**[00:00:00] Adam Swanepoel:** joint discussion with parks commission. Thank you, Mayor Council. Back in 2024, the parks commission we put together a brand new parks master plan. Part of that parks master plan, one of the first items on the agenda there was to seek and add a parks director position to staffing. That was part of the 2025 work plan which was also reviewed with parks commission as well as city council in January 2025. issue before us tonight for discussion. We do have all members besides one of our parks commission here tonight. Does the city council support the need for the parks director position for the city of Lake Elmo? Did meet with the parks commission on several occasions where to discuss what type of level of service the city would like to see or what we're lacking in our parks division. We put together seven things or excuse me, six things um that they felt our parks department is lacking at this time. One was recreational programming. The second was increased community engagement. Third was securing funding, you know, exploring additional funding resources for the parks department. creating a long range strategic plan, coordinating and developing and implementing a trail network greater network within our community and environmental stewardship. So for the discussion tonight, we're looking for direction on what type of level of service does the community expect and what type of services the city council support as well. comments. **[00:01:30] Jeff Holtz:** I would be curious from the from the commissioners in terms of these six. Do you see them as being pretty equal? Some weighted more than others, some different in terms of time frame. Because there's different ways that we can ingest this and when it comes to implementation rolling out. I'm just curious as to your thoughts on that. any and all. **[00:02:00] Parks Commission Chair:** Um I don't think that we really discussed priority there. Good question though. Um I mean I think that a lot of them in my opinion a lot of them go hand in hand, right? Like I I think that if you secure funding through various additional means, if your position is doing that, then you can do more recreational program. then you can do more community engagement with that. Community engagement also, you know, feeds back into more programming. And so I think that like it feels like a nice package to me. Um but other commissioners might have other ideas. **[00:02:45] Parks Commissioner:** I would just add to that that I mean some of this because the master plan had multiple positions that it recommended and one was this this parks director position. There was also a program manager. So you know at some point there will be a need probably for a lot more of that. sort of like the program management, recreational programming is a piece of it, but that director position, I mean to the point of they're not probably all equal because you couldn't do it all at the same level at the same time. But to just that specific point, it could be just even better understanding and getting it started and then figuring out, okay, do we need that other position down the road? you know, so it's **[00:03:30] Parks Commission Chair:** it's packaged but yet probably at implemented at different levels **[00:03:35] Parks Commissioner:** and it's part of the what the strategic part I think is one of those bullets is to put it all together **[00:03:40] Parks Commission Chair:** and to come up with those priorities. There's more than enough work there, but you're right, there could be a priority scheme within all of those. Um, I'll also just add that I think that it's like one of the challenges in thinking about a, you know, what's the highest priority here for me is that Lake Elmo as a city is um, you know, not even really coming close to the national level benchmarks. And is that a goal? No, not necessarily. But it just kind of says, "Okay, this is where we're at in relation to other park and recreation agencies in towns and cities of less than 20,000." You know, average has or the median not the average has 13.7 employees like Elmo, you know. Um, so what we can what we're doing is like very impressive for the resources that we have, but I don't think it really even starts to appear on the surface of like what comparable cities are doing. **[00:04:30] Nick Dragisich:** Was that 3.7 or 13.7? **[00:04:35] Parks Commission Chair:** 13.7. **[00:04:37] Nick Dragisich:** 13.7. **[00:04:38] Jeff Holtz:** Yeah. So the the thing that I struggle with and from living here in 20 years is that Lake Elmo's, you know, growing fairly rapidly and then the back of my mind is always like, well, are we big enough for this? Are we big enough for that? So there's there's he's continually it's like a teenager going through growing pains, right? you know, the knees kind of hurt and the hips kind of hurt and trying to figure out when the right time is to do that and traditionally our city has been very conservative on adding positions, right? And and maybe not maintaining pace with growth. So along with residents wanting some of these and and I cut all you know the parks amenities things that go with the amenities is a is a is a cost to that right and so dealing that within the city just being very blunt is it's a difficult task for people to say yeah I want to pay more for that and so that's something we try and consider moving forward and you know the the parks strategic plan is good and it it kind of puts us in that direction, but we also want to maybe temper that with um what what can we do, right? And what's what's going to be palatable to a certain extent? I'd love to have a full deck parks and wreck, but what is we probably need to piece that together over time that that take that has that thought process in place and is communicated effectively to the public that these are the these are the costs to doing that type of business, right? Um, but it sounds like we have the strategic plan, but we haven't really vetted out what those costs would be for the city. What the, you know, the pros and the cons list. Here's the advantages. Here's a not really necessarily a con list, but this is what it's going to cost to get those advantages. And everybody cool with that, right? So um that's just **[00:06:15] Parks Commission Chair:** and I think I think that speaks to the need for the position because otherwise it's not happening **[00:06:20] Jeff Holtz:** right **[00:06:22] Parks Commission Chair:** all those things the priority and the timing and the justification the communications it's really not happening. It's never really happened. Okay. or we'll do it in peace meal or the staff will grasp a hold of it and they'll put a part together. But that's why this position is important is because that's going to lay the the foundation. It might not go. We we they might get push back that no, they don't want a huge park system or they don't want this amenity or that amenity, but this would at least start the process of trying to bring that integration, that planning, the strategic planning more together. I'd like to take a chance at or shot at answering Council Member Holtz's question, too. As far as prioritization, I think, excuse me, sorry. Um, the items we've identified really all fit into what the master plan outlines in more specifics. I think it's there's nothing that doesn't overlap there. Um, so the master plan is something that was approved by city council. Um it was does have a number of recommendations and initiatives in it. They actually do outline costs and priorities um high high to medium to low. So it's a it's a good good working document. Uh again, it was approved. Um and I guess to cut to the heart of it, those those priorities are all listed there. We simply can't do u a good portion of them. And this has been told to us by city staff with the current structure we have. So we are as our chair said um kind of stuck in going forward in any meaningful way. **[00:07:45] Nicole Miller:** If I can just add for the for the good of the group for this discussion, we have moved the needle a little bit on some things recently. Um we have our new communications coordinator um and we are just um just implemented using GIS and so one of the layers is a park and trail system. So, as we test it out, we'll be promoting that to the community so they can find the parks um and seeing the amenities as also um we're just um building out a facilities module on our new website where people a self-service reservation system. So, that's something exciting. And then also, and we haven't talked a lot about this, but it's pretty neat. We have um staff internally that have taken on additional um tasks through our community development department um the folks that um keep track of the green um green steps. They've also started gold leaf reporting and so they have um developed a a green team which has staff from each department and they have a work plan. So they're focusing on some trees and water conservation as as they can in addition to their regular job. So just want to throw that out there because not everyone knows that. **[00:08:50] Matt Hirn:** Thank you. Is the so I'm just with the the document here is the thought that is if we add additional staff those six bullet points that's where the commission kind of feels maybe we're struggling and if we add that position having that person that's leading it responsible for it available for it has the the time the the capacity to do it that those improve is is that what I'm looking at is your thought process with this? **[00:09:15] Parks Commission Chair:** The simple answer is correct. **[00:09:17] Matt Hirn:** Yeah. **[00:09:18] Parks Commission Chair:** So then I I guess maybe just for me too like if you could kind of just talk through them like that first one like recreational programming develop community recreational education programming for kids. I guess just kind of talking through um maybe you know what it is that you're you're hoping how did it get boiled down to that, right? what is it that you want to see some examples um and maybe kind of helping me understand as far as like with that additional staff, how do we work towards that? Or if there's a different bullet point that you think, you know, speaks more loudly to that, you know, happy to hear that. Um I think for me that'd be helpful just to kind of better understand how those two play together. **[00:10:00] Parks Commission Chair:** I guess I can maybe take a stab at this. I think the the programming piece again having the position might be able to set a foundation and determine what kind of programming you might need, what level of programming you might need. That doesn't mean that that person is necessarily doing it themselves. The position is not maybe not anyone from the city, but there's different ways to do programming, whether it's through partnerships or other agencies that are doing it. And that would this position would allow that person I think to research some of those areas where the programming it might be working with another community might be working with Washington County to offer some of these programs and these events and those type of things. So I don't think it was meant that this person would this position would do that but create that framework where it it could get started in some capacity. **[00:10:45] Matt Hirn:** And would recreational programming is that like you know working with SCVAA working with Stillwater Lacrosse Association is that **[00:11:00] Parks Commission Chair:** it in my mind it could be it's not just it's not just youth athletics it could be again we talked about you know adults and seniors we have all these wonderful parks how can we better utilize them whether that's you know pickle ball I know we don't want to hear that word too close but whether it's pickle ball whether it's a senior program whether it's um working with like I said the county doing fishing or or things like that that I think kind of a a wide scan of that and maybe we find that there's areas where we don't need to cover because it's being it's being done in some other capacity whether through community education but I think feel strongly that this position could identify those gaps or those areas specific to programming. **[00:11:40] Matt Hirn:** Okay. So it could be working with the continuing community education program. It could be working with other communities in the area. It could be working with **[00:11:50] Parks Commission Chair:** the county. The county does a lot of program using our parks. **[00:11:53] Matt Hirn:** It's not meant that the city of Lake Elmo is going to have some now maybe 5 10 years from now that's needed. You need somebody to specifically do that, but I think that was the intent. I don't want to speak for all the commissioners, but I think that was kind of our thinking around that topic. **[00:12:05] Matt Hirn:** Okay, that helps. Thank you. **[00:12:07] Parks Commissioner:** I can give an example, too. Like my husband, he drives to Minneapolis. like he participates in Minneapolis, you know, parks and recreation for soccer. He also Woodbury has a program he goes down there. Like, you know, it's all investing that effort and energy outside of Lake Elmo. Um, and it's not that we don't have facilities for these things. It's not that we don't have um the the body of people that are interested. It's just that programming doesn't exist here. **[00:12:40] Matt Hirn:** Are there programs like organized by Minneapolis and programs organized by Woodbury that he goes to **[00:12:45] Parks Commissioner:** pick up soccer that are on Sundays, you know, certain fee associated with it, right? It's just like a league. Sure. Um for adults and of course there's league for kids and we also mentioned leagues for senior or programming for seniors. You know, I think that these are all kind of distinct population segments that um have needs and u you know, we have space but no cohesion really of **[00:13:15] Matt Hirn:** that's just it's an interesting one because I've been to other cities too where I feel like it's kind of the opposite, right? It's all a privately organized organizations. I was just in Washington DC and all over the entire Washington Monument Park. It was all these different sports going on organized by a different company. Um but obviously, yeah, there are a lot of cities that do that too. And I just think it's kind of it's interesting seeing the the pros and cons of both of those. Um, yeah. No, that's good. That really helps me with understanding that. Again, I don't if everybody else understands it, we don't have to go through it, but I kind of appreciate that for each of those bullets. You know, like same thing with community engagement. I guess my initial thought when I look at that is right, we have a a um communications director now who's doing a lot of great communications. Is that something that is able to be done by that role or is there something that you know again specifically with a parks position director where that would be enhanced? Again, if you could maybe just speak on that a little bit. **[00:14:15] Parks Commission Chair:** Well, part of that would leverage in with the first things that the more programs you have, the more park specific programs you have, the more communication and engagement you can leverage at that point. So, part of it they they fit hand in hand. Uh but yeah, there's a good level of of communication that goes out, but um about a year ago, we had a board member who was under 30. In fact, I think he was under 20. We're not communicating with that group at all. He would say, "Okay." And none of the people around him, his peers or anybody, you're not communicating with those people. Now, we've added on some communication skills. So, maybe that's improved in a year, but that's where we were at a year ago. Even though we were sending out the weekly email and even though you know there were other forms, here's an 18-year-old who says we're not communicating parks information to his generation. So, that's one one area you could work on. **[00:15:15] Parks Commissioner:** I think the addition of u the communications director has been fantastic. It's noticeable immediately. Um I think though the addition and the combination of the two um and other departments um somebody that's leading the parks area can put forth communications and and work with communications director to make sure that we're advertising and and cheerleading for our for our park system and also engaging with community members so we can make sure that people have the opportunity to to be involved. Again, we'll try not to mention it too much, but pickle ball is a good example of u you know that that age-old we you know our residents saying we never heard a thing about this. Um which is not completely true. We don't have to go down that too much, but having a communications director is going to help that, but having a park director working with communications about what's happening within our park system, what our potential plans are, what the implementation might be in coordination with that can only enhance the city and enhance things for our residents. **[00:16:15] Mayor Cadenhead:** And just moving forward, pickle ball's okay to say, **[00:16:18] Parks Commissioner:** is it? Is it? **[00:16:20] Mayor Cadenhead:** I think it's fine. It's it's a good **[00:16:22] Parks Commissioner:** not too loudly. Not after. **[00:16:24] Parks Commissioner:** It's a green activity. **[00:16:26] Mayor Cadenhead:** And we we experience some, like I say, growing pains trying to figure things out. **[00:16:30] Parks Commissioner:** Absolutely. **[00:16:32] Mayor Cadenhead:** I think we're we're in that process, right? So, it's it's all right. **[00:16:35] Parks Commissioner:** Good. Um, to add on to that, one thing that as a commission we've seen, at least as long as I've been a commissioner, is a couple times a year we get a donation. um someone wants to donate a bench or um make another type of donation. And it's always really nice to hear how the parks have impacted people in such a way that they want to give back in that way. And we we have this feeling as a commission that the that the desire to have a bench or something like that is more widespread in the community. But coordinating that, facilitating that, letting people know that donations are an opportunity like that's an opportunity that people have is not, you know, that's a very low priority right now, but there could be a lot of potential there. We also don't have anybody that would be able to coordinate a I don't think I