This transcript reflects a Lake Elmo City Council Workshop. Based on the context provided and the flow of the meeting, I have identified the speakers. Note: **Jason Stoa** (Community Development Director) is identified in the dialogue but was not on your initial list; **Council Member Matt Hirn**, **Council Member Jeff Holtz**, **Council Member Nick Dragisich**, and **Council Member Nick Kragness** are distinguished by their specific lines of questioning and the Mayor's prompts. *** [00:00:00] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: City council workshop city of Lake Elmo Tuesday October 14th [clears throat] order. Uh first on the agenda is um paid family medical leave PML administrative services coordinator Miss Doyle presenting. [clears throat] [00:00:15] **Jennifer Doyle**: Good evening. mostly informational um and to just give kind of give uh the okay to just continue on the path we're we're doing now um and that will come for benefits [clears throat] to council next week. So a little bit of background uh what is Minnesota paid leave the options between private plan and state plan uh and then some things that we're considering from the employer side. So, originally this is a state plan originally [clears throat] passed in May of 2023. Um, it sets up job protections for paid time to care for self, family, um, allow for new family bonding, safety leave related to domestic violence, uh, sexual assault or stalking. Much like the federal FMLA plan, [clears throat] um, this is the Minnesota's paid leave. Um [clears throat] the family in this instance is a pretty wide net. Um and you can even designate uh say an elderly neighbor that doesn't have a main caregiver. Uh you could be appointed their main caregiver um and qualify. Program begins January 1st, 2026. Uh legislators set aside $670 million to fund this program. Uh the startup it will continue um to be funded through employer premiums. We do have an option to have a private party rather than the state plan, but it has to be uh equally or more beneficial to the employee. [cough] [00:01:45] **Jennifer Doyle**: [clears throat] We do need to notify employees uh and have signed acknowledgement that we showed them the benefits of this plan and their um what's available to them and we have to do that by December 1st of 2025 and we have to have that signed acknowledgement. My plan is to do this during our open enrollment meeting at the end of October. I will also be attending uh paid on call firefighter training in November to hit all of our part-time firefighters. Uh and then making sure that anybody that doesn't attend those two events um has an opportunity to learn and sign that acknowledgement. So, who's covered? Everybody. um full-time, part-time, interns, seasonal, you as elected officials, as long as they make at least 5.3% of the state's annual wage, average annual wage of $3,900 a year. Those uh employees that live in Wisconsin are also covered as long as 50% of their time is spent working in Minnesota. I'm not sure uh in reality how elected officials will qualify for this seeing you're paid whether you're here or not and you'd have to miss seven events before you would qualify. So, [clears throat] but you are covered. So, what does it look like? You can have 1 to 12 weeks of time for medical leave for yourself and 1 to 12 weeks for family. Whether that's bonding leave for birth, adoption, or foster child, active duty for those that are being called up to [clears throat] active duty, caring for that family member, including anybody that you appoint. Again, along there's documentation to go with that. uh or that safety leave. If you have, let's say, uh as a pregnant female, you are on leave on bed rest for eight weeks, that would qualify under the medical leave. And then you would also get 12 weeks of bonding time after the child is born for a maximum of 20 weeks. Okay. [00:03:15] **Jennifer Doyle**: [clears throat] Um the qualifying condition must last more than seven days and it has to be certified uh by a professional and this is the same as the current uh family medical leave. Um, caveat for 2026. If you had a newborn in 2025, you will qualify, even if you had your 12 weeks of FMLA leave, you will qualify for another 12 weeks up until that baby turns 1 in 2026. So, if you had a baby July 1st, you will qualify for 12 weeks of paid leave until June 30th. you can uh it also qualifies for intermittent leave. So let's say you choose your bonding time Mondays and Tuesdays every week. Uh that would qualify for intermittent leave. Um little different than ESST, which is that temporary calling [clears throat] in scheduling of doctor's appointments. This event has to last for more than seven days. They'll get paid back to day one, but you have to be out at least seven days. [00:04:10] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: I'm I'm so sorry. Can you say that one more time? So, was that differentiating between ESST and FM or and the PFML? [00:04:18] **Jennifer Doyle**: Correct. [00:04:19] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: So, the ESST that can be for less than seven days. [00:04:22] **Jennifer Doyle**: Correct. [00:04:23] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: Where PFML 7 days or greater otherwise you have to use ESST or PTO or [00:04:28] **Jennifer Doyle**: Correct. [00:04:29] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: Okay. [00:04:30] **Jennifer Doyle**: the application process. Employees will be required to notify the employer. Uh this is actually one of the first questions they'll come across whether it's on the state plan or the private plan um [clears throat] that they have to notify the employer first. They'll apply directly through the state or the third party provider much like uh our disability leave. Now all necessary claim paperwork will also be handled with that provider. There will be communication between the state and the employer uh or the third party provider and the employer premiums. So the state plan premium for 2026 [clears throat] is 888% of the payroll wages which is approximately uh $35,500 for the city of Lake Elmo. Employers can charge employees their port a portion of the premium back to them. It cannot be over 50% of that premium. So 044 paid by the city, 044 paid by the employees through a payroll tax. So that kind of brings the the cost down to 17,750 for the city. If we choose to go over a 50/50 split, that tax, that benefit is now taxable on uh the employee. [clears throat] And what does that look like? So, if an employee is making $60,000 a year, their premium would be $264 a year or approximately $10.15 per payroll. If they're making $100,000, that's $440 a year or $16.92 a payroll. Talking with uh peers and other cities, uh majority of them are doing the 50/50 split. we would need to do uh talk with labor unions um and sign anou with [clears throat] this caveat of 5050. [00:06:05] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: Just one quick question on that too. So the $440 per year that was that would be the 50% paid by the city and there'd be another 440 paid by the employee. [00:06:12] **Jennifer Doyle**: Correct. [00:06:13] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: Okay. [00:06:14] **Jennifer Doyle**: um with if we go through a third party provider, which we just got uh those proposals back, the most attractive one to us that is cheaper will pay the FICA tax on any medical leaves, the employer portion of that would be u would also be covered. Um and I'll talk about that in just a little bit. Uh that rate comes in at 76 um as the wages which is a 38 split bringing that cost down uh for the employee and and the employer um from 1015 a payroll for 60,000 uh down to 877 making 100,000 it brings that uh per pay per period cost from 1692 uh to 1462. Again, these are very rough numbers, but so what does the payment benefit look like? Based on current wages, you would get paid between [clears throat] 55 and 90% of your wages up to the state max average weekly wage of $1,423 per week. It's approximately $74,000. [00:07:05] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: What's that $74,000 on? [00:07:07] **Jennifer Doyle**: That's the average weekly wage in the state. So the all everything all the payments are based on that average weekly wage. [clears throat and cough] Um so if you're earning less or equal to 50% of that wage, uh you will earn 90% of your income. So, if you're making $35,000 a year, um 90% of that would be about $65 a week. If you're earning at least 50% to 100% of that $74,000 in a year, uh you'll earn 66% of your wages. If you're making $55,000 a year, that would be approximately $869 a week. If you're exceeding that $74,000 a year, you will receive 55% of your income. So if you're making 90,000 a year, your weekly wage will be 1,279. No one will exceed that $1,423 max, which is approximately $104,000 a year, is where you'll hit that 1423. It is a taxable earning. If we do the state plan, the state will uh have the employee opt into either taking shouldn't say either 5% for state and 10% for federal income tax on those. Uh if we do a thirdparty provider, they will not take out state tax, but they will take out federal payment benefit and parah. Minnesota paid leave dollars are not considered parah eligible earnings. So an employee would have to uh purchase their salary and service credits during that leave, which is the employer cost or the employer portion, the employee contribution plus any interest that would be earned. So, the state plan and the private plan. The advantages of a private plan. Um, the carrier experience with leaves. This third party provider that we're looking at is an insurance like an insurance company. Much like your disability payments, they're used to these types of leaves in different states. Currently, the payment process will be most likely faster for employees. I'm not uh 100% confident in the state plan and and uh how they're they're setting up questions I've asked and the responses. Um I worry that it would will take a while for an employee to actually get uh any payment. Premier Marie is locked with a private plan for up to two years. Some play the required uh the required FICA tax which our option um that was the best option would pay that FICA tax on behalf of the employer. So that's one more um thing that the employer would not have to worry about and the cheaper premiums. Disadvantages of a private plan. There is a $500 fee to opt out of the state plan. Uh [clears throat] and we would have to have incillary benefits with the provider. So short-term, long-term, um some of those benefits that we currently have, we would switch providers. Turns out for us, um it's not necessarily a disadvantage because between Minnesota paid leave and the premium differences for short-term, long-term dental, um and life, we would be saving the city approximately $10,000. Um could [00:09:45] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: okay could you explain because that is where I'm trying to figure out how all these play together and do other benefits have to do other benefits change as a result now that we're going to be offering PFML and it's going to be it sounds like kind of covering similar things that maybe other benefits would. So, you're saying that by implementing PFML with the state plan, we'd be able to modify other benefits, short-term disability, um [cough and clears throat] maybe that's the only one. Modify other benefits that would produce savings ultimately for the city. [00:10:14] **Jennifer