This transcript has been formatted with speaker names and timestamps based on the context provided and the dialogue within the meeting. **[00:00] John Monge (Mayor):** Could you please do take roll? **[00:03] Staff (Likely Jennie Kloos):** Council member Woods [transcribed as Cole]? **[00:04] Troy Woods (Council Member):** Here. **[00:05] Staff:** Councilmember Schweer [transcribed as Schwier]? **[00:06] Cassidy Schweer (Council Member):** Here. **[00:07] Staff:** Council member McKenzie [transcribed as Wong]? **[00:08] Dave McKenzie (Council Member):** Here. **[00:09] Staff:** Councilmember Nordby? **[00:10] Jason Nordby (Council Member):** Here. **[00:11] Staff:** Mayor Monge [transcribed as Mangy]? **[00:12] John Monge (Mayor):** Here. Yeah, didn't know where the wire was coming from. The agenda next—you want to go through or do you want to... yeah, go ahead, take from here. **[00:18] Brian Frandle (City Manager):** Thank you. So moved. Second. Okay, I know if we had to read it before we adopted—sorry, no, no, I'm still learning. Yep. All right, thank you, Mayor. Um, tonight's topic is the community center discussion. Kind of the background is staff's been working with the Wold Architect Group and lobbyists from Larkin and Hoffman on the community center project. Wold will present on their draft feasibility analysis to improve the facility. Larkin Hoffman will provide an overview of their efforts to lobby state and local government for potential funding to support the city's efforts in revitalizing the community center. Brandy will start off with just a quick timeline of what we've seen with the community center to get us up to now, and I'll turn it over to Brandy, our Community Development Director, please. **[00:54] Brandy (Community Development Director):** There was some questions from our new council members as to some of the background of the community center, so I took some time doing some research—because it's fairly new to me, too—how this building came to be and, you know, how it came to be where it is today. So I looked at old lease agreements, city council meeting minutes, packets since the beginning of time, and whatever other files I could find in the folder. So it's a really a rather quick timeline prep, so I don't have a ton of details on these items. If you have questions that we need to dig into, I can do that at a later time. But what I know is that the community center was built in '91-'92 primarily as a fitness and recreation facility, and it was doing well in that capacity until about I think around 2000 when there was some concerns with maybe membership quantities. There were some renovations—I'm not entirely sure what they were—in 2004 and 2007 in the amount of 2.8 million. There was a focus group that our former Mayor Furlong was on in 2009, and I believe that the purpose of that was to try to determine how to better serve the needs of citizens in a digital format versus paper, sort of dealing with memberships. Then in 2010, the school district entered into an agreement to operate the Polar Den, which was a coffee shop and a commercial baking class. Then in 2010, the county library entered into an agreement with the city as well. At that time, they contributed for the design and the construction of the library portion of the building, and that lease agreement is in place still, and it will terminate in 2030. A Joint Powers Agreement was put into place between the city and Maplewood for recreation programming in 2010. In 2012 is when the City Council started to take a hard look at the facility in terms of what it cost, what it was bringing in, and some of the deferred maintenance items. There was also a policy city-wide that was kind of put on the books that was intended to reduce overall expenditures by $250,000 each year over three years. And so in 2012, the way they did that was by reducing or eliminating two police officers, and then 2013 was when they focused on the community center. The city then prepared an economic assessment report that was put together by an intern at the time, and that ultimately recommended the repurposing of that facility. And then from there, they explored repurposing the community center and they engaged with the school district as a potential leaseholder. Then in 2013, the school district entered into a lease with the city. So the intended uses of that lease were after-school activities, recreation, service learning, adult education, and other community-type partnerships like the scouts or others. And that lease, I guess, vacated or terminated in 2014; that's when the school district vacated the property. And then it was turned over to Ability Academic Athletics, which I believe is the hockey facility. Okay, and so they held a lease for a couple of years and then they sublet to Kokoro Volleyball. Kokoro Volleyball has its own sublease with a holistic wellness [group]. In 2017, the hockey association's lease terminated—or they asked to terminate it before it was done for a fee of $25,000, so they got out of it by paying. An appraisal was done in 2019 and it was valued at that point for 2.4 million. A couple of purchase offers came in, one from Shivsky’s for $950,000. Kokoro had an unofficial offer to purchase the building; it was very detailed and it had a lot of "here's what the expenditures are for the city, here's what the taxation could be." It wasn't an official offer, though, so I'm just kind of putting this in here as an FYI. If you want to have more information, I can provide it. But ultimately, the City Council in 2021 decided that we should keep the building and not sell it, and that was approved by a 4-1 vote. And since then, last fall, we have engaged Wold to prepare a facility assessment, which they'll present momentarily, and then we've also engaged with lobbyists from Larkin and Hoffman, and they're lobbying for us on our behalf to see if we can get some funding from the state and federal government for improvements to the building. That is all I have. Any questions for me? **[04:20] Troy Woods (Council Member):** Do we... for '91-'92, what's the original price for the community center? Do we know? **[04:25] Brandy (Community Development Director):** I don't have that information on the build price. Yeah, the whole to