don't want to speak for staff, but I don't think we'd have anybody that can coordinate any sort of volunteer activities that we might want to have go on in the park, whether it be pick up litter or do invasive species removal or whatever it might be. Um that's something that we I I do believe can't fulfill just due to staffing. **[00:17:45] Jeff Holtz:** Have you talked about the cost of adding that position and the organizational structure, how it would fit in um to our current organizational structure? **[00:17:55] Parks Commissioner:** Um two things here. One, just to build on that, you know, I think that we do have a really great example of the Sally Manzera Center and they have they have a volunteer that coordinates volunteer efforts, right? and that allowed them to access the largest community grants that the DNR has given out at least a couple years ago. And so that is impressive. Like that says that there is the hunger for that, but the coordination like it would be nice if someone could do that more as part of their job, right? Um and then to your question, the parks master plan, you know, page 87 lays out that the total compensation estimate is 120,000 to 165,000 per year. So I don't know if that's realistic. I don't know like but that's a starting point for that conversation. **[00:18:45] Parks Commission Chair:** I don't think we've discussed as a commission how it would fit in with current public works and staff. I and I think that that would need you know that would need to happen as to what is the best efficiency and synergy for that and what would make sense so that we still get the best of both worlds to serve the **[00:19:00] Jeff Holtz:** how how you would structure this do you hire director do you hire workers do you hire whatever none of that's been discussed **[00:19:05] Parks Commission Chair:** and that somewhat would be for this position to help **[00:19:10] Mayor Cadenhead:** right **[00:19:12] Parks Commission Chair:** craft as well if if if that went in that direction. **[00:19:15] Jeff Holtz:** Well, and maybe and I can clarify the root of my question was more so because the plan, the parks master plan does have high, medium, low. We have cost estimates, but they're not vetted. They're they're from professionals in the field who gave a their best guess. But in the case of I'll use an example the connecting of trail networks that itself is an item here but even within the parks master plan that's separated by connections that are low medium and high and the low ones are eight years out whereas recreational programming itself that that's where I was kind of getting you know these where would we see and maybe this is you know the aspect of needing an additional parks managerial level position to help with now the implementation plan. If we're if we're actually we're having conversation about say recreational programming and we're going to say that is a responsibility of the city and we're not going to go with a model where it's volunteer-based that does compete with the interest of funding for connections. It does. And so that that's the root of of my question because I think we all are aware these will compete against each other. So I I just want to have a better understanding as to and same thing with environmental stewardship or the community engagement piece. Obviously we all agree it's fantastic having communication staff on board. We also have one. We don't have eight. We do not want her to be literally having piles and piles of requests because we've built them up over the last couple years. That's not fair to her. It's great job security. But with that said, so that's where it's coming from. But I I fully understand that these many of them are pulling it out from the plan and putting at a higher level. But at the end of the day, we are going to need to prioritize as to how these things roll out. And maybe that is then a function then for having that conversation of a a parks managerial level staffer. I just don't want it to be the same thing of oh now we have this here's the 1,000 tasks that you have and make it unrealistic either because we can't do that's not fair to our staff either. **[00:21:15] Parks Commission Chair:** If I were to name one on our list I would put it at funding opportunities. I think we have it listed maybe as grant opportunities. make it a little more broad. The master plan has in the appendix two full pages of funding opportunities outside of just regular tax task tax based grant-based funding opportunities. From my perspective, and that's just mine. I'm not speaking for our whole body here, but um that would be a significant portion of the time for any new staff member that's coming on for for parks is to secure funding. So, we could maybe get a grant to do have a recreations u personnel that could start that work. Um that could f get funding for trails that could get funding. Well, the the funding opportunities are there. We all know they're hard to get, but you can't get them unless you got somebody dedicated to going after them. And so, again, I don't I don't even know if it I might even put it at 50% of their job. **[00:22:15] Jeff Holtz:** Question for staff because I know with our wonderful new firm of Bolton and Mink, we had discussions of, you know, one of the advantages with Bolton Mink is the ability to connect with grant writing and looking to what's available. We definitely were thinking of it from the engineering standpoint. Does it also apply for the parks and recck standpoint? Is that something where that availability of expertise and labor for going after grants applies or is that such a separate world being in the parks and Rex area that that's not something that Nate **[00:22:45] Nate Stanley:** Good evening. So my experience has primarily been with the transportation side in chasing grants. Um, I would, um, I know that we have pursued, u grants for clients in, um, recreational opportunities in the past. Um, I'd like to be able to get a little more information though, if I if I'm going to provide more specifics to the council and get back to you on that. **[00:23:15] Jeff Holtz:** I I think one a prime example then is the connectivity piece since that's very roadway oriented. It's the rightway issues like it's transportation plan, but yeah, totally understandable. **[00:23:25] Nate Stanley:** Yep. trails typically fall under the transportation, you know, it's it's it's bleeds into both areas, you know, and so um we look at them from a transportation perspective when we go for grant funding, but I I will definitely follow up with the council. **[00:23:40] Parks Commissioner:** Thank you, sir. um if giving a little information and like our own perspectives helps kind of illuminate what we're trying to communicate here. I think going along with what the Chair said when the contractor was bringing this the park's master plan to us um I recall that they said you know in other cities that they've worked at that have followed through and hired someone um they have brought in more money than it costs to fund that position which I don't think I mean should not be a condition of employment if we're going down that road. Um, but just kind of um, you know, I was surprised to hear that, but when you think about it, it's probably not actually that surprising. And I think overall what we're trying to say as a commission is um, we feel that the parks and recreation in the city is really could be poised to kind of go to that next level. Right? We've got this master plan in place that just happened. um we've got some new opportunities that we're going to be talking about in the you know further down in this agenda that are happening. Like there's all of these things that are have either just happened or we're kind of at the cusp of and we don't have the answers to how all of these things fit together. And I think that it would be disingenuous to have us kind of creatively think on each one of these things and what they mean to us. Um but overarching like in this broad perspective it it seemed to us all that there was enough there that we you know Adam helped us prioritize that and bring this to you as an agenda item and the specifics and semantics of things um you know there's a lot of material to draw on in that master plan um in what other communities are doing and Lake Elmo does not have to do exactly what other communities are doing. That would be silly. Um, but that's that's just kind of what we're saying here, I think. **[00:25:30] Jeff Holtz:** As Thank you for that. Um, because the topic is, you know, level of services. Are there things from from your perspectives where we're providing services and they're not being used where maybe we have an opportunity to recalibrate where we're providing certain things and you know what, times have changed and we need to adapt? **[00:25:50] Parks Commission Chair:** Again, the answer is yes. One of the things I would go to is resources. We have a lot of underutilized resources. And so um there's potential out there. Okay. Um there are parks that I do not think that um are being used to their fullest extent. And there's other parks that maybe we don't need them as a park. Okay. So, there are some things out there as far as resources specifically, um, that could be either leveraged or not. **[00:26:15] Jeff Holtz:** So, you're seeing it more from like a location standpoint. **[00:26:18] Parks Commission Chair:** A location. Yeah. But, u that's one aspect of it. u especially as we talk about we have a number of parks all over the place but they're not utilized um some are not even utilized. I go around traveling to them. You guys must too. There's some that are not rarely if ever utilized and those I think we should look at. **[00:26:40] Matt Hirn:** Rude kind of lead into the next one. I I think that was a great point though about um honestly with the the grant and the funding aspect of it. I I think that's a really good point and it really um something definitely very much in the positive column of bringing on somebody in this role especially as we're talking about some of the stuff that we have later in the agenda here. I mean, um, there are a lot of options there. And I think that is, um, you know, kind of like you, not that that's the the prerequisite for it or the expectation, but that really can pay for its role by spending having somebody who's able to spend the time to look for these different um, funding opportunities and making sure it's, you know, for the right thing as well and making the right decisions. So, I just I think this is I I definitely understand the need for it. Um, and I think especially as we we talk about some of these future items, u just coming up here, um, there's probably going to be even more of a need for it. u but then it's probably just, yeah, figuring out as far as kind of like I can't remember who was saying, Jeff, you were saying from like the if we just bring on one person and they have 5,000 things to do, is that really the right way? And so figuring out, you know, more of the details, but it does seem like moving in this direction makes sense as we continue. And and I and I very much agree that we have this parks master plan that we invested a lot of time and energy into. Um and I don't really want it to turn into the the previous parks master plan where you know we started with the new one and and we kind of realized you know shoot we didn't really do anything with this and and didn't take action on it. Now I don't want that to come off as everything in this parks master plan has to happen. That's absolutely not what that is for. um it's a guide and it gives us some direction, but I think it'd be a missed opportunity if we we if we aren't having um consistent um engagement with that. Administer Miller, like I think you've done such a great job with like with our goals, right, of making that such a focus in every single meeting. It's like when you shine the light on it, those things happen. You kind of need to do the same thing, I think, with that parks master plan. **[00:28:45] Mayor Cadenhead:** Probably agreed. The old one had dust on it, you know. **[00:28:50] Matt Hirn:** So the question, does a city council support the need for a parks director? I guess my answer would be I support a position that is leaning towards that. Maybe it grows into a parks director and I'm just thinking operationally how we are with our public works department and how we have with our communications. Maybe it's nobody don't shoot the messenger here, but maybe it's like parks coordinator or something like that to start off with and then you when you grow the program and you get something and the city grows and you have more resources to put towards that then it maybe becomes a director position and you you know you're doing more with that. I'm and I guess it, you know, from a I I would support something like that to to to get the ball rolling and to to vet that out and then I would look to the plan, the parks commission to kind of decide on or help configure what that position looks like for the administrator to fit into the system. That that would be something I could support on the the front end. **[00:29:45] Parks Commission Chair:** I think that's good. our surrounding communities have park park superintendent and park supervisors as well. You know, something along that lines where we can maybe get the ball rolling with somebody that's invested in finding some of these other resources to help the city out and program things for for the you know vast majority of residents whether they're aging or younger and work with other communities. and some of those funding resources like you mentioned at the back of the the appendix there and and research some of those and maybe get us on the the page of you know using some of those um for the city. I mean that's just my thought. **[00:30:15] Jeff Holtz:** I think that makes a lot of sense. I think it's a good place to start and maybe you know at that point you still need to prioritize what that role would be focusing on of these six bullet points. Not that that doesn't mean they do all of them, but you know, still give a little **[00:30:30] Parks Commissioner:** and then ten **[00:30:32] Jeff Holtz:** and then some. Yeah. So, um, Adam, your parks, the portion of your job that is dedicated supposedly to parks is 40 um a quarter. Is that correct? 25%? **[00:30:45] Adam Swanepoel:** Yeah, you could say that. **[00:30:47] Mayor Cadenhead:** Okay. So, that means if we went with your suggestion, mayor, so it would be someone with twice the amount of time in parks. And I don't know. I don't want to put you on the spot, Adam, but it seems to me that 50% more is is really not a whole lot. If we're hoping for for that person to look into grants and looking at other things, it doesn't seem like 20 hours a week is really much time. **[00:31:15] Adam Swanepoel:** No, that would be their their full-time gig. The thing operationally we stand stand into is we have a public works director and and the people that take care of the parks and wreck are all the public works employees, right? And a lot of times in these I'll say them larger cities than us when they have a parks director they have their own staff that take care of all the parks and those things. So what I'm looking at is somebody that would be geared maybe that takes the yoke off of u Adam's back and they carry the full load of that. I guess that's what I'm suggesting. I misunderstood you. **[00:31:45] Mayor Cadenhead:** Not not just a part-time person, but like I don't know that we're at a point where a director is the is the correct terminology. So start the ball rolling with a park supervisor or coordinator. You know that that was my thought. **[00:32:00] Parks Commissioner:** Yeah. Go ahead. An alternative thought is, you know, I understand that for u government positions especially, it's if you're adding a full-time staff, it's really important to know the sustainability of being able to fund that position. Is there um I work in state government and what we do a lot of is um temporary work out of classes or term positions. And that might be another way to think about if there is some some room where we can pay to play a little bit in here. You know, what's the most efficient and um smart use of that for the time you have? Maybe it's yeah, starting small and seeing if if there's a need to ramp up. Maybe it's going in big for a limited time as a trial basis and then seeing what's next. You know, I think we're in this this phase where um Oh, yeah. We're I feel like the city the commission feels like the city is kind of poised here and now there's a decision. Do we do something? Yes or no? And if yes, I think that there's a number of creative ways that that could look. This is just kind of a starting point for us to have this discussion which we appreciate. **[00:33:00] Jeff Holtz:** Well, I would wager most of the people in this entire room are probably of the understanding that an additional position is needed like that. It's in the parks master plan. We all understand the constraints that staff are under. We all understand the the services that need to be added to keep up with demands of constituents. So, I I I appreciate I I work for the state as well. Um I have not done a work in a class lately, but I do recall the joys of that. I I think I there's gonna be some point down the road where I'm not even going to guess what year where parks is a separate unit and has its own staff. Like that is the norm, but who knows when that is. What is the level of u our tax base that's needed for that? What's the level of population? I do not know. um whether it's again titles can be determined later on I think a more important question is the structure within the u division itself the department how it's structured and what the responsibilities are I think is probably the the primary question whether it's called a program manager a coordinator an assistant director words are words but it's about the job duties that determines how it's classed and what the compensation is and what the workload is. So I I think that's the the priority. Um do they then have their own team? I I'll I would be curious for staff's thoughts as well. I mean you guys have been thinking about this like what are your thoughts as to how when a position is added, how are you thinking about the organization being structured? Like what are the options that you've thought of at six in the morning when drinking coffee? **[00:34:30] Adam Swanepoel:** I'll lightly talk about it, but one of the things that was one of our major um