City Council Workshop

WORKSHOP MINUTES OAKDALE CITY COUNCIL October 25, 2022 The City Council held a workshop on Tuesday, October 25, 2022 at Oakdale City Hall, 1584 Hadley Avenue North, Oakdale, Minnesota. The meeting began at 5:01 PM. Present: Mayor Paul Reinke Council Members: Jake Ingebrigtson Susan Olson Colleen Swedberg Kevin Zabel City Staff Members: Christina Volkers, City Administrator Jim Thomson, City Attorney, Kennedy & Graven Sara Ludwig, City Clerk Katie Robinson, Deputy City Clerk Andrew Gitzlaff, Community Development Director Luke McClanahan, City Planner Nick Newton, Police Chief Lori Pulkrabek, Communications Manager Jim Romanik, Public Works Manager Jamie Scheffer, City Staff Kevin Wold, Fire Chief Jason Zimmerman, Finance Director Other: Phil Carlson, Stantec Erin Perdu, Stantec Susan Vento, Metropolitan Council Commissioner Prior to any presentations and/or discussion, Mayor Reinke reminded the Council, staff and guests these workshop meetings are for information gathering, question clarifying, and no decision making will be made as a Council body. GLENBROOK SMALL AREA PLAN City Planner Luke McClanahan opened by stating that Erin Perdu and Phil Carlson with Stantec will present on the topic however, City staff will be available for any questions. Erin Perdu introduced Phil Carlson, Senior Planner with Stantec stating she and Phil are working in tandem on the Glenbrook area study. Mr. Carlson started out by stating the purpose of the presentation is to introduce the study and to see if there are any questions or comments for Stantec. He referenced the study area provided in the packet and pointed out the Glenbrook neighborhood as the small triangle. A larger study area had been identified bounded by Highway 36, Century Avenue, and 694 that may influence the study and be influenced by it. He stated there is no intent to make changes in the larger area, but Stantec would be looking to see what changes, if any, might be made in the Glenbrook area. WORKSHOP MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 2022 PAGE TWO He continued with the issues and key points in the study. One point of interest is the development and redevelopment on some of these properties. Stantec’s goal is to understand more about that. He continued stating one of the key points is the industrial properties intermixed with residential properties. The roadways are going to need to be looked at, as well as parks and trails. Stantec wants to make sure the neighborhood is well served. Stantec is going to conduct a market overview with research into what kind of uses might be successful here and at what scale. Mr. Carlson moved on to take a closer look at the neighborhood itself pointing out the mix of residential, commercial, and industrial all in close proximity. The direct accesses to Highway 36 may be closed which is in favor of the Hadley interchange just up the way and Century/Highway 120 just down at the corner. He mentioned there will be a future Highway 120 interchange at some point however it is not in anyone’s funding cycle, but we know it has been studied and will come up during the study and as a consideration. Mr. Carlson continued with an explanation of the concept map. The Hadley Ave interchange was recently built. The concept for a new Century/Hwy 120 interchange is designed to be very skinny to disrupt things as little as possible. Ideally, with a frontage road connection between those two interchanges it would come through the Glenbrook neighborhood and he raised the question how the other streets and uses would connect to that. Mr. Carlson moved on to the existing land use map. He pointed out the corner of the Glenbrook area as a mix of industrial, various residential, and commercial all mixed in together. He stated this mixed use along with the differing conditions of some of these properties are known issues. The next item discussed by Mr. Carlson was the future land use plan, which is now a few years old. In reference to the concept map, he pointed out the brown mixed-use areas, the commercial areas at the corner, which may stay the same or change, which is planned for recommendations in the next few months. Mr. Carlson stated that Stantec has probed into the background information including real estate value per square foot. On the concept map, he pointed out the fact that the north part of the Glenbrook triangle, which is labeled industrial, has the lowest property values. Additionally, he pointed out the large blue rectangle in the middle of the Glenbrook triangle indicating they are apartments with much higher value per square foot. Lastly, he pointed out that some of the other properties fall in the middle of those two aforementioned values. Stantec would look at these statistics along with others in the market that might inform this study. Mr. Carlson presented an outline with four phases of the Glenbrook small area plan spanning over the next nine months. He indicated the current meeting was the “Initiation Meeting” as noted on the outline. Other items within “Phase One” include putting together base maps and having stakeholder interviews and engagement. The stakeholders would include MnDot, Washington County, business owners, other property owners, residents, and the community at large. Stantec would like to get an understanding of the issues from those who have more knowledge of the area. WORKSHOP MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 2022 PAGE THREE “Phase Two” included drafting of goals, documenting stakeholder engagement goals, and having a City Council goals session. “Phase Three” included developing and discussing alternatives, and bringing those to the Planning Commission and City Council for review. The final phase would put together a plan that would give the City marching orders as to how to proceed. Mr. Carlson then turned the time over to City Council for their questions about the presented plan and its outcomes. He asked about any critical issues the Council would like to bring to Stantec’s attention. Lastly, he asked about opportunities the Council sees from this study. Erin Perdu added that if Council had questions or comments about the process or Stantec’s engagement strategy, they would answer those as well. Mayor Reinke indicated there were four or five questions raised prior to the meeting, but were answered to his satisfaction. He asked if any council members wanted more information about the slides or the direction Mr. Carlson outlined. Council Member Zabel asked for a clearer definition of stakeholders