This transcript features **Mayor Luke Hellier**, Councilmembers **Joshua Lee**, **Michelle Volk**, **Dan Wolter**, and **John Bermel**, along with City Engineer **Zach Johnson** and a staff member identified as **Courtney**. [0:02] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** ...stands one nation God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. On to item three, citizens' comments. Do we have any wishing to address the council tonight? Seeing none, with that we'll move on to discussion items. The first is City Council compensation. Is that—Courtney, you’re up? [0:02] **Courtney (Staff):** Good evening Mayor and City Council. Tonight we're discussing the City Council compensation. The Council last discussed this in 2018. At that time, that's when the current ordinance was adopted and set the current compensation for Mayor and council members. [0:48] **Courtney (Staff):** At that time, the proposed ordinance also incorporated a biannual cost of living adjustment, but the City Council ultimately removed that. Prior to 2018, compensation for Mayor and City Council was last reviewed and adjusted in 1999. We want to bring this forward to see if we should have more regular discussions on it. I've also provided a couple of charts that show our comparable market cities and where their compensation lies. So the first one is council member, and the second one in your packet is for Mayor. We are right about in the middle, if not slightly below the average. If the City Council is considering any sort of changes to the compensation ordinance, the salaries must be established and amending Ordinance 994. It can take effect as soon as January 1, 2025. So staff seeks direction on where the Council would like to go with this. [1:33] **Councilmember Joshua Lee:** Well, thanks for the background information. You know, from just a personnel standpoint, we felt this is something that regardless of whether it changes or not, we should bring up for conversation. So, I appreciate the background. I mean, I'll offer some initial thought. For what I see particularly our Mayor do—I do think that I would feel comfortable with compensating the Mayor role quite a bit more, but also know that that’s not necessarily a good move for the general public and the use of their funds to do a large increase like that. I mean, I just based on what I know, there's a lot more that former Mayors have done for him, but I think $15,000 is fairly low for the work that goes into that role, especially a city this size. [3:06] **Councilmember Joshua Lee:** Yeah, exactly. So I mean, the comparisons are nice, but I was just trying to think of just the number of meetings that I know the Mayor does on a basis and I'd be comfortable with $25,000 honestly. But that feels like a significant jump in here, and so maybe that’s something to work towards. But I thought maybe a more reasonable amount would be an increase to $18,000 in this next cycle. For Council, a $2,000 increase so that it's $12,000 and $18,000. [3:54] **Councilmember Michelle Volk:** Can I just ask a question before you finish it? When you gave us the information as far as the past, where they started and then where they ended up, my thought was: in 2018—Luke, you're the only one that's here, well Justin too—in 2018 did they have a discussion about the fact that they could only go up so much because they really didn't increase it much over '99? And so I didn't know if there was supposed to be maybe the whole inflation thing, supposed to be the way to make those steps like you were talking about, you know, the jump to $25,000. So I didn't know if there was any planning that went into that they thought about making steps to get to a different level. [4:40] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** I think, and maybe you would remember, I think one of the big conversations that they shifted away from that was the "per meeting" instead. That, you know, different people on Council or the Mayor would attend different committee meetings. Instead of having—like, you were on a lot of committees and you’d have to turn it in—the bigger conversation at the time was more around coverage and we decided to not go there. [5:25] **Councilmember Michelle Volk:** Well, I just didn't know if you wanted to get rid of the per-meeting thing if your suggestion is to bump it like that. [5:25] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** The other thing I remember from my conversation in 2018 was that the "per meeting," at least at that time, was brought up as a way to keep council members accountable for the meetings that they were going to. But I don't know that that concern exists at this moment in time—that people are going to the meetings that they're assigned to. [6:11] **Councilmember Joshua Lee:** I fill it out for that reason. You’re pretty judicious about sending me that form, but it's more so just—I don’t know, I started doing it early. If somebody wants accountability, they