Based on the context provided and the dialogue within the meeting, here is the transcribed townhall with speaker names assigned. **Note:** The transcript includes "Council Member Cole" and "Council Member Wong" during the roll call. Although they were not on your provided list, they are clearly identified as members in the meeting and have been labeled accordingly. "Jason Zimmerman" (Finance Director) is referred to at the end as "Dan," likely a nickname or transcription error for "Jason," but he is labeled here by his official title name. *** **[00:00] John Monge (Mayor):** Is the booth ready? Oh, the booth is ready. All right, we’re go. Everybody's ready. Let's call the meeting to order at 5:15. Uh, roll call, please. **[00:08] Staff/Clerk:** Council Member Cole? **[00:09] Council Member Cole:** Here. **[00:10] Staff/Clerk:** Council Member Schweer? **[00:11] Cassidy Schweer:** Here. **[00:12] Staff/Clerk:** Council Member Wong? **[00:13] Council Member Wong:** Here. **[00:14] Staff/Clerk:** Council Member Nordby? **[00:15] Jason Nordby:** Here. **[00:16] Staff/Clerk:** Mayor Monge? **[00:17] John Monge (Mayor):** Here. Can I get a motion to adopt the agenda, please? **[00:19] Cassidy Schweer:** So moved. **[00:20] Council Member Cole:** Second. **[00:21] John Monge (Mayor):** All those in favor say aye. **[00:22] Council (In Unison):** Aye. **[00:23] John Monge (Mayor):** Thank you. It's up to you now. **[00:25] Brian Frandle (City Manager):** Thank you, Mayor. Uh, first up I'd like to introduce you guys to Riley Grahams. He's coming from Osseo. He is our new Community Development Director and I want to give him a chance to say hello. Welcome to our city. **[00:40] Riley Grahams (Community Development Director):** Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. My name is Riley Grahams. I'm the brand new Community Development Director. It's my second day on the job. Very excited to be here. Uh, originally born and raised in White Bear Lake. I live in Roseville, so I'm kind of an East Side Metro guy, so this fits in very well. Um, I went to school at the University of Minnesota, graduate school in Hamline, and then was the city planner in Osseo and then eventually worked my way up—Community Development Director, Assistant City Administrator, and eventually City Administrator for the last nine years. So um, that's pretty much me in a nutshell. I'm really excited to be here. This is a great community. My kids absolutely love the snowman. Every time we drive by it, they always look out the window and yell and scream, so they know exactly where I work now, which is great. Um, but yeah, great, happy to be here. **[01:10] John Monge (Mayor):** Yeah, welcome. Welcome. **[01:11] Brian Frandle (City Manager):** Thank you. Uh, one more quick item. I'd like to bring up Chief [Baebenroth] to just give us a quick update with the event that we had back on May 25th, please. Welcome, Chief. Appreciate your time. **[01:25] Phil Baebenroth (Police Chief):** Hello everyone. Um, so just a quick update on the Casey Lake incident. Now this is an ongoing investigation, so very, very limited information that I can release. But what I can tell you is as of last week Wednesday or Thursday approximately, we met with the BCA Violent Crimes Unit, Agent Sergeant Fredericks, whom we have a joint powers agreement with, and the BCA has since taken over this case. We had an Intel meeting on Thursday with several other agencies that are involved, one of them being Ramsey County's Intel Unit. What I can tell you is there are several persons of interest at this time whom are being looked into. There have been no arrests made, but as many of you are aware, there were many shots fired that night. Um, that horrific night. Over 100 rounds have been seized. There's been several items of interest that have been seized such as vehicles and cell phones that we found at the park and have taken custody of. Some of the agencies that are involved in this investigation and that we are continuing to collaborate with are the BCA, of course, who have taken on the case, but Ramsey County, Maplewood PD, St. Paul PD's Gang Task Force, and uh, who else... um, that's it as of right now. The initial response required several agencies, and each of these agencies have some type of piece of this investigation. So, their involvement might not be as heavy as the BCA's and the Ramsey County's, but we are working collaboratively with Ramsey County and the BCA on this investigation. As more comes, I will certainly keep you folks in tune, okay? As much as I possibly can. With that being said, um, I would like to note that during this Intel meeting that I had with the agencies on Thursday here at the PD, I was informed by Ramsey County Intel that the City of North St. Paul is one of the only cities in the Metro in Ramsey County that has their parks open until 11:00 p.m. This is a problem. The word is out. The intel that I received is these folks that are accompanying these parks late evenings are getting the word out that North St. Paul is the place to be because we have our parks open late at night. Most parks around the city, around the Metro, are closing either at sunset or a half-hour after sunset. So, I think with that being said, I would like for you folks and City Manager—whoever else needs to be involved in a decision—to maybe consider closing our parks at those times. If we continue this operation until 11:00 p.m. with our parks, it's so unfortunate because there's a lot of good people that we have that like to enjoy our parks and do bring their family and kids out and enjoy the amenities and the playground and the facilities that we offer. So, it is really unfortunate that we have to be forced to do such a thing, but I would stress that if we don't make a decision soon, July 4th is coming up. In the past two years, July 5th, Casey Lake has looked like a bomb has gone off. The amount of vandalism, the trash, the police calls that we had... it's just not worth it. And then with this most recent event, I can't see us considering to keep our hours of operation for our playgrounds as they are. We have low staffing right now in our Police Department. I don't want to say aloud what our staffing levels will be for July 4th, but it won't be what we had for the night that happened recently. It'll be much, much lower staffing. So with that said, you know, we can't... there's going to be the surrounding agencies like Maplewood and White Bear Lake, Oakdale, Ramsey County that are going to be dealing with their own issues on July 4th and they won't be readily available like they were this night most recently. So, that's what all I got. **[03:45] Brian Frandle (City Manager):** Could I add one thing quick? I think through the support and approval of City Council, we were allowed to have one of our sergeants on the BCA's Violent Crime Reduction Unit that is now partaking in this investigation process. So, appreciate that. **[04:00] John Monge (Mayor):** Question being, Chief, what do you recommend for park hours? **[04:05] Phil Baebenroth (Police Chief):** I recommend that we follow suit—the half-hour after sunset or at sunset is a good time. That seems to be what the other neighboring cities are doing and they're not having the after-hour issues that we're experiencing. **[04:15] John Monge (Mayor):** So sunset? Yeah. Okay, we were going to discuss that, so I just want to make sure we get your opinion on that. **[04:20] Cassidy Schweer:** May I ask, is the department currently patrolling all the parks as shifts permit? **[04:25] Phil Baebenroth (Police Chief):** As shifts permit, okay. You know, with right now as I was speaking with City Manager Frandle earlier, the staffing levels that we have... over the next three months, we'll have a considerable amount of folks going on their bids, which will then leave us even more empty-handed on staffing levels. We have opened up our overtime availability and