it... sorry, I don't have that. **[04:29] Brian Frandle (City Manager):** It’s like 1.4 or something like that. Does that sound about right? Close? Yeah. **[04:34] Troy Woods (Council Member):** 2004 to 2007, 2.8 [million] was put into it. I guess we're going with the proposal. Does that sound, Brian? **[04:45] Brian Frandle (City Manager):** Okay. I don't remember that. **[04:47] Brandy (Community Development Director):** I think I pulled that factoid from another PowerPoint presentation about the timeline of the community center, so I didn't have any hard document to really put that number down. **[04:54] Troy Woods (Council Member):** Thank you. Appreciate it. **[04:56] Brandy (Community Development Director):** You're welcome. **[04:58] Paige Sullivan (Wold Architects):** Hi, hello. Welcome. Thank you. Thank you guys for having me, Mayor and Council. All right, we're up on screen. Wonderful. So, as Brandy mentioned... oh, yep, sorry. Thank you. Paige Sullivan from Wold Architects and Engineers. Thank you. And as Brandy mentioned, we were brought on by the city to complete a facility assessment and do some long-range planning for the community center. So today, what we're going to go through—since we've been meeting now with the core group since about the October/November time frame—we want to give you guys all an update about what we've, you know, come to understand about the facility. So we're going to review some guiding principles that we created as a group to kind of give us set standards for the process moving forward so we have something to always go back and check our work, make sure we're sticking to these goals and guiding principles. We're going to go through a brief overview of the facility assessment that we completed. We're going to talk about the engagement strategy, which is kind of our next steps on this process in the long-range planning. We're going to give a quick schedule update and then talk about next steps. Please stop me—I'm just going to go through—but please stop me if you have any questions at all. To start out: the goals and guiding principles. So as a group, we kind of work together to understand what we want to get out of this process, what the community center should be. Goal number one is the true cost of operating the facility must match or exceed the community's interest; it must be justifiable to City's residents. Number two is the facility should promote the potential Parks and Recreation Department and become an asset that they could then manage and operate. And then the third one would be the project should build on the momentum of the resident engagement sessions to create relevant and usable community space. So we've heard that those sessions have been really wonderful and we're hoping to continue some of those sessions as well for this long-range planning. Looking at the facility assessment: members from Wold—we've got architects, mechanical engineers, and electrical engineers—we all went out to the community center with Ron and really walked through the whole space. We looked at some plans beforehand so we were prepared, and then we just kind of looked around and made a huge list of everything that we saw. So some of those things that we saw from an architectural site and exterior standpoint: I'm sure a lot of you are aware of the failures that are occurring at the exterior envelope. So there's a, you know, quite a few holes and the exterior insulation system is starting to fail in numerous spots. There's an original roof to the facility that needs to be replaced; it's at the end of its useful life. A lot of the glazing systems—the windows, curtain walls—are starting to fail as well, which is causing a lot of water penetration into the facility. And then there's some just minor brick repair and tuck-pointing; some of the masonry on the building is starting to crumble slightly, so it needs to be maintained. There's some water penetration there as well that's starting to show, and actually some of the holes in the exterior are allowing animals and rodents to get into the facility. Ron and his team is doing a great job of dealing with some of that. At the interior of the building: a lot of cosmetic issues that you know you'd kind of expect to see in a facility that's been as used as this one over the years. So, you know, casework, flooring, all showing signs of wear. As you'll see from these couple images on the screen, there is water damage that is visible at the ceilings. This is what you see, you know, at the ceilings, but then above that ceiling, there is water penetration visible there as well. There's damage to the gymnasium floor that we've received photos of and we've heard that that is now covered by the gym flooring, but that's pretty significant that's there. And then just, you know, normal wear and tear on the building and non-ADA accessible spaces as well that, you know, could cause issues in the future. More kind of at a grander scale: the mechanical systems. Although Ron and his team and the city have done a lot of work repairing and keeping things going, there are some larger mechanical items that are going to come up soon. The building automation system is one of those items, and then the aging rooftop units and distribution of ductwork—all aging and will need to be maintained moving forward. The electrical systems as well: there has been a move towards LED in the facility, but we need to look at all of the lighting to be replaced with LED and low voltage controls. Although the gymnasium has been done, there's still several areas that have not been updated yet. And then there's just some required maintenance on some of the emergency power systems and different electrical equipment that's in the facility. Looking at all this information, as I mentioned, we have a list of everything that we saw. We went through with the core group and we prioritized. You know, what needs to be done in zero to two years, we talk about being a Priority One. So those items are, you know, life safety issues that need to be completed right away. We did not find any of those major life safety issues, so that is a good thing. But then deteriorating items: if you let something go and it's going to further cause damage to other areas of the building, those things you