can make a data request from my calendar and see the time that I’m spending. I agree, I think a two-year review regardless of what happens—it kind of baffles me that there was a two-year review and then all of a sudden it turned into an 18 or 19-year review and then a six-year review. So I'd like to just see that consistency. So I think that's the first point is doing that. You know, we're the average, we're a little bit below the average in both parts. My concern is balancing—I just feel really—I gotta tell you, I feel really awkward talking about a raise. But I do want to balance that we don't wake up one day and all of a sudden it's so disparate that now we have to do this huge deal. So I wonder if we are going to make an increase, if we do that over a couple of years and spend two years getting to where we think that would be good. I don't think we're that far off right now, quite honestly. [7:43] **Councilmember Dan Wolter:** My guess, though, is that most of these numbers are where they're at because it is an awkward conversation to have and councils don't... Bloomington doesn't seem to have an issue. Whether or not you can do it planned incrementally, right? I think you'd have to take a vote each time. And I'm not in favor of the—I think the proposal before was every two years you just do the COLA. I'm not in favor of that. But yeah, if we could accomplish that, I think it would be good to make an adjustment upward simply because I just don't want to come back two years from now and now that gap is bigger and bigger and bigger. [8:30] **Councilmember John Bermel:** I have to believe that you can just because of history. As the amendments in '98 and '96 were two different amounts in the two years. So in '98 we approved it for 2000, the Mayor's salary was 858, and then in 2001 it was 879. But I think you had to take a vote to do that each time each year. When I look at the Mayor's salary, I think it's in line with peer cities, so I don't think I'd necessarily be in favor of increasing it. I think the one area to look at would be our like conference budgets. I don't remember where that number is. There's a lot of value in thinking—and I can't think of a time a council person has been to a conference outside of the state—and I think there's value in learning from other places. But I guess this year I probably won't go to Leagues maybe. [10:04] **Councilmember John Bermel:** And I'll say, I frankly was surprised we had a salary when I started last year. So I don't see anything out of line and I would not support an increase either. [10:18] **Councilmember Joshua Lee:** And then I mean, my only question would be too is if we're going to review it every two years, how is that documented? Is that just documented in minutes or is it—we can put it in policies and procedures that we review every year at the retreat? [10:52] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** It doesn't sound like there's strong support for any changes. [11:04] **Courtney (Staff):** Sounds like—I was going to say, do you want that review to happen in the even number of years? [11:04] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** That makes sense. [11:04] **Councilmember Joshua Lee:** It does. [11:04] **Councilmember Michelle Volk:** Or you want it to—no, because it would go in effect after an election, right? I just know sometimes it's sensitive to talk about it in an election. So I'm saying if you bring it up in an odd year, it still takes place after that next election, but it's not as close. It's just that you don't have as accurate information on the surrounding cities at that point then. There's a two-year lag. [11:52] **Councilmember Michelle Volk:** Is it that contentious to really up a salary if you have a basis for it? I don't think so. I think when you say we're at the bottom—we're not—but if we ended up at the bottom for the size city that we are, then you have a rationale as to why you're increasing it, and also documenting how many hours are put in to serve the community. So I do think the City Council is... [inaudible]. [12:38] **Councilmember Michelle Volk:** Honestly, when I looked at it, I thought about how many hours you put in versus what we put in and so that's why it didn't bother me, increasing yours seemed very rational. Not only the hours you put in, but your previous Mayors I had before you. Your role is just much different than ours as far as the things that you—the meetings that you have to attend. Now, if you want to do it differently and have something like some sort of per diem for the type of meetings, constituent meetings that you go to instead of just committee meetings... you know, instead of upping the salary, you probably will get to your salary the same as the suggestion that [Joshua] gave because of the number of meetings you go to. So you might want to think about that. If you were to go back through your calendar over the last year and a half as being Mayor, how many