discussion points was is like who is that person going to supervise? A lot of times when you have those titles, there is a number of people underneath them, right? And so putting that position out there just wouldn't make sense if you don't have the staff underneath them to support or to direct, right, to make that parks that much better. So um I know in our last meeting we did talk about the u the rough telis report you know that does they mentioned that in there as well. So you know again going back to your conversation is just how do we structure that I don't know if it's been really laid out um but it's definitely been in discussion like you said in our coffee meetings. **[00:35:15] Mayor Cadenhead:** I think you you hit bit on partly on the head there Jeff was figuring out the responsibilities of that position. Once you do that, then you know how it fits in and where it should go and with the integration with the rest of the works by the public works director. **[00:35:30] Clarissa Hadler:** We'll also have to find um funding within the budget because that position currently isn't listed within the budget. **[00:35:38] Mayor Cadenhead:** Correct. Correct. And we're we're talking about 26. **[00:35:42] Parks Commission Chair:** Yes. **[00:35:44] Mayor Cadenhead:** Correct. Take you that long to get somebody on board probably. Well, first you got to figure out what the what the responsibilities are going to be. Then you fit out figure out how it fits within the organization based on those responsibilities. and and then you can then you'll kind of based on those responsibilities come up with a for you state employees the Hayes program and figure out what the what the proper proper rating should be for that position. **[00:36:15] Nicole Miller:** I think um hearing this discussion helps. Um after the public works operational assessment u you know our one of our next steps is to strategically plan out the staffing for the public works department and then hearing the feedback from this discussion um you know we can start to think about how that would play in. **[00:36:30] Nick Dragisich:** Okay. So that I mean that was the first question or I guess that Jeff and I have spoken on whether we support something along those lines. Other council members want to speak to that. I'm in support as well. I think the roles and responsibility needs to be fleshed out a lot more before I would approve anything. But I agree that another body is needed for a job like this depending on what the the role title is, what the responsibilities are, pay scale, that type of thing. **[00:37:00] Matt Hirn:** Correct. Okay. I u I I agree that I don't know if a director role for it right now makes the most sense to get started with it. Um I also don't know timing wise. I think honestly these next two discussion points that we're going to have too I think could have a big impact on the need for a role like this or not or I shouldn't say need for it or not but kind of timing of it maybe more so. Um but yeah I think in favor of to make sure the parks master plan is being implemented and that the park system is improving. I think it makes sense. I think it's just figuring out the timing and I I guess I would lean more towards yeah probably more of a a coordinator role or a um but not a director maybe to get started more of the not the dive in the deep end version of what you were saying **[00:37:45] Nick Kragness:** anything u Nick council member well I I think um we have the plan done it points out the need for the position and I think we're going down the right road with bit um we have some more discussion this evening about how that's going to fit into our plan for 2026 which is be fairly um integral to getting this done but I think there's a need for it and as we grow and develop as a community and become more diverse in our services having you know proper people to guide them and and make sure that we're getting the biggest bang for our buck um and listening to our residents is important piece that we need to So just in interest of time with 50 minutes on that I'd like to move to the next topic if that's if we've answered the question sufficiently enough for you all. **[00:38:30] Parks Commission Chair:** Yes. Okay. **[00:38:35] Adam Swanepoel:** Next uh item on the agenda is park amenities and replacement. So, um, this conversation was actually tabled, u after a discussion of implementing a new playground set at Lions Park at our last city council meeting. In your packet, I we did provide the budget and actually the CIP, the upcoming CIP for the parks division. um what so the issue I think for the discussion would be is does the city council support the need for continuing replace amenities including neighborhood playground sets u that set by the parks commission. So um we do have 14 playground sets throughout the community um with in over 20 u plus parks. um we initially set a buffer of about $150,000 for those park replacements. um and those are normally last about 20 to 25 years. Also in our our CIP is a number of shelters. We listed those over the next five years. Those are un um we don't have an actual placement holder for them, but we have discussed in many of our meetings of of of our parks where they would be and if they would qualify for. So, I think I'll open that up for discussion of, you know, what the city council would like the parks commission to start looking at in the future. Um, and and the ultimate goal of being fiscally responsible with their funds that we do have in the **[00:40:15] Mayor Cadenhead:** So, this this the discussion from last Tuesday was u presented by council member Holtz and we agreed that and I think it in part to is it commissioner? What was that? Did I pronounce that right? **[00:40:30] Parks Commissioner:** Hure. Yeah. **[00:40:35] Mayor Cadenhead:** Your comment about are these parks really being used? Right. So, we have when developments were coming in, right? Every development had its own park. Was that the right strategy or not? Well, we can we can hoo about that all day and not come up with the right answer. But the question is, are we putting the restructuring new parks? Do they all need the park systems? I would argue that no, they don't. So, more of a focus on where they're important u to be, you know, fiscally responsible for the city on this turnaround. Unfortunately, the one that came up last week was the park in in Lake Elmo Park or the playground there. And we all agreed that that is absolutely gets used quite a bit. that I see kids on there all the time for various events. So, um I don't think that one's in in danger. um but I I think that just got us into the discussion point. Maybe we should be a little more u I don't know if strategic is really the word at where we're replacing playground equipment because it is a significant it is a significant cost u to replace those and you know it's going to come up every 20 years. **[00:41:45] Adam Swanepoel:** I think that and that's part of the problem for the last few years is there was a long period of time before me when there wasn't reinvestment in this stuff. So we have been u they provided a matrix of the 20 years and guess what they all kind of dump into a small time frame. Okay. So a lot of these replacements were part of safety. Okay. Now there was the right answer for safety but maybe not the right answer for the system as a whole. I would agree with that. That that's kind of the point I think that the council was thinking about. I don't want to speak for everybody here, but it kind of came up that way. And maybe we'd like to a little better look at that as we look at the CIP in the future is do they all need to be replaced? Are they the right are they the right ones? Um, you know, I I would I would argue that sometimes just putting in these local parks in these small places kind of keeps community from being part of the larger community. you got a micro community, you know, but um people don't tend to travel outside of their development to go to another park if they got a park right there. So, but you also want that accessible. It's it's a union, right? So, **[00:43:00] Matt Hirn:** well, we don't have the interconnectivity of trails that would facilitate something like that. So, that's another part of it that would fit, but the safe funds from that could really be be used for it, right? And I think that's for me it's it's a I think the two big factors is u, one, the financial side of it, right? I mean, if we're replacing playgrounds every 20 25 years with with 14 playgrounds soon to be 15, I mean, we're looking at every year and a half replacing a playground at that rate, right? And that's 200 to $300,000 every year and a half to two years where um, if that's the need, then you know, great. Like that that it's a it's a good investment. But the second piece of it is is is it the best use of of all the parks that we have, right? And um you know like in the the master plan, it talks about having a it's about a park, not necessarily a playground, but having a a park within 1 half to 3/4 mile radius of throughout the the whole city. And again, is that possible? You know, maybe not. But, you know, just even looking at that, like not even looking at um parks that just have playgrounds. I mean, we're we're far exceeding that in several areas. And so, it kind of it becomes a okay, yeah, there's the financial side of it, you know, can we can we cut this down? So, from the financial side, we we can save some of this, but then it also becomes a well, what if we use some of these parks for some of the other needs that we have, right? Like there's the the desire for a disc golf, there's desire for the the fitness center park, there's the desire for a skate park. Not saying that any of these are right or wrong, but maybe some of these parks would be better utilized for those situations. So, you know, as these their 25 to 30-year lifespan comes up instead of replacing it, do we look at, you know, instead of a $300,000 playground, do we look at doing this $25,000 um disc golf, right? Is it actually a better option that's going to get used more? We're not going to put a pickle ball court there probably. But again, is there other options for what we use these parks for? And um and then to the comment, you know, about the trails, right? Like if we're saving instead of every year and a half, it's every three and a half to four years that we're reinvesting in a playground. Well, I mean, that's nearly a million dollars over that that time of two and a half to three years that we can invest in other parks options, right? And I think so for me, it's kind of like a twofold. I um I think I at the the city council meeting I maybe I I made a comment that didn't really I I didn't really I thought about it and you know I I I've driven around and seen a lot of the playgrounds not being used by kids and that's so I'm not saying that like there isn't a need for playgrounds. It's just I think maybe the what what kids are using parks for and how they use parks is different. Again that doesn't mean they don't use playgrounds. They use them. Um, I I see that more so now there's a lot of use of the trails, right, to get from place to place. I'd say more so by adults probably. Um, and then from the youth perspective, I I really see that it's become more of a, you know, the kids aren't biking to the playground with their friend anymore. It's their parents are dropping them off for a coordinated activity, flag football, soccer, lacrosse, hockey, whatever it might be. And you know, as as much as I wish kids would go use the playgrounds more, I just feel like maybe the the use of the parks is changing and I think trying to trying to serve that versus fight against it also makes sense to me. **[00:46:30] Nick Dragisich:** I think um part of this coordinator's position could be to do that exactly that for us. We have a lot of parks and what do we really need for parks? equipment to the need. Um that makes a smart investment and we're not putting in replacing playground for $300,000 that hardly anybody's using. So making those investments smart and if we do that um then we would have more funds available to put the connecting trails in. Um we have about $5 million here in the CIP. The park dedication fund had about $3 million at the end of 2024 and we have a you know proposed $100,000 park CIP levy in our 26 budget and we'll get more park dedication. So I don't think funding is going to be so much of an issue given you know unless growth stops altogether but using that money smartly and targeting those investments where we'll get the most return for them and get their you know their highest use. I agree with that. The challenge is going to be again the way we we grew this thing is even though there's a park and it's not being used the neighbors are very connected to that park. Yeah. So just not supporting it or changing the layout. There's going to be have to be a lot of u community communications. There's going to have to be a lot of work supporting those kind of decisions. probably the right decision, but each of those communities, just because we put them out in these little areas, are going to be attractive to that. **[00:47:45] Nick Kragness:** Yeah, I think that I think that's going to be a big challenge. I agree. And and I think that's where, you know, hopefully we can get community involvement too, you know, around that time of, you know, this is the cost. This is why this city is going in this direction. You know, how else could this park be used? How else would would this community like to to see it be used? you know, do and go in a logical, oh, we'll make a centralized park and it'll have all these great amenities and there'll be these trails so you won't have to go to your park that's very small. It'll have all this stuff. Correct. There's an argument there. We had that situation in the Royal Club. We have a tot lot over in phase two. Um, it was in the development agreement with the city. Do you know how many children live in phase one and phase two? There's four in all of phase two. And there might be two in all of phase one. And so the park sits there empty 99 and 44 100% of the time. The communication among the residents is we should take the tot lot out and put in a resource that people will use like a picnic shelter um something along that line. It's it's starting to buzz fairly actively. My point being where we have these neighborhood parks, if we work with the residents and say, "How often do you see use? How often do you use it? what would make it better for you as a as a neighborhood. Um what amenities to make that something you would be enjoy and share. I think we can make it work as a communication thing but it does take time and again this is something a coordinator would be able to do effectively and we making smart investments that actually improve the park from the neighborhood's perspective because it make it more usable. **[00:49:15] Parks Commission Chair:** Yeah. I think I'm hearing a couple different things as far as whether we're talking about parks or whether we're talking about playground equipment and and whether we need more parks. The master plan, the comprehensive plan and our I think our work has been very focused on putting any play any new parks where they're needed and there's two two identified spots within the city. So I don't think that there's any thing there are some parks that are um maybe do overlap a little bit but I think we've identified the north north central and the southeast corners as places that need a park. I think it was just discussion primarily around the playground equipment and it for me that cost there and we are we are in the plus category for sure in playgrounds um with with national standards I think we're plus six however we're deficient in about 10 other categories for other things and I think that speaks to your it gives that opportunity **[00:50:00] Nick Kragness:** opportunity for new new or different varying diverse activities **[00:50:05] Parks Commissioner:** and I think the important point I'd like to make is those still cost money. So I when I hear well we we have you know we have to figure out how much we're going to spend and whether this is a good spending use of money. u Investing in our parks is definitely a good use of money. It's it is how we spend it. I think the master plan um does also call for a playground in every park um which I think we've all recognized. Again, we're plus six. We've recognized that the focus would be on those deficient areas. u and um you know, from there we it does kind of circle back to the the need for somebody that's coordinating this. I know that the the discussion did start with the the Lions Park. u currently in that master plan the the u it does call for developing a long long range u plan for Lions Park, a comprehensive plan. um we simply don't have the ability to for staff to do that. So we've focused on the playground. Is that the right decision? u That's that's a well-used park and and $300,000 is that's that's for that park. most of these parks. Cly Park was 125 or 100. So, not nearly that. And I just want to clarify that point. We're not spending 300,000 for every park that we update. u and and again, to Nick's point, we're updating them because they haven't been updated for a number of years. And and part of a coordinator could also develop a maintenance plan, a better a better maintenance plan than we had for some of these playgrounds. **[00:51:30] Nick Dragisich:** And if this didn't get approved for Lions Park to get a new playground, let's say, what would happen with that park? Because it it's in your opinion, is it safe to use right now, Adam? **[00:51:40] Adam Swanepoel:** So, currently, yeah, yes, it's safe to use at this point. There is a number of maintenance items that we have done with it in the past, but we have seen that it is shifting due to the frost spoil. So, it wouldn't be a matter of time before it was just removed. **[00:51:55] Nick Dragisich:** When would it be removed, do you think? **[00:51:57] Adam Swanepoel:** Probably within the next year or two. **[00:52:00] Nick Dragisich:** Okay. So that's something we have to think about too is does the council want to completely remove one of the top used playgrounds in the city? Would you consider that a highly used playground set? **[00:52:10] Adam Swanepoel:** The Lions one. **[00:52:12] Jeff Holtz:** Yeah. **[00:52:13] Adam Swanepoel:** Yes. **[00:52:15] Parks Commissioner:** I think u Sorry. Go ahead. Oh, I was going to say yeah. I mean that question right there is what I've