This transcript has been formatted with the identified speakers based on the context provided. Note: As the source text did not include actual timestamps, placeholders have been used to maintain the requested format. *** **[00:00:00] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** ...done that for a very long time. Good evening. I'm going to call this evening's city council meeting on the 16th of December to order at 7 p.m. Please stand with me for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. For years. **[00:00:30] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** So, we have the agenda to approve as my computer's still uploading slowly? Um, everybody good with the agenda this evening? If they are, then I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda. **[00:00:45] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** So moved. **[00:00:46] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Is there a second? **[00:00:47] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Second. **[00:00:48] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** All those in agreement to approve the agenda as presented, please signify by saying I. **[00:00:50] Council Members:** I. **[00:00:51] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Agenda is hereby approved. We do have a presentation this evening. The JCs like to come to the podium and make their presentation. **[00:01:00] Stacy (JCI Lake Elmo President):** Good evening. I'm Stacy from the Lake Elmo JCI Lake Elmo. I'm the president this year and we wanted to thank the city of Lake Elmo for all of their support over the past 50 years with the JCI Lake Elmo. Unfortunately, many volunteer organizations are having a hard time staying afloat and keeping members and ours is not exempt. We will be closing our chapter as of December 31st of this year. But we would like to present a donation to the city of Lake Elmo. And if Emily would like to say a few words. **[00:01:30] Emily Carlson (JCI Gambling Manager):** Hi mayor. Hi everybody. I'm Emily Carlson. I am the gambling manager for the Lake Elmo JCs. Like President Stacy said, unfortunately we are closing our doors as of the end of this calendar year, but we wanted to make sure we did our final annual donation to the city. Again, we thank you all so much and the city so much for all of your support, your dedication, and working with us, having a great working relationship with us for over 50 years. Our gambling operation at Twinpoint Tavern was opened back in 1987 and we officially ended our part of that at the end of April this year. And so we are finishing up our remaining donations to various organizations here locally. We're proud that we have kept all of the money that we have made through the gambling operation here in the Lake Elmo area, the St. Croix River Valley area. So, we have a check for $33,800 for the city of Lake Elmo as our final donation and a thank you. **[00:02:15] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Great. Do you have—have you kept track of the donations throughout the years? **[00:02:20] Emily Carlson (JCI Gambling Manager):** Numbers—pretty staggering amount I would think. Generally have been over $100,000 annually donated locally here to various organizations. **[00:02:30] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** That's great. Thank you very much. **[00:02:32] Stacy (JCI Lake Elmo President):** So, thank you again so much. We really appreciate it. **[00:02:35] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Get a picture with the council with you? **[00:02:37] Stacy (JCI Lake Elmo President):** That would be wonderful. **[00:02:38] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** A big check. **[00:02:39] Emily Carlson (JCI Gambling Manager):** That'd be great. Sure. **[00:02:40] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Thanks so much. [Applause] Do we have anybody write anything down for public comments and inquiries? **[00:02:45] Julie Johnson (City Clerk):** No. **[00:02:46] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** All right. We had which minutes did we have? **[00:02:48] Julie Johnson (City Clerk):** There are no minutes at this time. **[00:02:49] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** So E is not approved. All right. In the consent agenda this evening, we have accept donation from Lake Elmo JCs, approve payments and disbursements, reappoint parks commissioner, liquor license renewals, approve the EDA work plan, 2026 personnel policy changes that we went through workshop last week, paygrade realignment for the public works positions, approve the MPCA grant agreement for Well 2 water treatment plant operations and maintenance, approve pay request number three for the I-94 lift station force main replacement project, approve pay request number six for the 2025 street improvements, approve security reduction for Milestone Daycare Center, approve security reduction for Northstar First Edition, approve security release for Enterprise Rent-A-Car. 14 is accept quotes and award contract for Test Well Number 6. 15 is approve extended contract working hours for the Trunk Highway 36/Lake Elmo Avenue CSAW 16 improvements. Group 16 is approve resolution of municipal support for the Trunk Highway 36 and Lake Elmo Avenue improvements and South Frontage Road. Um, if everything's kosher there, then I'll entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. **[00:04:00] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** So moved. **[00:04:01] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Second. **[00:04:02] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** We have a motion by Council Member Holtz and a second by Council Member Hirn to approve the consent agenda as approved. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. **[00:04:10] Council Members:** I. **[00:04:11] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Consent agenda is approved. In our regular agenda, the first regular agenda item is park use policy revisions with interim Public Works Director Mr. Swanepoel presenting. **[00:04:20] Adam Swanepoel (Interim Public Works Director):** Thank you, mayor and council. Here today with Hank. He's our chair on the board as well for the commission. Um, brought him along to answer any questions that they had during our review of this policy over the summer. So, part of our work plan for 2025 was to review our park use policy because of a number of complaints and issues that we had throughout our rentals—asset rentals for the city. **[00:04:45] Adam Swanepoel (Interim Public Works Director):** So again, throughout the summer, we worked with the parks commission to clarify some procedures related to the rental of our assets, including our athletic courts, ball fields, and park shelters. Staff worked with the commissioners and discussed our current usage of charge, identified areas where the policy could be more transparent and user-friendly, and discussed potential updates to ensure consistency, fairness, and efficient management of these community amenities. The feedback provided during these meetings provided revisions intended to enhance the public access while still supporting and engaging organized activities. **[00:05:15] Adam Swanepoel (Interim Public Works Director):** So the issue before the council tonight is: would the council like to accept the proposed changes to the park use policy? Our park use policy was—and hasn't been changed since 2019. So that's why we put in the work plan for this year to maybe make some upgrades, especially with our improvements to not only our ball fields including Reed Park but also our pickleball courts in the last couple years. **[00:05:40] Adam Swanepoel (Interim Public Works Director):** Our current use policy, which currently sits right now, does look at our fields, our courts, and our shelters. Our current structure is rated as our ball fields: when they start out the season, it's $500 for the season or $50 a day. Again, at the end of the year, that's totally refundable. All the money is given back. Our shelters is $50 a day, $100 a day for a non-resident. Again, that's all refundable back to the person who rented it. A lot of times staff would go out afterwards just to make sure the garbage was cleaned up, nothing was damaged. If that was the—if they came back with the okay, that money was refundable. Lions Park shelter, a lot of times that was used by our baseball clubs or anybody that rented it for concession stands. Again, that was given out as refundable funds initially paid at the beginning of the year. **[00:06:25] Adam Swanepoel (Interim Public Works Director):** Our courts—they were reservable many times in our pickleball courts down at Lions Park when those were usable at the time. Again, $500 for the season. A lot of times those are reserved, all four of them. Again, at the end of the year, those were refunded 100%. Field lights were the only item that we actually collected money from throughout those years, mainly through our baseball clubs that used Lions Park and VFW. It was initially charged $150 for the season. So, throughout the year, $300 that we collected. **[00:06:55] Adam Swanepoel (Interim Public Works Director):** Our proposals that are outlined in this would be our ball field rentals. VFW and Lions—I did talk with our baseball club and our associations in regards to this and they provided the summer and fall type schedule. So our summer schedule would run April to July. That'd be one season and then our fall season would be August through October. Individual rentals of $50 a day or $500 for the season. So really no change in that for those baseball clubs. But again, the only big change in that is having that funds non-refundable. Our fees for our baseball fields are going up, including our red ball, our irrigation, our mowing, and our weed control. So some of those funds will go back to just in our general fund potentially to offset some of those costs. **[00:07:40] Adam Swanepoel (Interim Public Works Director):** Our outside ball fields, including Pebble, Reed, Deontville, and Tablin, those are all reservable as well. Those will be reduced but at $20 a day, $250 for the season. We do get most of our reservations from Pebble, Deontville, and Reed for those parks. Tavlin every so often, not very often. So, Reed is probably going to be your biggest asset in that for continuing reserve in both those seasons, summer and fall. The change in the field lights—the only change in that was the increase from 150 to 250 for the season. We are seeing an increase in not only our Xcel electrical bill, but as our lights are getting older, we do see our contractor out there fixing those almost two to three times a season. You know, water getting in those boxes, rodents in there—not cheap. **[00:08:25] Adam Swanepoel (Interim Public Works Director):** Our park and shelter pavilion: changes to that—we still want to do the half 6-hour day or 12-hour full change—that half-day or a full day. Those being limited to 6 or 12 hours. $50 for a half day and $100 for a full day. Again, we're looking at a non-refundable fee on that plus a $100 security deposit. The security deposit would go back again after staff would look at that and do minimal cleanup. Right. So, we looked at that basis of we're still going out there anyway to collect the garbage and stuff from these events. Those would offset some of those costs as well as our electrical costs and some of our pavilions for events that are in conjunction with our ball field with our concession stand. We looked at kind of the same price: that full and half-day cost would be $50 for the half day, $100 for the full day of reservations. Again, non-refundable. Security deposit would go back to them. I think with the concession stand, that has been maybe our only other fee that we may have had to go back after large events and do additional cleanup. In my term here, I think we maybe kept a couple hundred dollars off of deposits because we ended up cleaning it up after a large event. So, I don't foresee a big issue there, but as a security, it's there. **[00:09:40] Adam Swanepoel (Interim Public Works Director):** Moving on to the larger topic: our courts. And that's kind of where we maybe started this conversation. This is a copy of our old reservation policy. And I blanked out some of the names just so we're not calling people out or anything like that. But if you do look at some of these, like reservation green—so April to October, they were reserving it daily from 8:00 till 10:00. And now at the bottom it does say reservations for all of our courts. And that's one of the big changes that we wanted to make. So many of our complaints came in from the community saying, "I show up there, well this organization has all of our courts reserved. I don't have the ability to get on there." Right? So, but if you look through there, you'd say, "Okay, I guess you have to go on Wednesdays and Fridays throughout the day because that's probably their best day to get to it, right?" So, I think our policy or our adaptations to it do kind of help in some of these situations of letting not only citizens from Lake Elmo, but have open play there at any