This transcript has been formatted with speaker names based on the context of the Lake Elmo City Council officials and staff provided. *** **[00:00] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** I call the Lake Elmo City Council workshop for July 8th to order. The first item of discussion is CIP discussion. I think that's Director Hadler who will be going through that with us. **Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** I sure will. So this is just a sort of preliminary discussion of the CIP. We don't adopt this until the final version in December. So we're going to do sort of a high-level overview—what is the CIP for anybody who's a little newer to this—and then go into some high-level numbers and such. And then we're looking for sort of general council direction as far as things that we want changed prior to final adoption. So, what is a CIP? A CIP is a multi—oh, why is that not projecting? How do I switch to the—there you go. Um, so a CIP is a multi-year capital expenditure plan for the city's infrastructure, vehicles, equipment, and public buildings. We used to have a five-year CIP. We moved to a 10-year CIP in 2024, so just a year ago. So we're really getting a much better idea, big picture, of our long-term expenditure needs. The Minnesota Land Planning Act requires the implementation plan portion of the comprehensive plan, including the CIP for major infrastructure needs for at least a 5-year period. Our CIP includes capital projects that cost at least $25,000 and have a useful life of at least five years. We added a slide regarding the mission and then the strategic plan core strategies that were adopted this spring. We're talking about how the CIP adds to those strategies including being a vibrant community, responsive, transparent and adaptive governance, managed growth, efficient, reliable, innovative services, balanced finances, and resilient infrastructure. I'm a big fan of the balanced finances part of that, but also just long-term financial planning and resiliency in general is really, really important. Some of the topics or tools that we use when developing the CIP include our funding sources and our priorities. So any of these projects are funded by one or more of the funding sources listed and then each project is ranked based on priority one through five. Okay. So grand total right now, our 2026 through 2035 CIP includes 145 projects totaling almost $133 million. We have them categorized as percentages and color-coded in our fabulous graph here. I'm just going to move to this graph. This is the total showing what percentage of our pie is Public Works. So Public Works includes streets, parks, water, sewer, and storm. So you'll see that the vast majority of our infrastructure or our capital needs comes from our streets and infrastructure. I'm sorry, this slide is thrown off just a little bit because we have this $50 million water treatment plant. So I did add a slide to show what happens when we take that $50 million project away from infrastructure and it's very, very little change. Still, a giant portion of our financial needs for financial capital needs come from Public Works. Just breaking it down a little bit further, this is the Public Works projects by subtype. So we break them out in the CIP by vehicles and equipment, buildings, parks, and then infrastructure. And then I broke it down further. All of the blue again on this slide is infrastructure. I broke it down further; the blue still is infrastructure, but it shows streets, sewer, and storm. Okay. So, we're just going to kind of run through all of the departments. We categorized things similar to the ways you saw them earlier and then I'll do kind of the high-level stuff and then we're kind of gonna toss it over to the department heads to give a little bit more detail as needed. Admin and Finance just has one project still on the plan. This is the second portion of our software implementation. Council approved this this spring. We're very excited about it. Thank you again. Our go-live is set for January 2026 and we're still estimating roughly $100,000 is the second half of that. And then I did plan for a distribution between the general fund, water and sewer. The Building Department has a total of four vehicles in the plan totaling $175,000 and they have one vehicle replacement plan for 2027. Those vehicles are on a seven-year replacement plan, but they will be assessed sort of on an annual basis to determine if they need to be replaced. City Hall: we set up the City Center building committee this year or late last year. So, we've created this department within the CIP to plan for long-term replacements at our new City Center as well as what needs to happen with the old City Hall. We are funding this through a new City Hall levy that we started this year. There are no immediate needs, but I did want to just mention that it's in there, and so we're just starting to plan for that. Fire Department: generally it's vehicles and equipment, generally funded through the vehicle replacement fund, a little bit through the general fund, and then we have the new fire equipment projects funds. We also get some trade-ins and sales of equipment. So, 10 projects totaling roughly $4.5 million. And I'm going to toss it over to Dustin for more information. **Dustin Kalis (Fire Chief):** So, with what we've got coming up for 2026 is the Tender 2 replacement, which I actually presented to you and Council last fall. That was the earlier truck purchase to get us in line and take advantage of some better pricing by having approvals for that purchase earlier. So, in 2026, we'll see the chassis payment when the chassis arrives at the plant. And then when we take final delivery, which is either at the end of '26 or early '27, we'd make the final payment for that truck. In '26, we're also proposing the replacement of our utility vehicle, our Utility 1, that's our ATV. It's currently a 2009 6x6 Ranger, and we're looking at replacing that with a more capable fire and trail capability vehicle. That's our purchase for '26. The other thing with the CIP plan that I want to bring up and offer for discussion from Council is our ladder truck. And this is obviously a significant purchase; it's well over half of our project total—this one apparatus. Currently, the timeline is on most of our large apparatus a 20-year life of that truck. What I'm proposing this year is to move that purchase up five years for delivery in 2029. Right now our current ladder truck is 78 feet long. It was spec'd and built in 2012, 2013. We took delivery in 2014. And frankly, the viewpoints of city development at that point were quite a bit different than what we're looking at now. So operationally we're kind of already behind the eight-ball with not having a 100-plus foot ladder apparatus in our fleet and in our capabilities. So with this year's CIP plan, I'm asking for an earlier purchase. Move that truck up 5 years and for approval and work on a similar timeline to what we did with the last truck. It's going to take us nearly a year to build the specification of this apparatus to get it dialed in and figure out exactly what's going to fit our needs. Frankly, with a ladder truck, there's a ton of different options: single axle, tandem axle, mid-mount, rear-mount, straight stick, a ladder with a bucket on it. There's a lot of different options and we want to make sure we spend the right amount of time to figure out exactly what our needs