Doyle**: So, not modify them, but we would change who we're currently with and put them under the same provider, third party provider. Um [00:10:22] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: Okay. And by bundling them together, [00:10:25] **Jennifer Doyle**: by bundling them, it's a rate savings. [00:10:27] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: That's the savings. Okay. And maybe we'll get into it too, but do the [clears throat] other benefits get modified as a result? Is there, you know, double coverage essentially? [00:10:37] **Jennifer Doyle**: Right. So, the only coverage that kind of doubles up would be that short-term disability. It is in our union contracts that we provide that short-term disability. The rates for that, however, will drop to nearly nothing because the providers know you're most likely not going to use it. You could use it if you had an employee that would that exhausted all their Minnesota paid leave. [00:10:55] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: Sure. [00:10:56] **Jennifer Doyle**: And then had another event. Um because short-term disability pays 60% of a max of $1,400. it's less than what the state's gonna pay, so [clears throat] it's not going to pay out. Um, but even with keeping a modified short-term disability plan, we're still saving money in the long run. Currently, our short-term disability runs from 7 days until 160 days. Our long-term doesn't kick in until 180 days. So, we have a 20-day gap of no income. switching these plans uh shortterm would be from uh seven days to 90 days and our long-term would now kick in after 90 days. So that's also a benefit that it's there's not that gap. Um and long-term increases a little bit with that with that change, but it's still balances out and we're still saving money. [00:11:40] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: And the PFML would be 90 days as well. Seven to 90. [00:11:43] **Jennifer Doyle**: It's 12 weeks, right? It's 12 weeks. [00:11:45] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: So about, right? It's about 90 days unless you're using it as an intermittent [clears throat] type of leave. Correct. [00:11:51] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: Okay. And then I'm I'm sorry, [00:11:53] **Jennifer Doyle**: you're fine. [00:11:54] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: Just with the last slide, you mentioned that um there it would be taxed um state and federal. It that's only if the benefit is used, correct? It's not getting taxed when we're putting that into the plan. If it's used, you get [00:12:05] **Jennifer Doyle**: Yeah. Those earnings are taxable earnings. [00:12:07] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: Got it. Correct. [00:12:08] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: And then I guess that my next question was with this the intermittent bonding or you mentioned intermittent bonding time or the intermittent use. So because you had mentioned right the ESST there's no minimum length of time that you have to take where with PFML it has to be seven days or greater. So to with the intermittent time I guess how does that work is [clears throat] that you have to work with your employer to say hey I'm going to be taking 21 days over the next 10 weeks [00:12:35] **Jennifer Doyle**: right [00:12:36] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: intermittently and and have it planned out or [00:12:38] **Jennifer Doyle**: right so it's a total of 12 weeks it's not point A to 12 weeks so for example let's say um your spouse is getting um chemotherapy [clears throat] every Monday for the next six months Sure. [00:12:51] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: It's it's we have the document certified uh documentation from a professional. You have a schedule that you know and and it could switch, you know, it could change, but you have a scheduled a set schedule that you think you're going um to abide by. So that could last six months, but you're only using one day a week. Again, you won't qualify until that seventh week. [00:13:10] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: Okay? seven days missed and then it kicks in, but you still get paid back to that first day absent. [00:13:15] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: Okay, it's coming together a little bit. [00:13:17] **Jennifer Doyle**: Yeah, it's very confusing and they've changed a few things and so [00:13:20] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: that that was very that was helpful. That really that cleared up for me. Thank you. [00:13:24] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: On your slide where you have the payment of benefit, I think your numbers are wrong. when you go to the um 55,000 a year, that's about a little over a thousand a week. And so it' be more like 689 if you're in 66% of that. So that's about a,000 a week. And for the 90,000, that's about 1,700 a week. So it' be more like 800 something if you're getting 55%. [00:13:43] **Jennifer Doyle**: I'd have to rerun the numbers, but I I can check on those for you. [00:13:46] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: I just [00:13:47] **Jennifer Doyle**: Yeah, there's a calculator actually on the state site. [00:13:50] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: Um, [00:13:51] **Jennifer Doyle**: and actually that's where I pulled these numbers from. [00:13:53] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: Um, so maybe their [00:13:55] **Jennifer Doyle**: calculator could be off. It just doesn't add up based on 66% of, [00:14:00] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: you know, like I say, 55,000 just a shade over a thousand a week [00:14:03] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: and 66% would be, you know, about 700 a week. [00:14:06] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: Anyway, I just [00:14:07] **Jennifer Doyle**: I'll rerun Yeah, I'll definitely rerun those. Those those are from um the calculator on the state's website. So, [00:14:14] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: but I appreciate you pointing that out and I will I will double check those. I didn't know if it was if if it meant there was a step was like 90% of the of the f of the you know less than amount and then 66% of the amount over. I didn't know how they calculated it. [00:14:26] **Jennifer Doyle**: Okay, we can look at that later. I just Yeah, [00:14:28] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: I was just confused by the numbers. [00:14:30] **Jennifer Doyle**: Yep, I will definitely look at that. Thank you. [00:14:32] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: And one question about um it said [clears throat] the advantage for private was a faster payment for employees. What is that? What does that mean exactly fast mean? [00:14:41] **Jennifer Doyle**: So, the providers have been doing paid leaves. They have a system in place. This is this is what they do. Uh the state plan is just implementing all of this. Um they're saying it would take uh five days for payment. with the interactions I've had with the state, I'm a little doubtful that that's goal is going to be met, at least once in the beginning that it that it's up and running, [00:15:02] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: right? [00:15:03] **Jennifer Doyle**: So, [00:15:04] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: okay. Thank you. [00:15:05] **Jennifer Doyle**: All right. Again, this is the that short-term disability question. So um again it is in our union contract through 2026 that we provide that benefit and we will look at that once contracts come up next year. So supplemental income through use of acred time. So, one of the questions that we have to answer uh is do we allow employees to use their acred time to offset or supplement their earnings that they're getting from the state um with what they would normally receive. I would I would be in favor of this uh keeps employees income consistent and encourages the use of their acute accured time. Uh our current policy does state if they have the time they have to use it but we can't force them to use it in for paid leave. So what does Lake Elmo need to decide? Uh will we allow the use of that supplemental income? I would step I would say yes. Uh that we should move in that direction, but defer to you. Will we use a private third-party plan or use the state plan? I think because of the cost savings um and the opportunity to to have all of our ancillary benefits under one provider I would recommend using that third party provider. [00:16:15] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: Is that third party provider also our insurance plan or not? [00:16:18] **Jennifer Doyle**: It is not. We It's uh Mutual of Omaha and we don't have any of our plans with them right now. [00:16:23] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: Okay. Are there other companies in the private world offering that? Yes. [00:16:27] **Jennifer Doyle**: Besides Mutual Omaha. [00:16:29] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: Yes. Our broker did a um RFPs. [00:16:32] **Jennifer Doyle**: Yeah. [00:16:33] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: Um and compared a few plans and Mutual of Omaha is the one that came in with the the best bang for the buck with what they offer. [00:16:39] **Jennifer Doyle**: And it's a two-year rate lock. The SI the state can increase their premium next year up to 1.1% of payroll. Um so we are locked in at that um 76 for two years if we sign with a third party. And then what percent of the premium uh will we put on the employees? Are we going to split that 5050 [00:17:00] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: and so if we don't if [00:17:02] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: I think we have to cover 50% right [clears throat] do more [00:17:06] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: if we do more but then it's taxed on it. It's now a taxable benefit for them. [00:17:10] **Jennifer Doyle**: Yeah. [00:17:11] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: Okay. So, I do have a question still and maybe you did answer this already. I just didn't quite catch it, but can we can the short-term disability benefits be stacked with the PFML to help make up the difference? So, if the PFML is covering 66% short-term disability cover the remainder? [00:17:28] **Jennifer Doyle**: No. So, the way short-term disability works is it it pays out um looking at other income that would be coming in. So, they won't they won't pay more than 60% of the income and they won't pay over $1,400. So, if you're earning if if you're making $35,000 a year, you're already receiving 90% of your income. So, it's just not going to pay. [00:17:48] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: Okay? And even if short-term disability would have to pay a lesser amount than that to make up the difference between what PFML that's not they can't be stacked together the total amount [00:17:58] **Jennifer Doyle**: total income considering other payments being received. [00:18:00] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: Got it. Okay, that makes sense. [00:18:02] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Any other questions? [clears throat] No, thank you for that update. [00:18:07] **Jennifer Doyle**: I'm just making sure we're the plan to move forward with a third party provider saving the city money is the the direction I should