it's quite difficult to even get folks to sign up for overtime. It's not like when I first started and boy, everybody liked to eat up that overtime, but it's just not the case anymore. So, you know, we're in a situation right now where typically we're having one sergeant on or one officer on, and that's a dangerous thing. **[04:55] Council Member Wong:** Yeah, I was doing some Google searches on the parks just to get an idea of what's going on around us. 10:00 was the latest that I saw, nine [sometimes]. If you Google the parks in North St. Paul, some of them say 24 hours. It's—you know, they're not manned—but I think we have to get signs then. Because right now, I was talking to you, City Manager Frandle, and you said we don't have any signs in the park with any hours right now at all. **[05:25] Phil Baebenroth (Police Chief):** Mhm, yeah. And I don't know if you guys feel... even the folks that live on Casey Lake Park or near Casey Lake Park, what their thoughts are. Maybe they feel the parks need to close sooner than sunset. In the summertime, sunsets can be quite late even. So, you know, that might be something to consider too. **[05:40] Cassidy Schweer:** Chief, I just want to thank you for your update and your response. I do live pretty much right across the street and it was a huge response, so I am really grateful for that. From my perspective as someone who does live right there, I think I would still be okay with sunset. But again, that's my own thoughts and my opinions. But I know, Tim, you also live down the street? **[06:05] Council Member Wong:** Down the street, yep. Mhm. Yeah, and I'm on Silver Lake. So, we went around there the Saturday we had the incident and I went around 19th and all was [good] at the lake swimming and having a barbecue. Everybody was having a great time. I thought, "Well, this is the way it's designed to be." And then that evening I get a call from City Manager Frandle asking what's happening. So, it changes really fast. **[06:30] Phil Baebenroth (Police Chief):** Sure sure does. **[06:32] John Monge (Mayor):** Yeah. Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. And as a new Chief, I wanted to say I can't thank you enough for that 3:00 a.m. email to us. I know you had a ton of other stuff on your plate, but I really appreciate you taking the time to keep us informed as much as you can. So thank you. **[06:50] Phil Baebenroth (Police Chief):** Yeah, thank you absolutely. And our officers that were working that night—the response was quick and the neighboring agencies that were available came over as fast as they could to help out. The sergeant that was on that evening was one of our newly promoted sergeants, Sergeant Goldson. When I arrived on scene, which wasn't too long after she had called me because I came straight to the scene, I had been approached by several command staff from several other agencies who commended how she was managing and responding to the incident. So, she did very well and her team did very well. **[07:30] John Monge (Mayor):** Fantastic. I just like to state again, just because of the hecticness and how things went over there: there was a graduation party that was part of a North St. Paul resident who rented it. They were trapped in the middle and had nothing to do with anything. So you know, they were doing the right things and taking care and enjoying the park, and then it happened around them. I just wanted people to remember that. We need to think about that poor family being trapped in there, too. That was a scary situation for them. **[08:00] Phil Baebenroth (Police Chief):** Involved everybody involved. Yeah, thank you for bringing that up. And you know, these are the things that we don't want to have happen. Moving forward, there's still quite a few rentals that are out there on the schedule. And that other facility that's open where this group was... you know, it's open to whoever wants to be there and can get there. And it's unfortunate that we have the folks that are there to truly celebrate and with respect to the property and to the city, and then there's the folks that don't really care. So yeah, hopefully we can, with this change of hours, put a stop to it. **[08:40] John Monge (Mayor):** Well, thank you. Appreciate it, Chief. **[08:42] Phil Baebenroth (Police Chief):** Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. **[08:45] John Monge (Mayor):** All right. Ramsey County Metro Watershed District project updates. Creek flood reduction feasibility study and flood preparedness. We have Engineer Morgan Dawley here for us. Hey Morgan, I learned a lot from this packet. I had no idea that there was a creek that ran through Coleman... how it did the outline, how much that connects through the whole entire city. That was quite revealing. I'm surprised I just didn't realize that that was such a long watershed that connected that way. It was kind of cool. **[09:20] Morgan Dawley (City Engineer):** Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. So really, what staff wanted to do is bring forward a copy of this study and share some of what Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District has been using some of their resources for. Just in review, they are an outside regulatory agency tasked with being able to regulate things like water quality, flooding, and all things stormwater related in this district. So they actually cover multiple cities, they have taxing authority, and so it's good to be able to share some things when they use their resources, either from a study or engineering standpoint or Capital Improvement Project standpoint, things that might benefit our residents in North St. Paul. So that's between myself and Public Works—that's why we wanted to just bring this forward. Kind of a high-level overview for the City Council and then talk a little bit more about some ways that we might want to share some of this information with some of the residents as well too. This is provided from Watershed District staff to City staff, and so this is the first time this has been brought forward publicly. But this information, I believe, and other resources are available on the Watershed District's website. If residents or other folks want some more input, they can certainly contact City Hall and we'll try to help them out with this. I'm not going to get into the weeds; I'm pleased to hear that you learned some stuff from the report. Again, I'm going to try to hit it from a 30,000-foot altitude level just to give you an overview of what they tried to cover. And there are impacts and benefits, I guess, to both areas of Maplewood and North St. Paul. So I'll maybe skip over some of the Maplewood stuff, but it all does come together from an engineering perspective and some of the very technical detail that the Watershed District has gone into over several years in trying to model the areas of North St. Paul and their whole watershed to be able to understand when it does rain a lot. And certainly, from a climate standpoint, it is raining more now than it has in the past—what to expect and what are some Capital Improvements that could be contemplated, not necessarily by the city. We've done our own efforts in terms of flood risk mitigation and looking at things that we can do with our system within the city to improve flooding in certain areas, but you certainly can't do all of it and it's good to have a regulatory partner that's kind of over and above the city that can look at these things and potentially do projects as well too. Does everybody have the ability to see this on their screens? If I refer to this... these—this is a copy of the feasibility study and I'll just page through a couple of things that I think are of note. This is the study area as you can see, it's primarily focused in the northwest corner of North St. Paul but also contains portions of Maplewood. As the mayor mentioned previously, Coleman Creek, which basically starts