given the diverse land use in the given study area. He brought up the early focus on government partners that maintain the roadways; the language about major property owners that he assumed were business owners like Patio Town, etc. He asked what the full umbrella of stakeholders include. He noted this area has residential property owners and disability group homes, so even within the residential living area it does break down from there. He wanted to ensure Stantec is not missing a group as the City is trying to be all-encompassing with this project. Mr. Carlson indicated that Stantec’s intent is to reach out to all of the property owners. With some of the major business owners and property owners, Stantec would try to have one-on-one phone conversations or meetings with them. With the residential property owners, Stantec would send a mailing or email to invite them to a meeting or invite them to talk with Stantec as it is not feasible to have forty separate meetings. Stantec would make contact with all of them to invite their questions and input. Ms. Perdu added to Council Member Zabel’s point about the group homes stating it might be worth a separate meeting or virtual meeting with them specifically to talk about their needs as opposed to single-family or townhome owners that might have other ideas. She continued by stating Stantec tries to segregate them a little bit to focus the conversations, but she reiterated that all of the stakeholders mentioned by Council Member Zabel were within Stantec’s scope for this project. Council Member Olson asked where the group home housing is located in that area. Mr. Zabel said there were a couple behind Patio Town in that area. He added that most disability group homes occupy single-family residential housing. Mayor Reinke asked Andy Gitzlaff, Community Development Director if there was still a non- conforming use with the lumberyard that had a temporary flexible structure that the Council agreed to not deal with. Mr. Gitzlaff stated that might have happened before his time with the City of Oakdale, but attested that there are legal non-conforming uses out there. WORKSHOP MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 2022 PAGE FOUR Mayor Reinke clarified that the structure he mentioned is an illegal non-conforming structure, as it never was formally permitted. City staff will need to look into that. Council Member Swedberg asked for clarification on what is included in the study area, specifically if it would include the entire Glenbrook study area as shown on the concept map plus the Glenbrook neighborhood. She stated she thought the project was focused on the mixed-use, industrial, and residential area. She continued that she did not see a need to do the Glenbrook study area outside of the Glenbrook neighborhood area. Ms. Perdu clarified that the yellow area outlined on the concept map is where Stantec would make recommendations focused just in that area. The entire quadrant was included in the study area because of its influence, but there would be no recommendations for land use or other changes within the larger study area. Mayor Reinke stated the simplistic answer is to take a common sense approach to the study. He continued that there should be a transition plan in place if the goal is to get rid of the industrial properties within 20 years. He also pointed out the need to understand the implications of not allowing building permits in that area especially in relation to value. Council Member Zabel asked Mayor Reinke if he sees the options as either getting rid of industrial in that area then what happens or if it could be the residential that goes away and it all becomes industrial. Mayor Reinke asked a follow up question to the latter suggestion to clarify that industrial and commercial property would be brought all the way up to Highway 36. Council Member Zabel confirmed that was his question. Mayor Reinke stated either way seems to make sense. Council Member Swedberg agreed. Council Member Zabel stated that his opinion is wide open in either direction in reference to the two options he presented to the Mayor. Council Member Olson asked for clarification on the process once a decision is made. She wanted to know if the area would get rezoned. She provided an example of rezoning the area for industrial use and asked if a resident wanted to sell their house would they have to sell it to a developer who wanted to use it for industrial purposes. Mayor Reinke indicated that is not the case and Mr. Carlson confirmed. Mr. Carlson went on to explain that if a rezoning would take place, making the current use different than the zoning, that property would be able to change hands as many times as it wanted and it would continue as a home for as long as the owners wanted it there. It would become a legal non-conforming use. Council Member Ingebrigtson pointed out for this example, it would make the home harder to sell. Ms. Perdu agreed, and added it would be harder to get a loan to improve or expand the home. She presented another option to not proactively rezone to something else, but to understand that the transition plan is there, and there are other things that can be recommended. She continued by suggesting an option is to let the property owners drive the zoning. Council Member Zabel pointed out that there is nothing on the City side to guide how to deal with one of the bigger industrial parcels leaving. He acknowledged Stantec’s response to focus on the residential side, but stated his understanding of the goal of this study is to have a plan if there is an industrial vacancy because it is out of place when looking at a map. WORKSHOP MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 2022 PAGE FIVE Council Member Ingebrigtson shared Council Member Zabel’s sentiments. Council Member Zabel went on to state that the process presented would address this issue from both sides, and would not indicate a specific option has to be chosen. He shared a hypothetical scenario of MnDot redoing Hwy 120 and cutting off access to residential houses along Hwy 120. With this study, the City would have guidance as to what to do with that land. Mayor Reinke added to Ms. Perdu’s comment earlier about adding on to an existing residential property in the area, if a resident wanted to add on a deck and requested a permit to do so, it may not be granted due to the legal non-conforming status. He continued stating if the guided land use or zoning does not match the request then the City would have the option to deny the permit. At