time. **[00:10:40] Adam Swanepoel (Interim Public Works Director):** So one of our biggest moves is at our pickleball courts—reserving the courts would be limited to 50% at each site. So we do have reservable courts at Lions, Pebble, and Tablin. So our biggest court is at Pebble. It would reduce the reservable courts down to three versus all six of them. That would leave three of those courts open for open play for anybody to show up, rotate through like normal. Those other three reservable courts would be available for those clubs or those organizations that would like to have those reserved for themselves for those three hours. **[00:11:15] Adam Swanepoel (Interim Public Works Director):** We do have that we never changed the hour limit. The hour limit's still at three hours. If an individual family wanted to reserve, they could reserve one of those three reservable courts for $20 for that three hours, which is pretty inexpensive. Local indoor places right now cost anywhere from $15 per hour up to $38 per hour for those early mornings or late evenings. So, again, those are air-conditioned and inside events—a little nicer, but on a nice day, these are very attractable, too. **[00:11:45] Adam Swanepoel (Interim Public Works Director):** Again, just to reiterate, the groups can reserve multiple courts of the reservable courts. So, it wouldn't be all six of them. It would just be those three courts marked as reservable. Once they're full, the other three are just open for open play. The only thing I didn't include in the slideshow was our volleyball courts. We are looking to include that. That is in your packet as well to include that in as a reservation as $20 for fee for those. So again, I'll take any question that you have, but otherwise we're looking to propose that starting in January. **[00:12:15] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** So we've always had a cost for reserving courts, and has that cost been—that reservation—been refundable? Is it now that it doesn't look like it's—reservations are non-refundable? **[00:12:25] Adam Swanepoel (Interim Public Works Director):** Correct. So in the past, all reservations were refundable. Yep. And again on courts, we didn't see a whole—I mean, you're not going to see a whole lot of damage to that, but our biggest expense forthcoming for us is that resurfacing of those. So, every 5 to 7 years, you're looking at resurfacing—and you can look at that as one tennis court being about $7,000. So, Pebble, you're looking at $21,000, and we're already in year—going on year three—of that court. So, in about three years, we'll be looking at possibly a $21,000 expense. **[00:13:00] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Now, are those expenses allocated or budgeted for with our taxes, or are we banking on the fact that we're getting the non-refundable to cover that cost? **[00:13:10] Adam Swanepoel (Interim Public Works Director):** So, again, these fees are likely going back into the general fund. Our current—so when we go back to resurface these, it's likely going to be a CIP project that'll likely come out of the park dedication funds. So that's where those will come through because this will be a project because both those courts will line up in the same years. So you're going to have potentially a $30,000 to $40,000 resurfacing action going on there. **[00:13:35] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Got it. Council Member Holtz. **[00:13:37] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** An initial question: $500 per season for the court. That is for a three-hour reservation that happens for one day of the week, that would constitute a season? **[00:13:45] Adam Swanepoel (Interim Public Works Director):** So yeah, so that'd be the hundred. So if I reserve that court for the week, that'd be $100. So that's still fairly cheap for seven days, right? So if you look at 30 weeks from that April till October being that 30 weeks, a club could say, "Okay, I'll spend $3,000" technically, right, for 30 weeks for seven days a week to rent it from 8 to 10. And on their end, they're already paying this. They're just getting it back at the end of the day. So, the amounts are exactly the same for those. **[00:14:15] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** So, again, that would not be refundable. **[00:14:17] Adam Swanepoel (Interim Public Works Director):** Correct. Yeah. **[00:14:18] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** But as in now, that front-end deposit is still the same amount: $500 per season for the courts. So, they already were upping this money before, they just were used to getting it back. **[00:14:28] Adam Swanepoel (Interim Public Works Director):** Yeah. Correct. Yep. **[00:14:29] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** And then is it still a single method for all that's using the website for—? **[00:14:34] Adam Swanepoel (Interim Public Works Director):** Yeah. So the reservation form that I showed you before was our previous action. So now we have converted that over to our website. So you will be able to select which field or court would you like and then put that deposit down. **[00:14:48] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** And they're easily—that updates pretty quickly in terms of someone made a reservation? How quickly does that show up for people to see? **[00:14:55] Nicole Miller (City Administrator):** Last year, Julie did that. Um, and she's not here to speak about that, but with our new website, I think we're still in question about how— **[00:15:05] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** Yeah, we were actually waiting until tonight's discussion to finalize using the new facilities module based on the changes. So, we will be kind of implementing it and building it based on tonight's discussion. But it should be instant. Folks should be able to go on there, see when it's available. Self-service. Yeah. Right. **[00:15:20] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Gotcha. Those are just my initial questions, but I'll defer to others. **[00:15:24] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Thank you. Any other questions? So if you wanted to rent the pickle ball courts for the entire season, you know, at—let's just pick Pebble Park—and I wanted to rent three of them for the entire season, what would it cost for a club? **[00:15:35] Adam Swanepoel (Interim Public Works Director):** So, for instance, on—if we go back to that yellow club that wanted it from 8 to 10 Monday through Friday and they wanted to start April 1st all the way to October 31st for 30 weeks, that would cost them $3,000. **[00:15:55] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Okay. Thank you. **[00:15:57] Adam Swanepoel (Interim Public Works Director):** Just one thing to note: we've asked staff to not wait six years to relook at this policy. So, obviously, since it hadn't been changed or looked at in that long of time, that's why we decided that some of these changes needed to be made. **[00:16:10] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** And I guess then for either of you: do we know what the similar levels are for reservation cost nearby, whether it's Oakdale or Stillwater or Woodbury? **[00:16:18] Adam Swanepoel (Interim Public Works Director):** Yeah, we did look at that. They range. I mean, we do have those open courts as well. A number of Woodbury's is like just open play. And I think one of our groups that I spoke with here is, you know, their concept has kind of ventured out from other communities and they've adapted to it, right? So it's kind of more like a social group, right? And so they're not looking to, you know, spend money or make money off their groups, but Woodbury does have a number of them that are free, but also has some that are reservable as well. A lot more expensive than what you would say at $20. Um, they're more at like that $15 for an hour. **[00:16:50] Nicole Miller (City Administrator):** What I remember from the data is that in almost all the cases we were, if not the lowest, pretty much in the low rankings of these. So none of them are at the high end. **[00:17:00] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** And it's reasonable to presume in terms of our sports for baseball and soccer and football—this is not a new concept for them because they're paying for fields in the other cities anyways that's non-refundable. So this is not foreign for them. **[00:17:12] Adam Swanepoel (Interim Public Works Director):** Correct. **[00:17:13] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** All right. Thank you. **[00:17:14] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** And if they wanted to take their chance on somebody not having a reservation, the courts are open. **[00:17:18] Adam Swanepoel (Interim Public Works Director):** Courts would be open. So I think that was one of the conversations I had with our social groups is: like, if who are used to reserving all six courts and just being able to come and play—it's like, well, take the chance of just going there to play on the non-reservable courts. And if your club was always renting it anyway, likely no one else is going to come there at 8:00. **[00:17:35] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Got it. Probably open to all of them anyway. All right. We'll entertain a motion. **[00:17:40] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Motion to approve the changes to the park use policy as proposed. **[00:17:42] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Is there a second? **[00:17:43] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Second. **[00:17:44] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Okay. Discussion. **[00:17:46] Council Member Matt Hirn:** I think this is a great step in the right direction. Um, you know, I'm sure there's going to be road or speed bumps along the way that we notice over the next year, but then we work those out and we make changes next year. I think it's totally a reasonable amount for across—for the baseball fields, for the pickle ball courts—these high use items that are kind of above and beyond what the taxpayers are paying for with their taxpayer money. You know, it's—these are organizations, these are clubs, they're looking to use it at a higher use than kind of the typical individual. So, I think it's very fair that we do have a little bit of a fee and I think it is a win-win. You know, they're looking to have assurance that they're going to have a place to play. So, this allows assurance for them as well with these reservations. So, I think it's great. I'm sure there's going to be things that we need to modify and change. Um, but I think it's absolutely a step in the right direction. **[00:18:40] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Clarifying question, because I have a hypothesis what this is, but in looking at the priorities and agree with all what Council Member Hirn said, Priority 1 for the groups is the City of Lake Elmo. **[00:18:50] Adam Swanepoel (Interim Public Works Director):** Correct. **[00:18:51] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** We're not talking about staff going out on Fridays to book pickle ball. **[00:18:55] Adam Swanepoel (Interim Public Works Director):** No, we're not. We're not. It's our 100-year anniversary. It's items like that where we want to reserve the shelter or the city sponsors. Yeah. **[00:19:05] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** But if staff wanted to go out on a Friday— **[00:19:07] Adam Swanepoel (Interim Public Works Director):** We'd fill out a reservation form. **[00:19:09] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Okay. I thank you. And I would agree again with what Council Member Hirn said and especially with our—the amount of maintenance costs that we have and the fact that there is not a direct correlation between it being used by only residents who are paying taxes versus not. This is not 1960 anymore where it's very affordable to have facilities that are used at a moderate rate. Our facilities are used at a very high amount and we do have a need to make sure that we're aligning the needs based upon various revenue sources. Now, I understand it's going into a general budget, but as the years come forward, we are probably going to have a conversation as to how to allocate that in certain ways. So, it might be this going for fertilizer, it might be that's going to pay the water bills for the irrigation for certain sites. Um, but yeah, I do appreciate this and I appreciate the work the parks commission did on this because I know there are multiple discussions on this and that's a way to get the feedback from the community and from our leadership on the commission. So, thank you for that. **[00:20:05] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** I think I did get one email yesterday afternoon disagreeing with the cost for reservation based on residents already saying that they, you know, arrive at the courts and spend time cleaning them up, pay taxes to have amenities like the pickle balls courts. Um, so but I agree—as long as we're keeping half of them open for open play and somebody wants to