at PCU or "Target Pond" (another way that we refer to that pond just north of 11th Avenue on the other side of the street from Target)... there is an outlet to that pond that eventually works its way to the West and into Markham Pond and eventually finds its way to Coleman Lake. So that is kind of one of the primary watershed and drainage areas that is of interest to the Watershed District. They put a lot of effort into studying this and kind of all of the areas tributary to that, but the study area was just focused in that kind of corner there. Um, I'm sorry, let me just figure out the right button to push here... As you can see in this next map, the blue areas are what—again, this is a computer simulation, so it's not meant to be an exact science—but they're trying to predict what happens when we get that once-every-hundred-year rain event. Right? So that's a statistical measure; it doesn't mean that it only happens once every hundred years. We could certainly have multiple rain events that are of that magnitude within a hundred years. This is simply a modeling exercise to be able to understand what areas could be prone to flooding. As you can see from some of the blobs or dots—and it's a tough scale to be able to see—but those are structures that are adjacent to some of these drainage ways that are under the purview of the Watershed District. There are many structures, homes, and businesses that are throughout the City of North St. Paul that also are at risk of potential flooding during certain events, but they were outside of the scope of this study. So this is not meant to represent some sort of full coverage for the entire city. But specific to this area, they were interested in finding some things that could be done to potentially help out some of the risk to, again, some of these—I think many of them are single-family homes or structures that could be at risk of inundation during an extreme rain event. Just really quickly, I'll share with you an overview of the projects that they looked at, and not every single one of them was recommended. Really, all I want to make sure that the Council understands is that they really tried to leave no stone unturned. They looked at multiple alternatives and whether it's the feasibility of the construction or the cost-effectiveness... they did rule out certain things and they narrowed in on the things that provided the greatest amount of flood benefit for a reasonable amount of cost. Within North St. Paul specifically, which is 4.1, the very first recommended item that they looked at is constructing some berms on the north side of PCU Pond, and that is recommended. They also looked at actually digging out PCU Pond; that was not recommended (not cost-effective). They looked at also diverting some water either out of PCU Pond in a different fashion or away from getting to PCU Pond. And then it moves into some areas that are in Maplewood. There's a backyard area west of White Bear Avenue that again is a berming exercise to be able to provide kind of a barrier there for floodwaters to not move into low spots, and also increasing the size of a culvert under County Road C, and that is also recommended. They also looked at some other things—rate control projects and other projects—but again, those three are the ones that they, at the end of their study, decided were most feasible and recommended. This graphic here on your screen just shows on the south side of 13th Avenue, that's where a potential berm would be constructed to, again, protect mostly those residential properties on the north side of 13th Avenue from some flood risk. This is a picture of the recommended improvement in Maplewood, the backyard berm by White Bear Avenue. And again, this is a graphic showing that culvert under County Road C. Now there is a table in here that I would like to just kind of highlight. Again, these are computer modeling numbers, this is not meant to be exact, but it helps to give both engineers and non-technical staff just an understanding of the scale of what these types of improvements might provide for the dollar investment. At that first line in the table there at the top, they're looking potentially to reduce the flood stage by over four feet by constructing that berm. So that's the only one that's in the City of North St. Paul. I won't cover the other ones, but that's a pretty significant benefit to those areas north of 13th Avenue. This next figure here... remember I noted earlier that the red dots were potential structures—homes, residential properties—that were within the area that could be inundated during that extreme storm. What they are representing in this graphic is that with the construction of that berm, they've put green circles around all those homes and by their definition, they're showing it protected. That doesn't mean that they still might be close to floodwaters or they might have other things they might need to do to protect their basements, but again, through the construction of that berm and this project, which would be driven by the Watershed District, [it's a] fairly substantial improvement knowing that the lighter blue areas around there are then, again according to their computer modeling, not inundated during that extreme storm. And then they go on to talk about Maplewood a bit there. So I think in summary what I would... oh, there's... yeah, this is the final one that talks about cost. They're calculating a potential cost of about 1.7 million on the high end for what they're thinking it would take to construct that berm in North St. Paul. At this time, they are considering next steps. They haven't communicated anything to City staff about, "Hey, this is going to happen next year," or "This is planned for 2027." That's not the case. We're just at the point where they shared this information. Staff felt it important to bring this forward to Council so they're at least aware of these things on their radar. As we get more information, certainly we would encourage them as the contracting agency. If they were going to move forward, they would need permits from the city to work within the right-of-way, but we would want them to do some robust communication with the residents and the people that live in the area, just like we would see with any construction project. And at least at this time, we are anticipating that these dollars would not be City dollars. They're not asking for City participation; they would use their own funds. And that's a huge positive when you're talking about an agency that has taxing authority but really they're doing projects in a lot of different places. It's nice to see some improvements potentially within the City of North St. Paul. So, that's the overview on that. I'll pause for questions. Are there any questions on that portion of the overview in terms of what they've done, what they're anticipating, what the benefit is, that sort of thing? **[17:30] John Monge (Mayor):** Does the study officially change any of the flood plane boundaries? **[17:33] Morgan Dawley (City Engineer):** No, it does not. So these are all hypotheticals. And I will note for Council and for the public, there are two different ways to define a flood plane. The FEMA maps, which are official maps that about every 10 to 15 years wind up getting revised, and that is issued and coordinated by FEMA as a federal agency and within the State of Minnesota, the DNR. And also our ordinance is tied to those maps. For example, when our ordinance states or limits development or construction within the flood plane, it's referring to FEMA, not the Watershed District. So FEMA is one definition of flood plane. What the Watershed District has done is they've used this model to create their own boundary of a 100-year flood. And that is, by their rules... I mean, that is in effect, but it's not necessarily our ordinance. So they have permitting authority on structures within their 100-year flood boundary. But