Budget Committee - Regular Meeting

Thank you. ¶¶ Council Member Bowie. Council Member Coleman. Here. Council Member Kim. Here. Council Member Jost. Here. Council Member Naker. Here. Chair Johnson. Here. Five present, two absent, being Council Member Bowie and Vice Chair Yang, who's expected shortly.

Wonderful. I feel like today's just going to be an incredible day for the budget conversation. So I'm looking forward to this presentation. So I'll be welcoming up Director Rodriguez to talk about the Parks and Recreation's presentation of the 2027 budget for us all today. Welcome, Director Rodriguez.

Thank you. Good to see you all, council members. Appreciate the time to go over the 2027 budget presentation for the Parks and Recreation Department. Just want to recognize the park staff here. We have some park commissioners, others. So just noting that. Appreciate the support and everyone being here. Kicking things off, just noting that this is the cover photo. This cover photo features the North End Community Center, which we opened last spring. Incredible addition to the North End and Ward 5 and a staple in providing program for youth and young people, not only for that neighborhood, but across the city. So just wanted to highlight that as we get started. A couple slides for your awareness. Here's the agenda. We'll kind of breeze through these next three. Mission, vision, strategic planning goals. Have some things in the appendixes around these. if you have any specific questions, overview of services. I do want to pause briefly here and just note that a highlight for everyone that over a decade in the top five nationally for our park system ranking by the trust for public land, a very objective measure that demonstrates proper investment and planning lead to strong parks and healthier and safer communities. And we really are a national model for other cities across the country, how our park system operates. All right, here we go. We've shifted a few slides around since we first sent this to council last week. So largely based on the feedback that we received, but this slide provides a high level summary of our proposed general fund changes for 2027. Wanna start by acknowledging that this budget is not perfect. We struggled with the idea of dialing back services After so many years of investing to meet growing demand and community expectations. But the financial realities we face today and budget pressures that continue to grow rather than shrink require us to think a little differently. At the same time, I'm appreciative of the mayor's office and their proposed budget recognizes both the importance of both our services and our staff. This proposal could look a lot different. than what I'm going to share with you today. We could be talking about significant layoffs, broader facility closures, or suspension of critical programs and services. Instead, throughout this process, there's been a clear recognition that parks and recreation isn't simply a nice to have. It's an essential part of the quality of life of our city. And that's something we've consistently heard from you all, and that is reflected in the mayor's proposed budget. So while this proposal includes reductions, it also includes important investments and funding shifts that put us on more solid footing for the future for mission critical work that has either been carrying significant budget deficits or relying on one-time funding that is expiring. None of these should be entirely new topics. They're issues we've been discussing for some time and have consistently said 2027 budget is when we need to act, and this proposal addresses many of them. So getting into the specifics, obviously it's difficult any time we're talking about reducing service hours or closing recreation facilities. These aren't changes that I want to make, but in this budget climate scenario, With nearly 90% of our general fund tied to staffing and required building costs like utilities, we have to find creative ways to reduce costs if we want to avoid layoffs or wholesale closure of additional facilities beyond Duluth and Case, which we'll talk about later. Oversimplifying this a little bit, but just noting, I've put my staff through a lot of different exercises over the last several months to conduct a comprehensive review of our budgeted activities, and because staffing and building operations drive so much of our budget, we took a close look at utilization across all 26 rec centers, including visits by location, day and time, to understand where our peak and off-peak usage occurs. So we've shared some of that information with you, with council members who have asked, including additional data in the appendix, which we'll share later, but are happy to provide anything further after this presentation. From that data, we worked to identify where we could reduce service hours while creating the least disruption possible for the residents who rely on these facilities. These proposed reductions are largely concentrated during lower attendance periods and primarily affect what we call drop-in use, which we'll get into. I'll walk through each of these changes in more detail in the next few slides, but there's one important point about the savings showing here. The budgeted amounts don't necessarily capture the full financial impact. These reductions will also help address variable and currently unbudgeted staffing costs associated with that, with what has increasingly become the new normal for safely operating our facilities. I have a slide later that specifically shows just how much we have unbudgeted for our work. And many of our recreation center staffing models were established decades ago, literally when I worked at Groveland Rec Center, when it wasn't uncommon for a 16 or 17-year-old employee to work alone or even be responsible for closing a recreation center after dark. That's no longer realistic in this current climate or responsible staffing model. Public safety incidents at our facilities have increased significantly over the past three to five years, requiring us to change how we staff and operate our buildings. Safe operations today increasingly require additional staff coverage, costs that were never contemplated when many of these facility budgets were established decades ago. So these changes provide savings and cost avoidance beyond what is explicitly reflected on this slide. And I'll dig further into that as we get into the presentation here, but specifically including how the Duluth in-case operating budget is reflected or not reflected on this slide. Any questions before I dive into the individual line items proposed for reduction?

Council President Aker. Thanks, Madam Chair. I don't know if this is reflected later, but just to summarize, are all of the planned returns or restorations to general fund because these items were previously funded with one-time funding like ARPA dollars?

Yes, the majority. There's some nuance there, but we will address that in the future. Thank you.

Thank you.

So jumping into the first service reduction, Headline, Closing Non-Hub Recreation Centers on Holidays. Just for the purpose of how we define centers on these next few slides, non-hub typically are sites that operate after school, 2 to 9 p.m. Hub sites mean larger community centers, 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. hours of operation, along with some weekends. Currently, all recreation center sites are closed on major city holidays, including Memorial Day, Labor Day, Fourth of July, Thanksgiving, and Christmas. With this proposed change, sites currently operating two to nine would be closed on additional city holidays, including MLK Junior Day, President's Day, Juneteenth, and Christmas Eve. while our larger hub sites, community centers would stay open. We've actually been contemplating this change for a while, even outside of the established budget process, as generally we see lower overall facility use on holidays. And then running parallel to that is also challenges with staffing the buildings, with staff leave requests or other things on those specific holidays. It's been something that we've talked about for quite some time. Holiday operations also come at a higher cost. Employees receive holiday pay in addition to premium compensation for hours worked, creating additional budget pressure relative to typical operating days. At the same time, we want to preserve flexibility for targeted exceptions where there's demonstrated community use on holidays. That makes me think of Lake Lankford, 4th of July, and how the building operates that day, programming at MLK Rec Center on MLK Junior Day. So there would be some targeted exceptions for things that have been established over time or some level of flexibility if there was to be a special event or defined program on that specific day.

Council Vice President Yang.

Thank you, Chair Johnson. Thank you for your presentation, Director Rodriguez. I noticed that on the list here, it doesn't have all of the rec centers. So would the department be able to provide a list of the rec centers that would still be open during these holidays?

Council Member Yang, yes, absolutely. Thank you.

And along that vein, Director Rodriguez, how many rec centers would remain open?

So that would be the hub sites, community centers. So I think that's around nine sites. So that's like the Arlington Hills, Highland Park Community Center, Battle Creek, North End Community Center. Those are just a few examples, but it's around nine hub sites.

OK, thank you.

Jumping to the next slide, proposal would be to reduce rec center AM hours at all hub sites. So again, those sites that traditionally open at nine o'clock would bump back to 10. I didn't know it was on the next slide, but there's all the hub sites there. Arlington Hills, Battle Creek, Frogtown, Highland Park, Linwood, Northdale, North End, and Oxford. Bumping those all back an hour, that'll also align Arlington and Highland Park Community Center with a 10 AM library opening that already exists. Currently they open an hour before library opens at those locations. And then noting Oxford would not be impacted, given that Great River Water Park is open October to May because of its morning aquatic programming lap swim, which is kind of a pay-to-play service. So it opens around 6.30. This would largely impact users for walking tracks and fitness room spaces. CC sporadic use at these community centers in the morning for folks that want to get in there around the 9 o'clock hour to get a workout in or walk around the track in the winter. If I had to guess, using Highland as an example, primarily seniors and others that are there early morning and want to get a walk in. So that would be the biggest impact there, if we were to bump back an hour, is those specific amenities, the fitness centers and the walking trucks. Jumping to the next reduction, this proposal would eliminate AM hours at Edgecombe Rec Center, meaning the facility would be operated like the majority of the other rec centers that are non-hub community rec center sites. So again, opening at 2 p.m. during the school year and at 12.30 during the summer. The existing preschool program at this location would not be impacted as fees cover the required staffing. We're still working through the specific staffing and building logistics associated with this proposal, including how access and operations would be managed going forward. We're also exploring a full cost recovery model for certain activities with demonstrated demand, such as a pickleball program at Edgecombe. And since this proposal has been made public, we have heard a lot from pickleballers about the need to try and get to a solve that would keep them in the building for their desired use. So if that's looking at a potential membership or different fee structure, we are gonna engage that group and have more conversation. about that. But that would be the biggest impact there. Again, you take out pickleball in the pay-to-place preschool program and you're talking about sporadic use for a fitness center primarily from the periods of nine to two or any other like private meetings or things that may have been scheduled or rented out.