reserve them, then that's the option that they can pick. So, um, I know that there is a great cost. I remember approving the contracts to do the resurfacing on Tavlin and Pebble. It was not a small feat for those. So, and probably looking at having to do that on the Lion's Park in the not too far future here as well, given its condition. So, this looks like a compromise of sorts. All right, I'll call the question. All those in favor of approving the park use policy and its revisions, please signify by saying I. **[00:21:00] Council Members:** I. **[00:21:01] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** It's approved. **[00:21:02] Adam Swanepoel (Interim Public Works Director):** Thank you. **[00:21:04] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** All right. So Item Number 2, we have 2026 Budget and Levies hearing. **[00:21:08] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** Mayor and council, I apologize. The incorrect presentation was in your packet. Um, so if you reopen the agenda and re-click on that, it'll pull up the correct file. Thank you, Jennifer, for doing that at the last second. **[00:21:20] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Like how new? **[00:21:21] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** Like two seconds ago. Please give me a moment. Okay. So, correct date—I was reviewing, I was like, "Oh, these are not the right numbers. This is bad." Um, okay. So, thank you, Mayor and Council. We are here this evening for the final adoption of the 2026 budget and tax levies. Our goals for this evening is an overview of that 2026 budget and levy. We will need to hold the Truth and Taxation hearing and then adopt the resolution setting that budget and levies. Um, I will mention this is a very high-level quick overview. There's plenty more information within the budget book as well as the prior meetings that we have discussed these—there's videos of those online. **[00:22:15] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** High level general fund budget: we are looking at a total budget expense-wise for—excuse me—$8,859,000, which is a $97,000 increase from prior year. We are planning on using $300,000 of fund balance this year, which is a bit of a change from our prior practices. General fund expenditures: I like to show this just so people get an idea of where the money goes. And so General Government is administration, finance, mayor and council, planning activities. Public Safety includes fire, our police contract as well as the building inspection department, and then Public Works is the general fund portion of the public works departments. So, just streets and parks. **[00:22:55] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** Some high level changes to the general fund budget: we will be adding one Public Works staff as well as we have incorporated the discussion—the changes in the wage adjustments that was recently discussed. The plan is to add three fire captains halfway through the year. So that's half of that impact this coming year and then it would be double that the next year. We have lots of projects, lots of planning projects. So comprehensive planning process will be going on for the next couple of years. Um, so we have consultants that assist with that. There's some planning for the 70-some acres, we're calling it sports complex, and then as well as the 180 acres that will be theoretically for sale. We have the second year of the finance software that comes out of the general fund and then a market wage analysis, some increased city center expenses—we're again just trying to get a handle on the cost of having this new building—and then it is an election year next year. So that is a significant impact as well. **[00:23:50] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** Again, high level for expenditures broken out by those three segments: overall increase of 11.4%. And then I broke it down a little bit more within those departments—so or within those segments. So within the General Government division, again, mayor and council, administration, elections, finance, planning, and engineering seeing significant changes in engineering with the new contract with Bolton and Menk, as well as again the planning and zoning has the increase for a lot of those planning process, the comprehensive planning and the 180 acres and such. Public Safety: again, just high level increases. The increase to Fire is due largely to those three fire captains. The animal control budget—it seems like a big jump—is actually we sort of under-budgeted for 2025. So, these are—this is just a more realistic number. **[00:24:40] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** And then within Public Works, we have that one additional staff, the market wage adjustment. And then I would also just kind of point out, if you're looking at the year-to-date—and I believe it was Council Member Hirn maybe asked this—it's a really good question about the difference between our year-to-date numbers and our budgeted numbers. So, I just want to mention that the public works staff expenses are budgeted one way, but we bill them according to the work that they do. So, there is kind of a big variation between our year-to-date numbers and our budgets for next year and our budgets for this year actually even. So, still trying to get a handle on good processes for that. **[00:25:20] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** Okay. So again, here's our expenditures, and then we just need to know how we are going to pay for these services. So we'll move into revenues. The blue section of this pie chart is taxes. Again, those are only the general fund taxes that fund our operations. We also have licenses and permits, charges for services. A lot of those two segments are based on development charges and building permits. So, we're just going to assume that those are going to kind of hold steady for the next year. Intergovernmental—I want to point out that is a significant decrease because we are moving the MSA dollars that we would normally put into the general fund, those are being deposited directly into our infrastructure reserve fund. And then I also am budgeting a little closer to actuals for investment earnings. And then again down at the bottom, that $300,000 is the use of fund balance. **[00:26:15] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** Debt service funds: we added the 2025A bond, and nothing else dropped off this year. So that is a 5% increase there. And then our capital fund levies. So these are new in 2025. So, we are trying to build up these—I'm going to call them savings account type things. So we're trying to even out our levy process by having separate funds and being able to save for our larger projects that are coming. We are starting to get a much better handle on the capital needs because of going to a 10-year CIP, which we will talk about next. And so these are just kind of heading in the right—getting us headed in the right direction. **[00:26:55] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** Our total levy would be 11,497,785. That is an increase of approximately 1.4 million or 14%. The tax impact of that: so we usually look at tax impact using a median value home, which has gone up just slightly this year here in Lake Elmo. So it's currently for 2026 it will be at 585,800. And so using the tax rate from last year of 26.84 and going up to the estimated tax rate of 29.57, you would see an increase of $179 for the year on a median value home. This is just a measurement. Obviously, nobody has that exact increase. And so, it really depends on the property and how it's valued. Here's our tax rate relative to the 10 cities in Washington County that are most comparable in population. So we're on the low end generally across all cities in Washington County and within those that we are closest to in population we moved up a point so we are at—eight, sorry. **[00:27:55] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** Moving on to the utility funds: fund accounting and government. You have the general fund which is sort of the overall operations and then our utility funds specifically are the expenses for those water, sewer, and storm utilities. It's public works department, but within those utilities. These are a little trickier to compare year to year. So I do—I have the two years and then I did start to break them down by operations and then capital and debt just to try and get a better handle on sort of just how much is operations changing, because capital can vary quite a bit year to year. The main increase in water operations is due to the PFAS treatment plant at Well 2 coming online this year. Those expenses are going to be reimbursable by that MPCA grant. **[00:28:40] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** And then as we move and kind of create these better processes, we're budgeting for these minor funds. So we did separate out some funds for fire equipment and projects again to just kind of level out those general fund operations. So his projects for this year are fewer than last year. And then City Center shared expenses—again, this is a new fund. So this is an internal service fund where we are keeping track of all of the city center expenses and billing them back to the departments that are within here within city center. I'm happy to answer any questions at the moment and then we do need to have our truth and taxation hearing. **[00:29:20] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Questions for Clarissa? Council Member Hirn. **[00:29:22] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Could you just remind me again what is our fund balance at? You know, from a percentage standpoint at the end. **[00:29:28] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** So fund balance is measured at the beginning of each year. Um, and I believe at the audit it was around 130%. Our policy is 50 to 60%. So we do have some room to move in there. However we are doing this long-term planning. I have some ideas on how we need to kind of shift stuff around. So use of fund balance is not necessarily something that we want to continue to do to fund operations. **[00:29:55] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Okay. Can you remind us what we—and I know we said use the $300,000. It was a one-time expense. What can somebody remind me what that was for? **[00:30:05] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** So we—I took out of the sort of list of projects as we were going through the budget. So, a lot of the comprehensive planning, the 180 acres planning—sort of these one-time type things—the finance software, the general fund portion. **[00:30:20] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Okay. **[00:30:21] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** All right. So, then I'll take a motion to open the public hearing for truth and taxation. **[00:30:26] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** So moved. **[00:30:27] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Second. **[00:30:28] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** I have a motion in a second. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. **[00:30:30] Council Members:** I. **[00:30:31] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** We are in public hearing at 7:40 p.m. If anybody wishes to speak on this topic, feel free to go to the podium, state your name and address for the record. You'll have six minutes to talk. Won't be any back and forth, but we're here to listen. **[00:30:45] Mary Deutsch (Resident):** Well, thank you for your time. Uh, my name is Mary Deutsch. What was the other thing I was supposed to say to you? Address—2699 Imperial Avenue. As a stakeholder with the city of Lake Elmo, I am asking for the city council to provide documentation for how this 1.4 million proposed 2026 tax increase is to be allocated. I guess we've just seen that tonight. The 2025 tax increase was for 1.2 million. This is a $2.6 million revenue increase over the 2-year period. On top of this revenue stream, Lake Elmo is billing each resident an additional monthly fee of $5.75 through the Xcel Energy bill between the gas and the electric services. I believe this fee first began in June of this year. There has been no transparency or communication as to what this fee was for. In speaking with the finance director, which I believe was you, I was told it was for capital improvements and infrastructure and it wasn't just a short-term fee. **[00:31:40] Mary Deutsch (Resident):** Aren't these items to be supported by our property taxes? This appears to be a sneaky way to generate extra revenue. With an increase in the number of homes and the increase in home valuations, one would expect that the current revenue received should cover the expenses without proposing a 14% increase for this 2026 year. There are those of us who are on fixed incomes and have to manage our finances prudently. We have to go without or modify our expenditures in order to live within our means. Lake Elmo should also manage their finances with a similar philosophy. I hope that after this meeting you will look for areas where this proposed 2026 levy can be trimmed thoughtfully looking at ways to reduce the spending. Doing thorough due diligence on whether a new capital expenditure is truly needed or can be modified to obtain a lower price point based on an accurate bidding process, and also completed properly to minimize future maintenance costs. We as Lake Elmo taxpayers deserve accountability and transparent communications from our leaders in city government and the city council as you are the stewards of our tax dollars. During your future scrutiny and review of this proposed levy, we as residents would appreciate any reductions you can make for 2026. Thank you. **[00:33:00] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Thank you. **[00:33:05] Cliff Bjo (Resident):** Good evening. Thanks for the opportunity to come and talk tonight on the truth and taxation hearing. My name is Cliff Bjo. I live in Lake Elmo in the Carriage Station development. 