meetings you've taken... [14:09] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** No, I know, but I'm saying the only meetings that are reimbursable are the ones that you approve on that list, right? So it's not like all the citizen meetings and everything like that. [14:09] **Councilmember Michelle Volk:** No, what I'm trying to say is if you were to look at the calendar of meetings that he's had that are outside of the committee meetings, and if you were to tackle a per diem on it, you're probably getting almost to Joshua's [proposed number]. [14:09] **Councilmember Dan Wolter:** Why is Eagan $10,400 like an automatic thing? [14:09] **Courtney (Staff):** You know, I'm not exactly sure on that. There's a couple on here that have like really weird... Eagan, Brooklyn Park. There must be some sort of percentage because of an automatic inflation adjustment. [14:56] **Councilmember Dan Wolter:** Yeah, I guess that too, because everybody else is around two or four. My only other comment—or thought—was to do a similar increase to what our staff received, 3%. Because again, this conversation never gets easier, especially as you get further and further down the comparables because nobody wants to increase large amounts. Residents probably don't like to see that. So yeah, I mean, I think that was reasonable, 3%. [15:42] **Councilmember Michelle Volk:** And you know, I don't have a bone to pick on this, I just want to make sure you think of everything. If you don't do it now, then the next time would be '27 and then you're pushing that nine-year difference again, which we did last time. Honestly, I thought you guys would think about doing something small now. I thought from where they started to where we are today was so small, I thought there must have been some sort of plan. [16:19] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** I think it was based on the average at the time you looked at the comps. I think there's not—3% of $10,000 is what, $10,300? I don't think we have consensus here. [16:19] **Courtney (Staff):** Okay, all right. So what we'll do is we'll bring it back every two years on kind of a regular basis just for discussion and see where we're at comparably to other cities. [16:19] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** Okay, great. Thank you. No, thank you. Sure it's annoying to look at the comparable cities. Okay, we will now get an update on 35/50 from our "Engineer of the Year." This is going to be... Zach? [17:27] **City Engineer Zach Johnson:** [Laughter] I'm going to do my best to summarize about 16 to 18 months of discussions and technical analysis and do a 20-minute update for you, so we'll see how that goes. I'm going to talk about a couple of things today, but I did want to start with just a background. Back in 2021, we received $1.4 million from the state and that was kind of the catalyst to take this project and start it moving. We took about $700,000 of that that was granted to MnDOT and that was used to do a corridor study. The purpose of that is for us to make improvements to the interchange—we had to know what was MnDOT's vision for the entire corridor. Do we build, you know, is it going to be a two-lane bridge, a three-lane bridge? So that was kind of the first 14 to 16 months of this study. [18:54] **City Engineer Zach Johnson:** This was actually prepared by MnDOT. It was their study, they ran it. I'm going to highlight a few things in there, but the study basically looked from Burnsville to Lakeville, from the split to County Road 70, and they kind of broke it into five things following MnDOT's procedure. There were two things for that: first was to understand the corridor needs and then the second was to use that information to give the city and county some direction as to how we can design the interchange at County Road 50. There's a number of factors included in the scope including public engagement, evaluation of existing conditions, forecasted traffic modeling, and then an analysis of corridor concepts. We did not do any pre-environmental work; that was not required as part of this funding grant. [20:25] **City Engineer Zach Johnson:** MnDOT breaks it into three different areas: Primary needs (vehicle safety, vehicle mobility), Secondary needs (bridge condition, pavement condition), and additional considerations (modal access). The long and short is they looked at the corridor and there was evidence that there was congestion and several areas along this stretch that exceeded the critical crash rate. The takeaway is a lot of the accidents were happening at the ramps and that's attributed mostly to short lengths. We don't have those long extended ramps to accelerate or decelerate and therefore about 80% of those crashes were rear-ends and/or run-off-the-road. MnDOT used that more as a localized issue and not necessarily the freeway itself, but they did identify that there is congestion here. [21:12] **City Engineer Zach Johnson:** Level of