that point, the property owner would then have to decide if they want to remain in this area without a deck or sell their home to an outfit that would want to redevelop it to an industrial property. Council Member Zabel pointed out the City could approve a variance and allow this resident to build a deck. He stated there are other avenues, but the resident is not entitled to it under the legal non- conforming status. Mayor Reinke moved on to address the question from Stantec about critical issues that the Council would like them to investigate. He continued reiterating Council Member Zabel’s point about large and small uses and property owners. Council Member Ingebrigtson would like Stantec to be mindful of environmental issues. Council Member Swedberg asked for clarification or examples of environmental issues. Council Member Ingebrigtson used an example of a vacant industrial property being turned into multifamily housing. The City would need to understand the environmental concerns surrounding this decision. Mayor Reinke asked if he meant in terms of zoning and Chris Volkers, City Administrator added that the City does not own that property. Council Member Ingebrigtson acknowledged that fact, and stated it would still be nice to have that information. Others disagreed. Council Member Zabel added to Council Member Ingebrigtson’ s point recalling a similar situation with the City’s intended use for Oakdale Par 3 golf course. In that case, the City needed to address a lack of ground space, if they would like to turn the space into a civic amenity having the environmental knowledge would be beneficial. Council Member Zabel saw a benefit in finding out the environmental concerns within the study area. Council Member Ingebrigtson continued on with his point stating he does not need to know exact information but understanding if there are any environmental factors is helpful. Ms. Perdu confirmed that the study in general would address this concern. Stantec has sources of data that inform about these types of issues without property-specific analysis. Council Member Ingebrigtson added that if the City is going to make good decisions based on the study than having all the information versus some of it makes the most sense. Mayor Reinke supported a general environmental analysis. Ms. Volkers wanted clarification that that type of analysis would be included in the cost of the study. Ms. Perdu confirmed there could be a desktop analysis. Council Member Ingebrigtson was fine with this response, and clarified even a high-level analysis about a parcel’s potential environmental issues or lack thereof. He mentioned that with the option to rezone from industrial to some type of residential or multifamily, the City would want to have that information before making that decision. WORKSHOP MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 2022 PAGE SIX Council Member Zabel asked if part of the process would look at the City’s infrastructure in that area to find out what might be necessary depending on how things were decided. Ms. Volkers clarified that Council Member Zabel was referring to water and sewer. Council Member Zabel referenced the 4Front Technology and Office Campus when he asked if Stantec would look at current capacity, age, condition, etc. Mayor Reinke pointed to the Existing Infrastructure & Utilities concept map that was in the packet and said Stantec touched on it here. Council Member Zabel clarified that he is looking for this information as it relates to and has an impact on proposed future land uses. Mayor Reinke thought Stantec would provide what Council Member Zabel is asking for, and Ms. Perdu confirmed, but stated their scope does not go into detail. She suggested running those questions by the City Engineer. She continued that Stantec would provide at least an idea of increased capacity along with which pipes are in the ground already. Mr. Carlson added this would provide an idea for threshold. Ms. Volkers complimented Stantec on past analyses provided with the information aforementioned. Mayor Reinke asked the Council if they had any thoughts on pivotal opportunities. He said one opportunity was previously mentioned with the County expressway discussions. Council Member Zabel asked if the School District owned property in that area. The group thought about this and it was determined they do and it is their maintenance facility is located south of Hwy 36. Mayor Reinke acknowledged the residential properties on the west side of Century Ave would inform the decision to be made after the study is completed. Ms. Perdu concluded with an invitation to email Ms. Volkers, Mr. Gitzlaff, or Mr. McClanahan with any additional thoughts and it will get passed on to Stantec. She also stated they would be checking in with the group again. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION CHAPTER DISCUSSION Mr. Gitzlaff began by stating that Sr. Community Development Specialist Jamie Scheffer had helped with the background research presented in the memo, following up to Council questions that were raised about certain tools in Chapter 6- Housing. He indicated this is the tenth workshop with Council regarding this topic. He commended Council on their dedication to the Comprehensive Plan. He prefaced by saying he would walk through each chapter where changes have been tracked, and noted the yellow highlighting indicated actual language change as proposed. He said he would pause at the end of each chapter for questions and feedback. He indicated nothing in the presentation should be new information to Council. The last point he made before he walked through the Comprehensive Plan was a note that he had reached out to the Sector Representative at The Metropolitan Council to make sure that this process did not violate any state statutes. The overall feedback received was very positive, but there were a couple things and they indicated items Council is considering to change or remove could be changed or removed without issue, which Mr. Gitzlaff would point out to Council during the presentation. WORKSHOP MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 2022 PAGE SEVEN Mr. Gitzlaff started with Chapter 2- Land Use where there was concern from Council about some of the preciseness of the policy statements in the Comprehensive Plan including GOAL 2 Policy 4 establishing an annual EDA levy. The amended text stated “Consider the establishment of an annual EDA levy or other funding mechanisms to support predevelopment and rehabilitation activities that meet the