been kind of think is what I was thinking when I saw this in the um packet is you know I think we've been asking our or we've been finding ourselves in this situation as a commission where it's like okay this has been out there for 20 years 25 years you know being used being exposed to elements it's getting weathered maybe some slides have been removed we saw that at Pebble Park already where public works had like needed to remove some aspects to keep it safe we go out there we inspect it or you know we're asked to go look at it. Sure. You see things rusting, you see, you know, pieces getting worn. um you see the change in elevation that's happened and we've always asked our or I guess speaking for myself, I've come from the position of okay, we're in this position where this need something needs to be done here. What are we doing? Okay. Well, do we want to replace it? I don't know. But this is the option we have. And the other option, right, is to remove it. So still to spend some money to remove it, but I think that asking that question is it safe? Like, you know, maybe that can come first and oftentimes the answer is no, right? Like something needs to be done, but to figure out what's going to go there next, you know, maybe that's the second question. Maybe the question is how do we get this removed? And then if we replace it with something, what does that look like? is that second question, right? **[00:53:30] Jeff Holtz:** Part of the part of the hard part with this was the council has had a yearslong discussion and and you you're well aware about do we start to shift towards larger more centralized less number of playgrounds. Then in the long term you get more bang for the buck. You have one or two really large ones and less of your $150,000 to $200,000 ones. or do we continue to do your 130 your 150 200 everywhere and it just happened that this was the time when Lions is up. We are all aware it is heavily used. Um but part of our discussion was actually should it be larger? Should this be the place where we start to focus on a centralized, it's not the right word, super-sized playground as we start to maybe have fewer playgrounds elsewhere to have it more of a gathering place to have it more of a centralized that's the playground and that's I think if I don't want to speak out of turn but I think that's where council member Hirn was coming from that's where I was coming from u not to not replace lions, but is this the time now where we start the shift and focus in this direction because in the long term that is a cost savings by having fewer but larger ones and that the disc golf is is an interesting one and I as you start to say that disc golf 25 to 35,000 on and m on that is far less even for a small playground in comparison. So I I think long-term wise, what are options to make sure that we have opportunities for kids and we have the split up by age groups as well in the in the plan that they still have those opportunities. Is a playground the only option? If it is, it is. Thank you. But I'll be honest, I I can only speak for my experience and those of neighbors. Playgrounds is not their thing. It is for others, but it's not for everyone. And so I I want to be cognizant of that as well. We do have it in there. Yes, we should have a a park within 10 to 15 minutes of walking distance. Absolutely. I don't know if a playground long term is the thing that we want to be guaranteeing is that's the thing that everyone has the closest access to. I I think times do change. **[00:55:15] Nick Dragisich:** Should we have some sort of community outreach like you had at the lake night out about what the community thinks should go into Lions Park, whether it's playground or disc golf or u a skate park, that type of thing? **[00:55:30] Adam Swanepoel:** Yeah, we potentially could. u currently, right now, we are in that process for Ridge Park. We sent out a community survey to three communities out there just for the potential of that one over the next few years as well. So it's **[00:55:45] Matt Hirn:** maybe just like in looking at the map right now of our our parks with playgrounds if if we look at the areas where there's multiple parks with playgrounds specifically talking here if we're looking at you know the playground side of it and and we're looking at that we we need a park within a half to 3/4 of a mile we can reduce from what we have right now 14 down to seven where we're still keeping with the parks that are there where it's you're not overlapping parks within a half to 3/4 of a mile. You know, I obviously I think that needs to jump up to eight. We need the Limmerick Village um park or something in the in the south um east corner as that develops. That's obviously a need because they're not going to be served down there unless we put something there, you know. But I guess from my perspective is I I do think I would like to see us move towards reducing the playgrounds down to a number that's closer to that seven or at least following kind of with that in that three the half mile to 3/4 mile radius. You know, as parks come up for a need for um repair replacement, which like you said, we haven't done it. So now this is why it's come up, right? It's on the CIP for the next seven years. we have a playground replacement and let's make that decision now. So instead of spending, you know, 150,000 every single year on on a playground that, you know, maybe there's a better use for it there. Um I think now is just the right time to start heading in that direction. And you know, like when I when I look through it, you know, I feel like Lions Park, there's Lines Park, there's Reed Park, there's Pilot Park, they're all within that half mile to 3/4 mile radius. Lines Park is definitely it's a central location. It's the old village area. I think Reed Park could be served really well with like a fitness park or um something else like that. They have the nice running trails there. Disc golf could be there. I've seen that done where they use the woods really nicely for disc golf. I I just I think there's so many opportunities where we could use some of these other parks for other opportunities that are we are lacking on. We're we're doing very well for playgrounds and you know it's a a short bike or short walk from Reed Park to Lions Park. You know, there's okay trail connection there. Could it be better? Sure. um but I I this is just where I think it's a trying to balance between finances, community needs, right? um and also where we're lacking some of these things that the community wants. So I guess you know in the in the memo here it's like u staff would recommend providing the parks commission with direction need of future playground replacements and the addition of future amenities within our parks which is kind of what council member Hirn went over. So I guess looking forward when you're recommending the basic recommendation is that we would like a little more critical thinking on instead of there's well there's a playground there now we'll just replace it. Can can we I'd like to depend on the the the parks commission to do that critical thinking on yes that makes sense or no maybe we should be a little creative and do something else there. I guess that's kind of where this whole discussion **[00:58:30] Parks Commission Chair:** and I think it's good. I think the u specified goals, you know, 14 to 7 maybe that's not the exact numbers but it's a direction. Okay, that's helpful. u to do that critical thinking. So um that I think those kind of guidance can be applied in the future going forward **[00:58:45] Matt Hirn:** and and it's going to change. I mean, you know, I have this map drawn up right now where it, you know, it looks like it makes sense to me, but seven years from now when that playground comes up for, you know, being up for replacement. I think that's exactly the point is, okay, well, let's look within this half half mile to 3/4 mile radius, is there another playground? Is this where we want that playground to be? Is the other one going to be replaced two years from now? Does it make more sense to replace this one or that one that's a half mile down the road? Right. And do we need both? Maybe we do, but you know, I think it's trying to think about that. It's going to be something that comes up over the next seven years because like you've mentioned, they haven't been replaced. We have multiple that are 25 going on 30 years old. You know, it's they're they're showing up now. So, we got to make a decision on them. And they're not cheap. And there's some other really good options that are cheaper that might serve the the community need better. **[00:59:30] Mayor Cadenhead:** That good. Yeah. Great. **[00:59:35] Adam Swanepoel:** So then we'll move on to the sports complex 76 acres. And really the issue is here does the council support community planning engagement u doing a financial an analysis based on improvements starting in 2025. Does the council want to wait till 2026? u Talk about the timeline. um should staff try to meet the August 4th, 2026 referendum deadline. Technical difficulties. Just trying to get it set up. **[01:00:15] Mayor Cadenhead:** Just hit it with a hammer. It usually works for me. **[01:00:20] Adam Swanepoel:** What happens when you hit the unsmiley face there? Yeah, I can do this. A second time. **[01:00:25] Mayor Cadenhead:** Adam, did you sabotage him? Ah, he doesn't want us to see his password. That beat of sweat on his forehead growing. We're in. I was just about to cue up the u Jeopardy music. **[01:00:35] Adam Swanepoel:** All right, here we go. All right, so today we're talking about the sports complex, the land um that was recently purchased the city, 76 acres. u Most of my work so far has been just talking to other cities and seeing what they've done to build out sports complexes and then also the sports associations um local and what their requests are, what their needs are, just learning more about them. So background is that the city purchased 76 acres. If anybody doesn't know, it's just south of Sunfish Lake Park. um you know it we shared a timeline with the council on how we want to move forward with this and what we really are looking at are starting the community engagement planning um financial analysis for the implementation and long-term maintenance. That's one of the things that we think is crucial is understanding what this is going to cost the city and then understanding what options you have that may bring in more revenue, some options that could lower expenses and then what does this look like long term um to the city. So the issue before the council, one of the things that we talked about just trying to understand is we we have the money budgeted for 2026. We have some set aside for 2025. um you know do we want to get started you know after this meeting to you know jump to the next steps we want to wait till 2026 and then we initially talked about a referendum if necessary there's a deadline in 2026 but we'll talk about that more later and kind of some of the changes that I've seen in the last several months since we started talking about this project so I talked to u the three parks directors for Lino Lakes Woodbury and Maple Grove just to learn from their experiences and um to discuss resident expectations. And most of the cities um they wanted the residents wanted improved ball fields u and park amenities. And while Lake Elmo has had some challenges, they're a smaller community. Both Woodbury and Maple Grove have built multi-million dollar sports complexes that were supported by their residents. And I would say talking with Maple Grove, learned a lot from u from Chuck Stifter at Maple Grove and understanding prices and I included those in the packet too. So, um, we could talk about that a little bit more, um, going forward, but Woodbury has two major complexes and what they have built out is some I think one of them has like 24 fields, but softball, baseball, soccer, lacrosse. They're having um a growing Indian population, so they're adding cricket fields, too. And they've done this over a series of referendums starting in 1974. Talked about tennis. Tennis is located at the high school. Pickle ball is really popular. u but additional amenities that they're looking at are skate parks, handball, outdoor fitness, and archery. Maple Grove recently built two parks. um they built it through a budget surplus and park dedication funds. The scope in the budgets were attached and what they did was they partnered with their sports associations and looked at it 80/20. So if you're building a park and the park's $10 million, they looked at that the baseball fields cost, you know, a certain portion of that that that associate association would come up with 20% of the cost. And the way they were able to do that is provide zero u 0% interest loans to those through the government. **[01:04:00] Nick Dragisich:** Are those conduit bonds? **[01:04:05] Adam Swanepoel:** I don't believe so. I think it comes from their budget surplus and park dedication. They just wanted them to have skin in the game so they were able to cover it and they would pay it over those 10 years. um Maple Grove claims u also he we wanted to state that when they built these um the sports complex it has an economic um impact and that's something that you should also consider when we go through the study. What kind of economic benefit does it create to kind of have one big park? u He also acknowledged that it's expensive um the expenses far exceed the revenues. Typically it's like a four to one in Maple Grove and both of them have large parks departments. So the populations are a lot larger. I think Maple Grove is around like 80,000 at this point I think. Sports associations that we started talking everybody was talking about baseball. I was kind of like the main group to reach out to was Lake Elmo baseball and u Minnesota Blizzard is a travel team. So we talked to Tom Edison and Luke Gappard at Lake Elmo baseball and then Adam Bartto with the Blizzard. The Blizzard is a large travel ball association that partners it will has been talking to Lake Elmo about partnering. So on the call were Luke and Adam and we discussed how they could partner together if this were to be built. u both u associations have several hundred participants. The Blizzard has over a thousand participants at their indoor facility in the winter and their ideal design would be four to five fields u two high school type town ball size fields, lights, artificial turf. That's one of the things that came up is the artificial turf is something that u these groups would really like to see. So artificial turf, the reason for it is it allows earlier spring play, fewer rain outs and less seasonal maintenance. I think one thing to note is if anybody has had kids play baseball or have been a part of it, just maintaining the the the mound and um just the fields in general, the dirt is is really time intensive. um that would probably require, you know, hiring employees to do something like that. The artificial turf also allows the fields to be used for both baseball and softball and potentially other sports. I mean, baseball, you know, they don't like to play on softball fields. So with artificial turf that solves that issue. They also mentioned it'd be nice to have one of the larger fields be a stadium. It I don't you know think it's a real stadium. It's more of covers and a PA system. u it's not, you know, something that'd be extremely expensive, but this idea that you'd have a stadium for baseball and for softball and then Lake's baseball season is made through July and then also they take a break and come back August, September. But they were saying that basically April through October with the with the turf they could play at the site and then we discussed if u if it's were to open they could u potentially manage the baseball facility in season. So that's something we discussed when it comes to whether the city hires staff or how that how that looks. We discussed fundraising and prepaying for rental fees for the site. So it's similar to that Maple Grove model and both organizations have funding some funding for the project. I think the reality of the project and we'll get to this is u it's quite expensive if you're going to do it the way that most people want and the other cities have done it. So I don't really see it as as the money that they have currently as the capital expense. It's more of prepaying and having 10-year terms for use of the facilities. Also talked to Stillwater Fast Pitch and Hill Murray School. We were referred to both of them. um they're both really interested if it's built out. u Fast Pitch has around 100 players in this association. They're interested in u renting fields. Hill Murray also expressed interest in renting u the fields for both softball and baseball. So if the two stadiums were built, they'd be interested in playing their games at the site. Currently, they have other capital expenses that they're working on in the sports side. And then facility planning. So we talked to St. Croix soccer. They referred u they referred u the sports facility companies to us and they provide u an analysis. They would deliver a report financial analysis based on different scenarios. Basically, it's you know is it worth bringing in and adding artificial turf. Can you add more fields? What's the ideal field amount of fields to drive the revenue? So, it's looking at the expenses, the revenues, the maintenance costs long term. um, it also looks at how the sports associations would fit into into the site in terms of management and cost share. um, it would also help if we were looking at a referendum and this takes about 90 to 120 days. This is an option for someone like them, not necessarily them. You saw maybe a proposal in the packet if you looked. It was just someone I talked to. But having someone with that expertise of actually building complexes and running these scenarios makes a lot of sense in terms of financial planning. And then u also going to talk about u really quick with u St. Croix soccer. We also talked to them. They're very similar Lake Elmo baseball. They have funding could maybe operate the u soccer site if it was built. So the possible layout and cost would be four to five softball fields, four soccer multi-purpose fields, artificial turf, lights, um understanding that the board the buildout would also have concessions bathrooms storage buildings, parking, there's a lot that needs to be done in terms of grading, storm water reuse ponds would also be included. I think it's important to know that that's