are for that truck. So just the specification process in itself is longer than normal, but planning ahead for another 20-plus year apparatus in the fleet. The other thing that happens is if we do move this truck forward 5 years is, with the current truck market, I do believe that our current ladder truck sits at a pretty good price point in the aftermarket. It's a desirable color. It's a length that other communities might find better suited for them. And just frankly, with two-year build times, longer construction processes, and increased price, I think we'd be able to do a pretty good job on this truck in the aftermarket as well. That should help with the overall project costs. So I wanted to put that out there for discussion because moving a purchase like this up five years isn't something we take lightly and we want to have the solid discussion on that. But frankly as staff, if this is something that we're able to take on and move up, it helps me with staff planning for the next couple years on what this build process entails for us. And again, just operationally, we're seeing taller buildings. We're seeing other developments come our way that we're kind of incapable of handling right now with our current ladder truck. We'll talk through that a little bit more. **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** So there are some buildings that we currently have or that are going to be built with some of the new development that we've approved? **Dustin Kalis (Fire Chief):** Yeah. So, I mean, there you go to any—we don't build thousand-foot ladder trucks. There isn't a ladder truck that can get to the top of any building in every city. That's not our desire or our plan. But we're really kind of operationally behind the eight-ball here with a 30-foot shorter truck than what we would have or what we would like to have in our fleet. The other thing we encounter too is you never put a ladder truck right up next to a building. As we talk setbacks and spacing and drive lanes, we lose a lot of the reach just by the placement of the truck—safe and proper placement away from the building. What we're seeing with taller buildings, you know, a Mira, already kind of exceeds what we can do with even a 100-foot ladder truck. But a 100-foot truck improves our distance. We see right now with just our residential setbacks on homes, some of our typical setbacks when we go to operate our ladder truck, we're unable to even reach the peak of some of the homes just with what we would consider in Lake Elmo a normal setback, because we lose so much length of that truck just to even try to get to the top of the peak for firefighting operations. So operationally it would be a massive game-changer for us to have something in the 100 to 110-foot mark. And that all depends on the actual style of the truck we end up looking at. But that's kind of where we're at now. You would never build the truck that gets to the roof of every single building; that's not the intent. But we want to maximize our capabilities and with future growth in the city, what we're seeing and with the number of apartment buildings coming our way and taller buildings, we definitely would like to have something in our fleet that can benefit that a little more. **Council Member Matt Hirn:** How does this impact the vehicle replacement fund for the whole city, not just the fire department? Because you moved it up five years from 2034 to 2029. Is that what you're saying? **Dustin Kalis (Fire Chief):** Correct. **Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** So, it would—the vehicle replacement fund was already looking like it would be underfunded. So, I had planned an interfund loan, I believe in 2027. I don't have it right in front of me. That would be repaid over five years. Then when Dustin requested this move up, I planned for a second interfund loan that would be paid over 10 years. So there is some sort of mathing that needs to happen to make that work. **Council Member Matt Hirn:** And what year dollars is everybody using on this? I see $35,000 for vehicle replacement. Obviously, 2034 that's going to be not $35,000, right? **Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** That's correct. So we try and make—we do these estimates in today's dollars. Obviously, we're estimating. Nothing's perfect. So when we move this forward next year, everybody's going to take a look at their items, decide what has already happened with inflation, and adjust those prices accordingly. We'll do the same thing with the levy. So, we're going to raise our costs. At the same time, we're going to say: what does that look like from today's dollars from the levy standpoint? So you're essentially looking at today's dollars with the assumption that when we actually do this in five or 10 years or whatever it is that we're looking at, when that portion is implemented, it will have been adjusted for inflation. So, if I say that we're going to have a $500,000 levy for something in 2040, it means today's dollars is $500,000; in 2040, it's going to be 500,000 plus whatever inflation has happened since then. **Dustin Kalis (Fire Chief):** Sticking with this just for a second too. So just thinking it from the safety perspective and most of the buildings that this would probably have to be used on would be more in the southern portion of the city. I'm thinking there's a couple different uses for this truck. It obviously has the aerial device on it for long-reach high elevations. We put the ladder up and we can do various things. We can do rescue on it. We can do firefighting capabilities. It's no different than the ladder truck we have now. It also is our "second due" truck. So when our engine goes out, this is the second truck to leave the station for it. Just fills in line with our firefighting capabilities and our operations. This truck would also have water, also have a pump. We have to have a certain pump capacity within our fleet, certain water capacity within our fleet that we have to meet and maintain. That falls in line with our ISO rating and things of that nature. So, the truck itself, the length just falls in with our department operations. The extended reach gives us much better capabilities for the majority of our firefighting efforts. I said we have a single-family home structure fire. Our current truck really has a difficult time getting to the peak of the home. And when we want to use that truck and need to get that ladder up, we really want to get above the peak of the house so we can get that big stream down and do our firefighting efforts there. So we're not just talking the three-story apartment buildings. This would be helpful for a home fire. It helps us on every fire. **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** What are the sources of the interfund loans? **Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** I had not determined that just yet. I think we would kind of reassess when we do our long-term strategic plan and see what's the most healthy. General fund is very healthy right now. We will also—I mean in theory—the sewer fund was also very healthy, but it has not been determined yet. **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** And I guess along that line I'd prefer not to have to do as many of the interfund loans. I think this might be where we have to prioritize certain vehicles that need to be replaced over the next five years as we look through these. You know, I mentioned it's a