Could you also share a little bit more about how you used your racial equity and accessibility strategic goal to determine the elimination of hours, cuts back from holidays in some of the areas, and just the overall reduction lens that you used, noting that the strategic planning goals seem to be around community health and well-being, racial equity and accessibility, and sustainability and stewardship. So can you talk a little bit about how you used racial equity lens to determine the cuts that you're proposing?

YEAH, YES, COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, I WOULD SAY THAT OUR DECISIONS ARE ROOTED IN DATA BUT ALSO HAVE TO LOOK AT THE IMPACTS ACROSS THE ENTIRE CITY. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY SINGLE ONE ANSWER IN TERMS OF A VARIABLE THAT DETERMINES HOW WE GET TO THESE POINTS, BUT WE LOOK AT THE USAGE, WE LOOK AT THE PARTICIPATION DATA, WE ALSO LOOK AT THE QUALITY OF FACILITY. the staffing models, the neighborhood and ward impacts, the closest hub site, vicinity to be able to walk from one rec center to another. So to answer your question, there are a lot of things that go into these decisions. And when we get into these budget reduction conversations, there's a lot on the table to start in how we isolate these specific reductions down over time. It's really based on all those things that I just described. But we know that we have to go through a process on the mayor's side and the council's side and the community's side. So we're going to continue to have dialogue through the end of this budget cycle with community about these proposed changes. and see what happens in terms of potential restorations moving forward with reductions and hearing community voice. So that's kind of a high-level answer to your question, but I'd say everything that we do is rooted in those strategic goals and decision-making.

I see. And then as a follow up just for you, one of the things that's been incredibly challenging is to find out how much money we're spending on each rec center, what's our staffing levels at each rec center. It's kind of similar to the libraries. It's been really difficult to understand just how much money we're actually investing in each facility that we have. Where would we find that data if we wanted it? Because I've asked for it, and I don't see it reflected in the slides.

Councilmember Johnson, that's certainly something we can provide in the appendix and has more information. I would say, again, a dynamic kind of staffing model by center certainly can give you a best guess estimate on some of these things, but they do shift in terms of need, public safety, other things. So I can get into that in a future slide here that will answer that in a little more detail. Okay.

Because just to be clear, I did review your slide deck, and I don't see that information reflected here. What I'm specifically asking for is around how much money we're spending on maintenance, how much money we're spending on leases, how much money we're spending on the overall operations of each rec center. Yeah.

Did you want to say something? Sorry. Oh, Chair Johnson, we don't... currently budget that way. We do have data and we can extract it. It's a mini research. We heard you and we're trying to assemble that data. It's just a little bit more challenging just on kind of how Andy said how we're a little bit more dynamic in some of the staffing models, but we can provide estimates.

Yeah, it would be really great to know, like, you know, we have data from years prior of also just of, like, how much we've actually spent in each rec center, any library for that matter. Thank you. Council Member Joes.

Thanks, Chair Johnson. Thank you, Director Rodriguez. I just wanted to comment on the Edgecom Rec Center and also the reduction in AM hours. So for... Edgecombe Rec Center is in Ward 3. It's in Macalester, Groveland. And with the other reduction in morning hours to Highland, which is also in Ward 3, I just want to share that that does impact the pickleball programming that we have offered because pickleball is offered in the morning at Edgecombe and at Highland and I know that director Rodriguez said he'd heard from quite a few folks I've heard from quite a few people because it's my understanding there's not going to be a really great ability to absorb or shift that service with the morning hours being cut at both locations and and It's my understanding that is a pretty highly used program. So that's something that I'm very concerned about for how it's going to impact our community. There's a pretty high concentration around Edgecombe and in Highland of seniors, and they really rely on that programming for their own physical and mental health and to be able to find connections and see their friends. So that's something that I really care about is exploring how we might be able to, you know, I think folks have even said they're willing to pay more money to go do pickleball or how we might be able to restore some of those services to our community. There's also drop-in tat time that's at, I think, both of those locations. And so that's also impacting our community. And I do think that, I know we're gonna talk about Duluth and Case and Highwood Hills. I just wanna point out that when you're looking at the map, there's a map at the end that has usage And you can see that there's less usage on the east side rec centers. You can just see smaller dots over there compared to other areas. And I guess I'm just generally concerned about the concentration of reduction in services on the east side. And I guess my question is, it's my understanding that, you know, following up from Chair Johnson's question, that there was exploration into, by parks into, with the 4% cut you were asked to make, looking at all of the rec centers and what some of the options might be, and that, you know, that decision ultimately is made by the mayor in terms of what is being chosen to cut. Is that correct, Director Rodriguez?

Councilmember Joe's yes parks put forward a variety of different recommendations But worked in parallel with the mayor's office, but ultimately they have the final say of what lands in the proposed budget.

Okay. Thanks Yeah, well, I'm I'm just I'll just say I'm just very generally open to exploring with with the folks at this table What options might be to restore these hours? I just think that you know we're looking at saving some of these say like a few hundred thousand dollars or even less and and I think that the value that they provide to our residents is just much greater than that, and they care about these services so much and really need them. So I'm looking forward to the next steps on what kind of problem solving there might be for this.

Councilmember Joseph, councilmembers, I also do want to clarify for the heat maps and other things that you're seeing for drop-in use. That is, drop-in use is categorized by, I'm dropping by to use the bathroom or utilize open gym. It's not reflective of youth sports. It is not reflective of outdoor use or paid registration programming, like if I'm signed up for a basketball team and other things. So it tells the story of the drop-in use, but there's additional layers of numbers and other things. So it is a very surface-level issue. set of data. We've done a lot around rec center tracking and attendance over the last few years and are continuing to refine that work but I just want to kind of set the standard for what drop-in use means at those specific locations.

Thank you.

Jumping to modified operational model at Highwood Hills, this proposal would reduce regular indoor operations at Highwood Hills Recreation Center, which first opened, I think, in 1974, while maintaining public access to the recently improved outdoor park amenities and recreational spaces. Highwood Hills currently experiences some of the lower indoor utilization of the city's 26 recreation centers across the system. This facility is also... Also has significant limitations that affect its ability to support expanded programming and community use, including no air conditioning, deteriorated tile gym flooring, and limited indoor recreation and programming space. For those that don't know, this is a school district-owned building, and it is a space that we lease. So this change would generate approximately $75,000 in annual general fund savings. through eliminating the lease with the school district that covers the cost of the SPPS staff provided maintenance and utilities for the space. The budget retains limited funding to support what we would call ad hoc indoor space rental. So for reservations or other permitted use through the school district. So that would be working with community to talk about what do we want to retain in terms of programs within that space. So if we heard from community that we want to retain some element of rec check or evening open gym opportunities things like that that is what that balance of funds could be used for so just noting that also has a little bit of a tricky history given that it closed previously and then we came back so the contracts and things that allowed us back into the building changed and then also noting that i think they are brad correct me if i'm wrong index for inflation on their side And we are not. So there is a budget gap there in terms of the contract that we have in place with the school district.

Director Rodriguez, can you talk a little bit further about that? So Highwood Hills Rec Center was closed prior, proposed to be closed prior. So bringing it back in, the contract had different things within it. Could you just share a little bit about what happened when the rec center closed the first time?

Chair Johnson, that's a great question. It precedes me, so I may rely on Brad a little bit. I was there for the restoration of that. So we essentially had to negotiate a new agreement with the school district when we did re-enter. And that was driven largely by former council member Prince, if I can remember correctly. But previous to that, I'm not sure of the actual contractual obligation of how we're

Yeah, Chair Johnson. So Brad Meyer, Parks Finance. Yes, Mr. Meyer, thank you. So we originally closed Highwood in 2013 as part of a system-wide budget reduction strategy. It wasn't the only facility that was closed. It was, again, a similar analysis based on usage. It was restored in the 2019 budget with kind of a very bare bones minimal staffing model and kind of allotting for some monies for maintenance, for parks to self-perform the work. That's why you see an FTE in the budget, not just a line item for materials and services. We worked with the school district to try to identify some efficiencies where they could provide some services that were more costly to us. And maintenance and utilities were things that we felt we could kind of save some money on and still be able to get into the building. That lease agreement is why it's different than all of our other joint use sites where we have school district and park spaces that are kind of operated jointly together. And it is the only facility that is a SPPS-owned building where we have our staff inside their space. So that $75,000 is the current gap, or it's actually closer to $100,000 is the current gap, reinvesting $25,000 into the ad hoc rentals. But we're continuing to see those costs increase. So it's indexed for inflation, so each year it goes up. So this represents what we're estimating for 2027. If we were to stay in this space, we'd likely ask for some additional resources to help cover the expected gap with the 2027 inflation as well.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate it.