want to take care of right away. So that would be in this Priority One, zero to two-year time frame. Health issues: rooms with no ventilation would be something that would want to be done immediately. And then accessibility issues that go along with accessing the building, and then circulation within the building and restrooms and things like that that the public would come in contact with right away. Those things are all things you want to address right away. Then we go to Priority Two items. So those are a little bit, you know, less critical to be done immediately; it's just kind of one step below there. So we're talking things like energy items that would result in a payback of 10 years or less, systems costs that would require maintenance or replacement within five years, and then just some modernization comes here as well in this Level Two, Priority Two category. Then we go further into a Priority Three, which would be the six to 10-year time frame. So what we're doing here is we're kind of setting up a 10-year plan, if you will. The things that you'd want to get done in the six to 10-year time frame would be system upgrades—energy system upgrades that would require payback in or result in a payback of more than 10 years—and then material costs or materials and systems that currently function but would require replacement in that six to 10-year time frame. Health issues that might not have been flagged by health code but would want to be addressed would occur here as well, and then removal of any items affected by other changes occurring would all happen in that Priority Three time frame. And then Priority Four items are the aesthetic items—things that really aren't affecting how the building functions, but, you know, you want your building to look nice, obviously. So those things would all be in that Priority Four category. And then moving forward: now that we've completed that phase... you know, we've completed the phase but it's still kind of a work in progress because although we've identified all of these things, the laundry list of things that the building needs, until you know what program is going to go in the building, how the building's going to function, it's not really realistic to just say we're going to tackle all of these things right now. So now this second phase of the project is kind of the long-range planning. And so at this point, what we've done is we have worked together with the core group to identify potential users of the space. Who's going to be most likely to maybe rent out space or hold community events in this space? So we've started to identify potential partners and so we've worked together to create a list based on current business owners in the City of North St Paul. And then we've gone through and kind of given a level of interest that we would think that people would have, these potential users. And then our plan would be to go out and meet with these potential users and talk with them about the space and generate some ideas really about what they would use in a community center, what they could see that the community might need. After that, once we have a list, once we've met with all of these groups, we would expect that we would probably come back to Council and, you know, present again based on what we've just identified. That's kind of an optional thing, so we just have it on there as optional because we could then go straight to what we're calling—and what we've heard as—the Community Inspiration Forum. At that point, once we've identified what spaces that we think would make sense in the community center, then we could bring it to the community and really have the community come in, let us know if those spaces are of interest to them and how they would use those spaces to get people excited. So it's, you know, we were setting up a framework of what the facility could be and then we're inviting people to come and comment on that. And then there'd be further engagement with Council and the core group throughout the whole process that we're doing that. So our next steps since we've got the facility assessment behind us would be identifying the possible use. That would be through those outreach meetings that I just mentioned and then further core group discussions. Once we have these possible uses, we would look at programming and assessing the needs of the facility based on that new programming. And then we'd work on some options development, which I'm sure is what everyone really wants to see is: what's this going to look like? So then we could do an additional workshop at that time to present some of the options that we come up with. We could then bring those to the Community Inspiration Forum to get feedback from the community once we have something for them to really see and dig their teeth into. Then we'd foresee probably another Council workshop as I mentioned. Then we'd understand budget really at that point; once we have a use and "here's what the facility could be," then we can identify exactly what needs to be done to make it usable for the program. And then ultimately, it'd be a Council approval to move forward with whatever we come up with during those community inspiration and outreach meetings. Looking at a draft schedule of what that would all mean: we started the core planning meetings, kind of kicked things off in October of 2022, and we've been meeting pretty consistently through these last several months. Use identification—we kind of started that, that's kind of what the building could be possibly used for—kind of started that in December, and then we are planning to keep moving that forward through April. That would include some of those, you know, community outreach meetings and user/potential partner meetings. That brings us then to this Council update, which is the March 2023 Council update. We would expect that we would have design concepts ready in about May of this year, then be able to hold public engagement around June of this year, revise things and re-engage in July, and then ultimately Council approval in August of this year. That is what we have for you today, so I'm happy to go back to anything or hear questions. **[11:00] John Monge (Mayor):** Any questions anyone? Good job, Paige, thank you. **[11:05] Jason Nordby (Council