service: we've talked about this in the past. If we have an "A," that means everybody's flowing continuously; "F" is congestion. You'll see here a number of intersections—Northbound in the morning, Southbound in the PM—that are approaching that D and F capacity if we don't make any improvements. You'll see 70 and 50 and 60 here. Focusing on public engagement: long story short is we had a really good effort. We got over 2,000 people engaged. MnDOT was extremely pleased with the number of folks. Residents' concerns—35% to 80% of them—had congestion, lane issues at ramps, merging, and safety. That would align with what we experience on a regular basis. [22:27] **City Engineer Zach Johnson:** We developed four concepts: One is an Easy Pass lane (HOV), general purpose lanes, auxiliary lanes, and Concept 4 was an interim look at just doing auxiliary lanes between 50 and 60. One of the key points that came out of this study—and one that City Administrator Miller will be able to attest to—is there was a lot of focus initially at Road 50. Commissioner Holberg did an outstanding job, and what we've always indicated is there's a lot of pressure coming from County Road 60 from the west, and MnDOT wasn't necessarily seeing that until we went through this study. As a result of this, they have agreed that the improvements that we make have to extend down to County Road 60. That was new information to MnDOT. That was a definite success. [23:59] **City Engineer Zach Johnson:** However, as you go further south on 70, we didn't quite see the volumes. The pinch point there is kind of at 60 and 50. They looked at different options and where we end up is kind of a blend of two and three. We need to have additional capacity; there's not an existing capacity on the interstate right now. They summarized that Concepts one, two, and three basically are adding capacity, showing benefit from mobility and reliability, and addressing safety concerns. Concept 4 doesn't set us up for long-term success. We did do some estimates, and what you'll see are rather large numbers. We're focusing on a build of somewhere around that $150 million concept. The evaluation was not to give a recommendation; it's really a corridor concept evaluation to provide information to the parties. [25:33] **City Engineer Zach Johnson:** The next steps: identify a "Purpose and Need" evaluation (part of the NEPA process). Closing out the report—I anticipate probably this summer that process will be completed. Again, I think the highlight was MnDOT recognized the need, they expanded their limits down to County Road 60, and they identified that the ramps need to be addressed. Shifting focus: any questions on the corridor study? Concurrent with that, the next step we're working on is the interchange itself. That's what it looks like today. You've all driven it. The pinch point here where there's only one lane, we don't have pedestrian facilities, we have two-lane bridges. What has come out of that study is those bridges are deficient in capacity and structure, so they need to be replaced. Right now it's looking like three lanes in each direction. [27:50] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** Would that allow for widening 50? Because that's also a pinch point underneath. [27:50] **City Engineer Zach Johnson:** Excellent, yes you are correct. Where we are at in the process: on February 9th, the county issued a request for proposal for preliminary engineering. The county was awarded over $5 million in federal money for engineering itself. The goal right now is to use local dollars for the preliminary engineering and then use those federal funds for the final engineering. This was very strategic. We sent it to eight different local consultants. March 8th those RFPs are due. Probably May a contract will be awarded. The goal is to have a geometric layout by February 1st of 2025. The reason for that is in the last legislative session, there was legislation passed called the Greenhouse Gas Emissions law. To preclude ourselves from having that law take place on this intersection—which requires mitigation and millions of dollars in costs—we have to have a layout done by February 1st. [29:21] **City Engineer Zach Johnson:** We are targeting that. Once we get that geometric layout complete, then we would submit that RFP for final engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and construction. Based upon this timeline, we're looking at a 2027 start of construction. I wanted to give you a little bit of an update on funding: we did get that $1.4 million previously. We also received the $5 million from congressionally directed spending. Since then, we've made multiple efforts to get additional dollars. In 2022, we asked for $101 million from the Corridors of Commerce program. We were unsuccessful. Statutory law requires geographical equity between Metro and outstate; we tied with the highest project that did get it, but it was