still continue. [00:18:15] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: Do you mind just going back to the slide with those three questions? [00:18:18] **Jennifer Doyle**: Yeah. [clears throat] [00:18:20] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: So, as I was looking through this, I I think my thought is I I agree with the private third party plan. I think for the reasons you stated plus the decrease. I I guess I didn't even see that. Maybe that was in the pack and I just missed it. I mean, that's a nice benefit that when we kind of revamped the whole benefit package, it's actually going to be a savings to the city with more coverage really than what the employees were having before. Um, so I I agree that the private third party plan seems to be best. I think the the splitting at 5050 I again I'm completely on board with that. The only one that I'm I'm a little up in the air with is um allowing the use of supplemental income um to to compensate. My my challenge here like in an industry where somebody's like directly producing revenue, I absolutely think that that this would not make sense to allow it to be used for supplemental in um roles where maybe it's not directly revenue producing. I I think it could make sense. Um so I'm I'm a little bit up in the air on that one. So, I guess I'm kind of looking to see what everyone else thinks on the supplemental income portion. Um, I I think I could go either way with this one, especially since we don't really have any roles that are, you know, your time is directly revenue producing and, you know, in that situation, I'm really against it, but we don't really have any roles like that. Now, yes, we'd still have to for the for the fire team, I mean, you know, someone's going to have to make up that time. So the city's spending more money on additional staff during that time. So just trying to balance [clears throat] um the cost to the city. Um well, you know, making sure we're still offering the right benefits. [00:19:55] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: Yeah, I I tend to agree to go with the the third party and then um the um 5050 is fine. I always look at [clears throat] vacation comp time. Somebody's banking some hours. They've worked some overtime. I mean, they put in the time and really those are um what I consider benefits and and kind of leave the ownership up to um the management and the um employee on how to use those benefits. Because if you use the vacation [clears throat] or comp time for something that's sick or whatever just to keep up with your pay, I don't have a problem with that because that's just something they won't be able to use later on. So, they're making a decision on when to use that. And I know that in private companies that I've worked for, if they're doing something, they are allowed to use PTO to um you know, maybe they burn up all their PTO trying to make up that gap for a significant illness or something like that. So, I [clears throat] don't really have a problem with um the use of supplemental income from these other sources to make up that gap if that's what they need to do. that's a decision they need to make for their, you know, their house or their home or their family, right? So, I I I don't have a problem with that. [00:21:05] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: I think letting them use a supplemental income is actually a benefit to the city. You know, one, the employer doesn't employee doesn't lose income, which doesn't put them in a difficult position and they can focus on getting better or getting their loved one better. Number two, they have that vacation leave time coming anyway. So if they take it during this leave, it won't be available and they come back. We'll have on the job more more of their time. If we don't allow them to use it, they're gone for this 12 weeks or 20 weeks or whatever it takes. Then they come back and they still have all their vacation and paid leave and they've suffered an economic loss. So I think the employer employee could decide, you know, in their own mind, first I don't want to, you know, don't want to lose the income. I need the money, make my house payment, pay my co kids college tuition or whatever it might be. And secondly, we benefit because when they do come back, we have them on the job more frequently. [00:22:00] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: Right. [clears throat] And I think normally I would I I agree. I I think the part that I have a hard time with is the state is kind of stepping in here and saying you're going to you you're going to get this benefit, right? and it's going to be paid versus if we didn't have these additional benefits that we are having to offer then yes absolutely it makes sense for them to use their their PTO in in these situations well under the family medical leave act federal act you can make the employees take their supplemental their leave paid time off vacation whatever during that period until it's exhausted that's the federal side of it. [00:22:45] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: Sure. [00:22:46] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: So, I just say my primary concern is you have an employee who has some major illness or problem and and now they're in a situation where they can't survive financially because we're not allowing to fill that gap. That's my primary piece. The flip side benefit that they'll be on the job more frequently once they return is just a benefit we get for allowing them the benefit of not losing income. [00:23:05] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: Sure. No, [clears throat] [00:23:07] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: I Yeah, I agree. That makes sense. Of course I said it. [00:23:10] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: Oh boy. [laughter] [00:23:12] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: About you, Council Member Kragness? Any input? [00:23:15] **Council Member Nick Kragness**: You know, I I second a lot of what you guys are saying here. I completely agree that you should be able to use that supplemental income. I think using the third party for along with that or use the private third party and [clears throat] the percentage being split 50/50. I think the staff recommendation here I'm in line with. So, [00:23:35] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: good enough for you? [00:23:36] **Jennifer Doyle**: Good enough for me. [00:23:37] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: All right, sounds good. Thank you. [00:23:39] **Jennifer Doyle**: Thank you. [00:23:40] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Next on the agenda is the old city hall facility review by community development director Stoa. [clears throat] [cough] [00:23:50] **Jason Stoa**: All right. Good evening. here talking about the uh old city hall and just the background on it. It's uh was built in 1986 and it's a little bit over 2,800 square feet on a one and a half acre site. It's a singlestory woodframe building with a shingle roof. Um as you all know that we moved into the new city hall in 2023. That building has been leased from time to time but is currently considered vacant. It is used for meeting space at times. Um the building needs considerable repair according to the space needs study from 2017 which was included um as an attachment. Another thing to bring up is the EDA in their work plan uh plans to review all surplus publicly owned property in 2026. But this process will also go to the parks commission, the planning commission, and obviously to the council. We get calls from time to time about facilities um or just lots in the city. So really the issue before the council is big picture is what does the council want to do with the building? And I came up with six options. I'm sure there's more options here, but this is just kind of start the conversation. What um you think would make the most sense, but one of the first ones is we hear is demolish the building for green space um and retain or eliminate the existing parking lot. Uh two would be demolish the building, expand the parking lot. Three would sell the building for business use. We could let people know that it uh is available and try to determine the interest. Uh parking could be located in the back or a new parking lot could possibly be placed in the front, but it would be fairly small. Uh lease the building to a business. Same issues with parking. We could uh keep the building and revisit the issue next year. Uh the other thing too, it's kind of similar, but monitor the school site site and potentially partner with them uh with the future developers on the school site. So the space needs study in 2017, if you haven't read it, it was basically trying to determine where the new city hall should go, kind of combining fire station. There was different options, but what they did was they evaluated the old fire station and basically said, I'm sorry, the old city hall, and they basically said that there were $1,000 of urgent issues, 862,000 of short-term issues, a little bit over 80,000 midterm, and 38,000 long-term issues. and that 420,000 of the short-term issues are related to the exterior envelope. Just from talking to staff, I don't think much work has been done on the building since then. So, one thing, if it's going to be retained, we should probably get new numbers and just figure out exactly what needs to be um repaired, but this was from 2017, so it's not that old. Something to bring up too is just the yearly maintenance costs just of the electric gas bill. Just real [clears throat] basic cost. It's right under 2,000 a year since it's it's no longer fully occupied. At the insurance though has gone up to just under 7,000. Uh talking to staff, the insurance cost went up because it's considered vacant and is a higher risk for vacant property. So I'm going to do here is just give you staff comments. Sent this out um because I know fire is and public works uh have looked at this in the past. So we want to just get everybody's input. So, um, demolish the building for green space and retain or eliminate the existing parking lot is a good option as it accommodates parking for certain events. The green space could be used for events or storm water ponding if our current ponds are failing. Uh, I would strongly support option two, demolish the building, expand the parking, and additional 30 plus parking stalls would improve city hall's ability to host meetings conferences elections alternative parking location during snow removal, public parking during events in the area near Cakoro, national out tree lighting, Fourth of July parade, the 101 anniversary celebration, existing parking, uh, the existing asphalt on the old city hall parking lot is failing and it needs significant patching. I didn't I didn't catch that one. They slapped in 101. [00:27:15] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: He must have liked it. [00:27:17] **Council Member Nick Kragness**: The 101. [00:27:18] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: The 101. [00:27:19] **Jason Stoa**: Yeah. [laughter] [00:27:21] **Jason Stoa**: These are quotes from staff. [00:27:23] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: That's good. [00:27:24] **Jason Stoa**: I would advocate for option to demolish the building and expand parking for the same reason stated above, but with a single access into the lot across from the current lot entrance. And we'll talk about that more um later on about the access issues. I'd like