Member):** Thank you. Thanks, very good. So then we'll be broken down as far as to get up to a certain level and then what the programs are going to be? Because it sounds to me like there's system things no matter what to get it up to a building that is workable as far as ventilation and everything else, and then the other part of it is to figure out what's going to happen if there's remodeling for certain programs or things. **[11:28] Paige Sullivan (Wold Architects):** Correct. Correct, yes. **[11:31] Dave McKenzie (Council Member):** Three of us are new as far as council members, so yes, we weren't involved in your price... is that a total bid for this? Is this the package bid for them to do the analysis here? **[11:43] Brian Frandle (City Manager):** Okay. **[11:44] Paige Sullivan (Wold Architects):** Yes. The long-range planning and the facility assessment, all of that was packaged under our scope of work. So, you know, we're done with the facility assessment part, but what comes next is really going to inform what needs to be done from the facility assessment standpoint right away. And like you mentioned, you know, once you start tearing down walls and whatnot, some of that facility maintenance/deferred maintenance items gets eaten up in a potential construction project because once you're tearing down walls you're affecting ceilings and all the kind of aesthetic things are going to get addressed at that point. Mechanical systems then fall into that realm as well. Exterior envelope, that kind of stuff, that would be something that as long as you're not touching the exterior, those numbers might not change. But as far as anything on the interior, those are going to really depend on what's going in there. **[12:35] Dave McKenzie (Council Member):** And part of the proposal is to have something alongside the building that the animals can't get into? As far as not the same stuff that's on there now? **[12:44] Paige Sullivan (Wold Architects):** We've... yes, we have discussed that and that's what we are looking at in our facility assessment. We did provide numbers for a metal panel instead of the exterior insulation system that's on there currently, because repairing that is pretty difficult. It can be done, but it's pretty difficult and, you know, animals got in there once—they might be able to get in there again. So based on discussions that we had with the core planning group, we decided to look at a metal panel solution instead. So the numbers that we have in our facility assessment right now do look at replacing with metal panel. **[13:20] Dave McKenzie (Council Member):** Thank you. **[13:21] Cassidy Schweer (Council Member):** Any other questions? Just want to thank you for your presentation. I know you've been working with us for, you know, a while now and I really appreciate your engagement strategies and efforts. I really look forward to what the community has to say—I think we've heard some before—but definitely looking forward to how they're going to shape this. So thank you. **[13:38] Paige Sullivan (Wold Architects):** Yes, thank you so much. Thanks. **[13:42] Brian Frandle (City Manager):** Thanks, Paige. Next up we'd like to have Larkin and Hoffman. We have Grady here to speak to that. Welcome, Grady. **[13:58] Grady Harm (Larkin Hoffman):** Mr. Mayor, Council members. Grady Harm with Larkin Hoffman, and Margaret Vessel, our Director of Government Relations. Just giving you a brief update today on the current status of where things are at the legislature. I'm sure some of you have followed the press, but we are kind of on the ground every day and want to give you a quick update on that, and then we'll talk about the bills that we have introduced for the city and kind of the next steps there. So I'll turn it over to Margaret. **[14:26] Margaret Vessel (Larkin Hoffman):** Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council members. Again, Margaret Vessel, Director of Government Relations with Larkin Hoffman. It's a pleasure to be here this evening. We are your representation at the Minnesota State Capitol. So I'm just going to go kind of high-level and then I'll turn it over to Grady and he could talk about the bills specific. As you may all know, session started on June—January. It feels like June! January 3rd of this year. At that time, we had a budget surplus of $17.6 billion. A lot of that was one-time money, but it certainly meant that the state was in good economic health and everyone was encouraged what that meant. And then, of course, with the elections in November, we had what people are calling the "trifecta." So the Governor, Governor Walz, is of the Democrat Party; the Senate has a one-vote majority for Democrats in the Senate; and then the House has a five-vote majority with Democrats being in charge. So all three bodies are controlled by the Democrats, and I will say they hit the ground running. If I look tired, it's because I am. We have passed a ridiculous amount of bills in a very, very short time. As of I think as of yesterday, there were over 2,700 bills introduced between either body. That is probably numbers that we've not seen ever before. It's just... they're introducing a ton of bills and the bills are being moved and heard and moved out of committee. I would argue that they're moving bills at a rate of four times as fast as they have in years past. So again, it's a pace that people are struggling to keep up with, but the reality is that this new group that has kind of taken over is raring to go and they really are hungry to get some things done. And we did see that in the month of January they passed four major bills. So now we kind of are in the committee process. The February forecast came out at the end of February and that revealed that we have a $17.5 billion budget surplus. That number might sound weird, but actually we did gain some money, but in the first time in over 20 years, the state is now accounting for inflation. So we actually had about a $1.5 billion addition to our surplus, but because of the accounting for inflation, they will be using 17.5 to balance the budget and pass a bill by the end of May. First bill deadline is actually this Friday—March 10th. And that means that a bill has to be out of a policy committee in one body