then, further to your point, this is hypothetical, so nothing has changed yet. But we would expect that to the benefit of the properties that are within that area north of PCU Pond... that at least not according to FEMA, but at least with the Watershed rules and the watershed's definition of a 100-year flood elevation and the blue blob, that it would actually change that if it were constructed. And we would expect they would have to do some sort of formal adoption of a new boundary, but that would be something that they would have to fold into their operations. I wouldn't call it a flood plane because that's FEMA, but a "flood area" within their regulatory authority and within their rules. **[19:15] John Monge (Mayor):** Any other questions on this portion? **[19:20] Morgan Dawley (City Engineer):** I'll wrap up very quickly by sharing that as an offshoot of this, the Watershed District also provided some work, very specific—like property by property—and shared that information with staff as well. Their goal was to provide some information to the city with which to potentially share with residents and have some conversations revolving around it. This sharing with City Council is certainly the first step of that. I'll show you a couple examples, but they're very similar to that more global scale of constructing berms or potentially providing some information to private property owners in terms of letting them know: number one, you're in a potentially flood-prone area; number two, here's some things that you could consider doing on your property, whether that's preparing for sandbags or whether it's maybe considering a private landscaping project or something to provide some berming. There's been some engineering done for free, provided to the city to be able to share with those residents. And staff—myself and Public Works Director Ron Richie and Randy Miller—attended a meeting that was hosted by the Watershed District inviting all of the cities within their district, kind of rolling this out. But they truly did just leave it up to the city; they're not kind of dictating. They're not going to contact individual residents; they wanted to share the information that they had prepared and they're leaving it up to the city to kind of do that engagement with the public. And so, in conversations with Public Works, I guess our suggestion with Council's blessing would be to use this information and, with a cover letter explaining "Here's some resources with the Watershed District, if you have questions contact Public Works for example," but "Here's some information that's been prepared by an engineer specific to your property by the Watershed District that might help you in the instance of an extreme rain event." So it's a little bit of education, but also it's some free engineering that staff would propose to share with those property owners. Not, you know—this is a "flag draft, not for construction"—that's just the stamp as was included in the information that was given to us. But I think what this is an example of, if you can see the little note here, is that they've done enough engineering to know that there's a reasonably good benefit from placing 1.5 feet high of sandbags around that low opening. I don't know if that's a patio door or patio window, but they did enough survey work and enough elevation compared with their computer model to identify something pretty specific here that that property owner can then use to prepare. Maybe get some sandbags, have them sitting under the deck, and if it does start raining a lot, at least they know that they're prepared to be able to protect their home from some water intrusion if that were to happen. So that's just an example. Staff's prepared to kind of work on that this summer to put that package together, engage those property owners pending any kind of feedback or direction that Council might want to give staff at this time. So with that, I'll stand for any questions. I don't have anything further. **[22:45] John Monge (Mayor):** So thank you very much. Um, I do have a question in terms of—when you're engaging with the residents—that there is opportunity for free engineering in and around their residents, but um, is there also some funding available from the Watershed District for that? **[23:05] Morgan Dawley (City Engineer):** Not that I'm aware of right now, but I think that that is something that staff will want to fully vet out with their staff to see if they have a program. Certainly, you know, we don't have any funding mechanism within the city to be able to fund private improvements or private drainage improvements. But the Watershed District might. And even if they don't right now, hearing that that's something of interest by this North St. Paul Council or something that we'd be open to if those funds were opened up... it's more about, I think, preparedness. Right? So we can have that conversation with them. If there are funding opportunities that we can include, for example in that cover letter when we send that stuff out, I think that's a great idea and we would strive to do that. **[24:00] Council Member Wong:** I just got on their website and looks like they have some funding. **[24:05] Morgan Dawley (City Engineer):** Okay, perfect. Well, then we will make sure that that's included. **[24:08] Council Member Wong:** Wonderful, thank you. **[24:10] Cassidy Schweer:** Is there any information or... I don't know what the right word is, but obligation if we talk to these residents about this that they need to legally share with their insurance provider for their homeowners' insurance? If this is new information, do they have to share the... you know where I'm going with it, but I'm not wording it right? **[24:35] Morgan Dawley (City Engineer):** Yeah, that's a good question. Um, not being an insurance provider or somebody who works in that sphere, I guess I need to kind of qualify my answer a bit. What I believe is that flood insurance, as far as something that may be mandatory by way of a lender (for example, if there's a lean or a mortgage on the home), sometimes it is a requirement. But typically, that is tied to not the Watershed definition of a 100-year flood boundary; it's tied to FEMA. And so again, because there are two different maps or two different standards at play here, I don't think anything that we're talking about here is other than providing some good information about how you might be able to protect your property better. It's not triggering some sort of a new requirement to go get insurance. It might be new and educational for someone who did not know that they're... because it's not in the FEMA area, but it could still be flood-prone according to the Watershed District. It might be something that might trigger the private property owner to have some discussions with their insurance provider and maybe get some supplemental insurance or at least check their home coverage policy. Because sometimes, for example, wet basements are not covered on the typical homeowners policy, right? So it might be something that as we share this information, they might be incentivized to have that conversation and consider some additional coverage potentially, but not like a mandate or a requirement at this time that I'm aware of. **[26:00] Cassidy Schweer:** Thanks, Morgan. **[26:01] John Monge (Mayor):** All right, thank you very much. **[26:02] Morgan Dawley (City Engineer):** Thank you. **[26:03] John Monge (Mayor):** Thank you. Thank you. All right, next item up is the Community Center next steps. Uh, yeah, Finance Director, Mr. [Zimmerman], here to speak. **[26:15] Jason Zimmerman (Finance Director):** Mayor, City Council members, here we are again talking about the Community Center next steps. I think the last time that we had gotten together was towards the end of April, and so kind of get you caught up to date. And then we have some information from what we talked about in April