outstate. [31:39] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** It was a lot cheaper? [31:39] **City Engineer Zach Johnson:** Well, if I recall, $5 million cheaper. They won the tie-break. We also made an effort to get federal dollars as part of the IIJA, we requested $160 million, we were unsuccessful. I sat through a debriefing this afternoon on that. To score higher, you need layouts and design and right-of-way. I would expect that as we move forward this summer and fall, we would try that again. [32:26] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** Zach, when we do those applications, do we get letters from our Congressional and Senate [representatives]? [32:26] **City Engineer Zach Johnson:** We do. We have had excellent contributions from our elected officials. We have two open federal attempts: one is the Regional Solicitation through the Met Council ($10 million), and we are also going back to the IIJA for the RAISE grant for $25 million. Just this morning I was notified I got a draft copy of two bills from the reviser: one is a request for $25 million specific to the cost of the interchange, and the second request is $8 million that would go towards County Road 50, local roads, and trails that are off the interstate system. This is our most current layout. You'll see the longer ramps, multimodal facilities, and County Road 50 widened from one lane to almost three or four with an emergency shoulder underneath the freeway. [35:30] **City Engineer Zach Johnson:** This would include replacement of the bridges and also the portion that crosses the railroad to the south. One of the things in the RFP is we are asking for innovation (diverging diamonds, etc.). Lastly, we are working again with our elected officials. The county has prepared a one-page report. Right now we're looking at a Phase 1: replacement of the bridge and local roads, and auxiliary lanes immediately thereafter. We're not looking to do improvements on MnDOT's [mainline] right away; they have a pavement preservation plan for 2029. So about $22 million for the bridge and about $18 million for the local roads like 50 and 170. This would probably be programmed in 2027. Any questions? [37:50] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** Do many of these funds expire? [37:50] **City Engineer Zach Johnson:** There is a sunset date, but it's like 2030 or 2031. We just have to demonstrate a commitment to an advanced project. [38:35] **Councilmember Michelle Volk:** It is a construction question: will both North and South 35 bridges be closed at the same time? [38:35] **City Engineer Zach Johnson:** We haven't gotten to that level of detail. My experience with the Highway 13 bridge was there was always an attempt to keep traffic open. It would be hard to close this completely. We're talking with our neighbors to make sure we are not adding to the inconvenience. [39:21] **Councilmember John Bermel:** People in Lakeville are going to have to stay in Lakeville. [40:07] **Councilmember Dan Wolter:** I notice that the total costs—those are all future costs, right? Because of accounting for what the city has already invested? [40:07] **City Engineer Zach Johnson:** Correct. The funds we have expended today for the right-of-way acquisition for the Burger King and the gas station was about $2 million—it's an interest-free loan through the Met Council. Once we go into right-of-way acquisition, we have to pay that back. [40:53] **Councilmember Michelle Volk:** So Dakota County has these drafted, the requests and everything? [40:53] **City Engineer Zach Johnson:** Correct. Those were drafted by Representative Koznick. [41:11] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** Are there Senate companions yet? [41:11] **City Engineer Zach Johnson:** Not yet. I'll provide Mr. Miller with the copy. It's an exciting project. If we can get success on some of those funding, that would help a lot. [41:11] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** One of those career projects. It could be the "Interim Improvements." [41:11] **City Engineer Zach Johnson:** Felt that way too. Thanks. [41:58] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** Welcome. Let's move on to franchise fee discussion. Courtney? [42:06] **Courtney (Staff):** Well, this is my first time using Story Map, so I'm getting used to it. All right, so under Minnesota Statute 216B.36, cities can impose fees on utility companies that use the public rights-of-way. For the purposes of this presentation, I'm going to talk about a flat-rate approach. The city does have franchise agreements with all four utility providers: CenterPoint, Minnesota Energy, Xcel, and Dakota Electric. This map shows their service area. Electric companies typically structure their fees in four categories: residential, and then three categories for commercial/industrial based on usage. Gas has residential and five categories for commercial/industrial. Instead of saying we're going to impose a certain fee on