a large cost of this development. So even if it was scaled down without artificial turf, just grading it, adding the parking lots and the utilities is going to be a substantial cost in the site. If you've been to the site, it's rolling hills and you know there's going to a lot of work that needs to be done. Maple Grove built their facilities or two separate facilities, but they were over 10 million a piece for their facilities and I believe that they were built around 2020 2022. um, so what we're looking at if building something like this would be in the 20 to $25 million range. And then, u we have these referendum dates below for for tax referendum. One in 2026 and the next one comes out comes around in 2028. So the considerations really to go forward are artificial turf has a high upfront cost and replacement cost. It's lower maintenance and it's easier for the sports associations to manage. u natural grass with dirt hidden fields would still exceed over $5 million for you know when you consider all the site work and then looking at revenue and expense. We think cost benefit with number of fields is really important moving forward and then other amenities that u could produce revenue at the site. We also want to look at how many employees will need to operate this site. So the fiscal impact of the plan that we're suggesting was is around 40 to 60. We have that budgeted for next year to the 60. The council input was, you know, do we want to start it immediately? Do we want to wait till 2026? We also are working on the national community survey which is budgeted for 2026. So we want to incorporate that. And then I mean our recommendation is just, you know, let's wait till 2026. I don't even know if we have enough time to do everything that we should do to meet the 2026 referendum. So, we're kind of looking at more of like waiting 2026 if a referendum is needed 2028 and then move on from there. But the next step would be to engage a consultant to start the process which would include all the community engagement and asking residents what they want to see there. So, I'm open for any questions, thoughts. **[01:13:00] Nick Dragisich:** Yeah, I think you know moving forward on it soon would be a good idea, but you know I'm I'm kind of concerned because we talked initially were acquiring the land u community engagement input determine what facilities you would actually have there and it seems like we come to a conclusion is it's soccer and and baseball and softball. What if our residents want something else? I mean, I don't know. We don't know what we're going to put in there till we go through the community engagement process and find out what are our residents willing to support if we have to go for a bond referendum. **[01:13:30] Adam Swanepoel:** I think one of the things too is there's probably going to be more land for more uses there too. So that would be included in the community engagement along with obviously soccer and baseball if there isn't support for that. I think nice too with the soccer fields especially like I was looking at those pictures it looks like I mean it's multi-use so it's soccer lacrosse football I don't know about cricket if that can be played on there u I do think it is but that would be obviously the the artificial turf so was it saying that it would the cost the estimated cost would be around 5 million for a similar number of soccer fields baseball softball fields If it was u real grass versus artificial turf, the five million I think. **[01:14:15] Nick Dragisich:** So that's that's so the artificial turf really is the the high cost. **[01:14:20] Adam Swanepoel:** It's very expensive. I mean the artificial turf on a soccer field is about a million dollars per field. **[01:14:25] Nick Dragisich:** Did you talk to the folks at, you know, that lead the baseball, softball, soccer about whether they wanted turf or grass? So I know that turf leads to more injuries is what they're seeing. **[01:14:30] Adam Swanepoel:** So I asked that too in terms of soccer. I know professional soccer they like to play on grass. but I think they would they they said they would prefer artificial turf because I think it just has to do with the weather and they can play year round. Not year round, but they can play for more seasons and if it rains it dries out really quick and you can go play and you can host tournaments and these sorts of things easier. **[01:14:55] Nick Dragisich:** Got it. **[01:14:56] Matt Hirn:** How do we think it could be used during the winter? Does that I mean if it's artificial turf, can you can you groom a ski trail around it? I you know I don't know. u Cross country skiing maybe. **[01:15:10] Adam Swanepoel:** Yeah. Yeah. Um, but I think there's several opportunities there. Um, as far as timeline, of course, I'm, you know, every year things tend to go up a little bit. So, I'm more of the sooner than later type of mentality, but I also want to be prudent in in how this is approached. **[01:15:30] Mayor Cadenhead:** The u I think there's some other financial opportunities if you're talking about soccer fields and if St. Croix soccer is in there. They're more of a private entity. If there's a leasing option of that land for them, and they take on the u you know, once it's graded and everything, the improvements go to them. If you do some sort of long-term lease or something like that, of course, that probably negatively affects anything that's related to lacrosse. um, but I think there's there's there's, you know, to Council Member Dragisich's point, there's there's a lot of land there. Even if you do put in the drainage ponds and the parking and the ball fields, you know, and you can put in, you know, the parking lots could be used for u we know that the the elementary school is going away. Maybe if the farmers market didn't have a place to go, something like that. or um I I know of I think I've mentioned it to people. My hometown has a little um u amphitheater in their park that has all these parks and they have Wednesday night musics for you know that that businesses sponsor things of that nature. I think it could include it really make it not just a sports complex but a place for people to come together and and the thing that really concerns me is all the parking that's needed because it's not it's not Johnny or Jenny's just parents that show up for the game is Johnny and Jenny's parents and their grandparents and aunts and uncles. So, it gets a little you see the parking at some of these places crazy. And I know that the initial cost of u artificial turf is a little jaw-dropping u relative to um to to regular grass fields. But I I think that's not taking into account the overall long-term maintenance and and certainly turf only lasts for a certain period of time depending on how long it gets played. But it would be nice to see if they do this financial planning analysis, right? What does it cost to help maintain that turf grass with the chalking and the mowing and the the watering and all that versus your upfront cost of the turf and then depreciating that over the 10 15 year life cycle of that turf to then having to redo it. So I think some of those numbers have to be vetted out to be able to make a really informed decision. **[01:17:45] Jeff Holtz:** And to the mayor's point, I I see it similarly. It's not just a sports site, it's a community gathering spot. Maybe it's Friday nights are the old the muscle car show and there's five food trucks and you have people with their cars coming in and then that's the event. Saturday nights is movie nights. Like it's that type of thing and there's sports. So I see it in both ways because those are both serving the community. I digress. Um, in terms of the I mean the questions before us. I I agree with Council Member Dragisich u survey entity u Morris Leatherman. **[01:18:20] Adam Swanepoel:** Definitely. I think that's one of the questions we need to understand is how fast are we moving right so if it's let's do a study first and understand what people want and u understanding kind of the different pricings with the sports complex so that's what people want and there's other amenities then we could go look at a really clear financial analysis that's but that's just going to take more time and if that's fine that's kind of what we just need to hear is like **[01:18:45] Nick Dragisich:** yeah I think it's good conversation and that, you know, we go through the process. What do people want in this park? What are they willing to pay for? And we come up then, okay, here's the cost of them and then a Morris Leatherman survey that says, "the cost is $20 million. Would you support a referendum for $20 million to include all these items?" If some says no, "would you support a referendum for 15 million that would exclude these items?" Go by order of preference. People said first we wanted A B C D and then you eliminate the lower one and you say well if we took off the bottom one the bond would be 15 million. Would you support that? And so you go kind of get round about way and determine people's confidence level because going out for a referendum on a on something that you don't have support for is just a waste of everybody's time. **[01:19:45] Jeff Holtz:** Y oh I forgot it hasn't been asked. I have no issue if we look to sponsorships as well. This is a a large item. **[01:19:55] Mayor Cadenhead:** You will absolutely get at least a dollar for that. Yes. **[01:19:58] Jeff Holtz:** But again, because the world is not, this is not 1970. costs for these things are not the same. And I the hard part like and I've when I talk with neighbors about this or even I talk with family members who are of a different generation these costs I it just it's a whole different world. So, I fully support having those conversations to find financial opportunities. And if sponsorships is a part of it, if it's going to be Jack Griffin Field, it's fantastic. He'll get $2 for it. **[01:20:30] Nick Dragisich:** you know, you know, early on in this discussion, um, we're looking at the land that we had. We discussed how this is an investment for the a long-term future. 50 years from now, people look back at this park and say that was really a smart decision. We have this beautiful park u in the middle of our community that we can use. My little hometown of Chisholm, we have a memorial park that was built as a WPA project. It's 40 acres. It's there today. It's football fields, baseball fields, curling club, tennis, ice arena, you name it, it's all there. And it's kind of like the center of the whole community. And we look back at that and say, "you know, they were creating jobs in those days, but look at how this park has just gone on and on and on and continue to be used." Yeah, you have to improve it, but it becomes, you know, a cornerstone of your community. **[01:21:15] Jeff Holtz:** The um and just for for some people that may or may not know, in the comprehensive plan, it calls out for a community park, but the community park is supposed to be located in the old village center area. u I think we all know given the prices of land and things of that nature and how the old village is built out, it just finding a place like that. And I think um our planner had gotten requests and that you guys had done a search of different areas and this was one of the areas that looked at as a possibility. So that's kind of why we're looking at this area and um it just something as a community is growing. And if you look at the East Metro overall and you try and find a location where you could, you know, we have we have a a great baseball community and I'll just speak to that because they can't have tournaments on two fields, right? they can't bring people into Lake Elmo and you talk about some of the economic benefits of that. um, you've got the health partners field which is the Woodbury near Beenburg or whatever and what else you have nobody has something like like this around. And so I think there the opportunities for for a broader reach are are are great. **[01:22:30] Mayor Cadenhead:** Commissioner Barrett. **[01:22:32] Commissioner Barrett:** So does that mean if the referendum fails, the city would step up and fund it then? **[01:22:40] Mayor Cadenhead:** We're we're speaking in really big broad generalities right now. We don't even have the specifics to know. **[01:22:45] Nick Dragisich:** How many years ago did we get the million dollars from the Royal? **[01:22:50] Nicole Miller:** about two years ago. Received it. cash. **[01:22:55] Nick Dragisich:** They signed in 2017. But but we've known about this for how many years? And I'm kind of with with the mayor. I think we need to jump on it and get going. **[01:23:05] Parks Commission Chair:** I think though again that holistic look of what we really are thinking about there is really important. **[01:23:15] Mayor Cadenhead:** The timing is right. Does that give you your direction? **[01:23:25] Adam Swanepoel:** Definitely. Thank you. **[01:23:30] Mayor Cadenhead:** All right. Next u discussion will be regarding u storm water utility fee with an equitability review. u city engineer Nate Stanley. **[01:23:40] Nate Stanley:** Good evening. I don't have a presentation here. um, I wanted to just kind of talk about the storm water utility fee and some of u the ways it's calculated and um kind of get council's general thoughts. um, so just a little background on the storm water utility fee. I I did put a memo together. u When I was writing that memo u that's in the packet, I was anticip I was thinking about two things. um one is the u calculation and the equitability, but also if the fee was appropriate, if that was something that council wanted to consider adjusting at this point. And by fee, um I mean the unit charge that is kind of the basis for all storm water fees. So, um at this point, I think we're just mostly talking about the equitability and the calculations. So, um if you if you've taken a look at that memo, just know that. So, the stormwater utility fee goes towards u a handful of things all storm water related. um, capital improvements is one, but primarily it's been used as a maintenance allocation um is my understanding. And u in the past several years, I don't think there's been a large scale um standalone storm water project u that the city has spent on. I think actually the biggest one is probably u this year's culvert replacement project up on Hudson Boulevard. So um some of the the major costs for the storm water utility fee are um implementation of the city's u MS4 permits and the programs associated with that. um general maintenance related to storm water and the potential u investments in equipment that's related to u storm water or or um management of of streets storm water related. So um looking at the fund um it does seem like u it it's or I'm sorry looking at the calculation methodology it does seem like there are a handful of things missing um in the ordinance um you know there there's a handful of categories. I'm going to go through them quickly. u It's residential. These are kind of land types and uses. Residential, agricultural, and then commercial industrial u school, church, institutional, golf course or parkland, manufactured home park, vacant land, and then u just a general statement on conditional uses. um if you look at a lot of neighboring communities or others in the metro, you'll see some more specific um residential housing types that are listed in a calculation such as town home, attached town home, um multifamily. A lot of these can be probably categorized in what we have under either a conditional use or um a commercial use. But that was just one thing I noticed right away. um another thing I'd just like to note fee related is that Lake Elmo does seem to be kind of right in the middle of Metro communities for what we charge currently per month. That's u it's per per unit. the unit charge. Again, I'm going to reference that because um I think we're going to spend most of our time tonight talking about residential use, but that residential u unit, the residential charges $95 per year, and that'd be for a single family lot. Works out to about $7.92 a month. um so, looking at Lake Elmo, you've got a number of different types of residential lots around the city. u you have a neighborhood like Union Park, you know, with higher density u smaller lots. u the old village with um relatively small lots. And then you've got Tory Pines, for instance, um larger lots with larger homes. You have u Lake Elmo Heights, our 2026 project. Those lots out there anywhere between an acre and a half and two acres with a residential home. And now those homes are are um are giant houses. You know, a lot of those homes were built in the the early 90s and and are are fairly modest. So, I guess what I want to hear from council is your thoughts on equitability. um, do we look into expanding the category the categories associated with calculating storm water utility fees in particular for residential lots? **[01:28:15] Mayor Cadenhead:** I think the the one question I had was um and and I may have gotten my questions answered in between when I had the original question and now is how do we handle areas or properties that u really handle most of their water through infiltration or ponding on their own and don't depend on u Maybe maybe they have some ditches or maybe maybe but I mean how is that calculated then or is it **[01:28:40] Nate Stanley:** Yep. So currently so like a newer development for instance maybe right where we have u storm water ponds that are constructed as part of the the development of the property and and infiltration facilities. Those properties are still charged um as as like a unit on a unit basis per lot. um, and that really goes to the fact like I kind of said kind of kicked off with is, you know, this is a communitywide this this this this fee funds communitywide programs for u storm water maintenance. So, um it's really, you know, u if if you look at Legacy, you know, those lots um are charged the same currently as a lot in the old village. you know, so um and yet, you know, a lot in the old village, you know, was was, you know, that a home there could have been built 100 years ago and there isn't a storm water pond necessarily. There is a storm water collection system that we have as a community. And again, u the maintenance required of that facility is um is is **[01:29:45] Mayor Cadenhead:** maybe to be a little more specific, what about the 40 acre parcel that has a basically a lake or a pond on this property u that's collecting that or not really impacting u our streets or our storm