12187 Marquest Lane Cove North. Um, median value homes. Um, mine on my current proposed 2026 taxes is not the 581,000 that you mentioned. It's less than that. But my taxes according to this statement are going up 16 and a quarter percent. Not the 14%. So if my median value home is less than what you say the tax of 14 is based on, why is mine going up 16 and a quarter? I don't know. **[00:33:55] Cliff Bjo (Resident):** Together with what this woman shared, I think the franchise fees are ridiculous. I don't like them. It's not transparent. If we're going to build—and I asked the question of the city administrator, why are these on my Xcel electric and gas bill? I was told it's dedicated money for parks. I think the lady who was here before me didn't really understand what it was for other than capital improvement projects. So, here again, I think the communication for these fees wasn't very good. And I don't even know how they could have been justified and put into place other than the fact that state of Minnesota franchise fee laws allowed the council to do this without the taxpayers voting for it. It just seems a bit disingenuous and I—I don't know. **[00:34:40] Cliff Bjo (Resident):** 1.2 million, 1.4 million. Lots of money, right? Lots and lots of money. And I don't know what happened to trying to stay within closer to the rate of inflation. We've got water issues. I had an email exchange with Council Member Holtz about whether or not 3M is going to foot the bill for all of the water filtration equipment that we have to manage PFAS. I believe, Council Member, you'll have to correct me if I misinterpret what we talked about, but what I recall is 3M is supposedly supposed to pay for this in the agreement that they had with the state of Minnesota, but we're not sure if that's going to happen. So, we have to properly reserve funds in order for the city to pay for it if 3M doesn't or isn't held accountable. I guess I don't know. But I think one thing this council could do is tell the taxpayers in Lake Elmo whether or not there's active pursuit of 3M to pay for what they were supposed to pay for. **[00:35:40] Cliff Bjo (Resident):** That's another thing that I think should be done. And you know, Washington County, City of Lake Elmo, ISD 834—all of these taxing districts always tell us how much more money they need from us. What we never seem to hear is how more efficient these entities are going to be because they've scrutinized the expenses and they've decided that they can trim or save money in broad-based categories and then communicate that to the taxpayers. We never hear how you're trying to save money. All we hear about as taxpayers is how you want more and need more, right? And in this case, 14% more. In my case, 16 and a quarter percent more. And I think it would be a much better, much more well-rounded presentation if you presented to the taxpayer where you were able to save and how much you were able to save through initiatives that department heads are charged with carrying out. **[00:36:35] Cliff Bjo (Resident):** Um, so that's one recommendation I would have for this city. And here's an example of ways to possibly save money. Granted, it's only one example from one day. Last Tuesday, starting at about 2:00, we had snowfall begin. I ended up with—I think we ended up with about 5 inches. At about 10:00 a.m. last Tuesday, so approximately four hours before the snow started to fall, the plow went through my development taking off about a half an inch of snow that had fallen on Sunday. What for? Doesn't the public works director and the public works department look at the weather forecast? Somebody told the plows to go out on Tuesday morning instead of simply waiting until after the snowfall that we got Tuesday night into Wednesday morning. And to me, seeing a plow on the street in that kind of a situation doesn't produce a lot of confidence in me that people are making sound financial decisions. So again, thanks for the opportunity to come and speak and I hope this council can find places to trim expenses and reduce the 14% increase you're looking to pass. Thank you. **[00:37:45] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Thank you. Nobody else. All right. Well, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. **[00:37:50] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Motion to close the public hearing. **[00:37:51] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Second. **[00:37:52] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** We have a motion to close and a second to close the truth and taxation hearing. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. **[00:37:55] Council Members:** I. **[00:37:56] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Closed at 7:51 p.m. I'll entertain a motion on the resolution for the 2026 budget and levy. **[00:38:00] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Motion to approve resolution 2025-084 setting the 2026 property tax levy and adopting various 2026 budgets. **[00:38:05] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Is there a second? **[00:38:06] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Second. **[00:38:07] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** We have a motion and a second. Discussion. Council Member Holtz. **[00:38:10] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** As it's top of mind, top of memory—Cliff is correct about the exchange that we had and I don't speak on behalf of council when I respond to those things. It is just based upon my knowledge and experience of being on the settlement work group and what's in the public domain. What he was referring to is the future O&M costs that all the cities, not just Lake Elmo, but all of us will have for infrastructure that we need to have to protect the health of the public. The settlement dollars are running out and will be gone within a year and a half to two years. But there is a consent agreement that 3M signed previously with the state. We are not a party to that agreement. We are not allowed in the room when that agreement is being discussed between 3M and state. So there's very limited information we can give because we are not allowed in that room. And 3M has indicated they plan to take it to arbitration; they don't agree with how the state is looking to try to get that process rolling—is essentially that. **[00:39:00] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** So, we had a previous discussion about utility rates for water and there was an increase of it partially due to making sure that we take into account depreciation for the system, which has not always been the case, and also to potentially start to build up a coffer so to speak for funds in case we are on the hook for something that we should not be. Not one of us up here—I think I can speak reasonably true on this—not one of us wants to be in that position, but we also know that we all have a responsibility to ensure our water continues to be healthy. That is our first priority and duty. **[00:39:35] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Um, but Cliff is correct about that conversation. Number one, thank you for both Cliff and for yourself for speaking. That is your job as residents to be here and being paying attention and to provide feedback. This is one meeting among eight that has been the case and we have received other feedback as well. On your end, Clarissa, thank you for this presentation and for that book. I consider that to be professionalism right there. There's an 80-page essentially budget manual to explain to the public, to us, to other staff, to other communities who are looking to be like, "Well, what are other people doing?" That is fantastic and is not something that we have necessarily seen in prior years. It makes these discussions easier from the standpoint of we have quality information in front of us to then have that discussion instead of possible confusion or possible arguments that are not related. We can actually have the facts in front of us. So, thank you for that. It's very clear. It is transparent and it's easily accessible for the public, which is all of our jobs. So, kudos for that. **[00:40:40] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** In terms of the cost, for those who have watched these meetings, we've had these discussions five or six times now. So that's why if you're watching it, it's not that we might not have a lot to say. We've had these discussions many times. This is more so—has anything changed? Have we received additional feedback that might cause an amendment or alteration? I am of the opinion that when it comes to paying off the land for the ball fields, I believe is in the interest of this community for our long term. When it comes to ensuring that half of our budget that is for public safety—that those additional chiefs are necessary, captains are necessary. We're hiring one additional public works staff when I think we know there's more labor that's necessary to maintain and have the park system that our residents ask for and are expecting. Between that and inflation—it's not just inflation, it's those additional costs for things that are necessary for the city. **[00:41:35] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** I am not in a place where I feel comfortable saying here's something to eliminate. I do feel reasonably confident—actually I feel fully confident—that the items in this budget align with the expectations the public has for the services that the city should be providing. I have not received a single comment, email, phone call or text saying this service should be cut in order to change the levy. Not a one. And what I have received consistently over time and time again is: "thank you to our law enforcement," "thank you to our fire staff who are there on a moment's notice," "thank you for having quality parks," "thank you for having roads that are far better than they were before." Than any of us were on here—far better things are improving. **[00:42:25] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** And I guess the last thing I just want to say is part of this cost is planning for the future. One of the changes that happened in the past is we went from having a five-year plan—it's called a capital improvement program (CIP)—to a 10-year plan to say we know there are costs coming up. When is this playground going to need to be replaced? When are these road projects? And it applies for water, sewer, it applies for parks, roads, things that are big cost things. And now it's a 10-year thing which allows us to budget properly. If you saw from that presentation, a lot of these things are putting money aside to pay for those future costs so we don't have a massive jump from one year to the next. Because as much as this is an increase, I would prefer these types of increase than one that is an absurd jump that is not defensible. I believe fiscal responsibility in my view is planning for the future and being responsible, being transparent, planning for depreciation, knowing what your future costs are and doing the best that you can to plan for that future because it—to me—it's not about necessarily tomorrow. It's about the next week, the next year, and 10 years from now. It's all of those. And I think this budget is moving in that direction, which is all I have to say. **[00:43:35] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** A couple of additional comments. One is there's some discussion by the residents about the franchise fee, and the franchise fee of course replaces a tax levy. One thing realize: a franchise fee goes to everyone and not everyone pays taxes in the city. So by using franchise fees to pay for some of these costs—half it goes to the parks and half goes into street improvements—we expand the base and reduce the amount actually paid by our residents because we have tax exempt entities and it spreads that burden over everybody. You may not like it but it's better than putting them on the property taxes per se. **[00:44:15] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** I think the only comment that I would repeat is I think we could reduce the amount of the levy increase by phasing some things in over greater length of time, but I already made that discussion at