Thanks, Brad. And I would just note, for some of the conditions of our facilities, and as you can see on the slide, we can only program with what we have. And I noted the gym condition, and I know Council Member Johnson, I know that's been a high priority for you over the years with the school district to see that space improved. We've advocated for that as well. But we're very limited in the amenities inside this building in terms of what we can do. You see that craft room is essentially our default rec check space, which we've seen numbers decrease significantly on post-COVID. A lot of kids just getting picked up after school and not really staying for after school programs or services. Spratic open gym use, but again, desire to see improvements to that. And then a multi-purpose room that kind of limits our ability of what we can offer. For what we do own on this site, I want to make that clear. We own the outside amenities, so the field and the basketball courts. Since 2024, we have invested nearly $1 million in updates to outdoor areas at this location using CIB, Common Sense, and private funds from Toro Foundation, the Minnesota United, and thanks to our partners at the St. Paul Parks Conservancy for helping to support that. 2024, we opened a new soccer and new outdoor athletic fields. Last year, we renovated two basketball courts with all new surfacing and equipment. Again, noting that the reason for these continued investments is responding to where the demand is and taking care of what we own. So this budget proposal allows us to continue programming, ensuring that these spaces will be well used, but just noting that the outdoor amenities are where we see the most active use on the site.

Director Rodriguez, and just kind of going back to the usage maps and just for clarity. So even though we see some of the higher usage of the outdoor spaces and amenities, that's not actually reflected in the Highwood Hills usage data that we have in front of us. Is that correct?

Chair Johnson, that's correct. We do not have a good way to track outdoor use. So when I say... that those amenities are highly used. That's more of a visual assessment as opposed to actual data tracking. We just don't have a way to, I'll say, check in people for outdoor use, but are looking at things that might be relevant to help tell that story more, whether that's utilizing cell tower data for pinging cell phones for folks that may be on the property, things that help tell those types of stories. So that is something that we're Continuously looking at, again, just saying that we're coming along a long way with data collection for recreation centers and outdoor use specifically, and expect some progress in the coming years on the outdoor question.

OK. And besides outdoor park facilities that we have in the area, are you aware of any sort of other publicly accessible basketball courts, soccer fields, indoor meeting spaces in that neighborhood?

I would say these would be the closest. The walkability to Battle Creek is not great, but that would be the closest location where you're talking about indoor basketball courts and fields for things that we own. Conway is another, but again, it's the walkability for a child or a young person to get to those spaces. We've heard from community that that that's not a feasible path for them. So just noting that specifically as an important variable in some of these decisions. So it does isolate folks in specific neighborhoods when we talk about these service reductions and their ability to get to the closest nearby option, whether that's an indoor rec center or other basketball court, soccer field, things like that.

Council Member Jost. Thank you for sharing that, Director Rodriguez, Chair Johnson. Are you aware of any plans from the schools to invest in the Highwood Hills Rec Center?

Councilmember Jost, the school district is going through an active facility planning process for the entire district with a variety of different stakeholders, parks included. I don't have specific information on future plans for Highwood Hills at this time, but I know that is an active conversation district-wide right now that they've been planning, that they launched at the beginning of summer and those meetings continue. But I think eventually from the school district, you'll see recommendations across the entire district. system of what their future plans are.

Okay. And then I just have one more question here. So the outdoor spaces, I guess with the impacts to the Highwood Hills Rec Center that are proposed in this budget, would the public still be able to use the outdoor spaces?

Councilmember Jost, yes, absolutely. Those are parks amenities owned by the Parks Department. So those are still available for public access and use. And I also omitted this, but should say, like in the prime time of summer and other things, like we do have our mobile rec program that could, you know, set up shop there. So our mobile rec program is to go to places where recreation centers aren't immediately available. Provide recreational opportunities programming there more in terms of camps other things So there are some alternatives if there was a rec center reduction at this location And that's really what we would focus on if this level of reduction were to proceed How we can further activate the site and keep a presence there knowing that the outdoors are the busiest amenities Thanks

Director Rodriguez, what sort of communication is happening on the site when it regards to the school district? I'm just curious if they knew prior to the announcement of the closure that we were considering closing the facility or going out of the lease with them or the partnership with them. And or do we have ongoing meetings with the school district to talk about this site and probably other sites that we have joint partnerships with them around The schools and rec centers being close by, we have a few on the east side, and just wondering what sort of communication came within the school district around not only this decision, but potentially some of the numbers that we were seeing and reflected here, some of the conditions of the indoor space. What does the communication between the city and the school district look like, especially regarding Highwood Hills?

Councilmember Johnson, what I would say to that question from a park standpoint specifically is we previewed this proposal with them and have some surface level conversation that this will be a proposed reduction and will likely require more conversation. As far as the site-level staff on the rec center side, definitely engage them before the mayor's budget address. But we'll likely have to engage principal and others in the future here. So all that to say, a very surface-level conversation with the school district. And again, the city serves on the overall, I'm going to say, task force for their long-range planning for the entire district, Highwood Hills included.

Before we switch over to the Luthien case, because I know that's where we'll be going, I just simply wanted to be able to note that I'm extremely disappointed with the continued efforts to try and close the Highwood Hills Rec Center. Over the last decade, this conversation has come up. And I think we learned a lot as a community about what it looks like to try to continue to close Highwood Hills. Highwood Hills Elementary School was an effort that the school district made that was completely and utterly rejected by the community. Highwood Hills Rec Center was closed as well and then was brought back because community members saw a direct correlation between that crime and not having actual programs for young people. And I just want to reiterate that while we have numbers in front of us and What appears to me as a continued theme is we're using usage to justify taking an asset out of a community that does not have many. I asked the question about meeting spaces and gathering spaces because in Highwood Hills, it's an incredibly high residential area. There are no other public meeting spaces in that entire neighborhood. When you look at the map and you look at that corner of the city, removing this asset actually means that we have no public city facility that is indoors or providing an indoor asset anywhere south of lower Afton. And I just want to say how short-sighted that is and incredibly inequitable. I do not see a racial equity lens in that decision whatsoever. It has a very large immigrant population. That particular site and across the street during Operation Metro Surge had federal agents walking in and harassing Somali East African residents in my community, so much so that they didn't necessarily feel comfortable even going to use indoor or outdoor facilities during that time frame. In addition, we have some of the highest taxpayers in Highwood Hills Rec Center when it comes to my ward. And what we're basically communicating to them is that we're going to have a 6.8% property tax levy increase, but they're going to lose their rec center again. And I just want to share that that type of a decision and reduction, as we're calling it, is a full-on closure, the only closure being reflected in this budget, which is very similar to the Dayton's Buff Library conversation. $75,000 is what we're saving, and we're taking an asset that literally serves its only purpose in that community out of it. And so I just want to share that when we're making decisions, I appreciate the million dollar investments in outdoor spaces. I want to be very clear that there was also philanthropic partners that invested in this outdoor space. And there was a huge reason why people invested in this community, because for years it has been under-invested. When we talk about the amount of money in maintenance and all of the things that go into a facility, I just want to be clear that we are removing Highwood Hills Rec Center and only saving $75,000. I don't know of any other place in the city where that's actually true. And so I just want to share that with you, Director Rodriguez, Honestly, last year I fought really hard to bring back the hours of operation for Highwood Hills Rec Center. I'm incredibly disappointed that once again, under a different administration, under a different council office, we're having the same conversation, having not learned from the first result. Community members have talked often for years about this site. Every time an institution, the school district, the city has tried to close this site, it comes back years later because it's a priority and the heart of the Highwood Hills community. And I'm not sure what sort of community partnerships or conversations happened, but I'm not aware of any community engagement that went into talking about the Highwood Hills Rec Center closure. I wasn't even aware of the Highwood Hills Rec Center closure until a few days before it being proposed. And so that didn't give us much time to even talk to Eastsiders about it, to talk to the school district about the indoor facilities. And I've advocated very strongly for investment on the indoor spaces, because what I see is a lack of investment for a long time. And it's reflected in the numbers because how can you use an indoor gymnasium that isn't actually a gymnasium, doesn't actually have a gymnasium floor, a basketball hoop that doesn't actually bounce back, a space that during the summertime actually gets so hot to the fact that the floors become a slip fall hazard. So when you're looking at indoor usage, that might be why people aren't using the gym. And so when we're thinking about what we can do to invest, and I think to boost numbers, I just wanted to be clear that it's not closing a rec center. It's investing in it, much similar to how we've invested in the soccer fields and the basketball courts. Literally putting $1 million into those outdoor spaces means that those outdoor spaces have been full since they've been started. And I think that that's just a reflection, not of the community's interest in the facilities, but our interest in making sure that it stays. And I just haven't had that, because ever since, I've been a council member. I've had to fight for its sheer existence. And I just want to be very clear that that feels terrible to me.

Councilmember Johnson, point heard. I will just say from my chair, as director, definitely have advocated for the school district to invest funds into that gymnasium and things and other amenities within the school. And I think it just, it runs parallel to your point of the overall school building kind of being on the chopping block continuously. And hopefully with the school district and their long range planning efforts, we'll have a better vision of what that facility will entail. I will say we haven't closed or reduced rec, we haven't closed a rec center I think nearly 13 years, if I remember correctly. So this is the first time in my tenure where we're proposing a reduction to this level for specific to Highwood Hills and Duluth in case. As I said in the beginning of the presentation, this isn't something that I want to do, but we have to look at some of these decisions and for lack of a better term, kind of negotiate throughout the budget game. Here's what's proposed, and now the council has it, and now we have to have these tough conversations. So I appreciate those points. They're very well heard and totally understand where you're coming from.