electric and a certain fee on gas, many cities break it down into these categories so it's more equitable. [43:53] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** Are institutions exempt, like churches or schools? [43:53] **Courtney (Staff):** This is a tool to capture all customers, including ones that are typically exempt. Looking at this chart, you'll see how our market comparable cities have broken down their franchise fees. There are only a handful of Metro cities that don't impose franchise fees—Blaine and Maple Grove are two in this chart. [45:26] **Councilmember Joshua Lee:** Any reason why Apple Valley is the only one that doesn't have gas with Dakota Electric? [45:26] **Courtney (Staff):** When reaching out to some of these cities, they're talking about it right now. My guess is when their franchise was up, they used that as a time to implement it. There are currently 443 commercial accounts and a little over 23,000 residential accounts. This chart here shows if fees were to be assessed at different levels, what total revenue could be expected. [46:11] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** Monthly? [46:11] **Courtney (Staff):** Yes, monthly. So you would see it twice: a $2 charge on your gas bill and a $2 on your electric. [46:56] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** Earlier you mentioned percent—this is a flat rate? [46:56] **Courtney (Staff):** This is a flat rate. In general, it's not based on usage for residential, you're only paying that one rate. But to make it more equitable across commercial/industrial users, they have different categories. That's something the utility companies set to determine how they're paying for the franchise fee that's imposed. [48:30] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** We set the rate. Let's say we wanted to charge a 4% fee on commercial... it's really a la carte. We just did this to show an example of scale. You mentioned the majority of cities are doing a flat fee? [48:30] **Courtney (Staff):** Correct. I think there were only two or three that did the percentage structure. Finance Director Stahl can speak to it too—I think percentage leaves it a little more unpredictable, especially with budgeting, and for the consumers whether their usage is higher or lower in winter or summer. A flat fee would be a little more transparent for the customer. [49:16] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** And is the concept that the city charges the utility, and then the utility passes that on to their customers to collect what the city is owed? [49:16] **Courtney (Staff):** Yeah, it shows up on their monthly bill. When the customer pays the utility company, the company then remits that payment to the city on a quarterly basis. Moving on to some large financial targets: payment management, public safety training facility, and fire station remodels. Franchise fees could help offset these. [50:23] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** I have a policy question: if you set it up where we have franchise fees but then they sunset? We know we want to pay for fire stations, so future councils have to decide. That would be a more appropriate approach in the first place. [50:23] **Courtney (Staff):** Yeah, I don't think the sense is to just grow government for the sake of growing government. Most cities use franchise fees for pavement management because it is an ongoing cost. [51:56] **Councilmember Dan Wolter:** Are these financial targets inclusive of just the mill and overlay projects or full reconstruction? [51:56] **Public Works Director Paul Oehme:** No, these are for crack sealing, patching, small mill and overlay, striping, curb and gutter, sidewalk repair, ADA stuff. Street reconstruction projects are still paid out of a different mechanism. [52:46] **Courtney (Staff):** This next chart shows the construction timeline for the public safety training facility and fire station remodels. If the Council were to go down this route, what would the target look like? [53:32] **Councilmember Michelle Volk:** Just so I get it straight in my mind, Courtney: the previous chart for the fire station, that's if it was bonded and that was to pay the debt on it? [53:32] **Courtney (Staff):** Yes, that's the amount to levy to cover the debt. If the Council wishes to move forward, staff would be in preliminary communications with the four utility providers. The city would then need to adopt an ordinance with each service provider. We'd notify the PUC and allow time for utility companies to implement the fees—it could happen as fast as 90 days. [54:35] **Councilmember Joshua Lee:** I just want to verify: when you implement a franchise fee, that applies to every structure? So places like a school or a church that isn't necessarily paying property taxes on land, that fee would still apply? [54:35] **Courtney (Staff):** Yes, that includes government buildings too. [55:50] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** I