our previous meetings. I'm not going to repeat it. The other question I had though looking over the budget document was in the enterprise funds: we're talking about going to a separate capital fund for each utility. I personally see no value in that. They're enterprise funds. They're fairly straightforward and simple. Now start pulling money out and put a capital fund makes it difficult and complicated for our residents to follow what's going on in them. We talk about rate increases—I know some cities do them. I can tell you that in my experience the major utilities don't do that, just because it makes it more cumbersome. But that's just my opinion. May not be shared by everybody. **[00:45:00] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** That's—I'm sensitive to people and their need. You know, property tax are going up $179 a year. Doesn't sound like a huge amount—it is $15 a month—but you know, you're having a hard time paying your mortgage and your electric bill, it's a burden on you when you have to make that decision. On the other hand, I do think the operating costs increases we're looking at are needed. Our population is growing. We need to be able to support them. And those increases, I think, will provide—enable us to maintain and improve our level of service. And I think they're good expenditures. Thank you. **[00:45:40] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Thank you, Council Member Hirn. **[00:45:42] Council Member Matt Hirn:** I guess I'll just touch on the transparency part first because that just—with the public comment on that. And I think this is challenging because you know, I think if someone's kind of seeing the report tonight possibly for the first time, hearing the discussion tonight, it might seem like well, there's not a lot of discussion about this. And to me this was even kind of counterintuitive the first year that I did this. And I'd say probably the majority of the discussion happened back in August during that initial conversation. And you know, I think I need to do a better part as a council member making that known to residents that if—you know, that's really the time I think that we need more residents paying attention and coming and voicing their concern. **[00:46:25] Council Member Matt Hirn:** If you go back and watch these, you'll see throughout I've been pretty critical of the amount of increase. Initially in August, it was looking at a 20% increase. Was very critical of that. We got it down to a 14% increase. I was still very critical about that at our September meeting as well as our—we kind of reviewed with the financial—the long-term financial planning meeting, which was not one of the budget calendar meetings. But I've been very concerned with this even at the 14%. **[00:47:00] Council Member Matt Hirn:** But still, just with the transparency piece for a second: I think again we can always do a better job communicating that and getting that information out. I think from my standpoint with the levies, which again—not that I 100% agree with them in the first place—but I do think from a transparency standpoint that they actually do provide more transparency in the sense of we're saying, "Hey, the funds that are coming in from these levies that we're using with the infrastructure reserve levy, the street maintenance levy, the vehicle equipment levy—we're being very transparent with like those funds are going towards those items." And again, me personally, I do like that transparency. I don't like the amount that we're asking to go into those, but I do like the transparency aspect of it. **[00:47:45] Council Member Matt Hirn:** I will go back to the—it was the November 12th workshop where we were presented with the three different options for if we fund the infrastructure reserve fund with 200,000 versus 400,000 versus 500,000. I think—which again I really appreciate that that was put together for us—I think that showed that we can absolutely decrease that amount that we're putting in there from 400,000 down to 200,000 and we're absolutely still being fiscally responsible. We're moving towards our goal of decreasing that debt load from 55 million down towards 25 million versus if we go to 400,000 over those next 12 years it decreases to 20 million instead of 25 million. Both of those are significantly a better place for us to be in. **[00:48:30] Council Member Matt Hirn:** I still feel very strongly that 14% is too high of an increase. Again, I'll go back to that August workshop. I think I went through line by line on the general fund expenses and you know, I challenged items there and got pushback on that, which is fine, right? Staff knows best what's needed for those situations. I'm going to every single year push back on that a little bit because I do totally agree—and again I think I've made this pretty apparent throughout the last several months—that I do get a little frustrated that a lot of the conversation (and this was mentioned in the public hearing) is always "how do we increase revenue, aka taxes?" with very little talk about what can we do to decrease these or decrease the rate of increase. **[00:49:15] Council Member Matt Hirn:** And I do think there needs to be more focus on that and it's tough. We have to do it personally with our personal finances; we have to do that as a city. So that still is my frustration so far with this year: I don't think we've brought it down enough. I think I might be in the minority on that. But I am against this increase. I think we need to decrease that infrastructure reserve fund to 200,000. I think we could decrease the both the street and maintenance levy as well as the vehicle and equipment levy to be consistent with the CPI increase over the past year. So, decrease both of those, you know, another 50,000 total between the two of those. That could decrease our total levy by 250,000. That makes it an 11% increase, which still is too high, but moving in the right direction. And as much as I would like to say I'd love to see a 3% increase consistent with inflation—that's not reasonable. We're a growing city. We're going to have more expenses and we got to cover those. But I do think we need to look at decreasing this further. I think it's still too high. Thank you. **[00:50:15] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Well, I'll just say yes, we've talked about this quite a bit and like Council Member Hirn, I did go through line by line and understand that we have a lot of expenses. Probably one of the largest ones that we've experienced increases with is with our fire department and providing that service for the city and moving into more of a 24-hour, 7 days a week service that, quite frankly, is necessary for the public safety. And as a city, previously debt has never really been addressed. We keep adding on debt and our debt load is getting to a point where it's not really—wasn't—it hasn't been managed. And so by getting some of these levies in place, I think sets the city in the long term. Is it a big chunk right now? Yes, I agree. But and you could stop it, but then you're not getting rid of the debt, at least how I would like to see the debt reduced over the long term to put the city in a more financially viable situation. **[00:51:10] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** The increases that we saw in 2022 and 2023 were not recognizing the general increases that the country as a whole saw from COVID and the increases that were taking place. Let's remember that we're paying for increases on health insurance—a lot of things that quite frankly come down from whether it's national legislation or state legislation, effect on what it costs residents every day for the things that we use. I've lived in this community for 20 years. I've been very fortunate at the low taxes that we have. I still think relatively speaking, they're low and I get great services. They have great parks. The sheriff's department does a great job in policing our community, and I still think that's of a high value. **[00:51:55] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Would I like to see it lower? Yes. But again, after going through the line asking myself, "what are we going to cut out?" and I didn't see where we're cutting out. It's adding three captains. It's increases in general. I don't know—health insurance is 10%. I mean, these things cost more. If we want to be competitive wage-wise for public works department, you got to be paying competitive wages or you're not going to get the staff that are going to be able to plow your roads and take care of your streets and clear out your drain system. So, I get it. On the surface I agreed, but I also when going through the budget did not find where there were large chunks other than in decreasing the levy like you said, Council Member Hirn, and reducing—taking longer to do some of that. And I'm just of a different opinion. I'd rather attack it and I just think that sets up for future long-term success. Craig—Council Member Kragness. **[00:52:45] Council Member Nick Kragness:** Yeah, I just want to echo what the mayor was saying and Council Member Holtz. I do agree that we just need to attack this. Of course, I'd love to see a tax rate lower than a 14% increase, but with the debt that we have and the growing city, I just think that it's a necessary increase as of now. And Clarissa, I just want to thank you for putting this together. This mailer is extremely digestible for people to see exactly where their funds are going to. Also the budget calendar—knowing that this wasn't just a one-time meeting. We've met about this several times. And like Council Member Holtz, I haven't gotten any emails or texts or anything like that with any dissenting opinions about the tax levy tonight. So, I just appreciate all the hard work that got put into this. So, thank you. **[00:53:30] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** Thank you. If I may, mayor. Could I just give some kudos to my staff and Kathy, our communications coordinator. So, we did put together a one-pager for you guys to hand out and then we're going to be emailing it out and it will be in the fresh. So, just hopefully digestible. I know it's still math and taxes and budgets, but—and then the budget book. I got a lot of help from my finance staff to put that together. Just kind of up our game a little bit with the presentation of some of these numbers. And of course, I am always willing to sit down with people like Cliff and talk about how my—this 14% tax levy increase does not necessarily equate to a 14% on your taxes. Happy to run anybody's numbers using their actual values. **[00:54:15] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Sure. Thank you. So I'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion to approve resolution 2025-084 setting the 2026 property tax levy adopting various 2026 budgets. Please signify by saying I. **[00:54:30] Council Members Holtz, Cadenhead, Kragness:** I. **[00:54:31] Council Member Matt Hirn:** I. **[00:54:32] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Those opposed? **[00:54:33] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** [Indicates opposition] **[00:54:34] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Okay. Passes 3-2. Next we have—you to stay up there—as we talk about the 2026-2035 Capital Improvement Program. **[00:54:45] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** I'm going to fly through this kind of quick because again you guys have heard this before. So the CIP is very simply our plan for the big stuff we need. So, we moved from a five-year to a 10-year, I believe two years ago now. And it just is giving us a lot better picture of our long-term needs. So, we're using that for the capital improvement planning. We're using it for debt planning, the levy planning. So, taking all of this information and wrapping our heads around the long-term needs of the city. I added our guiding principles which are our core strategies that were developed in the strategic plan earlier this year. I listed some of our funding sources and how our priority rankings work within the plan. **[00:55:30] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** Just going to mention the funding sources. You'll notice a number of these are then related directly to those capital levies. So, I believe like Council Member Hirn stated, it is just a more transparent way to show where our tax dollars are going and kind of where they feed in long term. So, our 10-year plan currently includes 141 projects. And then we have it broken down by department. So you'll see quite a few of those are public works departments—and so many that I put together this little chart which shows you can't even see the colors for Admin Building and City Hall. Fire is the little blue sliver and then purple is Public Works. So if we think of this in terms of our home, some of our largest personal purchases are things that are related to our home. And so our city is just one big house. **[00:56:15] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** So this is what it looks like if we take out the water treatment plant. So the water treatment plant will be started in theory in the coming year—that is going to be