Council Member Kim.

Yeah, I just really appreciate what you've lifted up, Council Member Johnson, because similar to what we had in the North End, the Wellstone Elementary School was on the chopping block, and that was the rec center for us. And I wholeheartedly agree, time and time again, I feel like... It's the Amy Brenn-Moen talking point, but we are not only fighting for just existing infrastructure in our communities in the north and on the east side, let alone fighting for something that's better. And I think that their question around equitable investment across the city is apt. That is one that I've talked about at this table time and time again around where we're investing money and how we're applying an equity lens. What I am very interested... So you have my support to find a budget solution for this, because I hear and also personally know the impact of what this can look like and why it's so important. And in addition, what I would urge us to also do is, you know, what is the council's even sort of larger... strategy or investment or like what are we looking at in terms of long-term investments of the city, particularly around deferred maintenance, but also like, you know, we had a very large conversation around CIB last year, right? How and where we're putting sort of strategic investments. And so, you know, the next slides we see Duluth and Case, right? So I sort of wonder and would be very supportive of how we work with the administration but also with our colleagues to look at what is the next, not just like maintaining investment for Highwood Hills Rec Center for this area, but what is the larger long-term investment that we're going to be placing in this community? Because what I'm hearing from you today, which I think the Parks and Rec Director is also reflecting back that even for the North End, this just wasn't good enough. It's not what the community deserved. And so I think I'm very interested in that conversation and would be supportive and willing to participate. And however you want to strategically think about how we place Highwood Hills next, Next up, we have Duluth and Case Weeded North End. Where does this investment, and particularly for the east side and for our neighbors that are working class and are immigrant, how they're impacted by these decisions, but then how are we sort of shifting our focus into what's that longer-term investment game that we're after? So you have my support, and I also recognize that any cuts to services, especially by a director that, as we heard, was closing a rec center at 16, is an incredibly painful thing to do. So you share, I share that frustration, but you also, you have my support.

Councilmember Kim, Councilmember Johnson, and honestly to address all of you, but with specific emphasis on Ward 3, 4, and 7. As I talk about the relationship with the school district and the long-range planning, I really think we need to talk with them about our joint use locations. We are operating on agreements from the 1970s that are very unclear in terms of maintenance responsibilities, who pays for what, all those different things. Looking at Ward 4 specifically, you have a lot of joint use sites like Groveland or Hancock, and then pairing Highwood Hills into that conversation as well. What is the long-term strategy for those locations collectively between the school district and parks? Because as you see, we've dedicated and done our investment at Highwood Hills. Now it's on the school district side to say, what are you doing with your building, knowing that we operate in our of that space. I just think there's good government practice there for us to be partnering and aligned a little more on the future of all those facilities, knowing that we maintain a presence in both.

Thank you, Director Rodriguez.

All right, so noting the closure of Duluth and Case Rec Center, this proposed closure is driven primarily by building condition, not budget. We've had a few questions on this one, so I'll try and explain all the variables, starting with the fact that Duluth and Case is nearly 70 years old and has been in poor condition for decades, which you'll see in the photos in the next slide and the handout that I'm sending to you all right now. I told my team that I wanted to bring in a piece of the siding that recently fell off of the building to show you today. They advised me that probably wasn't a good idea. I did it anyway. Apparently it was covered with bird droppings from the colony that's living inside the walls. So gross. But thank you, Tom Hagel, our operations manager. We did find a piece of that. Like this is literally a piece of the roof that is deteriorating and falling off. You can see some of the siding here. that is readily falling off in the park next to our playground. Speaking of our operations manager, when Tom Hagel started with the city, I think in 2006, he was told during his first week of building tours that Duluth and Case needed to be replaced and that significant investment may not make sense. That's a true story. So 20 years later, we're still having the same conversation. um we've reached the point where continued band-aids and temporary fixes are no longer a responsible investment there the building has a growing code safety and accessibility and maintenance concerns and it's why it's our top priority for demolition and replacement So what happens with the site? Design of the new Eastside Community Center at Duluth and Case is more than half complete, with design expected to finish midway through next year. We're finalizing the project budget and aggressively pursuing non-city funding to help determine how quickly construction can advance. You'll see in a couple slides what it took to get the North End Community Center done, which a similar project is being contemplated at Duluth and Case. So questions from you all of why is this budget neutral? We're not requesting an operating budget adjustment for 27 as part of this change. If the building closes before demolition, there will be minimal carrying costs for utilities, security, and maintaining the vacant building. But we believe those costs can largely be absorbed through reduced utility and operating expenses from closing the facility. If demolition needed to happen before the larger construction project advances, that would be a separate capital need. We're developing that estimate now and would elevate it through the capital budget process, but there's likely a range of options with the option needed to fully prepare the site for the future building at about a half million dollars, but more to come on that. For the current staff that work at that spot, again, this budget proposal ensures no staff would be laid off regardless of timeline for closure. When it is officially closed, staff would be reassigned to a neighboring recreation center. where we have staffing gaps and greater utilization. Staff would also continue supporting outdoor programming at Duluth and Case, which is very popular. So the bottom line on this, the closure addresses growing safety and code concerns. It stops us from putting more money into temporary fixes and allows us to focus on delivering the replacement facility. With the cost for demolition and our estimates for alternative carrying costs being finalized and will be discussed in the future.

Director Rodriguez, we have a couple questions. Council Member Jost.

Thank you, Chair Johnson. I'm trying to understand the condition of the Duluth encased rec center. I see that you brought in deteriorating roofing. And I see issues with wall siding, HVAC plumbing, and the doors. Has the code official said that this is not safe for occupancy? Or could you talk about that a little bit more? Are there structural concerns? Do the doors open and close, things like that?

Councilmember Joost, specific to the doors opening and closing, you can see there that we're missing a door handle on the front door there. Just noting that. But yes, we have a code correction notice from the fire inspector that outlines everything that you just described. We'd be happy to share that with you all. That has been a conversation that's taken place specifically over the last year and a half. But like I said, it's been ongoing for 20 years. But yes, you're talking about a failing roof, structural integrity, asbestos, rodents, all sorts of different things that we could account for in terms of the overall condition of the building. And again, just noting its age, close to 70 years old. So there are a variety of deficiencies. And we've reached a point where we just cannot continue to invest in this facility and need to start thinking for the future, which we've proactively done over the last couple of years, thanks to common sense sales tax. So hypothetically, we could be shovel ready for construction next year, we just need the capital to make the new building happen.

Okay, I think I'll just add that I guess I'm just a little bit concerned that, I mean, this didn't happen overnight, and so I would imagine that Duluth in case has not been safe for people to be inside of it for quite some time if you're talking about failing roof structure and things like that. And so I would in the future as much as we can, and I know we're talking about a budgetary issue where we don't have the money to invest, we don't have a lot of options, but that we get much further ahead of things like this in the future. I know that our city-owned buildings are deteriorating, it's a huge issue, but this is just really concerning to me.

Councilmember Jost, I concur. And I think what the Parks Department has advocated for is, and we will get into a little more on the next slide, North End is a good example, is how do we start planning for these things to avoid this very situation? Because right now you kind of piecemeal funding support from different agencies. bodies of government, private funds, and other things to support the expense for capital. But I do think there's room for improvement there through our CIB processes and other things to prioritize these things so they don't get to this dilapidated state. But just to further elaborate on your question about the issues, I mean, I noted asbestos, but also ceiling failing during active programming or roofs leaking and flooding areas. no AC, which forced us to close for a period of time this summer given that long heat stretch that we had of 100 degrees. That was just not sustainable or safe for our young people or our staff, right? So just noting those things, I do think that there is... a lot of room for process improvement in how these larger capital projects are planned for and implemented from a capital fundraising standpoint. And we have done a lot of work to establish criteria and rankings of how these centers are prioritized through our system plan, which outlines a variety of different conditions and variables that help prioritize rec center replacement. And we'd be happy to share those with you.

Thanks, Director. I appreciate that, and I'm also just concerned. I mean, we've been talking about equity, and a lot of these things are happening on the east side, and I'm just also concerned that this is on the east side, and somehow this got to this point. I can be honest. I don't recall. I don't believe that that's been a situation we've had in my ward, and so I just want to uplift that, that that's just concerning to me.

Councilmember Joseph, Councilmembers, I would note for the entire rec center system, we probably average a new rec center every five years, five to six years, give or take, dependent on funding sources. And just noting, again, the conditions and other things that come into play. But I do agree with you. I think this should have been a prioritized 20 years ago. And we are here to try and clean it up.