to get back to the original site plan without the access and cut out to the current parking lot. The amount of upcoming maintenance to that building and internal systems will be costly. Option two allows parking, although it is relatively far from where village events would be held, but it could be useful for city hall events. I think there are ponding requirements for a larger parking lot versus what we could do in option one. So, that also came up with valley branch requirements and impervious surface. Uh, a sale option may be problematic once you begin to look at potential layouts, current or future. The city has several important encroachments onto the property that would need to be addressed in detail and preserved as part of any sale. These encroachments may also place restrictions on the full use of the property. There is an attachment, the exhibit is in the packet. um city hall driveway encroachments along the northern property line, water mane and sanitary sewer easements along the southeast property line and storm water management for the commercial area including city hall along the west property line. Uh selling the business for selling the building for business use could conflict with fire police access if the parking lot is not relocated and there is high traffic. It's zoned public facilities institutional so the uses are very limited unless we change zoning and future land use. But based on how the last [clears throat] RFP went, this could be a great option. Uh, new access from Leverne does not appear to meet access spacing requirements. So developing the site independently together with all the site restrictions above may not be feasible. However, if the school and Fury motors redevelop the site could potent could potentially fit into and be useful as part of the larger redevelopment project, accessing the larger site redevelopment internally. So not using our access that currently exists. Just going through the options one more time and kind of looking at the pros and cons of each and um if you have any questions or comments chime in. But um demolish the building for green space retainer eliminate the existing parking lot. Pros that we're considering are just provides more green space. It's a one-time cost to demolish. It allows the city to wait while incurring minor costs. Could be used for storm water ponding if current ponds fail. Uh cons doesn't provide additional parking. there is a cost to demolish and it reduces the site value the value to the structure and there's no additional taxes earned. Uh option two would be to demolish it and then expand the parking onetime cost to demolish provides more parking allows access away from the restricted emergency vehicle entrance. [clears throat] And then the cons cost to demolish and to construct a parking lot. It wouldn't increase the site value. uh no additional taxes and it could have storm water requirements that uh we're not considered at this moment. We don't really know the impact that could have with Valley Branch. Option three, sell the building to a business. Pros, no cost to demolish, would increase site value, would generate taxes, reduces potential for more parking, business, these are the cons. Business parking would have to be located between Lever and the building. Access would most likely be through city hall's entrance off Lever. increase traffic uh adjacent to the emergency vehicle access. Uh utility easements could restrict use and we could have storm water requirements. Uh lease the building. There's no cost demolish would increase site value. Could generate sales tax retaining ownership could provide site flexibility in the future. Reduces potential for more parking. Business parking would have to be located between Leverne and the building. Access would most likely be through city's all entrance. [clears throat] Really the same thing with with the sale. It's pretty similar. And then the keep, keep, and revisit is just there's no cost [clears throat] to demolish right now. Retaining ownership could provide site flexibility in the future. The cons, it reduces potential for more parking. Now, the cost to maintain related to uncertain timing. So, we'll be continuing to pay those costs and then monitor the school site and partner with future developers. So, for the pros, it would retain ownership or possibly sell. The development could receive more housing density if they partnered with us. Uh could provide site flexibility in the future. Um it could be a parking lot or some other use. The site could be accessed through the abuing parcel. So you don't have the site access. Uh the city would receive funds potentially to develop the site if we work with a developer and the adjacent parcel value [clears throat] should increase because of the increased density. So, the cons would be um uncertain timing and use. The new owner may not want to partner with the city and we may not uh they may not need a housing density increase depending on what their project is. So, um those are some of the cons and really recommendation is just a discussion and what the [clears throat] council thinks they want to do moving forward. Um, like I said, if there's other options that you're considering, just any discussion on the topic would be um would be great. [clears throat] [00:32:00] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: So, I had one thought, and this might be a terrible thought, so just tell me, but Chief Kalis, could this be used as a training facility for putting [clears throat] out small fires or clearing rooms, things like that? [00:32:15] **Fire Chief Dustin Kalis**: We'd give that building uh its money's worth for about six months to a year. We could probably squeeze some things out of there. But long-term, no. We we have the training site in uh East Metro training site in Maplewood that we would use. [00:32:30] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: We could go through a building like this for a short period of time. [00:32:33] **Fire Chief Dustin Kalis**: Sure. [00:32:34] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: Um for maybe about a year and get some internal, you know, external training on it, but not a whole lot. Nothing that we would be able to sustain long term. [00:32:42] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: Okay. Got it. Thank you. [clears throat] [00:32:45] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: Perhaps we would say the demolition cost. It was a training fire. [00:32:50] **Fire Chief Dustin Kalis**: We'd uh given its current location, I think we'd have a difficult time uh having that go on with our neighbors around here. But [00:32:58] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: that's true. [00:33:00] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: You do have to hire first, [laughter] [00:33:04] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: right? [00:33:05] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: Whole new type of demo. Yeah. [00:33:06] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: There you go. Fireworks. [00:33:07] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: So the second exhibit in here, [clears throat] Jason, is that it shows a new public roadway, [00:33:14] **Jason Stoa**: there should be a GIS with utilities. And then there's [00:33:17] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: basically one, this one most likely wouldn't work with access spacing. [00:33:21] **Jason Stoa**: This one is the one that comes [00:33:23] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: in our access. We'd have to create an easement and allow them to [00:33:26] **Jason Stoa**: Yeah, because that other parcel to the south of the old city hall is school district property, right? [00:33:31] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: That is and [cough and clears throat] I think some conversation with the commercial owner directly to the south might have some benefit. I mean, my sense is selling it is probably the right decision, but I think if it was some discussion perhaps on an option with the developer to the south, he may say, "No, we're not interested at all or whatever." Um, okay. [00:33:55] **Jason Stoa**: Are you talking about the old Fury site? [00:33:58] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: Yeah. [00:33:59] **Jason Stoa**: Yeah. But there's a gap between that and the old city hall. [00:34:02] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: Is there a gap? I'm sorry. I miss [00:34:04] **Jason Stoa**: There is. So, we could work with the school district and whoever they bring in as their developer. I believe they plan to um sell it though. Um I don't think they're working on an RFP. I believe they're listing it and selling it. [00:34:18] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: Yeah, it it just in some ways as a standalone business sale. It's it's fairly restrictive. I don't disagree. Um you might find maybe a single practicing attorney or someone who might have some interest like that, but [00:34:33] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: you know, my sense is selling it and putting it back on the tax roles is our best long-term interest. I just don't know enough about how you might develop it. It's [00:34:42] **Jason Stoa**: one of the things that came up is it's possible. We haven't explored this, but we if the city wants a parking lot, they could get the parking lot and partner with the developer. So, they benefit from the density and we benefit from having the parking lot. So, [00:34:57] **Jason Stoa**: that's part of that option six. We would [clears throat] start looking at ways that it would benefit the city. What? Because I know once you go beyond the the cut where the uh front parking lot here um has the access to Lever on the south side. You know, it's no vehicle entry to the west beyond there. So really anything parking wise I I don't know how you maybe move the no vehicles maybe move them back to the west a little bit but um and create an access maybe uh directly across from the south part of the city hall parking lot. following me there. [clears throat] [00:35:36] **Jason Stoa**: The access would come in through the existing parking lot and then immediately go to the [00:35:41] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: You got to go to the south. Yeah, you have to take a left [00:35:44] **Jason Stoa**: where that green where that tree is now [00:35:46] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: just because the we have the do not enter posts [00:35:49] **Jason Stoa**: right [00:35:50] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: right [00:35:51] **Jason Stoa**: there. Right. [00:35:52] **Fire Chief Dustin Kalis**: And that was a concern brought up by uh fire too is just the traffic going back and parking in the back. You'd have to [clears throat] you'd have to cordon that off towards the front. [00:36:03] **Jason Stoa**: And working with a developer though, it's possible that that street would most likely become 37th if it was a large housing development and connect to the 37th that's going into Northstar. So if it was a partnership, you could bring that access through that 37th, which [clears throat] is just a private road right now. [00:36:20] **Jason Stoa**: Oh, sure. [00:36:22] **Jason Stoa**: [clears throat] [00:36:24] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: What are some of those shortterm repairs that it's adding up to over $800,000? [00:36:28] **Jason Stoa**: I wish I knew all of them. There's