mean, my thoughts are clearly we have some long-term financial liability. We're getting to a point where we're starting to think about being fully developed, so revenue like permit fees start to dwindle. How do we meet that financial demand without putting it all on the property tax? My perspective is if we have very specific things—Public Safety Training, fire stations, pavement management—I'm supportive of the idea. It's just: what is the right level and for what length? To me, 10 years makes sense. [56:55] **Finance Director Julie Stahl:** Well, these are 20-year bonds. [56:55] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** One way to look at it is if you fund pavement management, you're taking $2 million off the levy that you can then use for those next items. And part of it too is there are nonprofit entities in the city that use resources. To me, it's figuring out the right amount. I think it's not out of the realm to be between $4 and $6, maybe $5 in between on the residential. [58:27] **Councilmember Michelle Volk:** Okay, let's just pick the number $5 because I can take that times 12 easily—$60 a year from a residential. Are their taxes going to go down $60? So this is a wash? The fee they're getting on their gas and electric is offset by the property taxes that we would not charge them? [58:27] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** No, but there's a decent chance it would be less than if we had to levy it all because there are more payers. If you have a multi-family building, they pay one property tax. If you have 10 meters, they're all paying a franchise fee. You're widening the pie. [1:00:01] **Councilmember Michelle Volk:** I'm looking for the talking point that is going to be necessary when they start getting their bills. What's the benefit to me? [1:00:01] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** You and I, as property taxpayers, would pay less into a fire station on a franchise fee model because there are more people paying in. If you have a $100 bill and five people paying, it's cheaper than four people paying. [1:00:47] **Councilmember Joshua Lee:** When I initially looked at this, I had a lot of the same questions. But what I see is that the public safety training facility and the fire stations are things that apply to the entire public. If we went just to the levy, there are people that are high-end users who aren't putting money into that. It does help pay for things and it will help the levy. [1:01:34] **Councilmember Joshua Lee:** Could this be a strategy for working with other adjacent cities to say, "You're all using this public safety facility... do you want a stake in this for some of the bond increase?" [1:02:21] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** I think the conversation with other cities is more on the ongoing yearly expenditures and less on the capital. We're pursuing more state funding for the capital. [1:03:07] **Councilmember Dan Wolter:** I don't know that the regional public safety facility fits into the rationale for where franchise fees on Lakeville residents should be applied. [1:03:52] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** That's fair. But if we go through the traditional bonding model instead of cash, we have to come up with a match. At a minimum, coming up with the host portion—we'd have to come up with $8 million. Just a reminder, we already do have franchise fees on cable bills. [1:04:38] **Councilmember Dan Wolter:** Those accounts are amazing. Now I think all streaming is going back to cable. [1:04:38] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** It sounds like we think it's a good idea, but the dollar amount is where we need to figure it out. What was the total if we did the fire stations? [1:05:23] **Courtney (Staff):** You're looking between $2 million to $4 million in debt service if you did all the fire stations. [1:05:37] **Councilmember Michelle Volk:** Why does the industrial get capped out? [1:05:37] **Courtney (Staff):** Those were numbers I just plugged in based on other cities. [1:06:47] **Councilmember Michelle Volk:** The last time we had a conversation, we weren't all committed to building at least two new fire stations. [1:06:47] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** Has this gone to the finance committee at all? [1:07:16] **Councilmember John Bermel:** I’m the "fake chair" of the finance committee. We have a meeting tomorrow night to talk about it. [1:08:07] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** I would like some other input. I'd say knowing that you guys feel comfortable, we as a council direct the finance committee to come up with a recommendation based on what's in this schematic. Does that make sense? [1:08:52] **Councilmember Dan Wolter:** Are you looking for a general direction for a number or a goal? Pavement management? Fire stations? [1:08:52] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** To