opportunity presents itself. Okay. Yeah. And I've watched this before that. This council took some of our 2012 money and did some work in the 318 building

maybe three, four years ago for the nest. Um, again, it follows the letter of the law, but I still think there was contemplated UMR building buildings when the sales tax went in and that hasn't happened. And it it uh it's a disappointment for me. I'm glad to see the growth. I'm glad to see the presence in downtown, but I still wanted to see more of that idea of when I think of that concept, it was one of those layouts that said UMR1 on this corner and and then and then the other spaces, but it didn't happen that way. And I and again, I'll just not it's not so much disappointment as is I don't think that's was contemplated when the city came forward and said, "We're going to use sales tax to get UMR here and this is going to be their build. We're going to help seed their funding." Um, so, uh, if we're following the letter of the law, I'm not questioning that, but I really would like to see the UMR buildings in place.

Thank you, Council Member Palmer. Well, I I had written down that I'm really proud of the fact that the UMR has adjusted and and have gone with different things because from 14 years ago, life has changed and you're here doing things. Having having the the the uh educators downtown to me has been been phenomenally great. Um and I'm talking about downtown core. I don't particularly see your property south of six as the core

and you know you're three blocks away. I don't think you're going to be building a skyway down there. Um and I think that's one of those things that would be important to have. So I I guess if I were going to say is is is release that property, use that money for something downtown in the core would be better for Rochester. I'm glad that you're using um Discovery Square. I think that that's what that was designed for to have the the the the students down there that they can be in weather and kind of be in that campus but still be downtown. So, I applaud you for guys changing your your plans and adjusting to the market in the last 14 years. So, thank you um for that. Thank you.

Um I'm gonna talk about kind of the three pieces. it. I mean, one, I really appreciate all the the work and partnership that UMR has had with the city. Um, I look at the the uh lab classroom expansion which you're previewing for us tonight. And then you have the other two RFPs part of this campus which is in an unknown place somewhere downtown. And then I think I heard you with the residential and recreation that that will be at Soldiers Field on uh UMR's land.

Yes. So I so one those two are it's quite an accelerated kind of RFP plan. I think I heard uh both in are going out this year. And so my question is with the the partnership that you're previewing on the lab expansion, do you foresee a partnership with the city on those two RFPs as well? what we potentially

what we see with um the whole of the vision is that UMR is firmly committed to contributing to this city, right? We've been partners all along. So, it depends how you define partnership how I would answer that. Uh but that are even more students will live and work and learn and play here in downtown Rochester. um that uh we will partner in all kinds of ways that emerge that are invisible to us at this moment. Absolutely. You know, that commitment is there. In terms of the city sales tax dollars that uh were set aside for UMR, those would be used by the lab expansion project entirely.

If I may, if I could add something from a city perspective. Yes. I guess I would also look at this as we have excellent partners in UMR, a unique partnership as compared to some of the other development opportunities that present themselves throughout downtown and around town. Um but when we're looking at potential for partnership to have this be a catalyst downtown for additional growth as the chancellor is is pointing to yes from student population but that also leads to other economic opportunity is that we would hopefully as partners be looking at what are the spaces that are being presented to them from their RFP process. I think you called it an RFB, not an RFI. Whatever RF process happens, um, in order to understand what are the available pro properties, what are their adjacencies, how interesting and unique are those proposals, are there other community values that might be able to be solved for in that? And recognizing that all of those spaces are also within an area that's supported by the destination medical center initiative, there may be really unique opportunities where yes, you have the opportunity to be supporting a one of the only growing universities in the country, maybe the world, probably well least the country. um certainly the only one in Rochester um is what are the synergies that you might be able to create because of the the very pressing needs of the university which are directly related to the workforce development that we need for the future not just for Mayo Clinic but from other entities that we hope that will be spurred from Bolab some of which will come from the business incubator that Mayo Clinic supports. So if we think about the synergies of the economy and the things that we need for the future both for the pipeline of workforce but also individuals that are capable of being able to be innovative as businesses come back here and hopefully stay here, start their own potentially um piece of the pie of

medtech and what are the synergistic uses in a P3 model that may not just include the public piece UMR in the city but also other develop velment that could be a great catalyst there that otherwise would not build on its own or would be asking for a separate incentive. So I don't know what those might look like, but just like any of the other developments that we have downtown, there probably would be a reason for us to be looking at what are the opportunities that we can't ignore or that would not have the best and highest use of the properties that are presented in order to gain more than the wonderful UMR expansion, but many other goals of the city as well. Thank you for that context. One followup and then I'll go to uh Council Member Miller. So, I don't know if you heard our earlier conversation on the sports and recreation ecosystem.