replacement plan, it sounds like every seven years for a lot of the vehicles depending upon mileage. That is one thing as I was just looking through this that I think would be helpful to have too is—and I wasn't here when we came up with the vehicle replacement plan—but having an idea of how many miles are on these vehicles or possibly for some of the Public Works vehicles how many hours were on them, for some of the ones where maybe hours is more telling than mileage. I just think if we prioritize this, something else has to be less priority and has to get moved back. That's kind of where I sit as we're having this discussion. I think then it's like, okay, well as staff goes back and has to look through this, I think they have to work together to figure out a way to not have to take as much of the interfund loans. **Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** The other choice, of course—we have a $5 million interfund loan for Fund 410. Is it the Street Fund that's shown in the CIP? There's $5 million coming out of the general fund to go to infrastructure. **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** And you're talking about my funding strategy? **Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** Yeah. There's $5 million coming out of the general fund to go to infrastructure. Sure. And so the general fund is about 12 million. That will cut that down to 7 million. So I think we may, if we decide to go this route, look at a lease-purchase—look at what those interest costs would be because we have the lost interest in our investments from our fund balance and if that offset's not significant it might be more prudent to keep our cash and go with a lease-purchase finance. **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** I agree with Council Member Hirn in that yes, if this were to happen, then there's going to need to be some shifts and other items, but we I know full well we have the car policy for replacement and it predates our time and obviously it's been a best practice and I I can't say off the top of my head what it is. But I would hesitate to then say we're going to go against that. But it is worth having that conversation. I also would be curious, because this is going to be 2029, what can we do in terms of talking to our external partners at the legislative level or the congressional level to say what—and it varies by year—but are there certain grants? There might be nothing for the next four years but make sure we're doing our due diligence to say there's this random fund that's out there or literally we're going to Seeberger and to others and begging to say this is because of various factors. I guess that would be my take, somewhat of a blend of what Matt was talking about. If our fire chief is saying this is what our staff need to ensure public safety for now and in the future, then that's to me what needs to happen. I guess one question I would have: when that process does start to occur, would you want to be starting to project not just for what's here and what's on the horizon, but is Council in the year 24 going to be considering even taller buildings? **Dustin Kalis (Fire Chief):** Honestly, there really isn't anything that exceeds what we would look at next. The max distance and length on a truck you would get today is between 100 and 110 feet. **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** So that's a moot point then. **Dustin Kalis (Fire Chief):** Yeah, the U.S. firefighting doesn't have vehicles that are longer than that or have a reach that exceeds that. And I would wager this is probably—Stillwater probably has 100 or 110. And that's kind of where in our process we need to figure out what fits best for our community. Right now we're the only department around here that has a what we call a "straight stick"—a ladder end without a bucket on it. Everyone else has a bucket of different lengths. Ours is a straight stick. So, it fits a different kind of need and use. But our biggest thing is extending that reach. What becomes the end of that ladder—if it's a bucket for rescue capabilities or putting firefighting—it gives us some different options. That's part of the spec process and figuring out where we go. Obviously, price has a swing in there as well. You could go anywhere between 1.9 and almost 2.3 million depending on the ultimate makeup of that truck. **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Gotcha. And I should say—because it might come up during future items—I think that the piece of talking to our external stakeholders applies for pretty much any large purchase that's on here. Whether we're talking about the sports complex, whether we're talking about the ladder truck, I think in the past there's been a hesitation by previous Councils to proactively go out and push, whereas I have no issue if we say, look, we need to proactively—it worked! We got money for Lake Elmo Avenue for the project; it worked. But I think that's something that should be the case for every single one of these, and it may result in nothing, but I think public safety is a pretty good one to be pushing on. **Council Member Nick Kragness:** I think part of the vehicle replacement policies driven by what fleet managers use is kind of a typical timeline on where and when you're going to get the best resale value for your vehicle. And I do agree that maybe looking at leases for some of the fleet vehicles should be explored. For example, years ago at MnDOT, they used to get all the orange vehicles, roll-down windows, AM radios. Well, then it became more expensive to order that because it was specialty and regular vehicles came that way. So now with Minnesota Fleet, they lease their vehicles on a three-year, 36,000-mile lease, and they'll rotate vehicles between higher mileage and less mileage vehicles to get that out. So there are some opportunities for us I think to look at vehicle replacement—not the ladder truck, but some of the other vehicles specifically as far as when is the best time for putting it in auction and the condition of the vehicle and that sort of thing. But I do agree it's very large expenditure. I'm not one to compromise safety, but some other things might need a compromise then. **Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** I think Dustin's main goal tonight is really—we need to essentially know if for the final adoption of this CIP in December, you would like that purchase to remain in the proposed 2029. Also, that's just going to help him plan for that spec process. The final approval comes much later down the road. So, this is really just: what do we want in that December plan and is it worth it for him to spend that time? **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** So when you're talking inter-department loan, interfund loan, is that shown up in here anywhere or did I miss that? **Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** It is. It's shown in the vehicle replacement fund funding sources and uses, page 172. **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Thank you. **Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** So it just shows it coming in. Again, it hasn't been determined where the best place to take that from is. So it just shows that money coming in one year and then getting paid back out for 10 years. Repayment is without interest, correct? For easy math. **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** I guess I would look at staff