Director Rodriguez, we also have two questions. I'm going to go to Council Vice President Yang and then I'll go to Council President Neeker.

Thanks, Chair Johnson. Well, Director Rodriguez, I appreciate you bringing the evidence of the current status of the building. I just think that there's a lot of behind-the-scenes work that often... patrons who come to our rec centers don't get to see or often think of because one of their main priorities is coming in and having fun with um you know just the amenities that we have in the building the space and and being there in community and i i really wanted to take a moment to give a shout out to our former and current mayor former and current council members and community advocates, many community organizations who have been a part of really advocating for the rebuilds of many different buildings and even renovations of outdated facilities in our city. Like we have libraries getting renovated right now. Hamlin Midway Library just opened and we have a state of the art building over at the north end with the community center and it's really phenomenal and I am really excited about the future of Duluth and Case being rebuilt because as you all can see and even have heard through the data and also even for me as council member representing this ward here, have heard the need and desire from many community members for a building that has the type of space and amenities that the community really truly needs. When I think about our rec centers, I know that oftentimes our mind goes directly to How can we make sure that this is a resource for local communities? And I would challenge us to think even broader and bigger, bolder as well, especially when we are doing rebuilds of these different rec centers, about how we can have it be a location that draws in people from the outside too. Because we know that maybe there are certain things that we can offer here in your city that maybe other cities can't. And so it is a really great way for us to even be boosting our economy and just bringing in more folks from the outside and having our rec centers sort of be this touristy area that attracts people who don't live in St. Paul. And so when I think about that, it is a really exciting vision and just makes me really hopeful about the future here. I do want to highlight that I just really appreciate the transparency from you, Director Rodriguez, and our Parks and Rec team, because I have been very aware of the conditions at Duluth and Case really for as long as I've been on the council here. And again, that's why the rebuild has been so important to advocate for. It is definitely one of my top priorities. on my work plate, and I wanted to emphasize what I brought up to the mayor and her staff, also here at the table too when we had a presentation from the Office of Financial Services, which is that it's really important to understand what the plan is for the rebuild. made it very far in terms of the design phase. And I know that by the spring of 2027, we should have shovel-ready plans for the rebuild in terms of what happens after that, the timeline even, the funding sources for the rebuild. It's still very unclear for me, and I'm sure even more unclear for our community members, which is why there are concerns from them. I know you've seen this before just circulating on social media that there are community organizations even concerned that maybe the rebuild is not going to happen. And again, just wanted to reassure folks that for me as a council member, it absolutely is a top priority. And I've shared to the mayor that I would really like for her to have a really hard commitment towards the rebuild and really push staff to put together those solid plans so that we can share it out to the community the sooner the better. And I know that we are still in ongoing conversations with many community members, even the Booster Club at the Duluth and Case Rec Center, to share information, understand where they're at. And for me, what's really important is just, again, making sure that we do have a solid plan in place. Because if we all of a sudden close the Duluth and Case Rec Center and we don't have that plan, well, the community is going to go without services for, I mean, it could be years. And I know that one of the things I've heard from some of the Eastsiders I've talked to about the rec center so far is that their understanding was that there would be no gap in services for the rebuild, meaning the current building would still be up and running while the rebuild happens because the new building would be on a different location of the land. I mean, it's a really big space. We have a lot of green space there. This is just information I wanted to share, not only with you, but folks, my colleagues here, especially at the table, so that they understand what current conversations are moving right now, and what I'm sifting through as I am talking with folks who I'm wanting to get answers to. But I know that you're pretty close to the end of your presentation, so I did just want to share overall and emphasize what I've been saying at the table here over and over, which is that I truly believe our libraries and parks and rec centers or just services overall is truly one of our top priorities in the city. If we're not funding these really important front-facing services for our residents and i'd say even for folks who don't live in our city but come to our rec centers and libraries for these services then it just really is a huge loss opportunity because we know that we won't have any government partners who step in to do that work for us and give us the you know the the money that we need in order to keep these going and so that's really concerning for me and i would really urge us to come from you know i'd say you know as a council for us to come from an angle where we get really clear about what are the things that um you know what are the changes that we want to make what's our priorities so that we can really prioritize that and and to me you know for sure libraries and parks and rec comes at it's at top of mind for me and i just think that it's very it is really disappointing that a lot of these cuts are happening in areas of concentrated poverty it is very inequitable as well. And so I understand that there's a lot of decision making that goes behind getting the budget to be where it is today. I just think that ultimately we can't always have data be one of the most, I guess one of the highest factors that drive our decision making because at the end of the day, it's people's lives and the quality of life that they have here in the city that plays a huge part into this. And for folks in areas of concentrated poverty, they might not always have a built schedule where they make a decision to go visit a library or rec center. But to me, especially as a parent and mom of very many little ones, I always want to make sure that we're building towards a city that is family friendly, that is kid friendly. And so that means making sure that parents have the option to just drop in to a rec center or library if they wanted to, and that they actually have that option available. And so even cutting hours, I understand the budget the budget proposal, I say, behind that. However, it just means that if we do that, we continue to cut options for families overall, and that's something I'm very opposed to.

Thank you, Council Member Yang. We have Council President Naker. I saw Council Member Bowie's hand as well.

Thanks, Madam Chair. Following up on the Council Vice President's points, I think it is critical that we're talking about the future of Duluth and Case now, and A question that I have, Director, that I appreciate follow up on is, what are the carrying costs, the holding costs, of keeping the building standing but closed? If we are talking about having shovel-ready designs by spring of next year, but not yet having the funding identified to make those plans happen, I would wonder about the carrying costs versus the cost of demolition. especially given, and I'll have more to say about this later, that we are talking about a very small amount of ongoing savings caused by the reduction in hours and the other closures. And I'd be curious to know how much we are putting in just to keep this building standing. And I also think it would be worth looking at our 2027 common sense sales tax investments because, for example, we may want to, if the holding costs are high enough, redirect some of those dollars to demolition, especially noting that only two of the 12, 13 of these investments are on the east side. And I think it's clear from this budget that the east side is by far getting the short end of the stick in every way. And these common-sense investments, I believe, are completely within our discretion. And I think this might be an opportunity to the Vice President's point where, rather than just following along with the schedule of what's in the worst shape, we could be giving something back to the east side through our capital investments through the common-sense. And I'd really encourage us to think about that.

Councilmember Naker, Councilmember Yang, points well taken. We can certainly follow up with the code correction notices and the estimated costs. It is substantial. I want to say around a million plus just to keep the building operational or standing up. But just to the point on common sense, when that was... Approved in November 2023, this was the first project that we prioritized. And to the point where we've invested $3 million in just the pre-design planning to get us to a construction-ready project. So we've demonstrated that need. If we didn't have Common Sense, we wouldn't have the pre-design. Because we'd be looking at what you see on the screen and trying to find different funding sources to get that work done. So that was really an effort to... build a launch pad for the new building, and have others come in and say, let's build it. So that is, we're ready to find the capital funding for this project.

Director Rodriguez, I appreciate that. I can't tell you how, I will just say, I can't tell you how relieving it is to hear some of my colleagues that represent multiple different neighborhoods also bring up some of the questions and concerns that we carry. So often we place the east side and the burden of advocating for the east side on the council members that actually represent that community. And so I just really want to just echo, take time to acknowledge that, and I appreciate the questions that are being given. I will share that as any part of a real capital campaign, you have an idea of how much things are going to actually cost and the timelines that we're working for. And there is a full plan on what a fundraiser and fundraising capital campaign looks like. Right now, I have a lot of concerns about the holes in this one, because I'm not necessarily seeing timeline. I'm not necessarily seeing commitments. I'm not necessarily seeing fundraising strategies, but I'm seeing closure. And so one of the things that I would just give and echo back to you and to the administration as it relates to Duluth and Case, I really appreciate you bringing forth this graphic. I'm not sure where else in the city this would ever happen. And I think that that's where a lot of folks have a lot of concerns, because this shouldn't be acceptable in any community. And over the years, when you look at the map that's in your appendix, when you take out Duluth and Case and you take out Highwood Hills, there are large gaps. Some gaps that if you're walking and you don't have a car are 40 to 50 minute walks. because the walkability on the east side is not the same as other places as well. The bus transit routes are also not the same. And as we've learned, even car shares routes are not the same on the east side. And so just when you think about transportation, especially for young people who often walk to one location to the other, you're talking sometimes 40 to 50 minute commutes by simply removing Duluth in case. And so I would just share with you We've been talking about a lot of hard pieces, but I'm not personally thrilled. And I will just share from my colleagues, when we look at a capital campaign, what we're hearing right now is we have made investments that we are working towards creating the capital, but we don't currently have a timeline identified for when this rec center is going to come back in. We can prioritize it. There are other funding sources that could potentially be re-evaluated. But when I voted for the sales tax and when I advocated for the sales tax, I did so with the understanding that at certain points in time, some rec centers may have to be higher priorities when it comes to renovating. And a closure, much similar to the pressure that we would put on every other property owner if they had a building in this condition, would be, how long is it going to take you to repair? And we would actually have an expectation that they would move expeditiously. I think in this space, the city has to do the same that we're asking for most of our property owners in the city, especially those that go through this property. We would have a failing roof, have siding that is coming off, having a sign in their building that says you can't use this side of the building, having leak issues. We would tell them they don't have the precious gift of time. And I just want us to operate in the same fashion.