a there is a section I believe in that uh study that has a breakdown from the contractor. [00:36:35] **Jason Stoa**: I can get back to you on that. [00:36:37] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: I believe I I did attach the entire document though. I think it's in the appendex. [00:36:42] **Jason Stoa**: Okay. [00:36:43] **Jason Stoa**: Kind of a interesting fact. Uh Susie sent me the article from when it this the building was built and they built it for 150,000 which is just crazy to to think that the uh the cost to just to improve some of the exteriors that but I guess just as you know obviously the staff was pretty heavily focused on option number two with demolishing it. I guess I think I'm I'm more in favor of not demolishing it. And I guess four, five, and six all seem like kind of the options I'd prefer. Um four with leasing. So we still have a little bit of control. If we can't get somebody to lease it, then great. Then it kind of bleeds over to five and six where we're just revisiting it next year, monitoring what happens with the school site, the Fury site. Um because I think especially like as those develop at that point if we want to sell it I think that you know whoever is looking you know if we do the RFP process again at that point I think it would be a little bit more clear to whoever is purchasing um what they could do with it there. I think the value of it would go up. Um so I think we could for sell it for quite a bit more. Um and then in the meantime with leasing it, you know, again, yeah, an attorney or um some kind of quieter use there, I think could be a great way to keep a pretty historic building that was built by the residents and um kind of leave the uh the options on the table for us over the next couple years as we see that area develop. [00:38:00] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: Yeah, I agree. I think I'm leaning more towards option six because I'd like to just hold on and see what happens with that school site and the Fury site just to see, you know, what pops up and give us that flexibility of having a 1 and a half acre lot. But that is just my opinion right now of option six. [00:38:20] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: I mean, unless I'm missing something too with, you know, with clearing the space for the parking. I mean, is it like is it that um essential that we we get that space cleared for parking for how the building's been used? What [00:38:35] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: we had an event recently? There were multiple groups here. I don't recall what the [00:38:40] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: might have even just been last week. [00:38:42] **Jason Stoa**: Yeah, parking is an issue here. Um I just myself if we host any sort of um additional cities that come in, we have an issue with parking, you know, we'll have staff u move their vehicles um into into that lot or um but we we still have issues with it. Um fire chief probably can speak. he probably has more events where parking is an issue. But you're right with um us allowing the use of a community room here or um in the old city hall at any moment um council meeting night you know parking is going to be a challenge and then as you know the streets are marked no parking so limited options but do you have any more comments about parking? Um yeah, I mean it's kind of it's our last hope for any future parking expansion around here, you know. Um it's we control the the parcel, so that's that's obviously in our best interest to always kind of control [clears throat] that parcel as long as we can. Um whether it's completely controlled by us or in the future, you know, some of it goes off to something else. Um, I mean, I've got emails back in April of 2022 with the project team where old city hall was never meant to be kept. It was kind of a last, it really was kind of a last minute thing to say, "Ah, let's keep it." I mean, I remember, you know, trading some [clears throat] emails just on what kind of curb we were going to do because the curb line was just going to go across and completely wall off the parking lot because Old City Hall was going to be demoed once this building got open and it was real last minute that it was kept. Um, it creates some challenges for us back there with our fire truck and and um sheriff's department movement coming off the south side of the building. we don't have a lot of room there and allowing that access into the current parking lot there um creates challenges for us especially when we are hosting bigger groups in that building. They're they're going in there and then their overflow parking into the staff space and just our our day-to-day shift movement out of there, you know, does create some challenges. So, [00:40:40] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: and what's the best case scenario for how many spaces we could get in that space? [00:40:45] **Jason Stoa**: We haven't run the numbers yet, but um I guess one of the challenges would be the impervious surface and Valley Branch and having that's that's come up. We don't know if we can max out the site, but it's a considerable amount of parking if you maxed out 1.5 acres. [00:41:00] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: Yeah. [clears throat] Okay. And then that image on page eight, that red box just west of Leverne, that's showing where potentially additional parking could be added if we kept the building. [00:41:12] **Jason Stoa**: Yeah, maybe there's one above that. [00:41:14] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: I think you referring to this drawing. I think the drawing was just to show the access. Well, and then I guess the one on the next page, but [00:41:22] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: um [00:41:23] **Jason Stoa**: yeah, there's one with like a squiggly line [00:41:25] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: where it's like looks like it's gotten rid of the [00:41:27] **Jason Stoa**: I think it was to demo that because it's in poor condition. [clears throat] I think the idea there is it could also uh it could be pond like a ponding area if that's required to [00:41:38] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: in the [00:41:39] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: in [00:41:40] **Jason Stoa**: that circle like the squiggly area or the circle [00:41:43] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: that could be the pond. [00:41:44] **Jason Stoa**: Yeah. because I I mean I guess could that be an alternative then if we did decide that lease the building, use that use the funds that would have been um uh used to demolish it to instead create a parking area in the front of the the old city hall between Lever and the old city hall, you know, to create additional parking spaces for [clears throat] whoever would lease it. Um, you know, potentially could be, you know, with the lease agreement spaces for the city hall as well. If we didn't have to pond, then you could keep the parking behind specifically for fire um, Washington County Sheriff use or, you know, city event use. I guess I don't know if maybe that that's when I saw that image, that's kind of what I thought was trying to be depicted there, but maybe that's not. I mean that is a possibility if if there is access going to the current site then there could be parking in the front potentially. It's not going to be many spaces but if you wanted to retain the parking [clears throat] in the back you could you could remove it. [00:42:45] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: What's the ideal amount of additional spaces that we're looking for? [00:42:49] **Jason Stoa**: I mean I don't have that number. I know the last meeting there was another meeting in the community center and I believe there were people in the old um city hall and it was maxed out completely. I think there was maybe a couple openings in the back but I don't think people park there because it's a restricted area. [00:43:08] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: So I don't have I don't have the number on what we would be looking for but [00:43:12] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: Okay. Mayor, do you recall why? Because like what chief was saying there, how it was intended to be demolished after completing the new city hall and then it sounds like kind of last maybe I mean last minute was poll. I mean was there [00:43:28] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: there was never discussion that came to council about that. [00:43:32] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: Okay. It was just kind of in the plans as the new city hall was being developed [00:43:36] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: like it was just kind of a late administrative decision. [00:43:40] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: Yeah. to to keep it because I don't think [clears throat] there weren't a lot of wasn't a lot of concern on what was going to happen next. We kind of crossed that hurdle quick and just kind of moved on from it. [clears throat] We'll kind of pick that topic back up down the road. [00:44:00] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Okay. [00:44:02] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: I just get the feeling that there's like there's no answer that just like says, "Tada, this is it. This is what you do." Right. Um because I get the point of of maybe keeping it for maybe some sort of future development. I get the parking issue. Um I I think that the the building itself, it's its value as a building is not that high. Um just having been in that bu building for quite a while. I don't know if you guys [00:44:30] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: I've never been in there. [00:44:32] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: Yeah. So, [00:44:33] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: been in there. [00:44:34] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: You've been in there? Yeah. It just uh it was never meant to be able to the design was so that it it would not be easy to uh increase space in city hall. So, [clears throat] um architecturally. So, just reading through some of the the report on what's needed, you know, it's the electrical, it's air exchanger, it's ventilation, it's power, it's it's uh just all the things that you kind of need to do to make a space. That's I mean, the bones are probably just fine. It's the windows and the roof and the [00:45:05] **Jason Stoa**: siding. [00:45:06] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: Yeah, it's all that stuff. That's probably Is it $800,000? I have no idea. But it's not a a cheap fix. Do we have any idea on what the cost to raise that building is? [00:45:18] **Jason Stoa**: We haven't got that number. [00:45:19] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: Well, maybe what we need to get a better understanding is what are the parking needs? If we truly have parking needs here at city hall that that we have to meet, you know, today and going to the future, I'm not opposed to going along with a parking lot there. I think um we have to get some sense of what would be that need and then um you crazy part of me says in the interim maybe what we need to do is cannibalize a building and quit incurring expenses. Do we need to continue to heat it and have electricity and those kinds of things? You know, you can go in there and dump antifreeze in the toilets and