City’s economic development or housing goals.” He indicated that the revised statement would reflect the Council wishes to be broader and tie back to City goals. He moved on to the second item in Chapter 2- Land Use where there was concern from Council about references to public financing in GOAL 2 Policy 5 and how it would create perception that the City would provide public financing for every project, without additional evaluation of merits. The proposed revision would provide specificity by revising Policy 5 to include the following statement: “Consider financial assistance on a case-by-case basis for redevelopment and development projects that meet the City’s economic development or housing goals, that also would not happen “but for” the financial assistance.” Mr. Gitzlaff pointed out the ‘but for’ language is a requirement before the City could provide any sort of subsidy. Mr. Gitzlaff paused and asked for any feedback on the Land Use changes as presented. Mayor Reinke praised the way in which staff laid out the presentation in the comment tracker. Mr. Gitzlaff continued with the Housing Chapter. In looking at the comment tracker, the first item of concern from Council referenced the lack of subsidies such as housing choice vouchers and mortgage assistance programs in the existing local condition chart. Staff proposed to add a note referencing other programs and their contributions towards meeting the City’s affordable housing goals. He moved on to the outdated AMI (Area Median Income) numbers as pointed out by Council. Going forward, Staff would reference that Metropolitan Council set the AMI income levels and include a link to the website for current levels rather insert language that could be outdated throughout the life of the Comprehensive Plan. The next Housing Chapter item presented by Mr. Gitzlaff was to provide clarity on what it meant to develop plans under GOAL 1 Policy 2. Staff would add clarity by noting the possible type of plans (i.e., finance or management plans). Mr. Gitzlaff moved on to provide clarity around the reference to 791 units of affordable housing and how it was established. Staff recommended adding some text that clarified how this number was arrived at. The 791 units referenced is set by the Metropolitan Council and is based on three things – City of Oakdale’s growth rate, the amount of the City’s existing affordable housing stock, and the ratio of low-wage jobs to low-wage-earning residents in the City. It does not mean the City is obligated to build that many units. The main point was to guide enough land at proper densities in the City to make the number of new units proposed feasible for development. Mr. Gitzlaff indicated we are in compliance. He paused and asked for any feedback, thoughts, or comments on the Housing changes and direction as presented. Ms. Volkers asked the Council how they felt about the last item presented. WORKSHOP MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 2022 PAGE EIGHT Mayor Reinke noted that the last item presented had been a hot button topic, but asked if it could be left at that. He continued with the suggestion that rather than saying ‘thou shalt’, the City should make sure the land would be zoned to allow market to create those units, and have it still abide by the Metropolitan Council directive. The next item presented by Mr. Gitzlaff was part of Chapter 9 – Neighborhoods. The one issue raised by Council was the multiple references to the City’s Emergency Home Rehabilitation Loan program. Staff proposed to remove references to this program since it has been suspended, and would reference other active program partnerships. The first item in Chapter 3 – Transportation was GOAL 2 in which some of the policies are outside the City’s ability to control such as burying power lines along Highway 120. Staff recommended using words such as “coordinating with”, “advocating”, or “supporting the work of others” when it is something the City would not have control over. Mr. Gitzlaff moved on to GOAL 3 Policy 5, which staff needs further direction on. It states support for jurisdictional roadway transfers. At a previous workshop meeting, Council discussed whether the City wanted to support future jurisdictional transfers. It is unclear to Council what the benefit would be to the City for taking on the additional roadway responsibilities. The question from staff for Council was removing Policy 5 entirely, or adding additional explanation that the transfer must be in the financial interests of the City and to the benefit of the residents. Mayor Reinke supported the latter suggestion. Council Members Swedberg and Olson agreed. In the Transportation Chapter, there was a suggestion to add a policy to support the 40th Street Bridge over 694. Mr. Gitzlaff agreed that adding this policy would be a good reference especially if it becomes part of the City’s legislative platform going forward. He continued with GOAL 5 in which a question about the City’s role in collaborating with Metro Transit was brought forth. Staff suggested adding clarity that specifies Metro Transit as the service provider. He asked if there were any other Transportation items Council wanted to discuss. Next, Mr. Gitzlaff moved to Chapter 7- Economic Development. A prior question was raised about separating out GOAL 2 with one goal focused more on jobs and the other goal on quality of life. Staff's initial recommendation was to leave as is, knowing that the goals themselves have a lot of public input and process that went into establishing. He noted it was possible to address this item if Council wanted to. The second item for review in Chapter 7 - Economic Development was a concern about the term “Living Wage” and its interpretation as the City supporting a mandatory minimum wage. Staff recommended replacing "shall" with "encourage". Additionally, staff would define the term "living wage" as "an income level that allows individuals or families to afford adequate shelter, food, and other necessities." WORKSHOP MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 2022 PAGE NINE The next item in Chapter 7 included concern of ensuring adequate supply of land for new and expanding commercial and industrial development. Staff would rephrase to "adequate supply of remaining land guided for new and expanding commercial and industrial development." He continued with GOAL 2 Policy 2 with a concern with the phrase "provide financing options''. The consensus from Council was that the City does not want to be in the business of being a