water? **[01:30:00] Nate Stanley:** Sure. So, if we've got like a 40, you know, a 40 acre property um with a single home on it, I don't I'd have to look at and know what the zoning is, you know. So, u does some of the some of the fees depend on the zoning for the property? Yep. **[01:30:15] Clarissa Hadler:** Yes, it does. Absolutely. So, like u agricultural use for so an old farmstead for example is going to be categorized as a res as an agricultural use. **[01:30:25] Nick Dragisich:** Okay. Yeah. I think that as I look at our system, I think it's not particularly fair and equitable by a long stretch of the imagination. I'll go back to what you taught, mayor, you have development where they have storm water ponds and infiltration. And so they basically pay the cost of treating the storm water within their development and they pay the cost of storm water throughout the entire city. That's not in any stretch of measure fair and equitable. it, you know, you can't take it and say, "Well, you guys, you paid to build the pond, you pay to maintain it, you know, and then you pay to maintain the whole rest of the city in the same amount as someone who lives in a development where it just goes into the storm sewer itself and everyone pays for that. We have lots that you saw already vary in size. We have agricultural lots, we have farm fields, we have a lot of diversity and our system just doesn't provide an equity in that regard." So question I have is when we have the ponding and infil in infiltration ponds for u the city do the developments maintain those ponds as I know we were out clearing brush and things around some things some do some don't. Okay. So it's not consistent. So there are some storm water ponds and infiltration ponds that are owned by HOAs. Yes. And some are owned by the city. It's not it's not a consistent piece. And you know, like Nate talked about, you have, you know, some lots that are two and a half acres with these big houses on them. They got 10,000 square feet of impervious area draining into the storm water system. and you got a house in the old village that's, you know, 900 square feet on a 2/10 of an acre lot and they both pay the same fee. **[01:32:00] Mayor Cadenhead:** So I have I have full confidence that any storm water in your neighborhood is properly maintained and that the proper people are ensured it's done. u Do we verify? Do we have a process where we know HOA pond in X neighborhood is also being properly maintained as we're doing our MS4 stuff? **[01:32:15] Nate Stanley:** They're required to submit an inspection report every year u to the city. u The city. Yes. u I think that process is governed by the watershed district. um but the city is a partner. um but um I I I I guess I don't I can't really expand on that. **[01:32:35] Nick Dragisich:** It's you know I think I just think that looking at the system in its entirety the diversity of the property types in this city the fact we have some areas that maintain their own storm water systems and others that don't um to make sure that what we're doing is you know treats everybody fairly with regard to the costs. I was thinking about this a number of years ago. I was at a at a conference and and it was a storm water system thing and the interesting part was you know the biggest impervious area in a city is the streets and so when they calculate the impervious area using average residential by lot or however you get there right they include the streets and the cost for the storm water system that's attributable streets is then charged back to parcels based on their zoning u using the National Transportation Society trip generation manual. And so they said, "Well, because if I put in let's say a Target store and now I have turn lanes and all kinds of other things that generate more runoff, why should a resident be stuck with that bill?" And so I'm not saying we need to do that, but there's a lot of things that are going on in this area. And as u council member Holtz and I was talking before, you know, the city of Duluth is engaged in a lawsuit over their storm water fees and it equity and the court of appeals just um sent it back to the district court to be heard and it centers around the equity of charges. Not that we don't have a beating on the door, but again, if we've taken a look at this equity, we are in a better position. and just to be fair to our residents and businesses. **[01:34:15] Jeff Holtz:** So, what would be some um effective and efficient modifiers maybe the the or I fully understand like splitting up additional residential categories. I get it. I assume the most effective way would be to have the exact square footage of impervious surface by parcel and then calculate how much they are putting into city-maintained things right that that in a perfect world with AI doing that calculation. u There are actually some cities that do that but they're far way the minority and I'm not advocating for that. I think you can get into reasonable categories. So then what are those like what's that ground where we are making sure we are doing it as equally as possible. It's data driven based with a probable cause is not the right context. There's data to support that rate category. um, obviously splitting up residential by more, maybe finding a way to impact it if a person is benefiting from a HOA maintained storm water. Even though that storm water then is still feeding then into city storm water down the road. u Doesn't feed into it down the road. The retention pond only if it overflows. u So, um like I said, the u the maintenance is for the city as a whole, right? So, we could talk about um you know a a privately maintained u development. u but like you know really the u all storm water within the city does u you know under most circumstances the city's public system does see some sort of discharge you know u whether that's um in in those small events u that u you guys were maybe talking about maybe u Council Member Dragisich was referring to where there's no discharge you know there's a design event for um that storm water capture um in a larger event, you know, it's designed to overflow right to the city system. So, there's that to consider that the city system does indeed serve u even those private um in the instance of having a private drainage treatment system, u but does it serve in the same way? **[01:36:15] Nate Stanley:** So then what are some of the other variables that can be included that can be data driven and u efficient for implementation that we can start to use? I'm looking to anyone else. This is not my area. u You have some areas that don't have any storm. It's just ditches. You know, you go in in in some of the areas around the city and they're just they're just ditches, drainage ditches. They don't have pipes and manholes. We don't go out there and we go and maintain the ditches, but not nearly the level of maintenance required, you know, within the infrastructure part of the city. And yet, if they're residential home, they pay the same fee. I guess um staying on the residential um topic here, the you know one one easy thing is to look at, you know, your different types of neighborhoods, you know what I mean? um, and I I I'll also u add that measuring the impervious area of a of each individual parcel, that'd be a very tedious, time consuming exercise that um, you know, in the long term, I don't think it's worth it. You have u folks that may purchase a property and decide to tear something down or build something, you know what I mean? therefore changing, you know, and then it's it just becomes a tracking nightmare, you know what I mean? um, keeping track of that. So, holding it to to to some sort of, you know, property type and lot size, I think, is, you know, and and when I say lot size too, I'm not talking down to the square foot. I'm talking generally. **[01:37:45] Mayor Cadenhead:** So in our utility equations u we have property class codes, land uses as you mentioned and then the utility factor um using those. Would it be it it seems like kind of one thing I'm hearing you saying that we're kind of maybe a little general in is the residential thing where we don't pull out town homes versus homes because it looks like we have agricultural which would maybe speak to that acreage and ditch use versus u having curb and gutter and storm sewer I would think as a generality. And again, I think we all need to understand that getting into the nitty-gritty is probably not an easy thing or a um thing that the city wants to take on as a cost. It's I I'll I'll reference the Met Council and their WAC charges, right? They have to do that on a systemwide for the whole metro. They can't look at every individual business on its own. It would be a task that would be beyond comprehension really. So when I think we look at their 24 square miles on the city, I guess I kind of agree with what we have in there maybe but maybe breaking down in the residential or if there's some current land uses that we're not participating in that have class codes within them. I guess I would feel be good with taking a look at that to make sure we're we're looking at that. **[01:39:15] Nick Dragisich:** I think yeah, I agree with you, mayor. I think, you know, we break it down and say maybe, you know, residential properties up to up to an acre or, you know, maybe half acre up to an acre and more than an acre. It's Inver Grove Heights, I think, has four classes and they're residential if I remember rightly um based on size. And then and then I think the other piece would be, you know, if If they have some storm water facilities, they should get a credit. I mean, I think our u maybe we could advise them they could apply for a credit which is already allowed. **[01:39:45] Nicole Miller:** Jack, there is a credit system people can apply for. I'm not that familiar with it. was administrator when he was here a system and so there have been demonstrate that they have a private me u but the problem u yeah that's that if I could just speak to this council member um it's u it's practices include installation of rain barrels rain gardens retention ponds swale ditches or man-made water courses riparian area plantings and other practices that may be deemed as intentional detention of surface water runoff. So they can they can apply for credit through that, right? Do you really want 485 homeowners applying for credits or could we do it on on an HOA basis? That's what I'm trying to get to. I mean in our in u **[01:40:30] Mayor Cadenhead:** What do you mean by an HOA basis? **[01:40:35] Nick Dragisich:** Well, like the Royal Golf Club. Okay. There's 290 homes when they're done. Okay. Do you want all 290 homes to apply for a credit or could you say the people within these developments would get the credit? I think just process it once. **[01:40:50] Mayor Cadenhead:** They would do it however they saw fit. It doesn't really say it has to be one way or another. Wouldn't Well, it says I get the sense from reading it that it it doesn't allow a a land owner. Well, you have 290 land owners. **[01:41:00] Nick Dragisich:** Yeah, u we're going to have Limmerick Village going to have 800 land owners. So technically, wouldn't the HOA using that framework, couldn't the HOA apply for the credit? Because the HOA is already charging the residents for its cost to maintain it. So then what is the HOA because the HOA owns properties there as well as presumably paying fees. u They don't pay storm water fees. u They don't. u Not to my knowledge. No. **[01:41:30] Jeff Holtz:** Jack I'm I'm sorry Susie. Um, do you happen to know, and this is more of a historical question, like I know that u the Royal does have some ponds that they own. Is that general practice for some of the developments we've had over the last 15 years? **[01:41:45] Clarissa Hadler:** No. So, we've been pretty consistent with the residential developments. And what Royal has is they have some land. So, we take on ownership of storm water facilities that are there for treating storm water. u So, that's all owned by the city. And there are there are ponds in the Royal development that are owned and maintained and operated by the city. But and Royal and other developments also have wetland areas or low lying areas. um, one of the bigger areas in Royal Golf was a flood plane area that takes flooded areas in the high water flood. and they were they were u mandated when they were filling that in to build homes that they had to recreate and keep that storage somewhere else. So they have areas those outs are owned by the HOAs and they're not necessarily necessary for flood waters but they're not necessary for storm water treatment. So they're not actually part of a actively managed u storm water pond. So the but the storm water ponds we're putting in the new developers are putting in Easton Village. u Those are all city owned and maybe u they're all city owned and u yeah but u but they'll have wetlands and they'll have other ponds and other they look like ponds. They you know act like ponds. They they do capture water and things like that. But if they're wetlands and they're being protected as a wetland, we leave that on HOA land. We don't we don't own that. **[01:43:15] Mayor Cadenhead:** So not necessarily the same thing, right? **[01:43:18] Nick Kragness:** Well, I would beg to differ because the Royal has a storm water maintenance agreement and you're telling, you know, we had this discussion with our HOA in the city. We said, "why do we have a storm water management agreement for something that's not a storm water pond?" So, on one hand, you're saying it's not a storm water pond. On the other hand, the city opposed getting rid of stormwater management agreement. u Yeah. If you go into the storm water model and the permitting requirements, it was it's for flood waters. It's not for storm water management. But the storm water management agreement is for storm water management as specific. So the valley branch requires easements over all the properties even if it's for flood management. And so that's where those agreements come in. u **[01:44:15] Mayor Cadenhead:** I guess my recommendation would be that we look more at the residential use type and and just keep an eye on the surface water management the equations u and just make sure that we're capturing that to be equitable for new developments and and the old developments. make sure everybody's on the same page. **[01:44:30] Clarissa Hadler:** I think my point was just in the historical perspective too, especially going back is and as we're a growing city, what we're growing into is um back when this was developed, there wasn't a lot of storm water infrastructure anywhere in the city. Even other even in your downtown, there wasn't much. um, if you look at traditionally what this fee has been used for, it's being used there should be a base fee on all properties regardless of whether they have their systems because we haven't been using the fees for storm water infrastructure. We've been using it for studies. We've been using it for your surface water management plans that are required. um, we'll have to update that when you do your comp plan again. We've been using it for um the MS4 program and rewriting your permits that are mandatory from regulatory agencies, the valley branch, things like that. And that's just it's just a a mandate that you have to do. And and right that's where a lot of the fees have been going. You guys are public works is capturing the cost for unit hours and equipment hours based on when you when you're mowing around the ponds and you're cleaning out the ditches and you're cleaning out the culverts, right? To make sure we're in adherence to MS4 requirements. u Yep. And we've been just in the past two years, we've doubled our hours. So I mean I see that continuing and and expanding increasing years. **[01:46:15] Matt Hirn:** I think looking through it... I agree with that. **[01:46:30] Jeff Holtz:** I don't I mean, I discussed my thoughts earlier... I would be but each city also has a different housing stock... **[01:47:00] Mayor Cadenhead:** All right. In the interest of time... Agenda item is 2026 budget discussion... turn it over to Miss Hadler. **[01:47:15] Clarissa Hadler:** Absolutely. We'll see if I can get my presentation up faster than Adam did. Bam. No. Okay. um so we are just trying to narrow down and finalize the number that we need for um our preliminary levy at next week's meeting. um and also just taking any additional input on the budget um from from here on out. So just as a followup, this is a follow-up to the August 9th budget workshop where we introduced our draft budgets and received um some direction from council. um I summarized u what I recalled from that u direction was to decrease the levy from the proposed u use fund balance for some projects. um department heads were supposed to use their discretion and then um also adjust the CIP to decrease capital levies. So for the general fund budget, I've summarized kind of what some of the things that we've u done to date. So we decreased the general fund levy by $400,000. um, and this does assume u using fund balance of around $270,000 at this time. Expenses, u I we refined and removed some project estimates and costs based on additional information that we had received. um, some minor revisions to some expense line items, and we're going to be doing this um, for the rest of the fall. um kind of trying to to fine-tune that as much as we can. We decreased the grade for the three new fire captain positions. I did reduce the estimated health insurance increase. I'm a little concerned about that right now given everything that's going on, but um just kind of in the in the wider market. We'll have more information on that in the next couple months. um I reduced u removed the contingency reserve. We haven't really used that in the past. And then um just yeah, we'll just continue to refine those all of our expenses moving forward. So here is our summary new summary of general fund expenditures. So the and this is so this is our budget not the levy. So our budget is down to 8.8 million. So a change over 2025 of just over 1 million which is an 11.2% increase for the levy. So this is the property taxes that we're requesting. We again decreased that general fund levy by $400,000 assuming that balance u usage of fund balance. We decreased the u debt service levy um slightly. u That was just an error in my spreadsheet. um And then for the CIP, so I've made some um sort of tentative u revisions to the CIP. um I took um so if you will recall in my July presentation for the CIP