to try and be creative with given that large expenditure, take a look at the other vehicles and see what we can do to minimize the interfund loans and stay within our balances that we have. **Council Member Matt Hirn:** I'm on the same page with that. **Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** Okay. I'm gonna move on and we will dive into Public Works. Again, Public Works includes streets and just sort of general Public Works outside stuff: parks, water, sewer, and storm water. And for our CIP, we break that down to vehicles and equipment, which includes vehicles and equipment in all of the sub-departments. We have Public Works buildings and then sort of associated stuff with those buildings, parks, and then infrastructure which includes streets, water, sewer, and storm water. You will recall last week we started in some of that infrastructure discussion with the pavement management plan. Here's those high-level totals again. I didn't put the total total on here—27ish million grand total. We're going to go with that. Okay. So, vehicles and equipment includes anything from a dump truck down to the little utility vehicles. From 2026 to 2035, we have 30 projects totaling $4 million and some change. And I will pass it to Marty to discuss the major expenditures for the next couple years and answer any questions. **Marty [Public Works]:** Sure. Mayor and Council. You know, we try to follow the best we can the vehicle replacement policy. Dump trucks 12 years. We do have several pieces of equipment that we've kept longer, including some dump trucks. We've got a 1999 loader, which should follow a 15-year replacement. We're pushing that 25-26 years just based off kind of how we use that. We did keep this one as a spare backup unit and we end up using it almost as much as some of the other equipment. So, that's definitely ready to be replaced in '27. We have some 20-year-old radios; we're having more and more issues with those being updated. We have a new utility vehicle. One of the requests you'll likely see here in the near future will be—we budgeted for two new hires and in order to maneuver those people around the city, we're going to request a utility vehicle for one of those new hires. We have a number of playgrounds being replaced. I have a park slide. Marty, we're on the wrong slide. All right. Sorry. Do we have any questions on vehicles and equipment? **Council Member Nick Kragness:** I just had one thing that just kind of came to mind about with the radios—and again this is me saying this just trying to look if there's maybe potential options if technology has changed over those 20 years. Obviously, it has to be effective and work well and reliable; I get that. I just wondered if there is other technology that may be cheaper nowadays that could fill a similar role. Push-to-talk over cellular, I saw a couple different options. Might be something worth investigating and just seeing, but it has to work, it has to be effective and reliable. **Dustin Kalis (Fire Chief):** I can kind of chime in on the radios. The radios are the 800 MHz public safety band radios that we use in the fire department. We communicate—they're on the state public safety band and operations. So, it's a pretty specific radio to gain access to that. And again, big picture-wise, it helps inner-department, inner-city, inner-county, interstate operability between those radios. **Council Member Nick Kragness:** Perfect. That's helpful. Thank you. **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Two different radio systems though? Public Works department and Fire Department? **Dustin Kalis (Fire Chief):** No, they both operate on the same 800 MHz bands. We have our channels, they have their channels. For instance, at the parade, we operate on Lake Elmo Common channel, which is a channel we can share. **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** And so, Marty, the Public Works department radios are currently 20 years old? **Marty [Public Works]:** Yeah, the majority of them are. Yes. We do have newer radios. Those will be replaced. **Council Member Matt Hirn:** Is this another situation as well with the utility vehicles where with the lease option Nick was talking about it might be worth looking at? I just think that might be worth exploring if that's a way to help with some of the priorities. **Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** This lease-purchase option doesn't save you any money; it just spreads the cost over seven years instead of one. Y which would help us with not having to take the interfund loan. I just want to clarify that the interfund loan—there's no cost to us for an interfund loan. And so the purpose of doing the interfund loan is so that we don't pay interest to an outside party. I just want to make sure we're understanding that concept. **Council Member Nick Kragness:** Well, there is a cost. There's loss opportunity cost because I assume we invest those funds and get some interest on them. And so we make a loan for a million dollars and repay it back with no interest. We lose the interest. So there is a cost. We call it lost opportunity cost. It's not visible on the ledger sheet. **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** No more questions on vehicles. We'll move on to Public Works buildings. **Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** From for the next 10 years, we have 10 projects totaling a little over a million dollars. And this is one of the sections that we're really just starting to build out this year. So, Marty, do you want to discuss your projects? **Marty [Public Works]:** Yes, Mayor and Council. A couple of the newer things that we have added or included in the budget. Yet this summer you will see a request come through on the Public Works shop floors. The corrosion from the road salt that we use in there has really deteriorated the floors to the point where we had to do some deep patching. I've budgeted already for half the floor this year. You'll see that request come through probably in the next month. We'll do that back half—that's the bad area. And then we'll do the second half, which is the front, likely next year. And that'll not only seal it, but it'll level it and allow us to be able to clean it a lot more efficiently. The Jamaica building driveway and parking lot goes down to the old fire hall. Both the parking lot and driveway are deteriorated to the point where they're kind of falling apart. We did some test holes this year and determined that the base and sub-base are in pretty good shape. So we'll be able to do likely a full-depth reclamation on that. The amount of water that goes down in between heading over towards the dog park is quite substantial. So we believe that paving that area should help transfer that water a little better, especially in the spring when there's melt and freeze-thaw. And then we'll extend a little bit of a trail going back through the unleashing area. Sorry, I moved on to the parks again, but eager to get there. Security fence and the gate at Public Works building: the four acres that sits on the north side of our property, we are utilizing that already. We're staging material there—that's where we moved our gravel pile. We're staging our tree logs and branches and stuff that we're cutting and we're going to try maybe burning that this winter. Otherwise, the costs would have to be incurred for hiring a grinder to come in. So, we're using the four acres. And as we add