Thank you, Council Member Johnson. Just a quick comment on that and kind of just plays into this slide. I mentioned the funding complexities and need and showing kind of North End Community Center as our most recent new build and what would represent a similar scope and project for Duluth and Case. To answer your timeline question, it is all contingent on other government entities and whether the city can fully fund the cost of a renovation. So we've designed up to, I think, about a $30 or $40 million building for this location. Could certainly scale down. We could keep it at that number. But I think the question is, can the city solve that at the local level themselves? Or do you need to tap state partners and others in terms of prioritization and where that goes. So that's state bonding money and playing into the politics of how that plays out in a legislative agenda in future cycles. All those things factor into the timeline and noting what myself, Councilmember Kim went through with North End and just knowing the different hoops that we had to jump through just to get that project to the finish line. was significant. So all that to say, again, theme of something I said earlier, I do think there are more efficient ways to look at some of these capital projects and how they're planned for. So I hear you and would love to further refine or finalize a timeline to get a new building here at this location.

Council Member O'Brien, did you still have a follow-up question?

Not as a question, but I, Councilmember, or Chair Johnson, I just wanted to share, you know, that was the same kind of question I had in terms of, like, where does this show up? I ultimately also am in support of making sure that we're not losing any rec centers in our park systems. But there's been a lot of, like, conversations around just, like, we're who would see this at, and if you were to ask one resident, they will say that they've seen this roof deterioration at Hallie Q. Brown. They've seen aging gyms and programs and rec centers being outsourced and hours being reduced at Jubilee. They've seen external upgrades at Dunning Rec, but aging internal infrastructure. And this is not, you know, seeing we're having like a oppression Olympics, but I do think it is a issue that I've seen not only in my ward, and I know Director Rodriguez have heard from me, plenty of times in terms of leveraging the advocacy to the point where there's facebook lives you know going on because uh there's like buckets and buckets of water pouring through the roof at halleq brown and while we're trying to integrate and maintain the rondo library we have rondo library staff who are trying to run a library with a deteriorating roof. So we have seen this level of deferred maintenance. And I do think I am a strong component to make sure that we're having space for young people. I also would want to elevate that, as a council member, I do tend to what the data is saying, not for a justification for closure, but for a blueprint, building of a blueprint of what to come. And when we are designing rec centers, who are we designing them for? And what type of functionality are we looking to invest in? I would say someone who's been very fiscally responsible, especially this year, especially with the $25 million budget deficit. And as my third year as a council member, just kind of seeing how we are using different sources of funds to fund infrastructure, excuse me, projects. I just want to make sure we're not kicking the can down the road, but I also want to make sure that can doesn't continue getting more expensive down the road. And I think... Politically, I feel like we can solve the math problem. But I do think this is going to take greater leadership, not only on the congressional level, but state level, and ask the question to our colleagues, how strongly do we prioritize or care about our rec centers? our library centers and be more collaborative. I would just give an example as well, and I know we have to get to the slide, but at least what's interesting with Ward 1, and I think Director Rodriguez could speak to this a little bit more, many of our rec centers are already in partnerships Like MLK is in partnership with Hallie Q. Dunning Rec is in partnership with Arts Us. But what I'm noticing with the east side, it doesn't seem like they have partnerships. Doesn't look like they have a community organization that could help expand with that capacity. I don't know if that could be a leverage or an advantage. But I do know, at least in Ward 1, when we don't have the funding to actually fix the roof or we don't have the funding to even staff the building, that's where there was agreement somewhere in the past for nonprofit organizations to help fill that gap. I think just offering to some of my colleagues on the east side, I would like to see a rec center that operates more of like a wraparound service. And I think that is the way of the future in terms of not just like a recreational place for sports and activities, but how are we actually serving the community with access to jobs and mental health support. So I'll just share that. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Bui. Councilmembers, the theme I'm hearing is all around deferred maintenance. And I've been at this for a few years now and continue to raise that. Common sense has certainly helped spearhead some of those things. Is it enough to cover our full deferred maintenance backlog? Absolutely not. So you noticed or mentioned the roof replacements at Oxford. And Hallie Q roof was replaced at Oxford last summer, thanks to Common Sense. MLK Hallie Q Brown just wrapped up, I think, just about a week ago for that full roof replacement. So those things are moving forward, but is it enough to sustain the entirety of our facility portfolio? No. CIB also has been historically underfunded. Yeah. So we are essentially in a battle with other departments to try and figure out how we can get those dollars to where they need to go within the parks department. So again, just another recurring theme that I'm seeing in this presentation is the need for process improvements within the city on how we do these things.

And maybe, Dr. Rodriguez, if you could just want to time check us as well with the slides that we have. And I appreciate your comments. I also think sometimes being transparent about our plans. So when CIB funding is allocated, when those community meetings take place, Duluth in case closure wasn't. being asked at that time of we'd have to close the facility this year and not be able to do that if we don't have prioritization of those funding. So I think if the plans in the future include closures of Duluth and Case or any rec center due to deferred maintenance or conditions of a building, we probably want to be transparent in that process so it can actually have a fair chance. at being funded in the broader scheme, systemic investments. And since that didn't happen, I just think it was a missed opportunity. And one that I would hope would be prioritized in the future is that if we see deteriorating things, maybe we talk about the deterioration, but did the folks that were reviewing some of the community proposals, some of the people who sit and review the CIB proposals know at that time that if they did not have a chance to fund the case fully that it would close this year? I'm not sure. But just for a time check for you, we're at 11.11. We do try to end at 11.30, so I do want to give you a chance to go through the remainder of your slides, noting that there will probably be additional questions. There's quite a bit of information, colleagues, in the appendix. There's quite a few slides landed there, so if you have questions at the end about those as well, feel free to ask them at that time, but I'll ask you to continue And just simply for record purposes, Council Member Bowie, a lot of Eastside Rec Centers actually have partnerships. Their partnerships are institutions. So Conray Rec Center as well, for example, has a Sunday Foundation. We have several rec centers that have school district funding. So Dayton's Bluff Rec Center is right next in an adjoining building to Dayton's Bluff Elementary. Highwood Hills is a JPA with the school district. Battle Creek is a hub that is right next to Battle Creek Middle. And just in some of the... different problems we see, like we have government entity partnerships, not necessarily non-profit ones, and then the ones that are non-profits are probably more foundational, Eastview, you know, obviously having St. Paul Urban Tennis in the site, so there is some, there's definitely some partnerships there, and I just wanted to make sure that all of our colleagues are aware of that, but had to say something, especially as it relates to Arlington Hills, and Some of the other places, all of our rec centers also are very similar in nature, but the partner might be a government entity. So just wanted to clarify that. And then why don't we go through, I'll get Council Member Jones to ask her question, and then we may need to go to the slides to get through all of them. And I apologize for the time.

Thank you, Chair Johnson. Just really quick, I'm trying to understand the path forward for the Duluth and Case Rec Center project. It seems to me like with the common sense, the city has done a lot of what we can at this point to get the project ready. Do you see... I mean, I don't see a path forward without significant funding support from the state and the federal government. I'm assuming we're talking about like a $40 or $50 million rec center. I'm not sure... That's what we're talking about, but it's my understanding that common sense, as you said, is not gonna be able to repair all of the deferred maintenance that's probably hundreds of millions of dollars, or be able to build all these new rec centers that we need. So I guess that's my question is, is there a path forward for Duluth and Case without the state government and or the federal government?

Councilmember Jost, we would have to have some internal conversations about, I'll defer to Brad too, on just cash flow and other things specific to common sense sales tax. And knowing that that full cost, we probably couldn't fund the entirety of a new structure out of that account, but what we could borrow in terms of proceeds and how that would work.

Yeah, Chair Johnson, Councilmember Jost. We do have the Common Sense and CIB as options for the local, but state funding, federal funding, we are aggressively pursuing all those if we want the full scope of the design to have it like North End Community Center, which is what the design is currently contemplating. If it's abundantly clear that the state or other sources are not going to be viable anytime soon, to Andy's point, we would have to have some serious conversations. I mean, the building would take three years of all of CIB or three years of all of our common-sense proceeds to be able to fully fund internally or just with city sources. So we contemplated this as a budget that would include multi-sources including state partnership and potentially federal dollars.

I'll just say, Chair Johnson, I'm fully supportive of whatever we need to do as a council with our legislative agenda to be able to see this project through. I guess the worst case scenario would be if it is looking like it's going to be several years before we could even get this funding or it's not looking like it's going to happen, we would be looking at a significantly downsized project then, it sounds like. I just am trying to understand that a little bit better. But thank you.