I had to make some assumptions about how much cash we were using. We're trying to move from u you know all bonding to use of some cash. um With my initial assumptions I had kind of a staggered or u approach for local streets. I used a flat rate for um our transportation projects and all mostly all um cash for utility projects. For this revision um I took the idea of all new dollars. So everything that we're levying, so for 2026, my current u proposed infrastructure levy is $400,000. And then all of our franchise fees, so our estimated franchise fees um were 250. So, we would take all of that 650,000 and use that for the projects for the year, which would just mean that we we would not be growing that infrastructure fund as much as if we sort of u dragged that out a little bit more. But anyways, so that's the explanation of how I came to that sort of scenario one. Scenario two, um we removed all the projects that we believe are developer funded. And so, u my understanding initially was that there was a chance that these things would be developer funded. And therefore, I wanted to plan for them in case they weren't. And so, I had kind of implemented a a rough estimate of what they might um be contributing. If we presume that those things are only going to be developer funded, we can take those out, which of course then we should not fund them because there's no plan for funding them. So, that's scenario two. um Those were kind of easy low-hanging fruits for me to do within my modeling. um I know we discussed um revising the timing of local street projects. We can certainly discuss that further. It just gets a lot more complicated to revamp those numbers because engineering has to do that. um as well as the fact that they wouldn't necessarily like stretching those out a little bit doesn't necessarily have a as big of an impact on um our necessary long-term funding or the funding within that 10-year time frame. um, just wanted to to note um and make sure that we're kind of on the same page that capital levies should be strategic u a strategic implantation to fund both near-term and long-term capital projects. So, when we're talking about what we need for a capital levy, we're talking about what we need next year, but we also need to look at what we need over 10 years and over 20 years. um, the city has over $123 million in depreciable assets. So, if we're doing some really rough estimating, um, we should probably be levying closer to about $3 million per year to cover depreciation. um, that's a whole bunch of information I I'll be able to talk more about as we get into the strategic planning or strategic um, financial planning moving forward, but we're well under what we should be levying in order to to cover our current assets. So, here's our capital levies revised. So, again, u infrastructure reserve is down to 400. um, I brought our city center CIP down to 50,000, which is the same as 2025. I removed the park CIP u ballpark fund. This is an inter fund loan, so we should leave that alone. That u is repaying the sewer fund for the um 76 acres that were purchased this year. And then we have our vehicle and equipment fund. u leaving that at 450. We've got really a good handle on what on what the funding structure for that is. um so I'd like to kind of keep that in line. And then our street maintenance, u I had increased that just to cover inflation. There's probably a little bit of wiggle room there if we wanted to to revise that. So our total levy, we've brought it from the original requested 12.2 u 2 million down to about 11.5 million, which takes our tax rate, our estimated tax rate from 31.7 down to 29.57 and the levy increase from roughly 20% to u from our original requested down to 14%. I would also note that this change in our tax rate u is 2.73 percentage points which would if we took out the ballpark purchase would take it down to 2 percentage points which is kind of going back to that original plan which should be essentially expired at this point because we've had so many changes between now and then. u The tax impact on our median value home is down to $179 which is less than $15 per month. Our tax rate obviously still very low. Just kind of redid that graph graph and then our questions. So essentially u do we have um additional questions about specific expenditures? um should we continue with the revised levy amounts? Do we want to have some discussions on what that should be? um And if changes are needed, what priorities and strategies should we revise? **[01:54:15] Jeff Holtz:** Thank you number one for the work and taking the feedback. um that's a drastic um amount of work that was done based upon what you were provided. Are there specific areas of higher level risk that you see from some of the changes like areas where we because I saw like chief changed the the grade for the three captains. Does that create a risk for our ability to hire and fill those positions? **[01:54:45] Dustin Kalis:** No, I think when we initially um rolled these positions out, we looked at our current staffing and grade um plan that's in place and found a a step that um gave some room between our current staffing and where where things could fall. um started with that number and then as we got into it more, I was kind of already working on revamping that number before we got to this part of the budget process. um just couldn't get that change kind of in the budget documents in time. So, it was kind of already in process when we had that u to go down to the next step. um and that keeps it more in line with um where I see our department in in the market, I guess. um I don't think it's going to um take away from any potential hirings um because we're in a unique spot. um, I think it will still do us very well for the the hiring process um at that adjusted rate. **[01:55:40] Clarissa Hadler:** If I could just add, I mean, the the risk to u and again, we we'll talk about a lot of the stuff in in the strategic planning part and that's kind of the reason I wanted to do the um that study in house is so that we could address these things a little bit more than the studies that we've done in the past. But our risk is really largely long term, right? We we want to make sure the city is sustainable long term and making sure that we get our capital levies in place within a timely manner. so that that we can kind of be ready when things need to get replaced again. I would also just add that in the event of an economic downturn and we if we lose a lot of our development revenue, that would be a really big hit to our our revenue sources, right? **[01:56:15] Mayor Cadenhead:** You know, my my biggest concern is just the long-term u depreciation of our assets in the city and is is he taking out some It doesn't seem it's maybe doesn't seem like a big hit to the capital levy, but I think over the long term when you're reducing debt, it feels to me a little bit u of a bigger bigger hit than that. um there's some things I'm glad that didn't get touched. I think u you did a good job at getting down to, you know, the number that some people feel are appropriate. And as I see it, I'm okay with what you have here. **[01:56:45] Nick Dragisich:** I took a look at it, too, and have a suggestion. Okay. Which gets us down to about a 10% increase. It's just a suggestion. I sent this to the administrator, the finance director. Copy the mayor on it initially, sir. But I thought I would just bring it for the other council members to look at it. um, I think it helps us get down to a more manageable number and they're just there. u You can take a look at it. It's just for your information. u but our **[01:57:15] Mayor Cadenhead:** So, we get down to a 29.57, this magical three number that people are banning about is still within that number, right? With fewer changes. Well, it's a it's a 10% increase in the levy versus a 14% increase in the levy. u And this isn't getting it down to a 3% increase in the the local tax rate. **[01:57:45] Nick Dragisich:** Yeah. About 3% increase property taxes will go by about 3%. From the cities for the increase due due to the city, u but it's just a thought. **[01:58:00] Matt Hirn:** I guess I mean this speaks to and you know a lot of the questions I have have already been answered. So I you know thank you to staff for answering those questions and you know maybe someone would be helpful to bring up right now. I don't really know. um I I think it still goes back to I understand that maybe um we are under tax for the services that we have and we we're in a situation where the debt is becoming too large and we have to be moving in the right direction. I'm full I'm in full agreeance with that. My concern with the process so far is I think we've been heavily focused on how do we increase the revenue side of it with very little discussion about how do we dis discussion or willingness of how do we decrease the expenditure side of it and I'm in favor of of having these levies to help us do start moving in the right direction so yeah 10 years from now we're not $120 million in debt But if we start making some of these changes, even if they aren't as drastic as is proposed, we're going to start moving in that direction. Instead of taking 10 years to get there or 15, maybe it takes 20. Maybe instead of getting to 20 million of debt, we get to 30 million. But that's still moving in the right direction. That still puts us in a good much better financial position than if we do nothing. I think the initial, you know, going from 26 to 32% local tax rate, I just I didn't know how I was going to square that up with residents. um, we've had this conversation, too. I, you know, I haven't had a resident come to me and and ask for, you know, higher taxes ever, right? Like, you know, we had a discussion of, well, what's wrong with with high taxes because it's more services. It's like, okay, well, maybe, but some people want those, some people don't. um, so for me, it's a yes, we do need to look at this from a financial um health of the city, but I also think we need to we can't rip the band-aid off. I think we have to approach it slower. And that's where I I do I I'd still like it to be lower, but I think this is still moving in the right direction where we look at some of these the levies and the um and really using those to reduce the total levy. I go, you know, I went through line by line item and through the budget and you know, it is lean. It's not that there's a bunch of wasted money um in that in in the actual budget itself. And you know, I I had probably 15 questions of of specific budget line items that I asked to staff. And there's a perfectly logical explanation for every single one of them of why we need it, right? So, I don't want to go down that path of having to to cut any of those or ask for those to be cut because it shows that there really are like, hey, you know, there's a reason for all of them. **[02:00:30] Clarissa Hadler:** If I may here, u I I think that what needs to be clear is that we don't know what the end goal is because we don't have all of that information. I need a lot of information from engineering um in order to be able to say this is what is going to make our city sustainable long term. I know that it's not $400,000 a year for infrastructure. I know that that's really obvious, right? And so when we and again this like I feel like this is a you know we're chicken and egg, right? We've got this strategic plan that this whole process has made it crystal clear how important that plan is and to make sure everybody understands the impacts of these decisions long term. So, it's coming. But I but but this u this is not ripping the band-aid off. This is I'm going to be I'm I've structured this change over a 10-year period and I might have us halfway there. I mean, this is going to be until I retire, we're going to be slow walking us toward an appropriate tax rate. **[02:01:30] Matt Hirn:** And so, I guess, but then the followup is, well, what if we take even a slower step, right? A five year slower step. And so, the tax rate increases by, you know, an 8% increase each year rather than a a 20% relative increase in the local tax rate each year. I just I feel like that's a it's a a more palatable plane to land um for the the residents. It moves us in the right direction. We're not we're not not doing anything. It's going to help us move in that direction. It's going to put us in a better financial position. It's going to get us there a little bit slower, but that also gives residents the times to adapt u to those those financial changes. When I when I and I see the infrastructure levy and the one that council member Dragisich brings it down to basically half what the preliminary was of this year. **[02:02:15] Mayor Cadenhead:** I will say that u for me that's not sustainable long term for the city. I know many public works directors, city engineers that are struggling with the high cost of replacing water and sewer lines that have aged out. um that are continually breaking maybe not to the point of what we have at this I mean we just experienced a sewer force main that's a 1.4 million that we didn't know about and those things come up down the road and then it becomes not are you going to how are you going to you can't bond for it all. So then you're going to raise levies to the extent that are unpalatable to residents because you didn't prepare for that in the past. And so when she takes a $100,000 off there I get it. That slows it down. That's fine. She took some out of the city center CIP. Okay, I get that. And that's actually the number that council member Dragisich had in there reducing um street maintenance levy. Well, I can tell you right now that people are getting payraises next year. They're not going to be doing it for the same price they did it last year. So then you're just decreasing on what you can maintain. I'm not okay with that. And then the vehicle and equipment levy. um I have certainty that our staff takes a look at their equipment every year, make sure it is in good repair, that it's not going to break down. If it can be maintained, it gets maintained and it needs to be replaced. And when when it gets replaced, it's replaced due to it just it's costing more to maintain than it is to to keep it. So, I guess that's where I'm coming from. And and um even this 14% is less than what it was before and um it's it's not as low as it has been in the past. um but I I feel that's a slower progression. um working towards the way we're going to go. **[02:03:45] Nick Dragisich:** CIP levy doesn't pay for water and sewer. CIP levy's for streets. Water and sewer paid from from the enterprise funds. So by suggesting we phase it in over one more year to get there but doesn't pay for water and sewer. The vehicle equipment levy u the fund has 660,000 at the end of 24 and we have expected expenses of 265,000 in 25. So we have a surplus balance in there. So again dropping it down a little bit isn't going to make equipment affordable. do our fire equipment come in out of that dollars. **[02:04:15] Mayor Cadenhead:** Yeah. So, we already saw the increase in rate in u in rates just from a a ladder truck in excess of over a million. So, I don't know that we can spec in my opinion, I don't think we can speculate that that's going to maintain the same u or we'll have that cushion to pay for that down the road if and when it needs to be replaced. If we have a surplus though, wouldn't that kind of make the assumption of then u **[02:04:30] Clarissa Hadler:** Can I clarify that that's a that's a capital fund so that the if you look at the u it's in the um July CIP discussion I map out the funding necessity for those capital needs. So, we have a capital plan that has the in the vehicles and equipment that are replaced based on our policy in place. And then I mapped out a slow roll out, a 10-year roll out of of get trying to get to an appropriate funding level and I worked in the interfund loans because we couldn't get to that appropriate funding level right there in order to pay for the the ladder truck. So, that's the one that it's like, okay, we've got this sort of dialed in of what what these needs are for this. And yes, can we stretch out the the actual purchase of a vehicle? Maybe. I don't you know, I don't know what you know, how often a dump truck needs to be replaced. Maybe. But but our implement right now, the plan is planned based on policy and the funding is based on the plan. **[02:05:15] Matt Hirn:** Well, maybe it's more of a conversation of policy change, right, with the with the the vehicle replacement fund. Is it how often is it u with most of the vehicles that we're replacing the vehicles with the playgrounds? You know, is it is it really 20 to 25 years that we need to be replacing playgrounds? um, you know, I I agree, right? They're they're looked at each year. It's not just because it's in the CIP it means it happens, right? They're they're looked at each year, but it's what it it sets the tone, right? If it's expected that a playground is going to be replaced after 25 years, it's going to be on the CIP five years out and it's going to be on a top of attention and when it gets time for it, like they usually get brought up and and and and spent, that money gets spent. **[02:05:55] Mayor Cadenhead:** But it u you put it in your budget because that's the expected life. You don't put in lesser than a budget and then you come to the end of its life and then say, "Oh crap, where's my emergency fund?" I mean, people don't budget for no straight income in, you know, maintenance costs in their house. If you know you need a refrigerator in five years, you don't just expect to come up with two grand that year. Typically, you're budgeting some money to put away in that fund u **[02:06:15] Matt Hirn:** and maybe it makes it past five years. So then you don't spend that money, but you've got it there in case it happens. And I'm certainly not going to. When you have a piece of equipment that is near the end of its life and it gets used, then you get asked if $5,000 of maintenance will help extend it another year, but then the next year you go to use it, it breaks down, and then you end up renting equipment that cost you more than the $5,000 you were going to use to maintain it. Then you're then you're falling back. So that instead of doing the right thing, getting a good piece of equipment so you can work efficiently and use that for all of your stuff, you're not renting equipment, paying somebody else for the rental. u I I I don't know. **[02:06:55] Mayor Cadenhead:** And all I'm saying is that I I feel director