financial lender but would be open to being a funding conduit in certain circumstances. Staff proposed to clarify that the City will not be a lender, but will explore other conduit financing options. Mr. Gitzlaff moved to the next item, which needed additional clarity between the purpose of Policy 1 and Policy 2. The recommendation from staff is to clarify in the text that Policy 1 focuses on resources that others provide and Policy 2 focuses on resources potentially provided by the City. The next item was GOAL 2 Policy 4 in which there was consensus to remove the reference to affordable daycare because the City has no control over affordability. Staff would remove the word "affordable." Additionally, staff recommended changing "daycare" to "child care" to reflect current industry terminology that is more inclusive of third shift workers. Council Member Swedberg asked for clarification about the proposed word change of "daycare" to "child care". She reiterated that the City still has no control over affordability. Council Member Zabel clarified that the proposed change included removing the word "affordable." The last proposed change for Economic Development was to use "encourage" instead of "shall", to soften language where the City does not have direct control over outcomes of the policy. Mr. Gitzlaff asked for any other thoughts or feedback on Economic Development. He stated that Chapter 4 - Water Resources had no changes. The next chapter was Chapter 5 - Parks and Trails. The first item involved a discussion about potentially changing the language in GOAL 1 Policy 3 but that there was not a consensus. This policy involved a discussion on feasibility of park development and was related to the defunct Par 3 golf course. Staff suggested removing the word "acquisition" noting that it may not be the City purchasing it, but could be part of a development. Additionally, staff added "work with the property owner to develop the defunct Par 3 golf course into a passive public park", but were open to other language preferred by Council. Mayor Reinke was satisfied with the suggested rephrasing. Council Member Swedberg questioned if the goal should be to develop the defunct Par 3 golf course. Council Member Zabel shared his interpretation that the goal is not saying the City will develop it, but might be what the City accepts as park dedication, for example. His sense was not that the language states the City is going to develop it into an active park as it does specify Passive Park. Mayor Reinke shared his interpretation as the removal of "acquisition" meant it would indicate the City itself is not developing the park. Ms. Volkers asked if the language suggested implies it has to only be a passive park. Mayor Reinke indicated it does. Ms. Volkers asked about the developers who may be interested in this property and thus is it the intent of the council to limit its use? Mr. Gitzlaff asked if the language would provide enough room for some of the property to be developed. Ms. Volkers asked the Council if they want to include the "passive park" language. Council Member Zabel shared his opinion that there is not a need for 80% of the property. WORKSHOP MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 2022 PAGE TEN Council Member Ingebrigtson advised the group to always provide more options, not less. Mr. Gitzlaff proposed the rewording as "explore possibilities to convert the now defunct Par 3 golf course into a passive park". Mayor Reinke provided an alternative as "explore opportunities for development including a passive park". Ms. Volkers and Council Member Swedberg were in favor of this wording. Mr. Gitzlaff proceeded to Chapter 5 - Resilience. There were three instances in GOAL 1, Policy 4, and GOAL 2 Policy 8, where staff would change "shall" to "strive to", "standards" to "guidelines", and "support" to "encourage", respectively. The recommendations were based on the fact that the City has indirect control, but cannot control greenhouse gases or overall emissions in the City. He asked if there were any questions. The final chapter reviewed was Chapter 10- Implementation with the first item referencing the Emergency Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund. This specific reference would be removed from the chart, and a reference to the Minnesota Housing City Partnership Program (MCPP) and the CDA's Home Improvement Loan Program would be added. Mr. Gitzlaff continued with an item that referenced TIF and whether it should be included. The consensus indicated a desire to leave TIF as an option. Staff suggested adding the "but for" test as a prerequisite for TIF consideration in the Housing Implementation Chart. He went on with the recommendation adding before creating a TIF district, or providing any public assistance, the City must find that the development cannot occur "but for" the public assistance. The other three Implementation items were related to programs the City was going to consider or explore, but were not enacted yet. The first was the 4d agreement with apartments to extend affordability contracts. There was more background information provided in the memo on what that includes. City staff confirmed with Metropolitan Council staff that removal would not cause inconsistencies with the regional plan. The decision would be up to Council if they want to include it as a potential tool in the toolbox. It would allow the City to extend affordability contracts by essentially helping them get their 4d status. The 4d status has an implication of less property tax from those properties. Ms. Volkers asked the Council for their thoughts. The consensus was in favor of removing the 4d housing agreement. The second Implementation item was a consideration of removal of the development of inclusionary housing policy because it states that the developer would have to do ‘this’ if you want to build in our City and this could be a barrier to developers. Staff did additional research on what other cities are doing to incentivize affordable development. The research did indicate it could be a barrier by having those contracts be mandatory. Staff recommended using an alternative to removal by using the word “voluntary” which would allow Council to work with developers when they have proposals to get affordability as a portion of it. The voluntary and incentivized options may be a route that Council would like to take, short of fully removing the option. WORKSHOP MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 2022 PAGE ELEVEN Mayor Reinke said the staff