assets into that area, I also wanted to make sure that gets secure. Right now, we just have a cable there. We've had a couple people already remove the cable and I think they're picking rocks and such. So, I don't think there's a big hazard, but I did add that in and I think we're out a few years on it, but I want to make sure that we prepare to secure that area for our assets. **Council Member Nick Kragness:** I assume that's normal with the interior of Public Works building with the materials that are in there for the floors to give way? Like that's just within industry what happens? **Marty [Public Works]:** Yep. I'm going to guess that they probably haven't been sealed since they were poured. I don't see any evidence of that. So, yes. I've been working with Woodbury who just put an epoxy down and they had test plots. So, I've got some really good information and I'm just waiting for just a little more—their quotes per square foot and stuff. So once I have that, I think it'll be very useful. I'm hoping to have that maybe even yet later this week and then we'll get some proposals together. **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Marty, what is a Jamaica building? **Marty [Public Works]:** That's Fire Hall 2, the old fire hall station right next to the dog park. So it's a combination. We call it the Jamaica Public Works building. It's the brick building. Public Works has had the pole shed next to it; I believe they built it themselves back in the day. So we have the pole shed and the brick building. Both places are where we like to move seasonal equipment around. We're to the point now where we're using it for even staging. Like our jetter truck sits down there and a lot of our park equipment that we do use daily. **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** The reason I ask, I didn't see any contribution from the enterprise funds for that building. **Marty [Public Works]:** Yeah, it's mostly parks and our plow trucks down in there. **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** I mean, we definitely could if there's a benefit. Just a thought. **Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** Move on to parks. Now you can talk about parks, Marty. Just high level, for the next 10 years, we have 31 projects totaling $5.4ish million. I will mention, so the Parks Commission reviews and recommends these projects. There's a variety of projects and then final purchasing decisions are made by the City Council. **Marty [Public Works]:** Sure. So, yes. Up until the last couple of years—the last what, three or four years—we hadn't replaced the playgrounds. Playgrounds have between a 20 and 30-year lifespan. We put placeholders out there at year 25 and then move them forward and backwards based off of inspections. So, we do have three more coming up in the near future. Lions, Ridge, and Reed have all been identified and are exceeding that 25-year mark. They are all in next year. Trail maintenance: we try to seal coat or do a sealer. A couple years ago, I believe I did a fog seal on our existing trails. So that's come due next year where we'd like to seal those and additionally some new trails. Fog seal seems to be a fairly economical solution. Court resurfacing: we have three basketball courts that really haven't had any attention maybe since they were built. We've got that set out there for next year, including the Lions pickleball court, which didn't have as much life as we were kind of hoping. Some of the struggles with that have a lot to do with the ice rink on top of that court. It really takes a beating as it freeze-thaws and moisture gets underneath there. Matter of fact, we closed one of the courts as early as last year. It's definitely time to be replaced. Our intentions are to plug that drain. Right now, the court drains to the center and warm air comes up that thing all winter long and thaws our ice. So, we are gonna try something different. We're gonna remove that drain, put a slight crown on the surface so any water that does melt in the spring can exit to the outside. And then, yeah, I mentioned the playgrounds. The pavilions are in there. The Parks Commission has recommended four over the next four years. The one they'll be looking at next year as we redo the Lions playground and the Lions pickleball court—my recommendation is maybe that would be the time to consider a pavilion down in that area. Otherwise, Tablin and Reed are probably our second choices. Potentially Ridge. So, there's four locations for pavilions that have been identified and I'll leave that up to Adam, the Commission, and you guys to decide which one we want to do first. **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Question on the concession building 2027. What's all included with that? I think there needs to be something done there. I think it's in not that great a shape. **Marty [Public Works]:** Yeah. So, Adam and I had a contractor out and looked at it last fall to see if we could make corrections and get it ADA compliant and the price was extremely high just to get the wider door. Everything's block walls. So a majority of the walls have to be opened up. We would recommend that the bathrooms being accessed from the outside—that way, it's a little more user-friendly. We haven't used that area for a warming house for three or four years. We had zero requests for it. We had a really hard time staffing it. So, I think making it an improved concession stand would be better. Needs a new roof. So, yeah, I think you're going to see probably two options: one would be a complete demo and then start over and build what we need. And maybe that would be the time to have a slight storage area on the side of it. Or for about the same money, you're going to have it reconstructed so it's ADA compliant. **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** So, Greenway at least scheduled potentially in 2028 for about 520k where obviously that's still two and a half to three years out. What do we know about it at this time? **Marty [Public Works]:** I probably don't know as much as maybe Adam does. Adam's in communication yearly with them. I haven't had an update on the schedule myself. It's been set at 500,000 for a number of years. It's a cost-share, right? And that's driven by the county, right? Correct. Yeah. So, because it's pretty much entirely County 19 and County 14, correct? Right. It's kind of a placeholder. So, we're at the will of the county when they decide to move forward. **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Question then, because Parks Fund is 404. I don't see in the revenues any of the franchise fees in the 40. I only see the 250 a year in the 409. **Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** Oh, I was just going to ask that same question. I probably missed that. So the park dedication we want to leave as developer funds because those have specific rules. So the franchise fees were going to go into the other park reserve which really has no funding plans at this point. It was really like a recognition that at some point development is going to end. **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Maybe a larger level question then because I see 300,000 set aside for a central play complex at some point and we've had this conversation now for several years with the goal of potentially trying to concentrate a larger site in the central area that potentially then could help to decrease our cost everywhere