Gotcha. Noting the time constraints, I'll try and move a little quicker here. But if you have questions, obviously, feel free to interrupt me. Getting into some additions, adding safety technology. As mentioned earlier in the presentation, safety incidents in our facilities continue to rise. And we did do an external parks and recreation safety assessment years ago as a result of the incident that happened at Oxford Community Center that raised several critical recommendations. But this investment would be an important start in advancing some of those recommendations, including safety technology improvements at various rec centers. That includes more camera programming spaces, up programming spaces, remote access for locking facility doors if we need to go into what we call a secure for any reason, and adding other lockdown technology at high traffic locations or the hub sites that we mentioned earlier in the presentation. So working with our safety and operations teams, we would continue to identify additional needs around staffing and supervisions, trainings, inspection, and on-site emergency preparedness. But this fund really would help us just make some of those technology improvements. And that's why it's general fund and not capital. Although we're open to whatever funding sources ensure this priority advances, it's essential to... some of the things that we see every day, specifically the summer with teen takeovers and other things that we've experienced across the city. We will have a final list before the end of the year, but I know one of the first projects will be Facility Lockdown Technology at Oxford, which is our highest traffic location as school restarts. Jumping into utility increase, you've heard us talk about utilities over the last several years, thanks to the investments made over the last two years specifically, along with what we're proposing for 2027. Parks building utilities should be near break even for the first time in more than a decade. At the same time, we're aggressively pursuing grants and non-city funding to reduce costs and invest in green energy or sustainable building practices. Recent examples include geothermal and solar at North End Community Center, solar at Frogtown. Not celebrating quite yet. Inflation remains a challenge, but we're hopeful that the level of additional investment needed in future years will begin to decline, and we'll continue to be successful in non-city funding for other green energy solar projects. Jumping to Right Track Restoration to General Fund. This ad shift is a big one, especially as we and other agencies like ours continue to grapple with funding reductions from state partners like Deed. Right Track had another huge summer. We placed 760 young people in internships across a wide range of organizations and agencies. Unfortunately, we also had to turn away nearly 2,300 young people who applied and were looking for that first job opportunity. We don't want to turn those kids away. That's heartbreaking, and we know we couldn't serve all those young people, but also demonstrates the tremendous demand for this work and why continued investment in this program is so important. As many of you have heard during our previous budget presentations, going back to the 2023 budget process, shifting these existing FTEs from temporary ARPA funding to the general fund has been a strong priority for us. These are existing staff who have been doing this work since 2022. And we're all added thanks to American Rescue Plan funds. And each plays an important role in supporting the program and infrastructure behind our youth employment engagement work. On the technical side, this shifts the positions from Fund 211 to the General Fund. So that's right-sizing what has historically been fairly limited general fund support, and providing a sustainable funding source for these core youth programs. We've provided regular updates to council on the Right Track work. Looking forward to sharing our 2026 annual report soon. Beyond Right Track, these investments have allowed us to dedicate staff to other mission-focused youth work. That includes the Youth on Boards program, the St. Paul Youth Commission, as well as improved connections with Sprockets, our out-of-school time network. And then for those of you that were able to join us last month, we hosted in partnership with Councilmember Kim our first State of the Youth event at North Carolina. and community center, another example of how this work continues to grow and evolve. So it's an exciting time for our youth programs and how we build up young people across the city for careers, hopefully within the city of St. Paul. And although this is a large budget ask, it's one we've been planning for for several years, and we'll ensure there is continuity in staffing and programming. We need to keep building on the momentum that this program has built over the last few years specifically.

I do see a question for Councilmember Kim. Councilmember Kim, we have about 10 minutes.

I'll be very brief. It's less of a question, more of a statement. I saw Sprockets and Right Track be moved into the general fund, and I just want to name what an incredible win that is for us to not rely on one-time dollars for an investment in a program that we have been deeply committed to for several years. So to me, I see this as a huge, huge win for our youth programming. If you remember to our budget engagement for the council, one of the sort of economic development or workforce development priorities the council had was to increase funding for Right Track. I'm still sort of interested in what the temperature of the council is around this, but ultimately see this as one of the best wins for the program. And we'll just sort of appreciate any support from my colleagues for that consideration. But it's not a, I won't trade additional money for this, but, and an incredible one for the program. And we look forward to hearing from JC, my Raytrek intern today, who will be presenting a follow-up on how the first inaugural State of the Youth event went. But just looking forward to continuing to support this program in the general fund for years to come.

Thanks, Councilmember Kim. Thanks for the lead in on Sprockets. So just noting that as well here on this slide, some key stats here, but at its most basic level, Sprockets continues to be a binder for the strong youth network across the city to help coordinate out-of-school time programming for our St. Paul youth.

Just as a quick follow-up to these two items, Director Rodriguez, just for clarity, is the numbers that we're seeing on either the Right Track slide or the Sprocket slide, is that encompassing of the $191,000 HRA transfer, or is it not?

This would be separate. I'm sorry. Chair Johnson, this would be separate. So the backfill for the revenue is separate from that.

Oh, so this would be separate from the revenue getting from the EJRE.

Yeah, Chair Johnson. So I do know we're planning to give you a follow-up that was requested from Right Track on HR funding that's going into the program. So we'll make sure that's clear as part of that. OK, wonderful.

Thank you, Brad. This slide shows our historic budget to actual performance. We've talked in previous years about this and the significant unbudgeted pressures that parks faces. We'll highlight those on the next slide if we have time. The reality is that the days of having discretionary budget available to absorb those costs are gone. Nearly 90% of our budget is tied to staffing and direct facility costs. That leaves us with very little flexibility when unexpected costs occur. Things like a flood, a storm within the city where we know that we have to react and get things done. as a result parks has required year-end budget assistance from outside the department in several recent years to address those pressures obviously ideally we'd like to see the year-end variance at or near zero percent you'll see some variation year to year because revised budgets can include one-time funding carry forwards or shifts between funding sources arpa including arpa in earlier years like 2022 But the bigger challenge is that storms, floods, building fires, public safety staffing requirements, and incident response like copper wire theft don't come with a budget. But we know that residents rely on those services or cleanups of storms, floods, things like that. We don't have an emergency or contingency line item to absorb those costs when they occur. So that's really the story behind some of these historical variances and the pressures we'll show on the next slide here. So this is a snapshot of our major unbudgeted pressures across both the general fund and special fund. You've heard from Madeline a few weeks ago about the financial position of funds citywide. This helps kind of show what's driving the parks challenges. Inflation compounds the problem. We're responding to more pressures without dedicated funding. while the resources we do have simply don't buy what they used to. None of these pressures are particularly new. We've been incrementally addressing some of these over multiple budget cycles. As I mentioned with utilities, that used to be our largest unbudgeted pressure. Today, the biggest challenges are public safety and maintaining our aging facilities, which we've talked significantly about today. Public safety costs continue to grow, including responding to teen takeover type events where sometimes hundreds of youth converge on a recreation center or a park and require a significant staff and safety response. I've seen those things firsthand this summer. I've seen Frogtown Community Center have to staff at least 12 people outside just to accommodate some of those things that are going on. That does not account for the police or ONS staff that are also there. in addition to the programs we're trying to run inside the building. And that is just based off a reactionary planning nature of things that we find out about within the neighborhood or a young person tells us about, where all of a sudden 80 to 100 young people are converging on the site for not good behavior. So public safety is a real and evolving thing for parks and public spaces that we're continuously trying to address. Como Special Fund also remains a challenge and would benefit from shifting additional visitor center attendance to the general fund. That is something that we brought to this budget presentation multiple times over the years in addition to other revenue generating activities within that space, looking at fee structures and making all sorts of changes this year around that. And then we're continuing to absorb costs that aren't necessarily core park services. Parks is responsible for private property graffiti cleanup, securing caves because of trespassing. We have no line item for portable toilets across the city, yet the expectations that the community has for those within their specific parks are high. Strong. And we have to accommodate. I think that is something that we made kind of an expectation with residents during the pandemic when we prioritized that. But that's a $200,000 line item that we don't have money for. But yet everyone wants a porta potty in their park. So every dollar spent responding to those pressures either contributes to an overspend or requires us to redirect resources away from other mission-critical work. Ultimately, that's what you're seeing reflected in our year-end budget performance. This budget doesn't solve every pressure on this list, but it continues to make incremental change on the areas that we can address.

Director Rodriguez, I did see a couple questions. I'm just going to share it with folks. We'll go a little bit over time today for the budget committee. And if folks have to leave right at 830, that's OK. We'll wait at the end and do the questions there for those time frames for that. So continue, Director Rodriguez. Continue.