Uh with the uh recreational component of your residential and recreation site, I would encourage any kind of partnership with uh with the city on that as well. Jack's your guy right here. We started whispering and then realized we should wait, so we were listening. Good. Thank you, Council Member Miller.

Yeah. Thank you so much. I I I feel very proud to represent a a ward that includes much of your campus and student population. And I think uh I just want to acknowledge that you're mentioning downtown Rochester vibrancy as an important part of your impact. And I agree with that. And I would look forward to encouraging um how we further collaborate and understanding the needs of students. Um, I will say that I am a member of this council that cares deeply about transportation and realize that when we talk about affordability and students who are walking and accessing these different spaces by foot, it's definitely an investment in affordability in their education and an understanding of what it means to design spaces that create well-being. Um, so I I don't share my colleagues u feeling that you should swap land by soldiers field. I think uh having that access of students on the street, students interacting with the public space adds vibrancy, adds safety, adds a sense of community and helps us struggle with planning for the needs of students who have not maybe traditionally at that phase of their careers been part of our community. I lived in Iowa City for several years and and I think the distributed urban campus brings a lot of vibrancy and vitality to a community and creates a more cohesive ecosystem of our our understanding of different phases of life and planning for all all needs. We often talk about our aging population who come for health care. And I think it's just as important to plan for a city that works for our younger generations who are considering careers in health and helping to better understand our our responsibilities to each other at different stages of life. And I'm also very excited to see how Discovery Square has evolved in its potential uses um as council member Keane mentioned because I think that those um lab spaces that are needed and

active at Mayo Clinic spin-off companies into the private space as we're thinking about biolabs but also require a highly trained capable workforce at different phases of learning and internships who are able to support those same research projects in their infancy before they get to this capitalized version urgent. So I I don't necessarily have a question here. I just want to acknowledge that the the range of impact that this planning brings for our community, brings for Mayo Clinic, brings for other economic vitality, for urban vibrancy, and for just a healthier community overall. And I appreciate how it also ties into the principles that the DMC has been working on looking forward. And we had extensive conversation about this last year at the collaborative session. And I just I hear design for well-being in different words in your presentation. And I I I I appreciate that we're building momentum in those understandings and that these projects again continue to be the infrastructure that supports development of different partners working collaborative collaboratively in our downtown. So, I I do look forward to other opportunities that can emerge creatively that we don't yet think of. And uh we had a a visitor in town uh over the weekend who was asking about the Mayo Clinic development and watched the Faith Hope Science documentary. And I'm just I' I've been thinking about the final quote to that which which was well Will Mayo's who ends the film saying I look through a halfopen door into the future full of interest intriguing beyond my power to describe

but with a full understanding that it is for each generation to solve its own problems and that no one has the wisdom to guide or control the next generation. And so I see that continuity here in this presentation. And I just want to acknowledge all of the investment, creativity, hope that has come before and I'm grateful that we get to be a part of UMR's journey and the broader development of Rochester. So, thank you.

Thank you, council member. Uh thank see seeing no one else, thank you. We are very appreciative of getting insight into just your very clear objectives and where you want to go. and that's makes us all better. So, thank you. Thank you. And at any time if you have a question about the University of Minnesota Rochester, what we're doing, what we're thinking, please reach out directly to us and we will be happy to be transparent and clear always. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Study sessions.

Exciting part of the meeting. Um, so we got a preview of your next study session. Um, we will be doing a city council downtown walking tour. So, the primary mode of transportation will be yourselves um on May 11th. So, please um come prepared and with the type of shoes that you would like to walk in and in the attire that you would like to be around downtown in for about 180 minutes. Um, you also have then your next council meeting on the 18th. Well, first you have one on the 4th. Um and then the study session on May 27th, just want to remind you that's a Wednesday. Um that is the week of Memorial Day. So um Rochester financial policies, a dynamic presentation. Um and then as was mentioned by Mr. Luxstein, you will see him again. Storm water water quality credit trading program. So some opportunities there um within the um service water master plan uh potential. And then a much awaited item that is the result of a council initiated action that was approved disconnected disconnected park and trails gap analysis. Um so that is what's forthcoming for you uh through May uh the end of May and then as was mentioned here um June 1st you would expect to see something back on the agenda related to um the uh prior sales tax collection for University of Minnesota Rochester.

Thank you. Any further business? Seeing none, we are adjourned.