and traps and things like that and so it won't freeze up and bust. shut off the water, shut off the electricity, shut off the heat, and minim minimize our expenses. Um, well, we then go take a look and evaluate what our parking needs truly are. And if that whole space needs to be used for parking to make our city hall effective and functioning, that may be the best choice. Guess it would be interesting to um entertain the idea of a um maybe not with the access coming out on Lever, but the access coming from near the south parking lot. if there's I don't know how you do any sort of uh market research to see if that building would be uh useful to um a company as far as in selling it and having a business in there and putting it on the the taxable role. Um maybe it turns out that it doesn't really have that value. In that case, then I think your decision is pretty easy. But I think without knowing if that's a what kind of revenue stream or what might be interested in that, it's kind of hard to make a call on that. Um, I mean, the easy the easy button is take the building down and expand parking. That's just okay. But I think that eliminates opportunities too. So, I'd like to know if those opportunities exist. I don't I don't I don't know how to answer that question. [00:47:15] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: One thing that could be really appealing for this and it could be a win-win is if you know we want to create some revenue from it, but we also want to keep the options available to see what develops with the Fury with the old school something that would be very lucrative to any business is a short shorter lease term. I mean, Woodbury, you can't get anything for 10 shorter than 10 years. And for a lot of new businesses, that's pretty daunting. Um, so, you know, to your question, I I I think there would be a lot of interest with the types of businesses, you know, the small businesses that Lake Elmo draws. I think there could be significant interest for somebody looking to lease that for a one-year contract, a two-year contract. Um, buying us some time to kind [clears throat] of see what what happens around the area. And [00:48:02] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: but in the short term, you need to address the parking because we don't want people coming in to access the back parking lot for that building. So there's [00:48:11] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: so we're going to assessment [00:48:13] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: you'd have to [00:48:14] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: that you'd have to do on the front side [00:48:16] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: and also would have is given its current condition, is it in fact leasable? [00:48:21] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: Right. [00:48:22] **Jason Stoa**: Yeah. [00:48:23] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: Yeah. That's a great question. Is how much would have to be put in to make it [00:48:27] **Jason Stoa**: leasable? What kind of terms do you have? How much is the [00:48:31] **Jason Stoa**: how much improvements is the tenant doing? [00:48:33] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: I think as far as additional parking for events and things like that, it's a little bit of a stretch. It seems like it's a little far from [00:48:42] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: for people who I mean certainly some people will go park there and [00:48:46] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: walk across 14, but um [00:48:48] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: I don't think it's as high as [00:48:50] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: I guess just thought here I mean too if we did create this the smaller portion of the parking lot with maybe the access actually from the entrance into the city hall. I mean what's keeping us from then in the future if we say yep you know what this building does need to be demolished you just expand it further into you know what's drawn above [00:49:09] **Jason Stoa**: you could Yep that's exactly what I was thinking [00:49:12] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: so it's not really a lost cost either if we just would [00:49:15] **Jason Stoa**: would say hey you know what we're going to build onethird of this parking lot make it accessible so then whoever wants to lease the building can use that there's additional parking spaces if no one leases it well then the city hall has more parking spaces and if someone does lease it well you [00:49:31] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: you know, now the city has a nice revenue. [00:49:34] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Do you have any idea on how you could see if it's even leasable [clears throat] [00:49:39] **Jason Stoa**: if it's like occupiable or if people would like it? Um, [00:49:43] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: I think we probably want to get a contractor out and John, you know, our building official, we can look at it. [00:49:49] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: I think [00:49:50] **Jason Stoa**: for just if people want, you know, putting out an expression of interest, not an RFP, but just letting people know to come contact us. [00:49:57] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Yeah. and we're could be flexible just to see if there's any interest. [00:50:02] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: So, it'd be nice to know if that's possible. And it would also be nice to know what the potential cost for a parking lot on that front side would be and maybe what all that entails, you know, with where does where do we got to take the water drainage and what what's that going to include [00:50:18] **Jason Stoa**: because there's there's like a little wet area in between the school district that little bridge on by that parking lot. There's a little ditch or something there right? [00:50:27] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: On the map, you can see it, too. It's It's low, too. So, you probably have 20 to 30 feet where you wouldn't want to place the parking on that, [00:50:35] **Jason Stoa**: right? So, I think some of that information would be good to have before really coming up with an answer. [00:50:41] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: Maybe we could start by having John Taylor take a look at it and tell us, is it habitable the way it stands right now? because if it has a lot of code violations and you couldn't o get a co to occupy it then you know I think that makes one decision for us because we probably don't want to spend a couple hundred thousand bucks and bring it up to have it habitable [clears throat] you know what I mean [00:51:05] **Jason Stoa**: um and then that maybe tells us what our other option is now is it do we take it down and develop it or do we make a parking lot there maybe there's some combination where it's a smaller type um commercials thing and there's shared parking between the commercial, you know, if it's an [00:51:24] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: maybe [00:51:25] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: if it's an accountants office and it's two accountants in there, you know, it wouldn't need much parking. [00:51:30] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Yeah. I just think we need some more information. [00:51:33] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: I mean, the same I think with the the ponding as well, right? I mean, I hate to knock the whole thing down and we don't we have to pond half of it and we don't really get that much parking out of it anyways. [00:51:44] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: So, I think yeah, more information. Would you be interested in hearing from potential um businesses if they'd be willing to put in X amount into the property and that way the city's not putting it and if it does sell [00:52:00] **Jason Stoa**: for like a purchase? [00:52:01] **Jason Stoa**: It would be a lease, but they would they would basically pay for the improvements. But if we did sell, they would essentially get that money back in the sale, they would [00:52:10] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: Yeah. If it's if you're talking about like a short-term lease, [00:52:13] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: it would be interesting. Yeah. [00:52:15] **Jason Stoa**: Just [00:52:16] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: I mean it's more info. Yeah. [00:52:18] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: Yeah. So, I mean with the RFP process, I mean, you probably have a lot of [00:52:23] **Jason Stoa**: potentially interested parties that you know are are looking to do some sort of business. [00:52:28] **Jason Stoa**: There's there's a possibility that I was thinking of maybe like two, [00:52:32] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: okay, [00:52:33] **Jason Stoa**: that seem to have the um would be profitable enough that they could invest. So, [00:52:38] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Sure. Right. [clears throat] And then really for like city council meetings and I mean depending on what it is but um know maybe that some agreement with [00:52:49] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: if we put in the parking lot [00:52:51] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: we can share that space during evening hours or something like I don't [00:52:55] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: all that can that detail stuff but yeah [00:52:58] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: okay [00:53:00] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: our code you know would dictate how many parking spaces each business type activity would need and so it could be as I said combination where it's it's a builds this activity but it doesn't not customer focused and that a lot of people are coming and going [00:53:15] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: um and maybe there's a combination that works gives us everything we want could be like Christmas [00:53:23] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: could be [00:53:24] **Jason Stoa**: there's also a possibility that they may want to demo a portion of it so it reduce the size of the building reduce the parking needs so [00:53:33] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: I'll just say um yes hosting meetings during the day is very challenging we have this beautiful building, big spaces where we can host, but parking um is a problem even when we have staff move and if [clears throat] we grow our staff ever then but we can get you more specific examples. [00:53:53] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: Yeah. Did um Zigggo sell that parcel over here? [00:53:57] **Jason Stoa**: We think so. [00:53:58] **Jason Stoa**: It was sold. [00:53:59] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: It was sold. Do we know what somebody's looking at putting something there? [00:54:02] **Jason Stoa**: Talking to staff, it sounds like it's going to be like a office [00:54:06] **Jason Stoa**: office space. Okay. Well, I know the cost of that was prohibitive, at least in my line of thinking, to put in parking. That was that was brought forward and I was like, well, for that price, no, I don't think so. So, we do have a a really it's not a cheap