recommendation would make sense. He added the voluntary piece is dependent on the developer’s initiative and goal for the development. Council Member Olson asked to define inclusionary more clearly. She asked if it referred to income- level. Mr. Gitzlaff provided historical context in that it means the opposite of exclusionary zoning which was a practice to exclude people of certain backgrounds or income-levels. For example, if a mixed-income project were coming in, by adding the “voluntary” language, the developers would have the choice to comply with the affordability requirement. The City could potentially offer things such as additional density, or fee waivers, but it would be voluntary. Council Member Swedberg informed the group that St. Paul implemented an inclusionary housing policy however it would not be voluntary. They are mandating that new housing – multifamily or apartments – have to be a percentage of affordable housing. This practice is becoming popular in some cities. She clarified she is not saying the City of Oakdale needs to do this or make it mandatory. Council Member Zabel asked if there was repetition with this policy in all of the other tools mentioned in the Housing Chapter. He stated TIF and density bonuses have been mentioned elsewhere in the Comprehensive Plan. He pointed out conflicting terminology with “inclusionary housing policy” versus “inclusionary zoning”. His interpretation was a policy that is inclusionary zoning is never voluntary. He suggested cutting this entirely since these other tools are mentioned elsewhere in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Volkers asked if the reason for duplication is due to the Implementation Chapter. Mr. Gitzlaff confirmed the Implementation chapter is duplicative of other areas in the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Reinke stated he did not take the terminology of inclusionary zoning as any mixed messages. His understanding was zoning always refers to mixed incomes. Mr. Gitzlaff suggested doing a word search in the document for “inclusionary housing” and adding definition behind it. He confirmed with the group that they want it to be voluntary and they agreed that it would be an option. The last item of discussion was a reference to manufactured homes and R-6 zoning. Staff researched this and from a zoning standpoint, the R-6 district is another step in the process in case someone did want to redevelop a park for a different use, it would require a rezoning to a different district, which would give the City additional discretion. In contrast, if the R-6 Zoning District was removed maybe a site plan approval is all that would be necessary. After a discussion with the Metropolitan Council, there was no requirement for the City to specifically call out ways to preserve or enhance manufactured homes parks, but the City cannot go the other direction and say it will develop them. The R-6 reference can stay or be removed. Mayor Reinke was in favor of removal. Council Members Swedberg and Olson agreed. Mr. Gitzlaff said that item would be removed. He outlined next steps as a public hearing and approval from the Planning Commission on November 3, 2022, and approval from Council on November 22, 2022. Then it would go to the Metropolitan Council, and likely the jurisdictional review would be waived. A tentative timeline for a response from Metropolitan Council is January 2023. Council Member Olson asked if all changes would be completed at one time. Mr. Gitzlaff confirmed. WORKSHOP MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 2022 PAGE TWELVE POSSIBLE USE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND MONIES – MAYOR REINKE Before Mayor Reinke presented, Ms. Volkers passed out the accounting of the special projects fund to all Council Members and Department Heads. The current fund balance was $1.9 million as indicated on the handout. Mayor Reinke also distributed another handout titled “Willowbrooke – Estimated Capital Budget” dated 11-10-2020 prepared by former Community Development Director Bob Streetar. Mayor Reinke said he believed the information in his handout with predictions is at least one year off. Mayor Reinke shared his sentiment on how to use the special projects fund money. Mayor Reinke classified this fund as taxpayer money. His thought was to use these monies to fund some of the Willowbrooke park projects as there has been difficulty funding the park improvements. He referenced the past discussions that were had about the Base and Base Plus options. He asked if the Council would consider using monies from the special projects fund to help pay for the park equipment with a notion that it would get reinstated as the City sells general obligation bonds or would use some other technique. Additionally, he asked Council if they would be willing to use it for requirements on the City building projects. He shared his confidence in the voters supporting the proposed building projects through L.O.S.T. Ms. Volkers confirmed with Jason Zimmerman, Finance Director that the Willowbrooke parks is estimated to cost $5-6 million. She confirmed with Mr. Gitzlaff that the City would have to bond for this project without identified funds. She asked the Mayor to clarify if he is stating that no matter the timing, the City would use the special project funds instead of bonds. Mayor Reinke clarified the use of the special project fund would be in supplement of the bonds. He stated it is important to come through with the obligations to the Willowbrooke developers to provide these parks, and he would not want to do it in a piece-meal fashion. Mayor Reinke said he is fine with the phasing of the park development over three years, but he felt it a mistake to do the bare minimum and come back later after residents have moved-in to do improvements. Ms. Volkers added that there could be a legal challenge if the City only puts in open space. The agreement states that the City must provide parks at the time the development occurs, however the agreement does not specify the type of parks. Ms. Volkers reminded the group that law often refers back to the intent and spirit of an agreement. Council believed the agreement was made with the intent and spirit that the City would build active parks. Ms. Volkers offered to have legal do a full legal analysis if Council is considering only providing open space parks at Willowbrooke, but it would be at a cost. Council Member Zabel stated that currently in the City of Oakdale parks are widely defined. For example, passive parks, active