funded hopefully by MPCA. Every time we have these conversations I get a little bit nervous. And that's $50 million of the— **[00:56:35] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Just correction, that's not funded by the MPCA. It's funded through the 3M fund that's managed by the MPCA. **[00:56:45] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** Thank you. Thank you. So, of the 126 million total projects, 50 of that is that water treatment plant. So, still quite a few in Public Works. So, here's Public Works by our subtypes. So, we've got our vehicles and equipment, public works buildings, our parks, and then our infrastructure being the largest segment. And then if we break up infrastructure even further into streets, water, sewer, and storm water—plenty of fun charts. **[00:57:15] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** Quick rundown by department. Admin and Finance: we have the second year of our software implementation. We are super excited about that in January. So that is being split between general fund water and sewer. The building department has four vehicles and so they have one vehicle purchase in the next two years. Within city hall we are just starting again and we started this—the operations side—the internal service fund that we build back to the general fund and then we also set up the capital fund to plan for—to try and cover the depreciation of building. Long-term planning for replacing rugs and HVAC stuff. And then we did have some things that were discussed. I added them to the CIP just to have them in a budget and somewhere where we can manage. All of these are still some—some of these are kind of still up for discussion and final numbers and such. **[00:58:10] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** The Fire Department has Tender 2, which was approved for purchase and ordered in 2025, but we'll be paying for it here in the next couple years. And then a utility vehicle and then Public Works. The Public Works department includes streets and general public works, parks, water, sewer, and storm water. For the CIP breakdown, I break it down by the vehicles and equipment, the buildings and some other stuff, parks, and then infrastructure is broken out into streets, water, sewer, and storm water. We have four vehicles and equipment being purchased in the next couple of years. 30 projects total. They're going to be doing some finishing of the floors. The Jamaica building needs some paving and then they're looking at doing a security fence and gate at the Public Works building. **[00:59:00] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** Parks and Recreation: these projects are typically funded through the park dedication fund which is funded by developers. And so we have a new park pavilion—I believe the location is to be determined. Some trail additions and maintenance, court resurfacing, and some playground replacements. Streets: this council adopted the street infrastructure plan in July. That, I believe, was when Jack presented that. And so we take all of that information from that plan and build it into the CIP. So I won't rehash those too much. Just want to touch on the funding sources again. Sort of going back to the mayor's point about debt: these street projects have been largely funded by debt in the past and so we started that infrastructure capital levy in order to decrease that over time. So, our funding sources for streets include a mix of some bonding, the infrastructure fund, special assessments for some of those streets, Minnesota state aid again will be deposited directly into that 409 fund used to fund these projects, and then potentially some transfers from the general fund. **[00:59:55] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** And just to be clear, some of that 27 projects includes projects that we have to participate in that are being done by others. The county—when we have to do our cost participation, right? That's not purely city-driven projects. **[01:00:10] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** Absolutely. So, for the next couple years, we have our annual street improvement program, which are typically neighborhood streets, the 45th—a whole bunch of streets there. And then to the mayor's point, the county project: so the Trunk Highway 36 and Lake Elmo Avenue improvements. I believe our contribution to that is $5 million tentatively at this time—to be determined. We also are looking at a long-term plan to fund street lights. So we've started to work these in. We have just a couple of replacements I believe we need to figure out for the next couple years and then the rest are a little ways out. But we're again just kind of starting to build that plan. **[01:00:55] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** The Water fund funds all of our capital improvements for water. So again, these are utilities that are paid directly by users. These do not come out of property taxes. I should say users and development. There are development fees and so wells, water towers, water treatment facilities which are largely funded by the grant funds and then water mains and some pumps. The sewer fund similarly paid by users. We have the only major expenditure is some oversizing and then storm water is our both our structures and then also some ponds, ditches and such are all included in that. And so we have penciled in some phase two improvements at the Northstar which is oversizing I guess, and then some other system improvements that are being worked on by engineering to kind of determine what we need. Funding and debt—I already touched on this and I'll just add the franchise fees that are being deposited into the infrastructure fund. So half of all of those franchise fees are going directly towards our capital improvements on streets. That's it. **[01:01:55] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Questions for—Council Member Dragisich. **[01:02:00] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Looking through this again, I still remain confused as to our street improvement projects. While we don't have storm water funding—storm water utility funding as a source for those storm water improvements that go into our street improvements—we have catch basins and pipes and of course portion of the curb and gutters is for storm water flow and so it would provide some additional source of revenue there that would be appropriate because they support the storm water. And we can't resolve that tonight anyway, I just bring that up because I want to keep it in the back of our mind as we get to that project for funding for 2026 and say: what portion should be funded from storm water, and then if the fund can actually afford—that's the second question. So it—there's two pieces there—but I just want to keep that in people's minds because it would relieve some of the debt we've been issuing to finance the streets. Thank you. **[01:02:50] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Council Member Holtz. **[01:02:52] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Can you remind me—or Chief—can you remind me for Tender 2, the cost, but also how much we saved by doing it in this year instead of potentially for next year when we knew the costs were going to dramatically increase? **[01:03:05] Dustin Kalis (Fire Chief):** Yeah, when we locked into pricing when we placed the order, overall project for that was I believe 1.2 million. I think by getting in early, we saved roughly $50,000 by getting in and securing a pre-emissions change power plant for the truck. Given timelines there there's a possibility that complete truck gets completed in '26. So we might not have '27 expenses for that truck where we currently are planning for that in the fund. We do an early chassis payment when the chassis gets delivered to the plant. We do a prepayment then, which I think for this truck was an 11% discount back to the price of the truck, and then when the truck is completed and we take final delivery, then we make final payment. But, with the early purchase—just going a few months early and getting our spot in line and securing that power pet—we were right around $55,000 savings. **[01:04:00] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Gotcha. Thank you. And then engineering wise—because Cliff made a comment, "well, government never talks about savings." I can go into discussion as to why that is, there are bureaucratic reasons that are valid, but in terms when we go out for bids for projects, like I know this has been discussed before, we have a goal of trying to get it out on the front end. Is there a way to document or objectively state how much money that saves compared to if the bids were done later? Because I know that's been the argument: when you do later bids, you have fewer people, therefore you're not as competitive. But is there a way that in the future we can just have that as a data point to say here's the money that we saved because we were proactive and got these bids out early or is it—or is that more of a hypothetical? **[01:04:45] Chad Isakson (Assistant City Engineer):** Mayor and council, to that question I'll have to say that is more of a hypothetical. It'd be very hard to measure that. What I will say is that generally when you do get out to bid sooner you're going to get better pricing because there's kind of less work on the street. Contractors are trying to set up their season. And it's a good general rule of thumb. You know, like the early bird gets the worm, right? Typically you'll see bid prices go up as the construction season goes on. It's something we can certainly look into and maybe just provide a little feedback to that point. **[01:05:25] Adam Swanepoel (Interim Public Works Director):** I would just like to add that a previous employer when I managed our overlay program—that managed somewhere in the 8 to 11 million a year—the first year I was there, we didn't get our bids out to package until May. And the price per ton for bituminous was really high. Then we vowed to get it out in February or March. So the thought is they're not full of work. They might have some carryover work from the year before, but you get more bidders, you get more competition. As the season goes on, those contractors who are successful in their bids get full, and they'll do it, but they'll do it for a price, right? So you'll get really competitive bids on your bituminous asphalt in early and then you might see that price go up or they're going to have to work their guys longer, they have to hire more people to do more work and so that just exacerbates the problem on getting your bids out late. So it's to me it's really important to get it in February or March when that competition's there. **[01:06:20] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Mayor, I'll concur on that. As someone who actually prepared competitive bids for street projects for a contractor, I can tell you that the bidding is much more competitive in February and March for the reasons you cited. And the contractor I provided the bids for, we get later in the year, we'd have a pretty full calendar, say, "Well, we're going to bid this, but we're going to bid it at a premium because if we get it, we're going to make a lot of money, and if we don't get it, we're already booked up." So I can confirm what you're saying, but I don't know that you can measure that. It'd be more speculation. **[01:06:55] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Gotcha. Right. And then question for Public Works—and correct me on this. I mean we had the joint meeting with parks commission and parks commission then had additional meetings when it came to the discussion of Lions Park playground equipment. Because there's a reason that is the largest allocation—there's valid reasons for it—but where are we on that spec? It's allocated for '26. What steps have occurred at this point now for Lions specifically for the playground replacement? **[01:07:25] Adam Swanepoel (Interim Public Works Director):** So the playground replacement did come back to city council and was approved for the replacement of that playground. **[01:07:35] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Yep. And more so this is for the public side, but we have that and then we have multiple shelters in line year by year by year, but that is not a discussion that we've really had in terms of do we want to continue with that. **[01:07:45] Adam Swanepoel (Interim Public Works Director):** Correct, because—I'm more so trying to lay the groundwork for you know, people are asking for cost reductions. That is a large one that already occurred for Lions Park but there are other opportunities coming up. So I'm asking the questions to start to lay that groundwork. Thank you. **[01:08:00] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Further questions? All right. I'll entertain a motion to adopt the 2026-2035 Capital Improvement Program. **[01:08:05] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Motion to adopt the 2026 to 2035 Capital Improvement Program. **[01:08:07] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Is there a