piece of property where it's located. It's a little problematic in its in its access and location by which it's surrounded, but um it's worth something. And and even if it we figure out that at the end of the day it is parking, it's you know, it is what it is. But [00:54:40] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: is there any reason we don't allow parking on Leverne Avenue in front of city hall? [00:54:45] **Jason Stoa**: It's both sides are no parking. I'm I'm thinking part of that's probably uh fire access to and from. [00:54:51] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: Parking on one side. [00:54:53] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: Yeah, it seems wide enough. I don't know. [00:54:55] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: Seems wide enough that you know [00:54:57] **Fire Chief Dustin Kalis**: I know the only Sorry. The only time we talked is just making sure we had enough clearance coming in and out. I I don't recall where we landed on why it's on one side or the other. I mean, we for our open house, we applied for a permit to to block the signs. I mean, it [00:55:13] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: Right. [00:55:14] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Right. I mean, right now with [00:55:16] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: with the school building. [00:55:18] **Jason Stoa**: Yeah. But I mean, that's going to go away next year. [00:55:21] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: I think to relook at that when the school's not there is is probably a good time to do that. I think [00:55:26] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Yeah, [00:55:27] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: it was probably signed no parking because of the school. [00:55:30] **Jason Stoa**: Well, could have been. [00:55:31] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: I mean, right in front of city. Oh, I don't know how the school parking would affect that. [00:55:35] **Jason Stoa**: No, it's not school parking. It's the pickup in the afternoon. [00:55:39] **Fire Chief Dustin Kalis**: Pick up and drop off. [00:55:40] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Come over here at what is it? 3:30 3:00 [00:55:43] **Fire Chief Dustin Kalis**: 3:00 [00:55:44] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: and the cars are around the corner. [00:55:46] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: Oh, they're backed up. [00:55:47] **Fire Chief Dustin Kalis**: They're backed up. So, if you added parking on one side that narrows that and people by. [00:55:53] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: Gotcha. [00:55:54] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: I haven't been here that those times. So, [00:55:57] **Fire Chief Dustin Kalis**: yeah. Yeah. [00:55:58] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: It's an experience. [00:55:59] **Fire Chief Dustin Kalis**: We've tried to work with the school district on kind of their flow and stuff, but it it really has never gotten better. Not saying, you know, I think and it really got worse uh after COVID when parents did all the dropping off and weren't really using the bus system and stuff like that. [00:56:15] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Thank you. I just wasn't aware of that because I keep looking say I wonder where you allow parking on one side. [00:56:20] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Yeah. So that that's something we could look at when the new schools open fall of 26. [00:56:25] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: We could just, you know, make it um our administrative staff's additional duties to direct traffic during busy times. [00:56:32] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: I have had to do that during meetings when they are like we don't have anywhere to park. I'm like just find somewhere. I don't know. Yes, I have been out there. [00:56:42] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Okay. [00:56:43] **Jason Stoa**: Okay. All right. Thank you. [00:56:45] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Thank you. [00:56:46] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: Thank you. [00:56:47] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: All right. Item number four is open burning permits review. Chief Kalis, [00:56:52] **Fire Chief Dustin Kalis**: we don't have a formal presentation. Um just wanted to spend some time to have a discussion on our open burning um ordinance and kind of give you an update where we're at and kind of where we come came from since uh we updated the ordinance in April of 2022. Um, back then there was a need uh to really clean up and streamline our open burning permit process and create um uh a much smoother application permit pro or uh application process for these open burning permits and um create some checks and balances in there where we could do site visits. make sure we have the proper terminology and ordinance for revocation of these um applications uh to control these open burnings. [clears throat] And open burning is are are basically larger fires um piled debris, piled brush. This isn't recreational fires. We're not talking about the backyard 3x3 bonfire. Um so that we don't have a permit for that. We're not asking for a permit for those types of fires, but um just to kind of have a better discussion of where we're at um for open burning. Open burning we see in the city um in some of our agricultural areas where they're clearing fields and uh clearing old trees and and down trees. They stockpile um you know a season's worth of material, apply for a permit. They want to burn in the wintertime, burn a large period um pile. We see our a lot of our HOAs do u prairie restorations or burns for some of their open areas. Um and we see a lot of success with that. That's real important for those to be done to uh kind of eliminate um wildfire hazards, things like that. Um we do a lot of open burning permits with uh Washington County and the park reserve to keep those risks down. So, there's a lot of good with open burning, but what we've seen in the past few years is a handful of challenging calls as we've become more dense and more more populated around some of our um as we lose some of our rural agricultural areas um where we probably have some legacy burners and and permit holders. Um, we're getting some push back from other residents due to smoke concerns, nuisent requests or nuisent concerns about those fires and the conditions that are around them. Um, the last one that kind of brought us to today and getting this in front of you, we uh had a request for um one of the the Prairie Sky um town homes, they had a permit to burn an old pile of of debris that was on the site. And the way our current ordinance is written, we really couldn't deny it. You know, they were completely code um compliant when they when they made the application. It wasn't until they started burning. The wind conditions changed, started blowing smoke across 14. They wanted to add a lot of uh live debris, fresh cut debris to it, which created a smoke nuisance. So, we uh revoked that permit, stopped the burning, and that kind of said that's not the intent of of what our open bing burning permit is for. Um, but we're coming to you tonight to kind of get some more information and and a little better direction. We've got some options. I'm going to have uh Assistant Chief Svoboda kind of talk about what we've seen over the past few years as we've collected data. um kind of talk about the current process and then kind of um our options for discussion or direction um after that. [01:00:20] **Fire Chief Dustin Kalis**: Over to you. [01:00:21] **Assistant Fire Chief Anthony Svoboda**: Awesome. So, I think uh it's important that we just kind of go back a little bit and talk about the process in general just so you all have an understanding about what our community members go through when they try to get a permit or apply for a permit. So, really we have three different types. We have the people who apply and comply. They come in, they get a permit, they pay for it. I go out, I do a site visit. We make sure that all the things that they're burning comply with the um city ordinance. They're not doing anything that's prohibited. They get their permit, they have their fire, and we don't have any issues. So, they apply and they comply. We have a handful of people that stop into city hall, give me a phone call, send me an email that want to apply for a burn permit. um or they come and turn one in and I go out and look and they don't comply. So, they have items in their pile that um are prohibited. It's very clear on the city's ordinance website what they can and cannot have in there. It's very clear on our application process about what they can and cannot have, but they still turn them in anyway thinking that they're going to get their burn permit and they they're paying us and we're not refunding that in that in that situation. So, they apply and then they're denied. And then the third one, and this is where we start to have um a lot of the issues come in, is people who don't apply when they whether they know they need a permit or not, they just choose not to do it. Um or those who don't comply with the rules that we've set forth even after we've gone out and done a site visit. Um for example, in a really accelerated case, we had a person who um applied for a burn permit. They were granted that burn permit and then they hired somebody to come and do the burning for them who lit 10 large brush piles on the property on fire at the same time which was not the plan at all. Triggered a massive fire response and that person caused a lot of problems for the city. I think mayor's nodding and said I think he remembers that individual caused a lot of problems for us for like a week's worth of time on dealing with that. So, um, that's an extreme, but we're seeing I'm seeing more and more frequently people are applying for burn permits, especially in the old village area, the more of the newer residential areas where there's absolutely no way we're going to issue a permit for that. They're trying to pile things up next up by sheds, you know, smoke dissipating into neighborhoods, um, too close to the property line, things of that nature. So I think the discussion that we want to have is as the city grows, we really want to make sure that we're continuing to set the stage appropriately with being safe about open burning. And that goes from the perspective of, you know, are they doing it appropriately within the means of the permit itself and following the rules that we set forth, but also are they being a good neighbor? That's a huge part of what it is that we're trying to do with this as well. So, I guess I'm not sure if you had a chance to look at some of the recommendations that we proposed, but um you know, an extreme would be just to eliminate all open burning through the entire city in its entire, you know, in the city's entirety. Well, that that's not fair. Um first of all, we have a lot of people that, like I said, apply and comply. They've been doing it for years. They have maybe a large acreage or something or a farm field where they've been piling things up and burning, and we've never had any complaints. they do it safely. Uh there's no reason for us to punish those people for doing something that they've been doing appropriately for a long period of time. So although it is an option, I