parks with no amenities, i.e. the Nature Preserve, and active parks like Walton. By City definition, there would be examples of all of these types of parks and an open space would be consistent with some of what is already in the community, in his opinion. Ms. Volkers explained that if a legal challenge were brought forth, meeting minutes, meeting notes, and past conversations with Bob Streetar, et al. would become part the court decision. Ms. Volkers shared her confidence in that Mr. Streetar’s intent was the City would provide full-fledged and fully functioning parks. She stated her uncertainty for a positive outcome given a legal challenge. WORKSHOP MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 2022 PAGE THIRTEEN Council Member Zabel noted that we know the information in the handout from the Mayor is outdated, and that there have been recent conversations about the proposed amenities, but he is still unclear about the implementation plan. He referenced the City’s Park CIP, which provides a timeframe and cost for the proposed projects. His said that the conversation is still being had at a 30,000-foot view. He added that the City could not write a $6 million check he hoped. He asked about the proposed implementation plan for the three parks at Willowbrooke. His sentiment was that the financing conversation is important, but is premature at this point. He would like the plan to include information about the trailheads, as he did not see anything about that in current plans. Mayor Reinke said if Council decided they could not use the special projects fund money for the park implementation plan it changes the conversation because then the project would solely rely on the bond capacity. On the contrary, if the bonding for the Willowbrooke park projects could be supplemented with the special projects fund then more could be done. He asked if Council is open to allowing staff to put the plan together using portions of the special projects fund or is the money off limits; and if the latter, what would it be used for? Council Member Zabel said the financing conversation should come secondary. He would like to see what the implementation plan is and then Council would talk about how it would be funded. When talking about finances, the plan and timeframe matter. He stated he would not support putting $1.9 million toward the Willowbrooke park projects at this time because he does not know what the money is going towards in 2023. Mayor Reinke reminded Council Member Zabel that the Willowbrooke parks proposal and discussion was held at the last council workshop and support was given to move forward. Council Member Zabel reminded the Mayor that he was absent. Although Council Member Zabel read the minutes, he is still unclear about the timing of the park development. He also noted those conversations did not include the trail network. Ms. Volkers added that staff is bringing the Implementation Plan to the next council meeting. Mr. Gitzlaff indicated as part of the reduced trails network, it would be included in the CIP, but not as part of the Willowbrooke parks. Council Member Zabel would like to ensure the City is not missing something in relation to cost and implementation. Ms. Volkers confirmed that at the last workshop meeting it was decided that the Commons Park with the Base Plus option would be built in 2023, Neighborhood Park West Base would be built in 2024, and Neighborhood Park North Base Plus some amenities would be built in 2025. Council Member Zabel pointed out that conversation did not include the trail expenses. Mayor Reinke explained the task for the Council was to determine Base or Base Plus for the three Willowbrooke parks. The task now in front of staff was to focus on the trails and come back to Council with the parks as described and a plan to take care of the trails. Council Member Zabel asked the group if exclusion of the trails as part of the park conversation would have an effect on the timing of the park implementation based on how much money is available. He added, in theory it is great to say this park in 2023, 2024, and 2025, but if the $500,000 trail expense is not factored in then the timing might need to be adjusted. Council Member Olson pointed out that legally the City cannot adjust the timing of the park implementation. Ms. Volkers confirmed that the legal agreement indeed stated the parks must be built in tandem with the development. Finance Director Jason Zimmerman read the contract aloud, "The City shall construct and maintain as public parks the following three parks that coincide with the development phase." WORKSHOP MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 2022 PAGE FOURTEEN Ms. Volkers confirmed it does not say what type of park must be built, however it does say ‘coincide’, which is where 2023, 2024, and 2025 come in. Mayor Reinke reiterated the Council's ask from staff who must come back with a plan on how to accomplish the park projects. Mayor Reinke asked the group if they would consider allowing staff to use a portion of the special projects fund money to help accomplish this. Council Member Olson asked how much Base Plus was estimated to cost for the Commons Park. Ms. Volkers believed it to be roughly $2.5 million. Ms. Volkers said there was a contingency. Council Member Ingebrigtson was not confident that 20% would be enough of a buffer. Ms. Volkers said the estimates were based on the highest cost levels of materials seen six months ago. Mayor Reinke asked Council Member Olson the reason for her question. She wanted clarification on what the Mayor was asking of Council such as will Council support using part of the special projects fund for the building of the Commons Park in 2023. Mayor Reinke clarified that was asking for their consideration to use the funds for this purpose. He believed it to be a tag-team effort between planning and Council. He added, in the end, the less funds used will result in less park amenities. Council Member Zabel said if it is not special funding then it is bonding, but asked if there are any other revenue sources. Ms. Volkers said reserves could always be lowered. Council Member Zabel referenced legacy dollars. Mr. Zimmerman and Ms. Volkers did not believe there would be any other untapped financial sources available for this project. Ms. Volkers brought up the hiring of the construction manager, architects, etc. for the building projects, which will require funding. These costs would need to be paid before the L.O.S.T. comes through. Council Member Zabel said he would