and we have a summer results that we can discuss. And then I have some questions for us just from a Finance Director's position in the planning—and I'm looking from an overall organizational financial position—some questions and need some input from City Council. What we've agreed to, just kind of a reminder, that these workshops will follow the format that we give a staff presentation and obviously there can be questions and answers from City Council during that presentation. And then following the presentation, City Council can also ask questions and answers. If we have time permits, we'll have a little public comments, and then we'll kind of decide what we want for the next agenda and then we just do a City Council wrap-up. What we kind of agreed to at the next steps for the Community Center: if you remember, we started with a clarification or modifications of the grant terms and we had a representative here to speak and answer any questions that City Council had on that. In our last meeting, we had the Library Deputy Director—I'm proud to say she is now the Director of the Library system, so very good for her, well deserved—talking about the services and importance of that library in the City of North St. Paul. And then we also talked about trying to somehow get some interest in partnerships at the Community Center. So we had City Council review an RFI, we made modifications of the RFI based upon what City Council had said, we advertised that, sent that out. And so tonight we'll look at what we've received with that RFI and then a series of some questions that, you know, that RFI may have given some different thoughts on the potential success of the Community Center, or not. And um, then trying to from a financial standpoint—again, as the Finance Director—trying to set some parameters of how we make a decision of a go or no-go decision on the Community Center. And then we have another number of items to go forward which could help us as we look for the next steps. The results of the RFI were pretty clear. In your attachment, it does have a copy of the RFI and it also has a copy of—we only received one which I would consider a valid proposal that met the criteria. You know, we talked about the project objectives being flexible, multicultural space available to provide for evolving needs of the community; a safe place for youth to foster positive socialization and offer recreational space for sports and youth-targeted activities; a safe and comfortable place for veterans and seniors to socialize, engage in crafts, dance, fitness, and recreation; and a demonstration hub to showcase the city's commitment to Green Building practices. The letter of interest submission that was supposed to be given to us by May 20th of 2024 had a series of seven items that City Council had agreed on that they wanted to get from the information. Right behind the RFI is the only true submission that was in writing that we actually received that followed those items that the RFI had requested. Now, through the state's procurement law, if this was a request for proposals, this would be the only one that we could even consider because this is the only one that had met. Now, we didn't include all of this as—it's an RFI—we didn't include any criteria that "if you don't [meet this], you're not considered" and so forth. There were nine other interested parties that left our City Manager Frandle voicemails. Um, pardon me if I mispronounce some of their names, but we had Kokoro Volleyball, we had a Sandy Nelson (again, volleyball use). The one submittal forgot to mention was Hype Volleyball Club and again, it was a volleyball club for the youth. Ashland Theater Group—they've spoken here on a couple of occasions. Cypher Side Dance School. The futsal group with a North High soccer coach inquiring. This is independent of the school district itself. Ramsey County would like some additional space, and they were here and they actually spoke to that. And then Shannon Group, another youth programming. The American Indian Family Center and YMYI Am youth group. But again, did not submit formal proposals. To me, again from a Finance Director's position looking at what we had gotten... clearly when we identified the steps to looking for the Community Center, I looked at this as an opportunity to find out some serious interest—to find out what entities would be willing to actually pay to participate and be a partner with the city in the Community Center. The reason for that was to try to generate that other side of the equation, the revenue side, to be able to reduce a little bit of risk moving forward for the city in this facility. For me, there wasn't enough result here to remove or to lower that risk component for me. Not to say that those who... the one who gave a formal proposal back in submittal, or the nine others that if we reach out and we find that maybe there's more interest in there, that they would actually occupy some space. But if we just kind of look at the one formal proposal that we did receive from Hype Volleyball group, you know, their space needs is basically the gymnasium and then they've got some optionals that maybe there's a workout area or kitchen facility, maybe a dedicated office space. Those three were optional. They would need some storage space for the volleyball equipment and then access to the restroom, lights, janitorial supplies. A decent portion of the facility would be occupied by this group. And what they had looked at is that they would be looking at a five-year commitment and they would be looking at about a $60,000 on an annual basis. And so keep that in mind. You know, basically on our revenue side, obviously if you go with some sort of organization like this, their hours that they had were primarily all of it—it was Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and then weekends and evenings variable based on tournaments and event hosting. So you would have the rest of the facility to do something with as far as other opportunities for programming and so forth. But again, you go with someone here for volleyball, that kind of takes that space where the theater would probably want to go into and so forth. There's a balancing act there. And again, we'll kind of go more into that in some options for when we get into the discussion as far as next steps and what other information City Council would need to see. So with that information, I'm just going to throw out—and again, this is from a pure financial standpoint, I'm not making any statement for or against the Community Center, I'm just looking at it from my own perspective in our long-range planning—what we went through in the last year budget cycle, I thought we accomplished quite a bit. And what I mean by that is that we... I think it was the Mayor had coined this phrase and the City Manager Frandle coined this phrase, that we looked at as we went through the budget process of saying, "You know, tell me the good, the bad, and the ugly." And we kind of discussed some decisions that had been made in the past that have some financial impacts that are still living with us today. One of those financial impacts that is still living with us today is regarding infrastructure. One of which is the Community Center. We don't have a fund or a pot of money that we can easily take care of that facility, by the same token as we don't have that fund or that pot of money to take care of this right here, City Hall, and/or the Public Works facility. Part of our CIP process that was approved for the 2024 budget allows us to hire a consultant to do a facility analysis. As soon as we get those facility analysis numbers, then that'll be incorporated into our Capital Improvement plan. Why I'm saying that is because I've been saying that, you know, again when we did our pre-budget, is that we're going to have another item that we're going to have to try to somehow fund that we currently do not fund. What