don think it is the best option for what we want to try to do. Um number two, and what's more favorable is to um potentially restrict open burning in certain areas of the city. you know, maybe areas that are considered residential, the newer village or the old village, some of the newer neighborhoods, things of that nature. Um, kind of reduces the likelihood of us having those nuisance calls, but then still gives people the opportunity that have the space to do it to do it. The only thing that we would want to make sure we keep as an exception with that option is prairie restorations. So currently we only only ever allow people to do prayer restorations that hire a licensed contractor just because of the the dangers that's associated with being close to structures and running fire and things like that. So they're only ever allowed to hire a contractor to do that work. Now we allow that to continue. [01:04:45] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: I I mean I I did get a couple calls mainly a couple people in the agricultural area and they were uh they like number two and I think that's I mean we always like you said there's the extreme case right and I don't think we want knee-jerk reactionist to a couple bad actors out there [01:05:00] **Assistant Fire Chief Anthony Svoboda**: that [01:05:01] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: that create a problem for others that are are doing they're doing the right thing. Right. [01:05:05] **Assistant Fire Chief Anthony Svoboda**: Right. [01:05:06] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: Um so I'm in favor of number two to restrict it like rural residential agricultural those people that you know they do have brush and they're doing a clean up or they got a bunch of buckthornne they're taking care of right they want to [01:05:18] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: they want to get rid of it. I think that's fine. And you know having a licensed uh uh prairie restoration company do that. They're licensed bonded all that stuff. They know what they're doing. And I think the the prairie restoration is almost [01:05:32] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: kind of part two that [01:05:34] **Assistant Fire Chief Anthony Svoboda**: that needs to happen anywhere there is a prairie. We don't want to restrict that just based on [01:05:40] **Assistant Fire Chief Anthony Svoboda**: on residential zoning. That that has to happen throughout our our community. We just want to make sure that it's being done by a contractor. [01:05:47] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: Are there are there any penalties or when when let's say you go out and you do a check and they've got things in their pile that aren't supposed to be in there, they do it anyway. Yeah. [01:05:57] **Assistant Fire Chief Anthony Svoboda**: Are they is there a fine associated with that or [01:06:00] **Fire Chief Dustin Kalis**: if we're able to catch them? I mean, if we're able to go out and do a site inspection and and we see that they've got a mattress or a furniture or whatever in there, we're going to say before this goes, you have to pull this out. I Yeah. [01:06:12] **Fire Chief Dustin Kalis**: You know, we can't guarantee later on that it doesn't come back. Um, we were just chasing three mattress fires the other day with black smoke as they were sitting in the backyard burning stuff. So, um, we do our best in that moment to not allow it or or prohibit it until it gets removed from the pile. Um, if the fire is going on and we see that other debris is being burnt, we'll have the sheriff's department site them and then let it go through the Washington County Court process for, [01:06:40] **Fire Chief Dustin Kalis**: by fines and through the citation process at that point. [01:06:44] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: Yeah. I mean, I think there's a right way to do it and um at least a couple people that called me, I believe that they're, you know, they act in good faith and they they do the right thing. And so would be my preference is uh the suggestion for number two [01:07:00] **Fire Chief Dustin Kalis**: and and kind of what we're also thinking too, it's not in the report, but before we when any change is made and and again, we're not in an absolute hurry to do this. We don't have to there's no set deadline. um we would want to kind of sunset this or or set this ordinance change to happen. I if we moved and said we're going to we'll come to you in a couple months with an updated ordinance. I I wouldn't ask to have this take effect until like January of 27. I want to give those full people a a full year's worth of time or a full season's worth of time of understanding that something they've been doing for years is going to change. you know, we have plenty of properties, like you said, that uh abide by the code and and follow along and build a burn pile for eight months out of the year planning for the February burn. Okay? [01:07:50] **Fire Chief Dustin Kalis**: You know, um so we want to give those people some time and [clears throat] we we've got to take the time to get out and educate folks and put it in newsletters and get it out in front of people as well. Um and it no matter what we do, no matter what we have in place now, um it's an education piece. We've got to work hard to keep educating people on the rights and the wrongs. Um, and regardless what we have on the books, people are going to they're going to burn things. Um, that's kind of unavoidable if they're compliant or not, but we'll we'll give our best effort. [01:08:23] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Sounds reasonable and well thought out. [01:08:26] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: With option so with option two are the kind of the individuals you're saying that, you know, done this for years, done it the right way. With option two, they would be no longer able to. [01:08:37] **Fire Chief Dustin Kalis**: No. Option two, if if they're in an agricultural area or a rural residential area, more than likely if they've been compliant, they'll continue to stay comp [01:08:48] **Assistant Fire Chief Anthony Svoboda**: the people that have done it. And [01:08:50] **Fire Chief Dustin Kalis**: we're probably going to eliminate, you know, a handful of what we would consider legacy permit holders just based on their their proximity to other homes, whether they're thrilled that those homes are there or not. Um, but that's kind of the in order to I would say in order to keep it for the majority, we're going to have to, you know, take it away from, you know, a small group. [01:09:12] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: And for those individuals, it's got to haul hold this away. [01:09:15] **Fire Chief Dustin Kalis**: And and that's, you know, a lot of the burning we do is just simply out of convenience. They just don't want to take that trip to the the yardway site. And, you know, we're not the the big piles where you're like, we get it. It it's truly this has just kind of turned into, you know, really a convenience thing. It's [01:09:33] **Assistant Fire Chief Anthony Svoboda**: it's nice to just be able to burn and not take the time to haul it away when, [01:09:38] **Fire Chief Dustin Kalis**: you know, really I we're still, you know, we're on that buffer of of rural, residential, you know, open space, not open space. Um, you know, we go couple miles to the west, there's no way that, you know, open burning isn't a thing, [01:09:53] **Assistant Fire Chief Anthony Svoboda**: you know. Is it a time of certain seasonality to this too? I mean, is it, you know, the times of the the spring and the fall? [01:10:01] **Fire Chief Dustin Kalis**: Right now, elevated fire risks. I mean, anytime we issue a permit, we're we're monitoring the DNR website. If the DNR, you know, changes fire conditions, we we don't allow activations of permits. We we put restrictions on when they can be done. You know, winter is a great time, and a lot of our legacy burners do that, you know, in that fe wait for that February burn. So we get a good snow cover and they they're ready for it, you know. That's what I mean. I I there's [01:10:30] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: But you're not getting all the permit requests essentially and fall and spring during cleanup time. And [01:10:36] **Assistant Fire Chief Anthony Svoboda**: most of them I mean most are fall and spring. Yeah. I mean that's when we get the most of them. [01:10:41] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: And I I don't know. I mean I know there's certain cities that look at doing some of like the the waste pickup, you know, around those heavy [01:10:49] **Council Member Jeff Holtz**: I think that's the spring fall if the fall time of year especially. I mean that if if we did a a brush cleanup, I mean that would help residents, but they still have to load it up and haul it to public works or somewhere. I mean, once you haul it up, you know, you've got three options. You can go to, you know, [01:11:05] **Assistant Fire Chief Anthony Svoboda**: Hugo Forest Lake, you can go down to the new site, wherever it's going to be. And and again, maybe this is just not something the city can do, but I know there's cities that, you know, you put everything out in the front yard and service comes and picks it up and brings it to the site. [01:11:18] **Fire Chief Dustin Kalis**: Yeah. There are brush cleanup companies that would totally do that work. Yeah. And so maybe I don't know I guess if that's maybe something that you know hey if we're going to take it away and maybe that's [01:11:28] **Assistant Fire Chief Anthony Svoboda**: too much of a [01:11:29] **Fire Chief Dustin Kalis**: I don't want to speak for public works on what that would take for for staff and and time but I can only imagine [01:11:35] **Assistant Fire Chief Anthony Svoboda**: or if it sounds like you know potentially if it could be contracted out. I [01:11:40] **Fire Chief Dustin Kalis**: think I think the big piece to this is just the convenience of the resident and it's just a lot easier to burn stuff sometimes. [01:11:47] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: Yeah. [01:11:48] **Council Member Matt Hirn**: I'm on board with two. [01:11:49] **Council Member Nick Dragisich**: I'm on board with two. Same here. Yeah, I think two sounds good. [01:11:53] **Assistant Fire Chief Anthony Svoboda**: All right. Well, [01:11:54] **Fire Chief Dustin Kalis**: we'll come back in the in the future with a kind of an updated ordinance around uh um what we talk about with option two and uh we'll come back to you at a later date. [01:12:05] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: All right. Thank you. [01:12:06] **Fire Chief Dustin Kalis**: Thank you. [01:12:07] **Assistant Fire Chief Anthony Svoboda**: Thank you. [01:12:08] **Mayor Charles Cadenhead**: Well, uh as far as future agenda, I think next week we have uh last council meeting of the month. We have a few things that are on the regular agenda. We'll be going through um street and utility public improvement hearing. Uh we'll talk about some solar at the landfill site. High Point crossing is coming back with a comprehensive plan amendment and the Limmerch Village EAW is coming in. So, uh I want to adopt final assessment uh role for 2025 street utility improvements along with the Stillwater area school district utility improvements. So, with that, we'll adjourn this evening's meeting at uh let's call it 8 o'clock. Thank you.