by the end of this month. A way that they've kind of gotten around that is a lot of the committees are finance committees, so this is really relating to policy only. If you have a pure policy bill, you would have to be out of one body in either the House or the Senate by this Friday. The second bill deadline is actually in 14 days after that, so the 24th of March. Again, that would be a policy bill that would have to be out of all policy committees. Technically, after the 24th, policy committees should be shutting down, but again many if not all are both finance and policy committees, so I suspect that we'll still have the same number of hearings or committees meeting, I should say. And then third bill deadline, which is when they have to pass out their Omnibus bills out of the respective committees, is April 4th. That is the Tuesday before Passover, which I believe Passover begins at dusk on the 4th. So they'll be on break; it's traditionally a spring break. Typically we have usually like a 10-day spring break for lobbyists and legislators; this year that was kind of cut down, so we'll be back on the 11th. At that point, my guess is they'll be moving bills off of the floor and going into a conference committee type scenario, which is also going to be new because due to COVID and just how things have worked in the last three to four years, we haven't seen the traditional conference committee process where they've actually sat down, went through the side-by-sides, and worked out the differences in public. So this will be a newer experience for some of the newer lobbyists and certainly for the new legislators. Yesterday or last night, you might have read the House was able to pass out their bonding bill packages. They had two bills: the GO bill, which is the General Obligation bill, was about $1.5 billion and it passed by 91 to 43. That bill needs a supermajority to pass in both bodies. And then they had a cash bill as well, and that bill was about $393 million. That bill is just a simple majority that you need to pass, and that bill actually passed with 98 to 36. So those bills will now go to the Senate. And I don't know again if you've been watching the news at all, the Senate Republicans did a press conference within the last couple of days where they said that they are not going to put up any votes for a general obligation bill until they get kind of a tax relief package for all Minnesotans. So what that means is the seven votes that are needed in the Senate from the Republicans are being hung up, if you will. So bonding at this time is certainly uncertain. The plan was—because of last year's, I'll call it a meltdown, but just things just kind of falling apart at the end of last session and them not passing a bonding bill—there's a number of projects that has a backlog. And so they wanted to do an early bill and then do a second bill at the end of this session. Now the reality is, my guess is they will negotiate one big bill towards the end of the session and it'll be part of kind of a larger package. So I don't anticipate us seeing a General Obligation bonding bill, however we could see them pass the cash bill pretty easily if they wanted to because again, that's a simple majority. They are constitutionally mandated to adjourn on May 22nd, so there is some time. There is talks of them maybe finishing early; I will tell you in my 25-plus years, I think I've only seen it once and it's only been by days. So we'll see if they can accomplish that, but it'll be certainly an interesting time to not only be a lobbyist but to be a legislator and city government because everything they do impacts the things that you do. With that, I'll turn over to Grady to talk about your bills. **[19:28] Grady Harm (Larkin Hoffman):** Thanks, Margaret. Mr. Mayor and Council members, as Margaret said, this bonding bill that passed last night for the most part was primarily bills items that didn't get done last session. So we'll be working to try and work on the two bills that we have introduced for you to incorporate them into the final bill that's passed. I'll talk a little bit about the two bills that we worked with Brian and with Brandy and Craig to draft up. One is a bill for the community center—the North St. Paul Community Multicultural Outreach Center. Currently, the bill language is for $4 million appropriation either in General Obligation bonds or cash. We are continuing to meet—both bills have been introduced, they have bill numbers in both the House and the Senate. The Senate author is Senator Xiong and then the House author on both bills is Representative Lilly. So we're continuing to work with them as we get through this process to refine our requests. If we have any changes, there will be opportunities to go in and amend some of the language, so we'll continue to work with the city to address those points. The second bill that we have introduced is for the trail, and that's currently for a $5 million request for the Silver Lake Trail. And again, we'll continue to work with the city to further refine that request as we have more information. I think just to touch base a little bit on some of the other efforts: we had both authors into the city and we talked about the projects, developed with Brandy and Brian two-pagers on the project that we're marketing throughout the legislature. And we are looking forward—we've got where Senator Pappas, who's the chair of the bonding committee, will be touring a different project in a different city near here. The date was rescheduled due to the blizzard a few weeks ago and so we're working to try and get her to drop by the city for a quick briefing to talk about our bills. Additionally, there will be opportunities as we go forward to engage the Council and the Mayor if we want to either attend committee meetings... there will be some hearings. Typically in the bonding committees they're brief, so it's about a two-minute presentation on your project, but we'll be keeping you in the loop as we have opportunities to do that. Lastly, just a little bit on the federal request is we have Megan Knight on our team in DC. We've been working to put together a request for a congressional spending request; I believe that amount is $3 million, and we recently had a call with Council