else. I'm just wondering because we're still continuing replacements as is needed for safety purposes on the 20 to 25 cycle. Would we have a thought that if and when as this site does grow and there is some type of a central complex there, would we start to consider that as future playgrounds come up for their timing of replacement that maybe they wouldn't be as substantial? That maybe they would be downsized or fewer assets in each of those satellite locations? Because the goal of expending 300,000 at a single location is to have more of a central, asset-driven place for where people would go. **Marty [Public Works]:** I agree. To the point that even as we replace that playground this year, staff's recommendation was to spend a little less; Commission definitely wanted it bigger. And we did go with a substantially decent size playground. But yes, we can always downsize. The Parks Master Plan kind of guides us a little bit too on the amenities that they recommend in certain parks. **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** This to me is also density and demand-driven, right? That I don't want there to be a location where there isn't a playground, but the entire intention of that central area is that instead of potentially going for your neighborhood park on Saturday afternoon, you're going to the one in the middle of the city because that has assets that far exceed the one in your neighborhood. **Council Member Matt Hirn:** I'm really in favor of that. I just think we should focus more on quality over quantity with these and maybe not even downsizing. I think it could even be repurposing, right? I mean, we have like the outdoor fitness equipment and the skate park. Perhaps instead of doing those separate, when a playground comes up for being redone, maybe that's what we put in there in place of it instead. I just think maybe we're fighting reality a little bit. You know, I drive by parks and I never see anyone playing on them. Nowadays it's more organized sports, organized events—pickleball, sand volleyball court. To be quite honest, I haven't seen the basketball courts. I just I'm more in favor of trying to reduce the quantity of parks and focus more on quality or bring in some of these other items like the fitness workout park and the skate park potentially disc golf repurposing them in those fashions. Because that's a good probably $200,000 on average a year that we're spending on replacing these. **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** I think it gets to the point of Council Member Holtz is with the hot spots, there are some communities where the developments are a little tighter. Carriage Station, I've even seen turnover where I live. So it's a little denser population. I would assume that's similar going to be in some of the MUSA areas, East Elmo Village, things like that. So those areas where it makes sense, maybe a little less sense where lots are larger. Not that we should exclude them. Our town happens to be 24 square miles, so it could be a long bike ride, right? So I think it is a balancing act that we've got to figure out. But I like that we're paying attention to things that are important to the community members and kids that need that outside experience. **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Council member, two things. First, I agree with your comment. Looking at the parks that we have and the population they're serving—do we have the right equipment? Do we maybe we need to change it based on changing ages and demographics, too? The other question is a million dollars for the multisport complex. Is that for the land we purchased at our estimate? **Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** That's only going to be a shy placeholder. We've got to look at different funding sources for that. **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Okay. So that's not in the CIP? I don't see it. **Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** We've really just put it in there as a placeholder for we don't know what the cost is yet anyway. **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** So when I look at this multi-ports complex amenities, what is the location of that? **Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** By Sunfish Lake Park there. Yeah. **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** And I think it easily—because we don't know and obviously staff is having conversations with various groups to start that aspect—but I could easily see it at a minimum being in 2028. It's not being 2026. I would like to be optimistic to think there could start to be some purchases of contracts for this build. **Council Member Matt Hirn:** Maybe a way I'd put it too is I think I'd rather prioritize that type of work over replacing playgrounds and I think moving it up would be—well that's maybe a discussion like we have in January with the Parks Commission, right? **Marty [Public Works]:** And with that just know that the planning of improving Ridge Park is going to be started here fairly soon with Bolton & Menk. Ridge Park is a community park, not a neighborhood park. So, there's a potential of improving the ball field or making it soccer and the pavilion. That is actually going to start very soon. **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Yeah, because hypothetically that could be the pavilion for 2026. **Marty [Public Works]:** It could. Yes, absolutely. **Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** If we're ready, I'm gonna move on to streets. Jack, you can just come stand up here and take some punches with me maybe about this infrastructure. Okay. So, streets—we started this discussion last week with a pavement management plan. We have three types of street projects: local residential, collector streets and MSA improvements, and then county projects that they make us contribute to. Funding sources are bonding, our infrastructure fund, special assessments, Minnesota State Aid, and then I am planning for at least one transfer from the general fund. High level, for the next 10 years, we have 35 projects totaling approximately $50 million. Jack, did you want to discuss those briefly? **Jack [City Engineer]:** Yeah. As we try to talk about these in categories, you have your local street program, which is your existing neighborhoods and maintaining those pavements. You are looking at about 26 million—about a little over half of the 50 million is in that program. What I would say when we changed from a five to a 10-year lookout, it becomes more speculative when you get beyond the five years. We addressed so many of those older streets that in the next five to six years we're going to address almost the remaining ones of those. The improvements are going to start dropping in cost. You leave the curb and gutter in place. The MSA collector roads come out to about 13 million over the next 10 years. And then the county cost-share projects come into about 10 million. You got 5 million coming at the Trunk Highway 36 interchange that's right before us right now. That also is—we're still looking at five million with the grants that have been coming in, but now we're getting the south frontage road for that, too. We have another 4.6 million in there for Fifth Street. So far to date, all segments of Fifth Street have been developer paid. There's one segment that I'm not convinced will get developer paid. It's the segment meandering through some wetlands. The city may