Hadler did decrease it down to a more palatable number at the 14%. **[02:07:05] Matt Hirn:** Yeah, it's a tough situation and that's where I'm trying to balance of this of u okay there is a risk that yes we get in a situation like that one year. Yeah. And that is that is a that's not a fun situation to get in. But does that u does that mean that we have to raise the tax rate this much for that level of risk? And I don't know if there is that level of risk that if we have a a $30,000 vehicle that we need to replace one year earlier u than we expected u that we need to increase our our tax levy by this amount. And that's what I'm just trying to balance. **[02:07:45] Mayor Cadenhead:** And all I'm saying is that I I feel director Hadler did decrease it down to a more palatable number **[02:08:00] Matt Hirn:** I'd actually add to that, too. I I would agree with that. If if the infrastructure reserve we do bring down, which again I still think is the main spot to focus on. I I I don't think then we change the street maintenance levy, I think we kind of like we had in the previous discussion, we put more focus on the maintenance side if we're trying to decrease how much of the infrastructure reserve we need to be spending on on the roads. **[02:08:30] Nick Dragisich:** 30,000 isn't a lot. My only point was that we had we have sufficient amount of funds in there. u Yes. To cover and the 30,000 is almost de minimis. um but it does reduce the impact on the levy. **[02:08:45] Jeff Holtz:** Some of this is policy, some of this is philosophical. Yeah, u it's all of us want the city to be in a sustainable place. I presume all of us trust our professionals who are giving us guidance because that is their subject matter expertise. I couldn't even touch an Excel sheet in the way you do, let alone figure out the this cell is doing this with that. So I u we're all on the same page in there. It's what is that sustainable place and how to get there. What I'm gathering and the conversations I I've had with with friends about this who some do watch these meetings. Credit to all you u to get to that sustainable place where it's 10 years or 15 years because of all these assets that we have our city infrastructure which honestly before being on council or planning commission I never thought about as a resident I want to I was completely oblivious to the the sheer value of it. That's not something we think about. We think we think taxes pay for the salaries, which yes, they do, but we never think about that future cost for replacement. I never did until I got in this chair and I sat between engineers. So, which is another story, but it's really to council member Hirn's question like, yeah, is it 10 10 years, 15 years, what what is the the harm of having a slower pace of getting there? I can't necessarily answer that question myself. I just as I can't answer the question as to is a two percentage point or a 2.7 percentage point which one is is one really more palatable than the other unless you do a a survey from Morris Leatherman. We're not going to know that. So we're going off of our the relationships we have with the community, our own perspectives, the conversations we have to try to see what we think is best. We we know we have costs that have to be paid for. um and council member Hirn should get credit for taking the time to speak with staff about specific items and getting those questions answered. So kudos for that. That's u that speaks volumes. And Council Member Dragisich, yeah, you put in time and effort to throw out your ideas. So kudos for that as well. um I would agree with the mayor on the aspect, say the street maintenance levy. We invested $600,000 in it last year. It is and I understand what you we you said in response, but at the end of the day, the cost for doing the same work this year is going to go up. It u that's reality whether it's through the levy or there's a fund balance. I I think at this point talking about the levy, I fully support the 14%. In terms of the infrastructure levy, which is really where this conversation is focused on, I I would be under the impression that our finance director was not happy about even bringing it down to 400,000. And the only reason that was done was because of the feedback we provided. And if from the financial perspective, it was probably pulling teeth to get to that point. And to me, that's where I also have to be able to tell constituents look it's not pulling off the band-aid. it u it's starting to maybe like peel it a little bit. pulling off the band-aid would be literally having that levy be u a million because if u **[02:11:45] Clarissa Hadler:** two million because if u she had her way to say this is the financially sustainable path that rate would be at 38 39 40% and yet we would be rightfully so be getting calls and emails and people in our driveways. I I think this at the two percentage points plus the cost of the land that we purchased I think is something that I can support and I can explain why I support it to my to our constituents. I can, but I mean we each have our, as you said, we each have to have our own way of discussing it with constituents. **[02:12:15] Matt Hirn:** I think that's a great way to put it. I u think it does come down to the philosophical side of it of how do we want to approach getting there? And um I I guess you know, this is where it's always nice to get more feedback from the residents on this as well. Again, you know, I haven't had a resident ever come ask for higher taxes from me. You haven't? Nope. Nope. Haven't had that. But, you know, u I think it's also understood that they have to go up. It's just how much and how good of an explanation can I give for why they're getting there. **[02:12:45] Nick Dragisich:** My comment only was that if we left our tax rate the same, we would get more money because our base has grown. **[02:13:00] Mayor Cadenhead:** Well, you'd also have more infrastructure to take care of. So, the one thing that always kind of bugged me about when I worked at the state and the DOT was you'd put all this money into u new construction in Adelaide on 694 and all these things. But then when the maintenance group for the department would go for more funding for another snow plow or more hours, the legislature wouldn't get them more funding for the maintenance. So just much like we talked about the the gardens that have gotten a lot of great comments in downtown Lake, but if we hadn't have budgeted some maintenance on that, they would fall into disrepair certainly in a shorter amount of time frame. So the one thing is yes, we're paying for the here and now, but we also need to plan for the upkeep of the future. And if u, if my kids live here, I I mean, I'm not going to be around forever, right? I don't want them to run into the u they need a quick fix like that. And if it takes 10, 15 years to get up to that, well, at least we're going in the right direction to avoid that. u situation in my mind. **[02:14:15] Jeff Holtz:** And for context, the levy that they had to go out for in our neighboring community was over 8 million. Is that for West Lakeland? Yeah. And the impact for them for their median household was 490 a year. Yeah. That u they had to do and that **[02:14:30] Matt Hirn:** which u I tend to be in the same boat. I I still I 100% agree. We do not want to be in that situation. But we're whether it's 250 300,000 400,000 500,000 we're moving in that direction. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. I keep on getting that. **[02:14:55] Clarissa Hadler:** Yeah. No, we're moving in that direction. u It's just again getting back to council member Holtz's comment. It's philosophical. u And how quickly do you think you'd be in that direction? I think, you know, part of that discussion is the longer you hold back on going more aggressively in that direction, your time frame, your your time value of money, you know, if you look at an economics chart, the further you get out, the more aggressive that percentage becomes and the harder it is to play catchup. It's not just saying, well, we're going to do it in 10 years. So then if we do this, it's not it's not a linear u linear regression. it u it u become it u becomes compounding by percentages, right? Just like your 401k is u see that jump. It's like, wow, that really jumped. Well, so will the costs of increased infrastructure with more development. It it'll really jump. So, and as you already said, depreciation for this is not taking in account of inflation. u **[02:15:45] Nick Dragisich:** And the studies aren't taking in account return. **[02:15:48] Clarissa Hadler:** Well, then it kind of cancels. **[02:15:50] Nick Dragisich:** It kind of cancels. Yeah. **[02:15:55] Clarissa Hadler:** I need a number for the levy. **[02:16:00] Mayor Cadenhead:** Yeah. As a u I'm okay with where we're at. we brought it down from where you were. I think it's palatable, but u others have a different opinion and I'm only one of five. So, **[02:16:15] Clarissa Hadler:** I would also just remind you that we can decrease the levy between the September and December. We cannot increase it. **[02:16:22] Mayor Cadenhead:** So, true, your final levy can always come down for this if we want to have additional discussion. **[02:16:30] Matt Hirn:** Maybe just with that being said, the insurance I know you mentioned the insurance you brought down quite a bit um for the health insurance. **[02:16:35] Clarissa Hadler:** Not quite a bit, just a bit. a bit **[02:16:38] Matt Hirn:** just to help try and decrease that budget. **[02:16:40] Clarissa Hadler:** Got it. **[02:16:41] Matt Hirn:** Because that was one that actually kind of concerned me of u from what I've been hearing that that's been going up for everybody this year. So, it's kind of one of those where I'd hate to u did not catch that memo nearly early enough. I plugged that in. So, I don't know. um I just don't know if I want to depend on that as being one of the decreases in the budget. **[02:17:05] Clarissa Hadler:** I mean, it's I don't know. It was maybe 10 or 15,000. So, it wasn't it's just one one piece of many. Okay. stand here until I get a number. **[02:17:15] Matt Hirn:** I mean, I'll my direction is I or my the direction I'd like to see that number go is u again I I really do appreciate the changes that have been made and the staff all looking through and making cuts where they could be. I do still think that number closer to what council member Dragisich provided here where we're looking at that 10.13% in the total levy amount from the previous year. um which would be I just estimating probably about 8% increase in local tax rate. I'm more comfortable with that. That's more the direction I' I'd like to see the numbers get. Again, I I've given some suggestions of how I think we could get there. um, staff, you still understand these better and what's needed. um, and so if there's a different way of getting there, you know, I am open to that, but I think we've kind of given our ideas of how to get there. If if staff can't show us how to get there, I think, you know, I think this is a a way of getting there. **[02:18:15] Jeff Holtz:** I'm not comfortable with, and I appreciate the work on this, Council Member Dragisich, I'm not comfortable cutting 250 from the infrastructure reserve levy. The only the only thing I I could acquiesce to is probably some of the the 50,000 decrease in the vehicle and m equipment levy, but again, not on the street maintenance levy for what we have to do next year with chip sealing and crack sealing and maintaining of the roadway system. That's u that's not something I want to delve into. **[02:18:45] Nick Dragisich:** I 30,000 isn't a lot. My only point was that we had we have sufficient amount of funds in there. Yes. To cover and the 30,000 is almost de minimis. um but u **[02:18:55] Mayor Cadenhead:** Council member Kragness, you have any comments? **[02:19:00] Nick Kragness:** Yeah, I tend to agree with what you brought Clarissa because I I think the 14% is u I think more palatable to the community and u you brought it down to a a better spot from the 20 plus percent that it was. So, u that ripping that band-aid off, so to speak, and going a little quicker and just getting it done, I'm more on that side of the fence, the philosophical fence of just getting it over with. **[02:19:15] Clarissa Hadler:** I think we need to stop using the term ripping the band-aid off. This is not ripping the band-aid off, you guys. **[02:19:20] Nick Dragisich:** No, slow rolling band-aid. Yeah. So, my suggestion for now is we keep with finance directors recommendations and then chew on a couple of these other items and maybe do our own homework on or talk to the directors individually to see if that's something we want to bring down further u in December. The one thing you didn't comment on was the administrative overhead transfers from the enterprise funds which could fund your infrastructure levy and still bring down our tax. **[02:19:45] Mayor Cadenhead:** I'm sorry. u oh, the overhead charge enterprise funds. **[02:19:50] Nick Dragisich:** Yeah, those are um u Can you explain that to me? Yeah, we u we support our overhead our enterprise a lot of overhead. We have, you know, we have direct labor costs charged them, but like city council costs, we don't allocate any of that. We don't allocate legal. We don't allocate um like the clerk who who put stuff in. It's, you know, it's a process you go through to determine how much um should be allocated to your enterprise funds for citywide overhead. u there's actually u there's no limit. You can charge whatever you want, but there is a method to get there. I kind of did a back of the envelope calculation to come to those numbers. And so we would take those transfer those as a u from the enterprise funds to the general fund or to the street levy fund um or whatever other fund we wanted to um and not u and not levy taxes for. So, these back on the napkin numbers total $510,000 u from all three funds. And that's u that's money you're saying that could be used in some of the general fund. **[02:20:45] Jeff Holtz:** Could be used in any fund you want. There's u it's your it's your um it's just money that's for any legal expenditure. I think that topic might be worth pursuing. I trust your judgment more than mine on this one, but we do know because we've had this discussion at high level before. If there's a cost from the general fund that actually could be for those watching that it could actually be instead be paid for from the water fund, we should pursue that. And obviously we've talked about this like staff allocate and say I spent hours on this to make sure we're doing it. But if there are other you're saying there are potentially other reallocations, shall we say? For instance, a lot of cities are municipal liquor. I think Lakefield takes like two and a half or three million from its liquor fund, puts it in the general fund, u **[02:21:30] Mayor Cadenhead:** but we we don't have a No, no, I understand. It's just u it's an enterprise. I'd like to Yeah. Okay. I just want to deal with what we have. **[02:21:45] Nick Dragisich:** Right. But my point being you can take whatever you want. I'm u I think there's a method. The overallocation is a method to get there. And I said back it's kind of back of the envelope, but we could offset some of the levy by by that amount. Maybe you get to our 250, our 500, our street levy, you know, from this element. **[02:22:00] Mayor Cadenhead:** All right. For now, I think the direction is leave it as is. We're going to do some homework and might have some individual conversations with people talking about I'd like to delve into the overhead charges enterprise funds a little bit but I think for now u you've done a really good job at trying trying to make us happy. Never really going to make us happy. **[02:22:15] Clarissa Hadler:** And again if you guys are getting complaints or concerns or questions feel free to send them my way. I don't talk to nearly enough people in No, we send them to the mayor. If they just send them to me and let me u those are just my suggestions. I mean I **[02:22:30] Mayor Cadenhead:** I fully understand. I would really appreciate taking the time to do that. um it's really us working as a collective as a team to try and make sure we're doing the best job for the residents that we serve. So u one more point is u not a it's not a backdoor attack on on staff. I shared it with them a week ago, so they were well aware what my what my suggestions were and they were u shouldn't have been surprised. No, there's no surprise there. That's fine. um, with that, it's one of our longer workshops, future workshop topics. oh, what are the future workshop talk top easy for me to say topics, Miss Miller? **[02:23:15] Nicole Miller:** um, Do u do you just want to know about the next workshop? **[02:23:20] Mayor Cadenhead:** Yeah. What what do we got on the table? **[02:23:25] Nicole Miller:** So, u well, that'll be in October. So, we're going to talk about the old city hall kind of. Adam will talk about like high level to get us thinking because we don't have a plan right now for that. um, Jennifer is going to talk about the um paid family medical leave and talk about um her research and decisions that the council will need to make based on cost. um, fire department is going to talk about our current open burning permits. Okay. u Be evaluating that. u and um, this is subject to change. um, for street dance sidewalk um, trail snow removal ordinance. We just keep moving it based on workload. **[02:24:15] Matt Hirn:** I also put on there Lake Elmo no wake. See if we're going to revisit that discussion. So those depending on workload we u well he probably doesn't want to keep bumping it up but mine might keep going down so that's kind of **[02:24:30] Mayor Cadenhead:** well I'm going to make one last plug for the street dance u you know 100th anniversary celebration on Saturday it should be a lot of fun we'll have tents what do we u how many food trucks we got seven food trucks seven food trucks u Rotary selling beer and seltzer got a band fly over at five o'clock what are we having for flyover commemorative air force u Of course, South St. Paul, three planes with the premier one being a B24 bomber from World War II, right? And then we'll have fireworks at the end and u we'll close up shop at 10:00. Beer sales will be open till 9:30 and that's that that'll be that. Looking forward to it and looking forward to seeing whoever can show up there. Susie is giving u All right. With that, we'll adjourn the meeting. Thank you.