member Wong [McKenzie] and Brian and Brandy—I guess the whole team—and the Chief of Staff to Congresswoman McCollum to talk about the importance of this request. With that, I guess turn it over to you guys for any questions that we can address. **[22:04] John Monge (Mayor):** A quick question. I was kind of curious—of that 2,700 bills that they're introduced, is that all new for this year or was that everything that was in the queue as well? **[22:15] Margaret Vessel (Larkin Hoffman):** Mr. Mayor and Council members, yes, those are brand new bills. So we are in what's known as the first year of the biennium. So the bills that get introduced this year will be live for this year and next year, but anything that was introduced last year is, for lack of a better term, dead. So these are all brand new bills that have been introduced. You know, keep in mind the legislature had a huge turnover and so there are 70-some new members that have really hit the ground running, as I said earlier. And so these are, yeah, some of them are ideas that have rolled over because not a lot of things happened at the end of last session, but certainly there are a lot of new ideas that have come up as well. **[22:58] John Monge (Mayor):** Thank you for your work. I know that there's a lot going on, it sounds like, and you know, crossing my fingers and thanks for your work again. **[23:08] Margaret Vessel (Larkin Hoffman):** Thank you. And it's been a pleasure to work with you guys and we look forward to keeping you up to speed and seeking any opportunities to get you in front of members of the legislature to push forward these projects. **[23:20] Brian Frandle (City Manager):** Thank you. Thank you. Time for dinner? Nothing further, Mayor. **[23:23] John Monge (Mayor):** Do we want to have a discussion a little bit more about the community center? **[23:28] Dave McKenzie (Council Member):** Okay. We're new, so any information you can give us... as far as there's a community center with animals in it that Ron is... a summer-friendly, he's a zookeeper as well? **[23:43] John Monge (Mayor):** [Laughs] So when I think of some... as far as the community center, I was looking at these numbers, hopefully get some more answers on that just to kind of get an idea of what it was originally. You know, when we come time to understand numbers back and forth, what original—what that 2.8 was during that time just to kind of get an idea of where it’s at. Troy [transcribed as Tim], you were on the meeting as far as with Wold—is there anything else you would think would be good to bring up at this time? You think about that but... **[24:12] Troy Woods (Council Member):** I think from day one Lisa and I have been on the community center in some aspect or another, whether it have been working with its current tenant to negotiate a lease to determine the value of the property, to take a look at costs to repair, to band-aid, to... all the way down to demolish. We went through, as Brandy pointed out, two offers that were put forward, and neither one of them were incredibly feasible for the city at the time based on what the value of the property is worth. The property does hold the generator for Public Works, is that right? As well as the wiring—the fiber optics—as well as there is a 30-year lease with the county that they believe they give us a dollar a year for the property, but in turn they had invested money into the construction of the building to the space that they utilize. In the event that we in essence break our lease with them or don't provide additional space, I think the numbers have floated around anywhere between a half a million and three-quarters of a million dollars that the city would be liable for. I don't remember where we settled, but do you remember? **[25:35] John Monge (Mayor):** Yeah, I mean we've got a lot of time and energy into it. I really haven't drawn a conclusion as to what the community center may or may not look like going forward. The project of Wold, in fact, somewhat was done in reverse of how they normally do things due to legislative session, due to the need to attempt to get bills introduced to gain and garner funding for it. They completely flip-flopped it. Usually the money comes at the end, but it was recognized and identified that there was a budget surplus within the state. So that's kind of why it's been done in reverse. And so we are now really just getting into the proper process in which they go through to determine the feasibility, the need, who the tenants would be, what the community looks for. And I do know that they had one, if not more, community meetings. One of them was here and it was very well attended and the overwhelming desire was to retain—it might not be *this* community center, but *a* community center within the community. It was deemed as an asset. So whether it be this building or another building located within the city, the residents' desire is to maintain something. And so what I think Wold is helping us do right now is identify what that building or what that facility would look like, what its uses would look like. And it was unfortunate that we kind of got the cart in front of the horse and started looking at the dollars before we determined the need and the usage. **[27:18] Cassidy Schweer (Council Member):** I would say also one thing to note too is we do have a current tenant and their lease is up in June, I believe. So that's something also to remember as well—is the lease annually? Do we renew it every year? **[27:32] Dave McKenzie (Council Member):** Not exactly sure. He's actually building a new building in Lake Elmo, the guy who's leasing it now. So when I talked to him—I did a little tour over there—when I talked to him, it would be if he expands his program to men's volleyball, there may be a need for it during the summer. So it wouldn't be a real counted-on lease I don't think right now. Actually, at this point, we are going to lose our tenant on a full capacity. Does it sound like that to you? You agree? **[27:58] Brian Frandle (City Manager):** Yes. **[27:59] Dave McKenzie (Council Member):** Moving forward, he would just want to rent actual volleyball space. Right now, he takes the upstairs and the downstairs with the chiropractor and they have workout