second? **[01:08:08] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Second. **[01:08:09] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** We have a motion and a second. Discussion. **[01:08:11] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** I would add—as you know, we have a capital improvement program but it's not etched in stone. It's a program and we will use it as a guide going forward but things may change along the way. And I want to put my point to the public as we've talked before: oftentimes staff presents a problem—well, this isn't in our capital improvement program—that's true. Council has a choice then to continue doing it, change it, make it bigger, make it smaller, or get rid of it, because it's just a guide at this point. **[01:08:40] Council Member Matt Hirn:** And so, off to that point: that is why I am okay with this motion and in favor of it. I do have concerns because my only concern with that mindset is that causes what we're trying to raise in those fund levies—it causes us to increase that amount because we're trying to make projections based off of those. So, I think we have to be really cautious of saying, "well, you know, this isn't a for sure thing," but it is what we're raising taxes based off of. So, I think we have to be really careful with that. **[01:09:10] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Again, I think this goes back to: if this is somebody's first time hearing us talk about this, it might not seem like much has been talked about. But again, with the previous workshops and council meetings where we've discussed this, there's been a lot of this conversation. Again, I've had a lot of concerns with this. I just—I think in general we have to look at this again from that perspective of what can we do to cut this. You know, I think with those conversations, the ones that have kind of been brought up the most is—and at least like from my perspective—I think a couple areas that we can focus on are the streets specifically. It's by far the largest item—the largest expense in the CIP. So, even a small percentage change just in that one area is going to make a really big impact on the whole CIP. **[01:10:00] Council Member Matt Hirn:** I think the playgrounds—that's something that we've discussed quite a bit from the sense of we've had the conversation around: do we consolidate playgrounds? Instead of having 20 small playgrounds that cost $200,000 to replace every 20 years at today's price, instead do we go with 10 playgrounds that maybe cost $100,000 more but we're not having to replace them as often? Does that make more sense? I think those are a couple areas that we can focus on over the next year. **[01:10:30] Council Member Matt Hirn:** I think two other things: I think it might be worthwhile keeping priority four and five items out of the CIP altogether. Um, at least at Priority 5. Or at a bare minimum seeing what the price looks like without Priority 5 in there. I think by including Priority 4 and 5, it's kind of like the wish list is how I see it. And I don't even think we should be doing that. I think we somehow need to be aware of those things—that might be a possibility of something we need—but I hate putting them in the CIP because then again, we're raising taxes today based off of a wish list is how I see that. So, I do think that maybe we need to consider at least removing Priority 5 from the CIP. We can have a list of, "hey, these are projects that we need to consider for future CIPs that might be a Priority 1 through 3." But I think we keep them out of there so we can have a better idea of tax-wise what we need to be raising. **[01:11:30] Council Member Matt Hirn:** And I guess this kind of goes to my second ask of staff over the next year. And maybe it's just simply doing that, but you know, if we could just do a like a thought experiment of looking at that CIP and say, "hey, if we had to cut 10%. What do we do?" Not that it has to happen, but so we have that ability to say when residents come and ask us, "well, what are you—how are we trying to save money? what have we tried to do to decrease taxes or to increase it at a slower rate?" You know, we can come back and say, "Hey, these were the things that we looked at as a council. We said, you know what, we couldn't make those cuts. We need those services." But at least we've taken the look at how do we possibly decrease expenses. And hopefully it does decrease them, but at a bare minimum, at least we're going through the action of trying to find a way to slow down this increase. Um, those would be my two asks. But again, you know, I think a lot of work's been put into it this year. I'm fine with it. It's different from the budget in the sense of it's not increasing our taxes per se as a result of what we're approving tonight, but I do think we need to make some changes with those priority four and five. I think we need to be very conscientious of when these items come up, which we do—do we need—is it time to replace the vehicle or can it make another year? And again, through our conversations that we've had, I know that's been thoroughly discussed—you know, yeah, we're not just getting the vehicle because it's at the seven-year mark. We're looking at: is it time? So, I know that's happening. Um yeah. **[01:12:55] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** I really like the idea of probably removing four and five from a cost perspective as they are there. I think that's something we should look at. I like that idea. Um, did you want to say something else or keep going? **[01:13:05] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** No, I—because I've mentioned that before in previous meetings when like when Jack was here and I don't know if it is to you as well that yes, at a minimum Number 5—when we're doing future analyses and projections, at a minimum Number 5 should not be in the calculation. I think arguably Number 4. Now we could have it be a ranking of 10 numbers for all that matters. When I look at those numbers, I agree with Council Member Hirn and the Mayor. Five is "let's identify it as a placeholder," but we're not even placing a value on it. I don't know if four is or isn't. I mean, again, we could have 20 numbers for all that matters. I could have six numbers, but for sure, absolutely. Let's in the future analyses keep five off there for how much we are choosing to put in place because you are correct: that determines how much we're putting in for the future costs. **[01:13:55] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** And as an example, the new park pavilions I think should be a five. They are great to have, but if the feedback is—and I cannot stand the phrase because it's not true—"tighten your belt." Well, that's an example. That's an amenity. It's a choice. It's not a necessity. It's nice to have and if we really, really want it, there are other ways to generate revenue such as partnerships with HOAs or donations, etc. That, to me, is a prime example of a Number 5 that we should not be projecting the revenues for. But I also am fully aware some of these things that are on here are not being paid for with the levy in any way, shape, or form. Such as a park development at Limerick—I'm fully aware that's coming from park dedication if they get approval and they would be paying for it. So it does depend upon the project, but I digress. I think in the future we should have that discussion as to where that cutoff is. Council Member Hirn. **[01:14:45] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Obviously this would be in the further discussions. Again, I just—my initial concern is we would have to think about the details on that, though. You know, if we take out—we say, "hey, no more Priority 4 and 5"—do they just turn into Priority 3 then? Right. And so I think we'd have to really talk through: how do we go about that? Maybe we keep them, but we just don't put them into the price. **[01:15:05] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** You keep the name only. Yeah. **[01:15:07] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Right. Like so we don't forget about it. **[01:15:10] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Yeah, and I mean that's kind of along the lines I was thinking. So yeah, I don't want to see it be gamed this way as: oh it's an Item 4, the council's not even going to consider it. I think I think we set up our strategies and our key initiatives at the beginning of the year with stakeholders and the council and the staff. Um, I think that's what drives a lot of, you know, the first two years into the year three. So, anyway. **[01:15:35] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** All right. Um, all those in favor of the motion to adopt 2026-2035 Capital Improvement Program, please signify by saying I. **[01:15:42] Council Members:** I. **[01:15:43] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Motion passes. You got your standing shoes on tonight. You got the 2026 Fee Schedule here. **[01:15:50] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** Okay. So, um I'm going to have to defer to staff if we have any questions. This is a very collaborative effort. So, we just have a few minor changes to the fee schedule this year. Other than—in—as I was listening to Adam discuss the policy revision I don't think those park fees got revised in this version of the fee schedule. So, if we could help me figure out a motion to amend the fee schedule according to the—what did we just adopt? Park use policy. Um, we would take those and build it into the fee schedule before we publish it. That would be very helpful. **[01:16:35] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** So, the Fire Department added a fee for some CPR classes that have some costs to them which require a certification card. Building department added an escrow for in-ground pools and some other projects near easements—just recognizing some of the costs that come along with some of these projects and making sure that those are covered by the property owner. They removed the plan review fee for residential rooftop solar because the state does that full plan review. Planning then added design review fee when not part of a project. They reduced the minimum grading threshold from 50 to 10 cubic yards due to coordination with engineering and watershed. And then an escrow fee—add an escrow fee when selling city property to ensure that the buyer is aware that they pay all costs. Fairly minor changes. It's my only slide with the rundown. And we have staff members here to answer questions as needed. **[01:17:35] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Can I get the thought process on the reduction from 50 cubic yards to 10 cubic yards, please? **[01:17:40] Nicole Miller (City Administrator):** So, when they're in a shoreline overlay, we're required to do a grading review. So, just make sure that they have a permit. **[01:17:50] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Is there a way to limit that then to areas that fall within a shoreland overlay? **[01:17:55] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** I believe we added that language actually. **[01:18:00] Nicole Miller (City Administrator):** That language is in there. It's just—yeah. So, maybe the summary didn't quite capture what we actually did. So, there's two lines: one that retained the original fee for the up to 50 or 50 and over square yards—$400—and then added another one for shoreland. **[01:18:15] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Okay. Because there might be some farms that don't have a shoreland and they want to move some dirt and most significantly it's going to—it's more likely going to be more than 10 cubic yards and I don't need an added layer in some of those. **[01:18:25] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** Okay. **[01:18:26] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Council Member Holtz. **[01:18:27] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Do we have—for those present—an estimate as to how many water violations were issued this past summer? And I will rephrase: how many locations are we—like in the 10 to 15 properties, 20 properties, notices or they received a violation or—? **[01:18:40] Adam Swanepoel (Interim Public Works Director):** Findable violation? I'd probably say this year was probably total of three to four. **[01:18:45] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Okay. Has it decreased over—well, obviously because there's a wet summer anyway, we know water usage went down overall—but do you think there's been a decrease in terms of the continued violation trends? Like I know in prior years there are many people that had second violation, third violation, fourth violation, but that did not seem to occur at least this summer or even the past summer. **[01:19:05] Adam Swanepoel (Interim Public Works Director):** Correct. That's trending down very fast. I'd say in the last three years it's gone down tremendously. **[01:19:10] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Right. Thank you. **[01:19:12] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** When we're looking at the fees and adopting new fees and even the fees we have, are they based in any cost analysis