me, the financial goal that makes the most sense is pavement management and fire station remodels. [1:09:37] **Councilmember Michelle Volk:** Maybe I'm not thinking correctly, but this still doesn't solve the problem of going further in debt. It's just a way to pay for the debt. My question to the finance people would be: how do franchise fees look to Moody's when they're looking at our ratings since we went further in debt? [1:10:25] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** I would defer to the experts. If we had a dedicated source, that would reflect positively. [1:10:25] **Courtney (Staff):** Pavement management is not debt. You wouldn't be issuing debt for that; this would just be money for maintenance. [1:11:11] **Councilmember John Bermel:** Michelle, you identified something we've talked about on the committee regarding how the debt level of the city interacts with the credit rating. It'll all fit together and this is a component piece of that. We'd like to have a couple of months to look at this and come back and present our thoughts. [1:12:41] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** It sounds like the Council is okay going in the direction of franchise fees. [1:12:52] **City Administrator Justin Miller:** This is not a one-month discussion with Xcel and Dakota Electric. So, while I understand why the finance committee wants a couple of months, they'll need to start working faster than that if we want this in place by January. [1:12:52] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** I think we're okay going in the direction of franchise fees. We can start the "bones" and the ordinance. Items for future discussion? [1:13:40] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** The only thing I had—if you've been following this new piece of legislation related to housing that is huge and all-encompassing—it would have unbelievable ramifications for our city and how we grow. It basically takes our entire power away from any type of land use. I'm asking staff to get creative on how we can react. [1:14:25] **Councilmember Michelle Volk:** Just a little update on the arenas: they're looking to get an extended warranty on the outdoor rink and they're also going to be sending out an RFP for naming rights. He's doing really well in concessions and selling ice. [1:15:57] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** I’d be curious if we sold more indoor ice because there was no outdoor ice. [1:15:57] **Councilmember Michelle Volk:** No, he's just doing better in general. He's coming up with creative ways like a "Mites" tournament. [1:16:47] **Councilmember Joshua Lee:** Public Safety Committee: we had a good opportunity to talk through recruitment. Applicant pools are stellar, but it is a big hiring year for police and fire. We talked about equipment needs—police vehicles and an upcoming fire engine. [1:17:33] **Councilmember Michelle Volk:** Have you guys had conversations with the fire department about moving to this "Duty Crew" and expanding the radius for fire stations to recruit? [1:18:21] **Councilmember Joshua Lee:** I asked that question last week. The answer was "not yet." Part of my question was about changing it to a timed response instead of a mile radius. [1:18:21] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** The distance is a proxy for how long it takes them to get to the station. I think our Chief feels strongly that keeping that radius as-is for now is important to meet our targets. [1:19:09] **Councilmember Dan Wolter:** I had that Dakota 911 board meeting. Routine business. "Citizen web reporting" may possibly come the second half of this year. It means a citizen would be able to report something to 911 that's routine using the internet. The director also talked about the 911 outage—they're still investigating. It was a weather-related outage due to tornadoes in the Madison, Wisconsin area. [1:20:41] **Councilmember Michelle Volk:** I just found it interesting that Dakota County, one of the largest counties, gets hit but the other four were very small. [1:20:41] **Councilmember Dan Wolter:** It's just who your provider is. There is a backup pathway to Ramsey County, but something happened. This is being looked at by the Department of Public Safety and federal people. The third thing is the fixed cost discussion continues. The highlights are that the county pays fixed costs... [inaudible]. [1:22:58] **Councilmember Michelle Volk:** Is the county backing off on wanting to move forward up to the 50%? [1:22:58] **Councilmember Dan Wolter:** I’m on a group discussion on that. [1:23:44] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** I think if there would have been something hyper-critical, we would have known. Definitely some work to do. Our next meeting is next Monday at 6:36 PM. I'll take a motion to adjourn. [1:25:05] **Councilmembers:** Second. All in favor say Aye. [1:25:05] **Mayor Luke Hellier:** Motion carries.