rooms; this would strictly be for their team coming in and using the just the volleyball courts. **[28:13] John Monge (Mayor):** When I was out campaigning, of course this is a hot topic to talk about out there because as far as understanding how when it was built, the position, where it was built at—being kind of wedged in a corner like that and the weird shape of the lot—and just having to pull the plug on it in 2012 as a regular community center. There's been quite a bit of feedback back and forth when out there. So as a council, me being a new politician, I understand we're coming in as far as this project's been going on, but you know, we'll all have to look at it with being able to figure out the numbers and understand where it's at because it's something where we're inheriting but we just have to get caught up with it. So I'm glad we got this information today. I want to ask if this process that they did is a bid, which I thought I remember hearing it was. So it's understanding and just seeing what the need is for it. There's a need of a couple other places that have thought maybe a different community project can happen inside that building. But it's to get the building up to—in my mind, the way I look at it, and I did a tour and I did sit in one time for your meeting when you were out, and I'm the one that actually brought up that siding because the squirrels were going through it. You can't really... it needs to have some other kind of not just "fix that." So that's going to add to it. But understand the whole—get it to this position, and from there it can be redone to do that. I understand maybe you knock down a few walls it may save a few things or may add a few things, which I think I'd probably add more than it's going to save as far as moving forward just to get it back up into that position. **[29:50] Cassidy Schweer (Council Member):** I'm curious on what, you know, the... I mean there are some needs identified already: the youth programming, elder programming, used for, you know, courts. Those are the three that have immediately popped up in what the needs assessments or the conversations also say—it's in the Comp Plan over and over and over again. So I think what we've heard so far is it's definitely a need. Just again: what does it look like and if that current building reflects the needs of the community, because it might not. **[30:21] Dave McKenzie (Council Member):** That position, too, it's very odd for parking. It's like the apartments use half of it for their parking and then you have the... it's not laid out very well for that piece of property, it looks like to me. As far as being able to accommodate maybe weddings or things like that, there's not much parking around it. So that brings our concern too, is just the position it's at. For my concern, where I've talked to people, is where it was placed originally and the facilities and being able to accommodate groups of people if that's what we're going to do. **[30:52] Cassidy Schweer (Council Member):** Yeah, certainly. I guess it comes down to, you know, what is the programming looking like, as we've discussed. And, you know, is it renting out courts to volleyball teams and other teams as one source of revenue? I will say also that the community center, when I think about public funding, I don't think of it as a business. I don't think of it in terms of "we need a break even," because I don't think that's how public money really works. It's: we're already taxing people, they're telling us what they need, and then we provide the service. Of course, there's definitely a threshold, but I think there's opportunities for us to really consider what, you know, wraparound services could look like with nonprofits. And we've been approached by many of them. The school district as well. So just thinking of alternative ways to, you know, look at the sustainability of it to not just simply from, you know, taxes or something, but there may be other ways in which we could supplement, certainly. **[31:50] John Monge (Mayor):** It just depends on the needs of the programming. So it just kind of, you know, is it... so if we have courts, the volleyball team can rent those out. If we have different nonprofits... Merrick, they work with adults with developmental disabilities, and so is that a place for different community organizations to house their programs? So we're not maybe strictly running the programs, but we have partners that are helping out. So just kind of thinking about different models in terms of cost savings too, or just contributions to that, so it's not just tax dollars. **[32:25] Dave McKenzie (Council Member):** Yeah. And I agree, it's not making money off of something as far as a lot of it, but it's to have something where people are using it. And my concern is that it didn't—it closed in 2012 as a community center. How does that look going forward? What's the big changes as far as population and what is needed for where we're at with it? Because even after we get it fixed up, we still have the maintenance of a building and the staffing of a building and everything else where that has to be budgeted out, too. So that's where this is a... this is going to be a tough one for this Council here, because we're going to have to make decisions and it's not going to be some easy decisions. Because it's a lot of people... money-wise, taxes... people [costs] have gone up quite a bit and they can't afford it. So it's just looking at understanding where we all are with our tax dollars and where we can be with the community needs. And if the school district... we have to get what I've found out is there's a lot of agreements, but there's nothing written down for what we've done over the years. So we'd have to understand who's paying for what, what leases we have as far as going forward tenant-wise, and what we're paying and everything else, because it sounds to me like there's been... it's kind of just up in the air: we'll rent it out if somebody wants it, it will sit empty if nobody wants it. I mean, we'll essentially have to have a full-time position for this? **[33:51] Cassidy Schweer (Council Member):** Organizing it? Yeah. **[33:53] Dave McKenzie (Council Member):** And that's a full-time position for the city too. I guess my