have to take that cost on. **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Just a question Jack, when we took Hudson Boulevard as a turn-back back from the state, did they give us any money for repairing that roadway? **Jack [City Engineer]:** It was in like 98 to 2000. So I don't know. I was here in '06 and we did a jurisdictional transfer of shifting the center line so that Lake Elmo owned the full road. But I'm not aware of any funds. **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Would we consider the same thing with Village Parkway to extend to County 14? **Jack [City Engineer]:** Village Parkway is not in the CIP. The only piece we were responsible for through the agreements with the developers is the crossing that we're taking on right now. **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Has there historically been a conversation about if hypothetically the city took the onus and did the Village Parkway, did the assessment process, what that could look like? **Jack [City Engineer]:** The only conversation I'm aware of is between Jason [Planning Director] and I and maybe taking that on just because it gives the city more control over the alignment. It might be better—when you leave it to the developer, they start to take it where it fits their development better and then you're kind of left with what you get. **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** I could see that entire thing being an overlay and the road extension being one part of it and just doing everything all the way to the ball fields. **Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** Sort of on a tangent to streets, we have street lights. Excel will no longer be servicing the lighting systems that have been installed by developers after 25 years. We have roughly $3 million worth of assets. If we put them across the same 25-year lifespan, that'd be roughly $125,000 per year. So our question is: do we have any interest in implementing a street light utility fund? In addition to the water, sewer and storm water, we would have this other fee-based system that would be based on likely some sort of attempt at equity across the city. The other option is to do just a basic levy, your general payment across the entire city like we do for anything else. It'd likely just be an addition to the infrastructure fund. **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Do we know if the other municipalities that's similar to us or in our area lease these light poles from Excel Energy or do they own them and manage them themselves? **Jack [City Engineer]:** Both models exist. You pay per pole per month. And it's a much, much lower fee if you own the poles. Because we are growing, the developers are paying for that first round. It's probably more economical to replace them the next time around and continue the lower rate. But that would be one option—to turn them back to Excel and let Excel replace them and then you pay for it over time. **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** I think it would make sense to kind of know that delta versus just saying let's go this way. **Council Member Nick Dragisich:** When I read the item, the first question came to me like, you know, certain areas have more lights than others and certainly we keep the dark in the rural areas. It seems like it wouldn't be necessarily "fair" to the people that live in a rural area to pay for lights that aren't in their area. In my first home I lived in New Brighton and there was a $10 light fee that I paid. I guess I'm personally not against a light fee. **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** I think a fee is perfectly fine. It to me is no different than your storm water fee. I would be curious how tedious it would be if you had Nick do all that work to figure out, because it is true—there are residents where they intentionally have an area and told their Council members for decades that there shall be no lights. I don't think it'd be equitable to have it be a levy for all. **Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** We'll move to Water. We've got 22 projects totaling $61 million. A large majority of that is getting funded by MPCA. **Jack [City Engineer]:** 50 million is projected for the water treatment plant, which is paid by grants. That brings you down to the 11-12 million in the next 10 years. We're looking at Well 6, Well 7 in that time frame. And then continuing with trunk water main extensions to support growth. The one project that's not in here, again would be grant funded, is the North water treatment plant if we end up having to put a treatment plant on Wells 4 and 5. **Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** Moving to Sewer. 8 projects totaling just 4.2 million over the next 10 years. **Jack [City Engineer]:** The sanitary sewer oversizing for Section 16, again, a lot of it's oversizing costs as the developers put projects in. We also have a couple of areas where we're anticipating that we'll be putting sewer in. 50th Street, Hill Trail, the peninsula out on Deontville, Olson Lake. Those would be 100% assessed. The other one is Sunfish Ponds. When that street comes due, we anticipate having to run sewer. And then the third one is when we do Tapestry. They're already on municipal sewer through the lift station, but they still own the collection system. We anticipate when we do those roads, we'll inspect those systems and go to take that on. **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** You mentioned sewer to Sunfish Ponds. Are they asking for sewer to get connected up there? **Jack [City Engineer]:** They did a few years ago. And then they backed away. We know they were having problems. **Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** Storm water. **Jack [City Engineer]:** We have in there still Phase 2 and Phase 3 from our downtown regional storm water management plan. Phase 2 is in progress right now. We are going to be paying Northstar Development to oversize those ponds. And then Phase 3 is to the east of the VFW park. We've estimated that at about 500,000 for that. Aside from that, we have in there some placeholders for storm water reuse systems. We've had our eyes on eventually maybe putting the VFW ball fields on storm water reuse. **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Does Met Council anticipate opening up some grants for that concept as well? **Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** We really do need to do a more concerted effort of building the Stormwater CIP. We really do need to get out and do inspections of our existing storm water system and identify and start building that program. So, just as a reminder, the funding sources are bonding, our infrastructure levy, utility fees, Minnesota State Aid, and then we have the franchise fees. Currently our franchise fees are contributed to the infrastructure 50% to the infrastructure fund, 50% to that new park reserve. Our debt plus infrastructure levies would increase dramatically. The only thing I would add is you'll start to see that going down after 2041. We're kind of in this spot here for the next 15 years where we're trying to build the infrastructure levy and paying for existing debt service. **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** I just point out that our levy for streets between debt service and 25 was 3.2 million. We're projecting that will rise to 4.2 million in 2035. Combined, we're going to go