Slide 23. This shows revenues from our non-enterprise funds. We're continually looking for ways to drive new revenues and ensure our fee structure keeps pace with inflation while being careful to not create barriers to our programs and services. We analyze our fees annually and make adjustments based on a wide array of factors. But over the past year specifically, we put some extra work into getting creative and identifying new opportunities to generate revenue. while maintaining affordability and access. So we'll be providing you all with a comprehensive recap of our fee changes following this presentation to kind of demonstrate the thorough and thoughtful approach on that. But a couple things I want to highlight. Free sports and classes will remain free, but we're adding a sliding scale pay what you can option. for those who want to contribute and can afford to do so. We've implemented non-resident fees in areas where we're able to. We've also increased suggested voluntary donation amounts at the zoo while continuing to maintain free admission. All those changes are intended to shore up our special funds, particularly those that have been underperforming, and help move them back toward a break-even point. Enterprise funds, which are largely golf fees and permits, golf continues its steady performance and chipping away at what is a multi-million dollar negative fund balance. For those that weren't here a decade ago, we operated golf at more than a $1 million negative deficit annually. So it's incredibly encouraging to see how that industry has flipped post-COVID. Also excited about the potential new revenue from the new driving range lights and other new revenue ideas we've been kicking around for our courses. I think we're close to maybe hitting $500,000 in revenue just for the driving range alone this year. So looking forward to turning the lights on there. Where you're seeing revenue dips, we did have some one-time events incur in 2025 that caused some disruptions to some of our permits, rentals, and partner org revenues, but we're seeing strong performance this year and are confident that will continue into the future. The slide shows adopted spending by fund and what's being proposed for 2027. A couple notations beyond our proposed budget reductions and additions we've already discussed, but most changes are technical accounting shifts, adjustments, but a couple notes. Fund 211, general government parks will be spent down and largely exhausted. We'll have more info on that if we have time. Lower town ballpark, a loan repayment to deed sunsetted and that budget was adjusted to the actuals, which is largely money in and out handled by Treasury and our contract management staff. One notable change, the solid waste fund. We're looking at getting out of the trash business and shifting a couple FDs from the park solid waste fund to public works. This is still an evolving concept that we're talking through. We'll be able to share more about later, but excited about the potential to work in tandem more with public works to improve trash services across our system, like real-time data that shows trash is full without needing to... needing someone to call in and complain or note that their trash hasn't been picked up in a few days, which I'm sure you all hear about. Overview of FTE impacts 26 versus 27, largely a repeat of what has already been covered. Update on Fund 211 projects and activities. We weren't able to get all of these programs, successes, accomplishments into the appendix, but we'll plan to send a follow-up to detail all that has been accomplished thanks to ARPA and Fund 211. Activation of public spaces downtown, some examples there for the various programs and things you've seen in our downtown parks. That one-time funding really helped us spearhead Some pilot programs that we've adopted now and even shifted some staff resources too to continue on. So we have some added emphasis of downtown park programming and we'll continue on. We were able to get almost 300 trees planted and maintained. We had almost 300 trees to plant and then helped to maintain several medians downtown. Learn and Earn, which is essentially like youth job pro programs that can lead to direct placement or in a specific field. We'll report out some data on the Zoo Apprentice Program, EMS Academy, Pharmacy Academy, UX User Design, a lot of good things to celebrate out of this specific account. Just noting the things on the horizon, some I've already talked about, but public safety specifically, we didn't get into the regional park funding constraints that we have at the state level, but that's a significant item that we would love all of your support on as we approach legislative session to make sure that we get an equal share of what we need to maintain those spaces.

Okay, and I know that I said we would be going a little bit later, but I think we also have a closed door currently. No? OK. All right. So just making sure.

All right. Cool.

What?

Just the three of us. Oh, wonderful. Cool. Great. Well, that's still us.

So we are running a little late. We'll take a couple questions and then we'll adjourn.

So Council President. Keep it quick. Thanks, Madam Chair. Director, thank you for this presentation, for your leadership. I want to share my colleagues' frustration and anger that I heard expressed earlier. We have been so clear at this table that we should avoid frontline cuts, that whenever we have a tough budget, we should be prioritizing the things that people depend on. This budget does not do that. It cuts frontline services. It cuts, again, on the east side more deeply than anywhere else. And also, our seniors who are are a population that we should be thinking about. I think those early morning hours, that is a group of folks who often do not get services and see those services reduced. At the same time, we at this table have a responsibility to actually do something about these issues that we're seeing in the budget, because it's now on us. And two ideas. One, that the total savings from all of those cuts is $188,000. It's a drop in the bucket. And when I think about a program like Right Track, which is a phenomenal program moving a half a million dollars back onto the general fund from ARPA, I think this is an opportunity for philanthropic support, for corporate support, to the tune of $188,000 ongoing dollars for a program like that or a program like Sprockets that could eliminate the need for these cuts. And that's something that I personally would be happy to work on. I think it's something we need to talk about as a council. And the second thing I want to bring up is something we've talked about at this table before. But Como Zoo is a constant net detractor from the city budget. We have 16% of the people who visit the zoo live in St. Paul. Everyone else comes from elsewhere in the state, which is a wonderful thing. But the fact that it is a regional park means that we cannot charge non-resident fees. And I think it's really time to ask the question whether or not we benefit more than we lose by having that regional park status, or whether or not it's time to go to the Met Council and ask for an exemption to that so that we can start to actually recoup the cost from people who do not live in St. Paul that currently is being borne solely by our residents. So I would ask again to the department to do that cost benefit analysis. I know we've talked about some of the costs, but I would really what it would actually, how much we actually benefit on an annual basis from being part of that program versus what it costs to not be able to charge higher fees or any fees to non-residents. I'll leave it there.

Thanks, Council President. Council Member Bowie. You don't have any additional questions.

All right. I'm doing a quick look around. Council Member Jost. I'll just say a quick thank you, Chair. Thank you, Director Rodriguez. I really appreciate this conversation, and we'll be talking about libraries later. And thank you, Council President Naker, for bringing up how much money that The parks is contributing to the budget cuts. It's $188,000. And I recognize that all departments were asked to make cuts and there were a lot of things to choose from. I agree that it's hard to cut from the budget without cutting staff and cutting hours, but also those are the folks that bring such a significant amount of value to our city because those are the services that our residents value. And that can't really be captured by the cost we're cutting. I mean, $188,000 brings so much more value, I don't know, 10 to 20 times that to our residents. And so I appreciate the suggestions that Council President Naker brought forward. I look forward to exploring those. I'll also add that if we're looking at median home and i think it was 58 a year that um the current levy would add like we could make up two hundred thousand dollars for like less than a dollar a year i think so i just want us to think about that when we're thinking about investing in our city what our residents are willing to pay to receive the services that they expect while also understanding their property taxes are going to just are going to continue to go up so thank you

Thank you, Councilman Burgos, and thank you, colleagues, as well. I think one of the things that just continues to be increasingly clear to me in this budget cycle is that the east side disproportionately is impacted by every cut that's proposed in the libraries and in the parks and rec centers. And so I would just say before we adopt that, I'm really optimistic from some of the conversations and line of questioning today just around what we are valuing, because I feel like the budget statement is a value system. And you all heard me at the budget address with the mayor when I shared during my speech that balancing the budget on the backs of residents isn't actually a balanced budget. This 100% balances the budget on the backs of Eastsiders. And I think when we're looking at just where we are in this point in time, I just want to ask us, how much can we ask a neighborhood to pay while simultaneously taking away the things that they're paying for? And I just want to leave that from a value standpoint for me, because as we continue to raise the property taxes, we aren't creating an exemption for the east side. We're not creating an exemption for Highwood Hills. We're not creating an exemption for Duluth and Case neighbors. And we're not necessarily saying that you don't have to pay. We're basically saying you won't actually have access to a library and a rec center. I'm really excited about the picture that's up right now, because that was when we cut the ribbon at Highwood Hills Field. That was amongst Highwood Hill's kids at the schools, the gentleman in the hoodie on the right side, Gulid, is like our neighborhood star when it comes to advocating and being in community with our East African Somali residents, but also just our Highwood Hill neighbors that know him. When you take an asset like that out of our community, there is no bringing it back. And that's what we've been seeing when the Highwood Hills Rec Center was taken out of the community before. And so I'll just leave us with that and simply share that as a taxpayer, but also as a council member, it is my duty to represent the community that I serve. And not being consulted on these closures and not even being asked for the impact and not being able to be in a space where now we basically have to transition into negotiations It's hard to negotiate the value of $188,000 when we're quite literally negotiating closures, we're quite literally negotiating hours at rec centers, when the council vote verbally and also in a memo shared that we didn't want either of those scenarios to be here. And so I'm happy to go into negotiations. I'm excited about the conversations ahead with you all. I'm just incredibly disappointed in the overall decisions coming in from from what we have to negotiate. I feel like it puts us automatically at a disadvantage. And one thing I know about the east side is that they already feel disadvantaged. So thank you for your time today, though, Director Rodriguez. I recognize the role that you have here and the tough decisions across the board. You know, when it comes to the budget cycle, I would encourage and implore us all to have some really intentional conversations later on because to me, I don't think $188,000 is worth the impact we're about to propose here. And also, doing a net neutral close to the Luthan case makes absolutely no sense. So thank you guys so much. And with that, we are adjourned.