thought there is we don't really have any resources like that for young people based off of our tax base. I mean, a lot of the budget, if you look at what was passed, a large portion of it or a very, very small portion of it goes to Parks or Community Development. And so I think it's, you know, based off of what the overall value is for the community. Do we think about making adjustments to what that looks like in terms of percentage? We're doing it right now by obviously investigating this. But I see John's point of view, too. I mean, at what... on a financial impact for the city and its residents in the grand scheme of things, we have to wrap everything around. And, you know, much to Tim's [Woods] point, we're doing this backwards. So we haven't sought out anybody in the community about this. We're exploring renovating it and revitalizing this community center, yet we haven't done any investigation of what's... what does it look like inside there? What does it look like on a financial end for employing somebody? What is it... there's just so much. I mean, there's a lot to it. And to do it in a reverse order... we don't have choice right now, but that's what's going to happen. **[35:10] John Monge (Mayor):** And we have a facility, you know, Casey Park—I know that building isn't big—but that's... you know, to me, the community center is just in a spot where it's not great. It wasn't built in a good spot in my mind. And that may come out of what Wold works with as well. We've... a spot right across the street might better serve the community. You know, we have vacant land in multiple locations. Well, there's... because of the way that it's been done, there's a lot that's been wrapped up, at least in my opinion, of "this is what it's going to cost to fix the building." It might not come out that we fix the building. We might drop the building and determine what the community needs are in what a community center looks like. When the community center was first built, it was a workout facility. Everybody either belongs to a gym or lives in an apartment that has workout equipment; that has since gone. But there are still community needs. So that's where we're now in the step of investigation with Wold as to what does that look like. I agree, I think that... and now we got the overhanging piece of, we got equipment in that building. If we drop it, is the next community engagement session on the books? Do we have a time to give people or a date? **[36:35] Cassidy Schweer (Council Member):** I think they said June. **[36:37] John Monge (Mayor):** Okay. We just have to keep an open mind, understand all the numbers we're at, to understand the location and what the needs are. So I'm glad to be a part of it. I really want to take a real close eye to this with all of us because I think it's a big commitment for us as a city. It's a big commitment for everybody to be able to have that and use it properly and to use the tax-wise dollars wisely. Because, you know, like you mentioned, it could be a different spot, it could be a different scenario that we have. We just have to keep it open and understand. So I'm glad this is going forward. So my hope is we can put this to rest one of these days and decide what we're going to do, because right now it's been going on for quite a while and there hasn't been a decision on it. So I really want to get this as far as a group to be able to get this moving forward, whatever direction we do it. **[37:32] Cassidy Schweer (Council Member):** So you want to elaborate on your statement that it's been going forward for quite a while and [no] decision has been made? **[37:39] John Monge (Mayor):** Well, just as far as people have been talking about... not as a group here, but the community center has been an open issue for... open and close and different things like that. And it needed work and it was empty for a while then they got some tenants. Does that make sense? **[38:00] Brian Frandle (City Manager):** I don't know if it really ever sat empty for extended period of time, but yeah, just where the future is and being able to take care of the building properly. **[38:11] Dave McKenzie (Council Member):** The city wasn't a real good landlord. Let's just say it nicely. We got Ron—are you Ron? I'm so sorry. Seriously! **[38:23] Ron Ritchie (Director of Public Works):** [Off-mic response] **[38:25] Dave McKenzie (Council Member):** Well, that's the type of thing is, you know, buildings are such investments. We have this building here and that's starting to reach the number of years now where we're going to have to start looking seriously at the thing where we have it, so it doesn't fall into the same disrepair. We got a lot of places we have to take care of and the structures can't get away like that. But it really never was... kind of the purpose was there, but it never really took off. So I think it just kind of got ignored. It's where I see it at least. All right, anything else anybody? **[39:05] Cassidy Schweer (Council Member):** I just didn't know if there was a firm date of that next Community Engagement Center. I, you know, if people are tuning in to watch us talk about this, if there was a firm date I wanted to be able to give them that information at this meeting. And I'm going off a memory—I thought it said June. **[39:23] John Monge (Mayor):** I did, too. Okay, I won that one. Well, very good. But I mean, given the fact that it's March, we probably should get it on the calendar so folks... we gotta get it out so people can come. Who do we need to talk to to get that going? Is that... do we need to schedule that with Wold? We'll go through them. We'll go through them, but also determine the best for us in the time frame for that to see where we're at with the bill process as well, because it makes kind of a big difference moving forward whether or not that happens or we get that funding. Essentially, we really won't know anything until the end of May, it sounds like, without the bill and everything. Based on legislation... legislatures... **[40:14] John Monge (Mayor):** During the meeting, if there's nothing else... Meeting adjourned at 5:59. Motion? **[40:20] Jason Nordby (Council Member):** Oh, I just did it. So moved. **[40:22] Dave McKenzie (Council Member):** Back up.