we did in the budget last year is that we put a dedicated 2% levy increase. We did it last year; we're going to be doing it for nine more years at minimum. And that was to dedicate that to our street improvements. We were fortunate enough to have our engineers help us out, and they actually spoke to this even at that... with every other year doing a major reconstruction project and then doing this preventative maintenance. Where we ended up to get it moving this past year ended up having to transfer $1.1 million from the electric fund. It still had us in a road rating in the 50s; we weren't moving it higher and higher. And I think our engineer had even stated that we would end up having to increase that dollar amount—did not give us a clear dollar amount, but I would guess somewhere at least double if not more than that—to be able to take care of our infrastructure as far as our streets, our wastewater, our water systems. We're going to be battling with that. Last year we accomplished quite a bit by dedicating a 1% levy increase and we split that—55% of it and 45% of it—to facilities and parks. Again, that's not going to be enough. We had a pre-budget meeting earlier this year; we're already looking at a potential 7.5% levy increase with a lot of unknowns. And so I'm bringing all of that up to frame the question, not to put it down, but I really need your help in getting the clear direction. And so my first question that I'm going to throw out is: can the city financially afford to keep going and reopening this center? And "Community Center" is just the name that we've been using. And so I'm going to pose that first to City Council and hear, and then I'd like to be able to look at some financial parameters. If we continue to move forward, where we look at what are we willing and how do we afford both from a capital standpoint and then an ongoing annual operating cost part to it that would have an impact on the levy? So my first question is: can the city financially afford reopening this center? And I'm looking for some insight, some feedback, some different ideas that I can go off of. **[36:30] Council Member Wong:** I suppose that the state funding, legislative funding, and the federal funding is helpful to the renovations that it was allocated for. I believe we are over $5 million with that, do you [know]? **[36:45] Jason Zimmerman (Finance Director):** 5.3 I think it's 5.3. **[36:47] Council Member Wong:** Yeah, 5.3 million for just the renovation component. So I think that's a huge lift and a huge benefit for our city in terms of—we have about 75% of those funds promised to us day one. **[37:05] Jason Zimmerman (Finance Director):** And I'm not challenging, I would like to have this dialogue when we talk. 75% of those funds... what is 75% of those funds? **[37:15] Council Member Wong:** So that's in relationship to what Wold Architects had determined what was needed for the deferred maintenance cost with the adjustment as well. So after they readjusted it from $2 million to about $7 million over that 30-year plan—I believe that was the length of their deferment plan—that we've been able to reach about that $5.3 million at this point. **[37:45] Jason Zimmerman (Finance Director):** Okay. No, that makes absolute sense. So then again, I'm looking for financial... so then at that $7 million, we're looking at a $1.7 million gap that the city would have to fund. And so then it's where does that 1.7 come from when we also look at a lot of our other infrastructural needs that we have within the city? That's kind of where I get nervous in trying to cover that gap. **[38:15] John Monge (Mayor):** Yeah, sure. I think, you know, $1.7 million is a lot of money to consider. I think if we look at our budget, the proportions of how it's split up at this current moment... heavily is focused on Public Safety. We're looking at over 60% with just Public Safety, that's PD and the Fire. So if we can work with them or any of our Capital Improvement Projects to maybe say, "Hey, we can delay or defer purchasing maybe a vehicle or extending the life of those"—cost-saving measures like that. **[38:45] Jason Zimmerman (Finance Director):** Okay. Other thoughts on that part of the topic? **[38:50] Council Member Cole:** Yeah, thank you for bringing the numbers and helping us understand where we're at. Biggest thing for me is the gap. We're talking about the $1.7 million. I mean, I talk to a lot of different residents and our taxes have gone up quite a bit. North St. Paul was always pretty affordable and there's a lot of people now that are getting close to being taxed out of their homes that I talk to as far as on fixed incomes and younger families, which is where we're... you know, as we can see by our study, we're a middle-class area. Trying to understand without doing a levy—and I don't want to be going into any kind of electrical fund—plus the ongoing costs of trying to keep the building and everything else maintained is something that causes me to pause. When I spoke to Congresswoman Betty McCollum about this when we were at our meeting, she said, "You know, this is just starter money. This is for people that need that nudge to be able to go to that next level for things as far as trying to get programs going." We haven't had a community center in 12 years, so it's not like we were shutting down or anything like that. So it brings me pause as far as how much money it will cost to finish it and to keep it running. So that's where I sit with it; I just think it's too much money. **[40:20] Council Member Wong:** I think there's a really wonderful example in St. Paul and that's the Sanneh Foundation at the Conway Center. They have a public-private partnership with many different organizations. So the city operates or takes care of, you know, the land and some of that, but the foundation—they provide free everything to youth. And one way they've been able to do that is through those public-private partnerships. And so Delta Dental was able to provide a brand-new building for them on their land, and so that was like a $2 million building just to put their name on it. I think that's something certainly worth really looking at in terms of different models. I think to your question about is it feasible, I think there's more information that I would need in terms of to determine whether this is feasible, and it's not just from the financial standpoint. It's also looking at what is the community impact on our residents? I think about a lot about our youth, especially lately. And for them to have a space where they can have caring adults to guide them to be in a space where they're cared for—they can grow skills, they can grow up and stay out of trouble. I think that is something that can be measured and should be considered. Because if we continue to just only look at response, for example, to some of the things and put all our money into the response component of it, then we're not really looking upstream. We need to start stacking upstream, or otherwise, we're just going to continue taxing all our responders. And so that's another part of the puzzle for me, is to also look at that long-term benefit for our community. But certainly, I would explore public-private partnerships absolutely. **[42:15] Council Member Cole:** Can I answer that? We actually had Conway here—what was the gentleman's name, Brendan something like that? So he actually came over and we were discussing, and just like Council Member Wong said, they usually do capital... they don't do any running costs. They do "we'll build a building and then we put the name on it," so it's always capital investment. So they weren't sure on how they would be able to do that because there's no capital, because we have the capital which is, you know, we have parts of it they're just left, but we have also the main part of it as well. And operating cost is where they were looking at. So that was part of it too—is