from 3.3 million to 6 million that we're going to levy in taxes for street improvements. I think we need to take a look at 50 million—$5 million a year is a big, big number. And taking our levy from 3.3 million to 6 million is going to cause a significant burden on our taxes. I think we need to take a look and say: is this going to be something we can sustain with our citizens and not get lynched and tarred and feathered? **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Was that primarily because of 36 and Lake Elmo Avenue when you say 5 million? What triggered it? **Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** I'm looking I'm trying to cash flow the infrastructure fund. Part of the strategic plan we've been talking about is to decrease our debt. My current assumption was conservative. So, we will we'll be re-updating tools as we go. **Jason Yard (Planning Director):** All right. Good evening, everyone. We don't have to solve all of these questions in one evening. So that's good news for getting out of here. But we as staff do feel like some feedback would be very helpful as we begin to prepare for Imagine 2050. The timeline: beginning in September of this year, system statements will be released by the Met Council. In 2026 through '27, that's when really the heart of this work will happen. The draft plan needs to be done by June of 28. The final draft is due in December of 2028. The first question I have for you is: should areas south of Stillwater Boulevard outside of the Park Reserve be included within the city's MUSA boundary? We're seeing development pressure in this area. **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** You're talking south of Stillwater Boulevard not as it's also 14 by the roundabout at Jamaica? My personal opinion: no. I haven't heard any issues in other areas. **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Would we be getting any pressure from the Met Council to expand the MUSA? **Jason Yard (Planning Director):** No. In fact, the Met Council feels that there is enough land across the Twin Cities metro area within the MUSA to accommodate future development. **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** I don't disagree with the Mayor. My only asterisk would be if it was specifically for business development along 10th Street on the north side or any business development along 36. **Council Member Matt Hirn:** I agree with that as well. **Jack [City Engineer]:** I'd just add that we're developing our sewer system very inefficiently. If you were considering that piece between 10th and 15th Street, for instance, along Inwood, you'd like to continue running gravity all the way up to 15th Street and phase that before High Point Crossing. The Comp Plan is the opportunity to look seriously at your MUSA boundary so that the infrastructure can be planned efficiently. **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** When Wildflower was put in, you wanted a main to go towards the fields because of the community septics much like Tapestry and Tanner Ridge. Would that be something we would want to think about? **Jack [City Engineer]:** Yes. We do have what I call "rescue capacity." But if suddenly there was a desire to expand 120 acres up there, that would take away from that capacity if we're not planning for it. **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** I guess you could look at the area below 15th—where the water treatment plant's going to be—between 10th and 15th as a potential area to add. **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** I could see the parcel west of the school being included as well—the 57 acres. **Jason Yard (Planning Director):** My thought is on this egg preserve property. It's possible to include it in the boundary but put it in a post-2050 time period. **Council Member Matt Hirn:** I'm a little unclear on this one. I still do feel that I'd prefer not to, but to Jack's comment about the inefficiency, I want to be mindful of that. **Jason Yard (Planning Director):** Tri-Lakes area. A number of residents in that area have failed septic systems. Is there an openness to considering expansion of the MUSA strategically to coincide with bringing public sewer there? **Jack [City Engineer]:** There's 13 homes on the west shore of Olson Lake that already go to Oakdale. That's already in the MUSA. We anticipate possibly putting a low-pressure sewer system in there and bringing that to the Oakdale connection as well. Then you go to the north shore of Lake Jane where we had a request from residents. We would do a lift station and pump it to the Tapestry lift station. **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Significant cost to those homeowners, right? It'd be one thing if we knew that there's access to federal funds for bailing out of homes along shores because we care about protecting our waters. I don't know if this is something the city can take on. **Council Member Matt Hirn:** I actually am a little bit more open to this one. I think if this is really something that these residents want and it's brought up to them, I think it's a different story. **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** I guess for me, if we can meet the density requirements with what we currently have in the MUSA, I don't see a need to expand. **Jack [City Engineer]:** Homestead has also reached out to us about studying their area. **Jason Yard (Planning Director):** To compensate for increasing the area of the MUSA or adding areas at lower densities, we do have to make up for that by increasing density somewhere somehow in the community. **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** My gut would be the red areas on the north side of 10th all the way from Inwood to the school would be one place since we already have sewer access. **Jason Yard (Planning Director):** We could also increase the density in lands that are already within the MUSA. **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Kramer Lake? Just west of Lake Elmo Avenue. I don't know that commercial makes sense there to me. Makes sense more over on Keats and Manning. **Jason Yard (Planning Director):** In reviewing the existing comp plan, it seems like the last round was a little bit of a "light touch." What types of engagement would you imagine is important in the next cycle? **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** All of the above in my opinion. I'd rather go in the opposite direction so nobody can claim that they didn't have a voice. **Council Member Matt Hirn:** There's never enough community engagement. **Council Member Jeff Holtz:** I think it needs to be integrated. The school districts also need to be aware of all of their communities and what's happening so that they can prepare and plan properly. **Jason Yard (Planning Director):** Special areas of concern? **Council Member Matt Hirn:** I think water quality and quantity; I'd hate to not focus on that. **Jack [City Engineer]:** Your infrastructure plans are outdated. Those really need to be refreshed and updated. **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** I don't think you can, on the topic of water, ever be short on how much we put in there. **Jason Yard (Planning Director):** This has been helpful. **Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** At the next meeting, we do have a planning commission interview special meeting beforehand. I’m going to adjourn this evening's meeting at 9:17.