that says: here's what it cost us to actually administer this fee? **[01:19:25] Adam Swanepoel (Interim Public Works Director):** So if you look at meter fees—meter fees are, you know, your schedule, your meter and the housing, the brackets, everything like that. So that's all—there's no increase in cost of that. So even if a Public Works director drops that off, that fee is just the materials involved with it. So there's no additional fees attached to that. **[01:19:40] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** So in a cost analysis, Public Works—we pay him for his time or her for time. They're in a vehicle that drives it out there that uses gas. And you know, generally when you look at the fees, you try and base them on what is your cost to provide the service so that you're collecting what it costs you but you're not overcharging either. We have some limits on the building permit fees as we know but other fees—there's a fee analysis done that tells us the fee should be this because that's what the cost is to provide the service. This—I—it was just a question. I'm not— **[01:20:15] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** I would hope that staff is looking at what the time it takes them to do some of the activities and then charging the appropriate amount for the time and the expense—the overhead that it takes to do that activity. **[01:20:30] Nicole Miller (City Administrator):** I would say most of our fees have been around longer than most of our staff, honestly. So I don't—I can't think of when a formal fee analysis was done. Um, I'm sure that all of us when we're implementing new fees are—you know, our basic process is to look at what other cities are charging and contemplate if that's going to cover our at least partially cover our staff time. **[01:20:55] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Yeah, that's something we can talk about. I just—the question was: how did you get to these fees? It occurred to me perhaps an analysis was or wasn't done and you answer the question. I'm okay. Just information, that's all. **[01:21:05] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Well, the one where I could see it being potentially higher—on for planning purposes—the EAW. How much time does staff take? And it's rare like there might only be one EAW every two years, but it's at $1,500. I mean, is that representative? Because there's a lot of back and forth. I get they'd have to hire a consultant, but I assume it takes a lot of time on your end as well. **[01:21:25] Nicole Miller (City Administrator):** It would take more time, but since they were going through our consultant, they're paying the consultant cost. So, um I think $1,500 is adequate as long as we're still using the consultant going forward. **[01:21:35] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** All right. I'll entertain a motion for discussion. **[01:21:38] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Motion to approve Ordinance 2025-18 adopting the 2026 City of Lake Elmo Fee Schedule and to include the park use policy that we approved tonight. **[01:21:45] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Good catch. Got it. **[01:21:46] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** Second. **[01:21:47] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** All right. We have a motion to approve Ordinance 2025-18 adopting the 2026 City of Lake Elmo feed schedule including the park plan policy that was previously approved this evening on the agenda. Any discussion? **[01:22:00] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** I guess the one thing I would say is that maybe staff could in the future—this coming year—make sure that they look over the fees and make sure they are appropriate given the—the one thing, at least my previous experience, is that sometimes because cities are not for profit, right? So you forget about some of the expenses that you incur in doing this. Some of the services that you do where a consultant or a private company is going to say, "Well, I got to pay for this. I got to pay for this. It's going to take my time. I got to drive there, my equipment." Whatever. Just take a look at the fees and make sure that they're still appropriate. Um, if they haven't been changed in 15 years, I would say they're probably low. And do a comparison with our sister cities, because these are services that we provide to whether it's businesses or residents that need these things done for normal business. So, um that—that's my only comment there. Council Member Holtz. **[01:22:45] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** And the only comment I had based upon your feedback, Adam—I was going to be seeing if there was interest in drastically upgrading the violation amounts for water, but I don't know if this was a good sample last two years because it was wet summers. And I do have fears as to how others in power outside the city may want cities in this area to be carrying out and enforcing the requirements of the White Bear Lake lawsuit. And so I just—that's one piece. So maybe in the back of our minds, especially if we do have a dry summer this year and we start to see those violations, it might be for discussion next fall to see you know, what are those levels where actually would change behavior on the violations? But again, the last two years it didn't happen, mainly because there wasn't a need to overwater. But yeah, I agree with the mayor. **[01:23:35] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** All right, I'll call the question. All those in favor of the motion to approve an ordinance 2025-18 adopting the 2026 City of Lake Elmo Fee Schedule including the new parks plan policy rates. Signify by saying I. **[01:23:45] Council Members:** I. **[01:23:46] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Motion passes. Entertain a motion for authorizing publication. **[01:23:50] Council Member Matt Hirn:** Motion to adopt resolution 2025-085 authorizing publication of ordinance 2025-18 by title and summary. **[01:23:55] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Can I get a second? **[01:23:56] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Second. **[01:23:57] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Thank you. All those in favor of the motion to adopt resolution 2025-085 authorizing the publication of said ordinance. Please signify by saying I. **[01:24:00] Council Members:** I. **[01:24:01] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Motion is approved. Council reports. Council Member Dragisich. **[01:24:05] Council Member Nick Dragisich:** No report. **[01:24:06] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Council Member Holtz. **[01:24:08] Council Member Jeff Holtz:** Uh, this is the last meeting of the year for the council. So thank you to staff—all those who are here tonight and those who are not. And thank you to fellow council members. To me, like, part of being up here—I always thought being on council, one of the purposes I wanted to see was to make government boring again. And because truly like, we've seen instances of local government where there's drama or yelling where they have to hire a parliamentarian—we are past that, and part of that is because of you all. We have disagreements. We just had a 3-2 vote. We don't go after each other. We don't bring it out into the streets to create rhetoric and to inflame things. We are able to have agreements and disagreements and know that being able to do the job effectively and to do it as adults—it matters. So, thank you for that. And I would say it starts with leadership from the mayor. So, thank you. **[01:25:00] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Um, yeah, so 2025—I want to thank staff for what I think was a really great year. A lot of moving things. Uh, first full year for Administrator Miller, right? So getting her feet underneath her and doing great things I think with the staff and I see better morale in the staff and good things coming from that. I want to thank Public Works for the snow plow clearing, kind of the first major event. I think it was done well. I want to thank the residents for their patience because it usually takes a couple of rounds to get that all done. I didn't—I didn't hear any complaints, which I think is great. **[01:25:40] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** I was able to last week—I missed because I ended up with the flu that's going around, but I know the weekend prior to that we had "Light Up Lake Elmo." And thanks again for the fire staff helping making sure Santa Claus got delivered to downtown and the Public Works staff for helping off closing the rounds. Again, I'm always—my kids are grown, but I love seeing other people's kids smile and giggle and laugh and guess sometimes cry because maybe they didn't get the lights or whatever they wanted, right? But Council Member Holtz had a wonderful voice. Did get some singing along with him and thanks to Council Member Hirn helping with the PA system. Worked much better than previous years. **[01:26:20] Council Member Matt Hirn:** It did. That was a nice speaker. **[01:26:22] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** It is a nice speaker. So, um I just want to wish everybody a Merry Christmas or a Happy Hanukkah or however you choose to celebrate during this holiday season. And um yeah, thank you. Gosh, that is—I can't—it is kind of crazy. It is the last one of the year. So, I just—I'll go along with that as well and just thank staff for a great year and thank the council another year. Got another year coming up here for sure. So, looking forward to 2026. **[01:26:50] Council Member Nick Kragness:** Yeah, I just want to thank everybody in the city—staff, council, mayor. Um, it's my first full year on council and I appreciate everybody being very patient with me while I learn and drink from a fire hose here. This has been very eye-opening and I have a ton more respect for everybody that works in the city and who's on the council. This is a—it's a tough job. So, I appreciate everybody for being patient. Thank you. **[01:27:15] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** So, you didn't respect us prior to this? Staff reports. **[01:27:20] Nicole Miller (City Administrator):** Yeah. So, I just want to thank Sergeant Ty Jacobson. He was able to provide some training for our staff on personal safety and then awareness in our building. And I think it was impressive the turnaround, the ask that we asked of him, together and with that partnership with the sheriff's office. Even though we're a contract city, it really feels like they are our law enforcement departments. So that that went well. The staff really appreciated that. And then as well as our employee engagement committee—they continue to find ways for us to engage and have a little bit fun at work. The most recent activity was gingerbread house decorating. So that was a hit. **[01:28:05] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Was there a winner? **[01:28:06] Nicole Miller (City Administrator):** I wasn't here, was there? Who won again? **[01:28:10] Jennifer Doyle (Administrative Services Director):** First time she won. Oh, wait. No, it was your daughter. Okay. It was over lunch. So, they brought their lunches and we did it during lunch. A planner one. Style. **[01:28:20] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Chief? No. You guys moved around tonight. Trust me, I'm honestly kind of thrown up. Jennifer did. I know you got to talk a lot. You got anything more to say? **[01:28:30] Jennifer Doyle (Administrative Services Director):** Um, I probably should point out so with the new software—thank you again, council, for the new software. We'll be launching that in January. There will be a revision to utility bills. So, those will be going out in an envelope now. So, if everybody could kind of keep an eye out for that and tell your neighbors. And then there will be an option to sign up for paperless now. And there will be a new payment system, but we're not forcing people over to the new payment system until 2027. So, plenty of time to transition. **[01:29:05] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** So, you're saying it's in an envelope as opposed to the postcard, correct, that we get currently. Okay. **[01:29:10] Jennifer Doyle (Administrative Services Director):** Correct. So, just a change in how it looks and I know how the mail piles get. We just want everybody to keep an eye out. **[01:29:15] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Right. Miss Hadler? **[01:29:16] Clarissa Hadler (Finance Director):** No report. **[01:29:17] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Mr. Tholen? **[01:29:18] Pete Tholen (Public Works Director):** No report. **[01:29:19] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Mr. Swanepoel? **[01:29:20] Adam Swanepoel (Assistant Public Works Director):** No report. **[01:29:21] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Mr. Stanley? **[01:29:22] Nate Stanley (City Engineer):** No report. **[01:29:23] Mayor Charles Cadenhead:** Nothing further? Council? All right. With that, we will adjourn the meeting at 8:56.