I asked our HR director Linda Hillenbrand why we can not offer our employees the same partner benefits that UMR offers theirs. I thank Linda for getting the answer. It was not what I wished to hear, but I understand. I find it unfortunate that there are big state government policies that we can not change that make us more discriminatory and less desirable for a group of talented people.
Michael,
I apologize for the delayed response to your question as to why City/County organizations are required to follow state statutes relative to medical plan designs (same-sex partner benefits) while the University of Minnesota/Rochester is not required to do such.
In speaking with the HR Staff at the University, I learned it was formed in 1851 while Minnesota did not become a state until around 1858. As a result, the U of M is identified as “constitutionally incorporated” and is not required to follow some of the statutes that we are, medical plan design being one of them. They can chose to follow some of these statutes but are not necessarily mandated to do so. And that is how they are able to offer medical plan benefits to same-sex partners. Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Here is the new language that appears to have unanimous support from the council. In short, almost every affordable housing project gets some sort of Federal, State, or Local tax subsidy. As such we have an obligation to make sure that money is well spent. Our policy now more explicitly states what is affordable housing. Our policy considers Housing costs, Energy costs, Associated costs, and Transportation costs. As you would expect many properties that are cheap are not actually affordable when all costs are considered.
The Need for Affordable Housing
The City of Rochester is suffering from a critical shortage of affordable housing (housing that, through subsidy or other means, costs no more than 30% of the household income of households earning 80% of the area’s median income). The proportion of households in Rochester paying more than 30% for housing has increased from around 20% of households in 2000 to over 27% in 2010.[1] There were 11,430 households in Rochester paying over 30% of income for housing in 2010. Read the rest of this entry »
Here is some information on reducing sediment in the Zumbro Watershed. Not that they are looking for public comment. If you care about water quality, check it out and make some comments.
Dear ZWP Members,
Over the last several months ZWP Planning Coordinator Norman Senjem has been working on a sediment reduction plan for the Zumbro River Watershed. This is an implementation plan funded by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to satisfy the requirements of the Zumbro turbidity Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study completed last year. Norman has held three public stakeholder meetings and also sought the input of ZWP’s technical partners in reviewing preliminary drafts of the plan. Using feedback from these meetings and partners, he has updated the plan to its most recent version. He would like to let you know that the Draft Plan is now posted on our website (http://www.zumbrowatershed.org/projects/active) for a final public review. Please take a moment to review the plan and provide comments by Tuesday, May 29th. Comments provided will be incorporated into a final draft which will then be routed to MPCA for approval.
After this plan is finalized, Norman will be turning his attention to developing the larger, comprehensive watershed management plan for the Zumbro.
Please let Norman or I know if you have any questions.
Update: Per RPU Board Chair Jerry Williams, this will not be on Tuesday’s agenda.
The “city” is considering a 3.5 million gallon water reservoir at St. Mary’s Park and I have a number of concerns about the process. I don’t like the fact that many neighbors found out about this by reading the newspaper. I don’t like how this process has seemingly played out in private, despite the fact that we own the utility. I don’t like how neighbors have not been asked for comment or ideas. While I currently have a conflicting meeting, I am going to try to head to the RPU board meeting on Tuesday April 24, 2012 to get more information.
Many of you want to know where I stand on the issue. This is a little difficult because even as the councilman for the area I have not been invited to the discussions. My philosophy is that St. Mary’s park is an asset that we own. I will never support any action of which the net result is that the asset is made worse. This was my philosophy when it was suggested that we give away a portion of Soldier’s Field. Not surprisingly no city council members have come out in support of that.
I really don’t know what has been decided, what is planned, and how flexible those decisions are. I don’t know why engineers are suggesting that this would be a good place as opposed to somewhere more on the edge of the city.
There actually are potential ways to put a reservoir in the park and have it be an asset. For example if it was put back in the NW part of the park, partially into the ground, with a green roof, and then filled around the edges, we could create an elevated green space in an underused part of the park with a great picnic area and an iconic view of the city. That would cost more money, but again, hurting a park to save money is not OK in my book.
In speaking with RPU they did say that neighbors were notified of a meeting at CUDE. Apparently neighbors within 500 ft. of the park were sent notices. Also a notice was sent to the neighborhood association. However, a downtown meeting during work hours is not what I consider a sufficient chance for input. [edit: I am told this was at least an evening meeting] There will also be a park board meeting, but again I think the neighborhood deserves to have a meeting in the neighborhood.
I would like to see the existing reservoir removed. I am interested in what the neighborhood thinks about the existing tower. I see it as a historic landmark, and though it is not used (except for cell towers) I wouldn’t mind seeing that stay. I believe the existing reservoir is about 1 million gallons. To visualize how big a 3.5 million gallon tank would be, picture the existing tank, the same height, but 87% wider. (OK math teachers, you can check my math)…
One thing that I can say with absolute certainty is that the more you are involved the better the outcome will be. We had a number of successes on 6th street which would not have happened with out citizen involvement.
I assure you that it is not cheap shoddy housing like we see in places like 22nd Avenue in Cimarron Court in Northwest Rochester. That as it turns out is very expensive housing, just ask our law enforcement agencies. (And yes, I realize some good people live there, I have met them.) In order to better understand what affordable housing is we must define it. I have said many times that cheap housing is never affordable housing. In order to consider the total costs of home ownership, I propose we look at a HEAT Index.
If city government performs at its potential we will see a radically different transit system in Rochester in the next 5 to 10 years. Technology, congestion, growth, and demographics are combining to create a new Rochester that we must adapt to. If we are successful we will have a far more efficient, effective, and far reaching transit system. Pedestrian, Bicycle, Park & Ride, Development, and Transit will merge into one seamless entity to the benefit of our citizens. Read the rest of this entry »
As many of you know I have a background in business finance and am particularly interested in finance issues. You are also probably aware that the City of Rochester was directed by the FTA to have competitive bids to run OUR transit system (I refer to it as ours since we own the buses, streets, shelters, set the fares and routes, and have paid for most of everything for decades…). You probably also know that I believe that we should have bid this competitively even if we weren’t required to. Here are the financial results in 3 charts. If you look at these 3 charts, I think you can see why competitive bidding is good for the city.
For a decade we saw double digit growth in expenses compared to less than 5% population growth + inflation. The bid resulted in growth rates that are far better. FT = First Transit
Edit: Today I asked staff about this and part of what we need to look at is revenue hours for each year. Staff is getting me that information and I will update.
Here are total expenses per the bids vs. what would happen if RCL had continued to grow at the same rate as the past 10 years.
Edit 2: The jump in 2012 is due to an adjustment in revenue hours (I think). I will confirm.
Edit 3: I will update this chart to adjust for revenue hours when available.
Also today a judge threw out Holter’s request for a temporary restraining order. He must have been as unimpressed with Holter fantasy ownership as everyone else.
Here is the proposed language for administrative fines for failure to clear sidewalks within 24 hours of the end of a snow event. These fines would be in addition to paying the full cost of a private company removing the snow. Read the rest of this entry »