talking to them about that and trying to understand how that works. Because Conway is beautiful; we took a tour up there and they're on 22 acres of land. They have room to expand and be able to do a lot of different programming. **[43:10] John Monge (Mayor):** And again, I'm not disagreeing with any of this. I think this is fantastic discussion. Wasn't the RFI trying to get at some of that interest with private partnership that we just didn't get any responses for? **[43:25] Council Member Wong:** So I totally think that is one mechanism. I think where we maybe fell short a little bit is it looks like the phone calls... I don't know if there's like consolidated information from the phone calls to put into paper, like into an application, if that makes sense. So any phone calls and interested parties... I mean, I think also looking at the list, it's pretty limited. And for me, I think "who's missing?" I think there's a lot of other organizations we're really missing and I think that's kind of where I think having a lead project manager to kind of look into all the organizations that have shown interest here in the RFI, but also through Wald. Wald has gone out to 622, to the libraries, to different organizations that have also shown interest that are not reflected in the RFI or the phone calls. And so it just sounds like there needs to be a little bit more robust engagement to really find those quality partners. **[44:25] Jason Zimmerman (Finance Director):** So I'm going to try to paraphrase that in my own words. So you would be in agreement that if we move forward, that we really need to hire this lead project manager that has expertise in that type of area? **[44:40] Council Member Wong:** I think that's absolutely necessary. Yeah, just looking at, for instance, like the engineering and the Watershed District—that is their expertise. They did a feasibility study, it was a large packet. The same things happen in Parks and Rec and Community Development. So I think that's one of the benefits: you have somebody that has the capacity and expertise to take in all of the information, run their numbers and data, and do the market research. Is futsal super popular? What models are working and not? And so to give us really a better larger look—a regional look—at how things can be more feasible or not. **[45:15] Jason Zimmerman (Finance Director):** Okay. No, I'm glad to hear that because I'm in total agreement that that would have to be if you decide to move forward onto it. Just because it's 6:14 right now, is there any sense or feeling... is everybody okay with the city having to find or trying to find a $1.6 million one-time capital into the facility? I'm going to use that as one time because any ongoing capital needs, I'm going to consider that are going to fall underneath the annual component to it. Is everybody comfortable with 1.7? Because that's probably not too far off of what we would end up having to put into this, if not more, because there wasn't a lot of interior redesign or construction and tenant improvements that were included into that $7 million that W had shown. So if we could get input from everyone, I would greatly appreciate that. **[46:15] Cassidy Schweer:** I would be curious to see what the facility structure... I can't think of the word off top my head, it's not audit... what they come through and say our buildings need to look like. Because if you were to ask today, in our funds, without state, we don't have money for it, right? We don't have anything for it right now. With the funding that we have been awarded, not only do we have to worry about that facility, but we're worried about other facilities. We have to worry about the ones that are actually operating right now, and we don't even have budget for that right now. **[46:50] Jason Zimmerman (Finance Director):** Correct. **[46:51] Cassidy Schweer:** So I would like to see an overall on all of the facility needs piece to it. Okay, and what does that look like for all the facilities and how are we going to operate off of it? If this does stay open, I would like to see the bond letter posted to the community or award letter and what the requirements are for these awarded dollars. My understanding is that we have to run the facility, not someone like the Sanneh Foundation. Correct me if I'm wrong—my interpretation, not mine either. **[47:20] Council Member Cole:** I'd like to build on that. I would like us as a collective group to go through that letter line by line and determine what we're comfortable with and what we're not. When the gentleman from DEED was here, it kind of made it sound like anything is up for negotiation. Let's figure out what we're comfortable with. We might not be comfortable by the time we get through it, and then the 1.7 kind of becomes a moot point. And that's why I just wanted to say it. **[47:50] Cassidy Schweer:** You’re good. And then building off of that, I would like to know: should we fall short of whatever the requirements are in that letter—and we don't follow those requirements—we now have to pay back those dollars. What does that levy look like for the city? Huge. I mean, financially, I want to be transparent with the entire community of what that would look like. **[48:10] Jason Zimmerman (Finance Director):** And again, going to what Council Member Cole said, I think if we go through each one of those lines... and if that is a concern for us, is there something that can be modified? Is there a way that you have kind of like a grace period? Again, I don't think they're going to come and inspect it every single day; it may not be even on an annual basis. But if there were some time period in which you weren't being able to provide the services that were vetted underneath the grant, do you have some sort of a time to cure that, which may be a two-year period or a year period? So I think it really begins, again with Council Member Cole, to really go through that. Because you may end up deciding there's too many "tails" or risks that are associated with the grant that nobody was aware of and you're just uncomfortable. So I do agree with that piece. So I think that'll be our next topic that we have to go through. And so we'll get everybody a copy of that and ask council members to be prepared so we can kind of go through it relatively quickly. But in the time remaining, I kind of just want to move further. What I'm hearing is that more than likely both the one-time capital dollars and an annual subsidy—if it's going to be an increasing levy—there's going to be a certain point where that's going to be unaffordable or too high for the city to take. Is that a correct assessment? Are we looking at that? If all of a sudden I said to you that yeah, we can find a partner, they'll help out with the remaining cap, but we have to do all of the operational costs, and that's going to cost you—and remember, for every $70,000 is 1% levy increase—that's going to cost you $350,000. So that's a 5% levy increase. Are we comfortable with that? **[50:00] Council (Multiple):** No. **[50:02] Jason Zimmerman (Finance Director):** So there is some sort of limit, I guess, as far as the operational side that if it does have too big of an impact. And again, I look at these parameters as no-go decisions that we feel that we can't put that much of a burden onto the residents of the taxpayers. And again, I'm not disagreeing with the benefits of this program, because I absolutely agree with you that this could be a very good situation. I'm just a little bit uncomfortable because from a finance position, I'm trying to deal with some of the issues and decisions that were done in the past and make sure that we're in a healthier position moving forward. **[50:45] John Monge (Mayor):** When you mentioned... was it $60,000 you said that they're looking at spending? The volleyball group? **[50:50] Jason Zimmerman (Finance Director):** Yeah, they were looking at about $5,000 a month, so times 12, $60,000 on an annual basis. Pretty much they blocked all the hours; they're pretty much for the gymnasium part to it. **[51:00] Council Member Cole:** Yeah, and I know Kokoro—I think they were double. I think in their prime they were at like $150,000 on an annual basis and we still didn't have enough money. What was it, like 90-some thousand just for the utilities every year if I remember right? **[51:15] Jason Zimmerman (Finance Director):** Yeah, and then where we were really losing on was the maintenance or the upkeep of the facility. We weren't... we were just barely making rent, electricity, and that type of thing for utilities. **[51:25] Council Member Wong:** And I'm not going to put words into Council Member Wong's mouth on this one—wait, I am Council Member Wong—but what I'm hearing is that there is a sense even though the city would be having to subsidize or to contribute something, and maybe it's a 1% levy increase for $70,000, there's a benefit that helps the community. That even though there's a cost associated with it, it's worthwhile. Is that a fair assessment of how you were framing that? **[52:00] Council Member Wong:** Yeah, I think there's a lot of opportunity to look at the social impacts and the cost-benefit and the trade-offs there, yes. I think our parks do that too; we have a lot of things that we offer that provides [benefit]. **[52:10] Cassidy Schweer:** Okay, I think we should sit down as a council and look at this letter word for word. **[52:12] Jason Zimmerman (Finance Director):** Go go through—that'll be the absolute next step. Awesome. Yep. And just to kind of prepare myself as we're moving forward for next steps: if we pass that component to it, for everybody's awareness, if we decide to move forward we're going to need to hire a consultant. If we hire a consultant, the consultant's going to end up being kind of our project manager who's going to be looking for public-private partnerships. They're going to need to be looking at operational costs of the facility. They're going to be having to do some sort of community engagement on whatever partnerships that could be developed. Whatever that costs would not be able to be eligible for the grant funds; those would be funds that the city would end up having to pay. So my last question at 6:23 is: is there an appetite for—let's say it costs $75,000 for those services—is there an appetite from City Council to find a funding source and to approve that $75,000 contract with a consultant for those additional services? Again, this is based upon that we go through line by line and we're satisfied with the actual agreement itself, which will be our next step. **[53:20] Jason Nordby:** My quick answer is: are you... the 75,000, is that from prior experience or is that just a number that's been pulled? Could it be 30,000? **[53:30] Jason Zimmerman (Finance Director):** I have no idea. I'm just [guessing]. **[53:31] Jason Nordby:** Absolutely. My appetite is to yes, let's look forward to it, let's look towards it, but let's figure out what it's going to cost. **[53:40] Jason Zimmerman (Finance Director):** Okay, well we would find that out by running because we'd have to run an RFP on that process. But those items that I kind of talked about would be what would be drafted into an RFP, because that'll take us a while to draft that and get that prepared. **[53:55] Cassidy Schweer:** My thought would be a caveat: if we were to go forward with a private consultant, is to put a firm date on paper that we would have to make a vote by. This has gone on for a very long time, and if we decide to hire a consultant, I would like that to come with the caveat of "we vote by the October 1st meeting" or something out there so we're not perpetuating the same cycle over and over. **[54:20] John Monge (Mayor):** Everybody in agreement? **[54:21] Council Member Wong:** I believe a feasibility study might take a while. I don't know if October 1st is very [realistic]. **[54:26] Cassidy Schweer:** October 1st is very reasonable. I just picked that out of the air. **[54:30] Council Member Wong:** Okay. And you know, that's something for us to consider. And I think we started off with a consultant, Dr. Waldren, and if I remember correctly in our last meeting, one of the residents had stated, "We had Dr. Waldren, we don't have someone now, so let's appoint someone." And it was my understanding that that was an agreement here—that was what was agreed upon. And so I just wanted to circle back with that, that that is something we've already mentioned. Additionally... I think I'll stop right there for now. **[55:05] John Monge (Mayor):** Any other comments? **[55:06] Jason Zimmerman (Finance Director):** I think I've got enough direction. I think it's pretty clear what we're doing on our next step and next couple of steps. **[55:12] Council Member Wong:** So if I may suggest, that we entertain the idea if there are already several agencies or organizations, including volleyball teams, that we consider opening up like we do other parks to rent out as almost a pilot for ourselves? While we're also generating income, because the building is just sitting there. So we might as well put some use to it and maybe a little bit of a return. **[55:40] Council Member Cole:** Is the building even usable with the floors the way they are? **[55:42] Jason Zimmerman (Finance Director):** Absolutely. We don't have that foam footing, and we don't own the nets. We'd have to purchase that unless we put that responsibility back on the players or the teams that are coming in to do that. I know there's a glue and stuff that was stuck—whatever that stuff is that stuck all over the gym floor—that it's pretty much shot, right? **[56:05] Council Member Cole:** And that's what that floor covered up before, correct? I don't know how well that would buff off or I don't know if that was kind of gluey. **[56:12] Council Member Wong:** Sport Court, do you remember? We were talking to Kokoro because they offered to sell us the floor at the time at a reduced rate. I don't know if they still have that or not, but if you guys want us to go forward with that, we can. **[56:25] Council Member Cole:** I don't see putting money into that. **[56:27] Cassidy Schweer:** I'm always on board if it can generate income. **[56:30] Council Member Cole:** Right now it generates nothing. **[56:32] Jason Nordby:** I wouldn't mind knowing a number of what it would take to unlock the door, but without that number, I don't think we can have a meaningful conversation about it. **[56:40] Jason Zimmerman (Finance Director):** So I think what we need to do from the staff level is to prepare a cost estimate and then maybe contact one of these volleyball organizations to see if we can get some sort of a short-term lease agreement. So we have a revenue side to it. And that all needs to come back to City Council for your review and your decision, yep. **[56:58] Cassidy Schweer:** With the elevator not working, can we use [the space]? **[57:02] Jason Zimmerman (Finance Director):** I'll confirm that with Sain's office. **[57:05] Cassidy Schweer:** That would be a big ticket. **[57:06] Jason Zimmerman (Finance Director):** Yeah, it is a big ticket, and if it is, we'll just bring all that information back so you have enough information to make that decision. I think I've occupied all of the time to getting all the way to the end. I thank you very, very much for your input and for the discussion because it was very helpful. So thank you, Mayor and Council Members. **[57:30] John Monge (Mayor):** Thanks, [Jason]. Thank you, appreciate it. Can I get a so moved? **[57:32] Jason Nordby:** So moved. **[57:33] John Monge (Mayor):** Call second. **[57:34] Council Member Cole:** Second. **[57:35] John Monge (Mayor):** All those in favor say aye. **[57:36] Council (In Unison):** Aye. **[57:38] John Monge (Mayor):** Thank you. [Meeting adjourned]