be open to using the special projects fund for the Willowbrooke park project, but would like to know what costs the City would have in 2023. He asked if the amenities could be broken up to make the numbers work. Council Member Swedberg asked if everything had been taken out for next year that Council wanted to use with special funds. Ms. Volkers pointed out that this information could be found on the bottom part of the spreadsheet handout. Council Member Zabel pointed out some of the CIP expenses were for future years. Mr. Zimmerman replied this was in error and those numbers should be removed. There should be an extra $143,000 expense on handout bringing the total fund down to $1.8 million. The numbers were held based on preliminary CIPs, which would be brought to the workshop on November 7, 2022. Mayor Reinke asked if the $364,000 shown as holds and the recommendation on the handout would be how to use the monies or offset costs. The new building (Public Works) $28 million bid did not include technology so one of those holds would be for Public Works technology in 2024. Mayor Reinke asked the group if they would support Mr. Gitzlaff and his team using $750,000 out of the $1.7-$1.9 million as a basis for funding when planning the Willowbrooke park project. Council Member Olson proposed $500,000-$750,000. Council Member Swedberg stated the Council would be open to look at this as an option. Council Member Zabel said these decisions would fall to the next group. Ms. Volkers said we could put a hold for future expenses/funds. Council Member Swedberg said she did not see Eder School House listed on the handout. Mr. Zimmerman indicated that cost was put under operations. Mayor Reinke summarized that $500,000-$750,000 would be the ballpark for staff to use when finalizing the plan for Council. Council Member Olson shared her sentiment that it is a great way to spend the money. WORKSHOP MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 2022 PAGE FIFTEEN Council Member Ingebrigtson stated that in the next 3-5 years the City would lose 30-40% of property tax revenue based on economic conditions. Council Member Olson said we do not have a choice about spending the money. Council Member Ingebrigtson would be willing to risk litigation in this case by only putting in open spaces. Mayor Reinke was in disagreement with Council Member Ingebrigtson’s sentiment. Council Member Ingebrigtson noted his intent is for Council to plan for what is coming which is why he is not supportive of the spending as proposed by Mayor Reinke. PROPOSAL FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES; 2022 WATER METER FEASIBILITY STUDY Public Works Manager Jim Romanik started his presentation stating the last meter change out program took place in 2010-2011. Typically, this project would have been considered in 2020- 2021, but due to the pandemic, nobody wanted City staff in their homes for water meter replacement Public Works would like to hire a consultant and engineer to analyze the current system and make a recommendation on what is going to be the best type of transmitter to use for the meters. The existing water meters will remain in resident homes as they were changed out 10 years ago and have a 20-25 year life span. The new transmitters would have about a 10-12 year life span. He explained that there is an 8% failure rate with the batteries where the transmitters are not receiving the meter data when it is read quarterly. The accounts with the failed meters are being estimated which adds to the finance workload and creates inaccurate billing. Due to the likelihood of the failure rate continuing to grow, and the limitations of the Public Works staff changing out the meters on a case-by-case basis, it was suggested by staff to bring in a consultant to obtain the information on the meters and the replacements. As part of that process, Public Works would look at the original project cost and Considerations and examine the warranties to see if it makes sense to try to do a warranty claim to have some of the batteries replaced, or to see if the technology changes are now to a point where it makes more sense to upgrade. Mr. Romanik stated that part of the upgrading would make sure that the technology on the transmitters and the receivers works with the finance software. The consultant engineer would provide an understanding of the current City gateways that are on the system that get their readings remotely. Public Works would like to upgrade the customer experience by allowing them to have the option to go into their account online. Public Works would propose to work with TKDA who did the engineering services during the last upgrade in 2010. They are familiar with the City's system and its desire with this request. The cost would not exceed $9,500 for TKDA’s services. Mayor Reinke asked about the timing of the services if Council approved the request at the November 7, 2022 Council meeting. Mr. Romanik said the engineer would hope to have the project completed by year-end 2022. Mayor Reinke asked if this is the same situation that Mr. Zimmerman talked about at the last workshop in regards to the lack of a gateway at Willowbrooke. Mr. Romanik confirmed. He further stated that going into the park study, if the proposed pickleball courts or soccer fields have lighting then the City would look at putting a gateway on one of those light towers. Additionally, Public Works is working with the City's GIS consultant to develop the propagation map to understand where the meters are being read and where they are not being read, which will help inform future gateway locations. Mayor Reinke asked if there was any objection to moving forward. Council was in favor of putting this item on the November 7, 2022 Council meeting consent agenda as a voting item. WORKSHOP MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 2022 PAGE SIXTEEN HAIL DAMAGE TO CITY VEHICLES AND BUILDINGS Mr. Romanik started his presentation by pointing out the map in the packet indicating the level of hail received during the recent hailstorms in areas throughout the City. The hail caused significant damage to a number of City vehicles at Public Works and the Police Department. Eighteen Police Department vehicles and several Public Works vehicles were damaged. The majority of the damaged vehicles have been repaired including the building inspection vehicles. In reference to the list in the packet, Mr. Romanik stated that the Police department repaired half of their vehicles. The City will receive a settlement from LMCIT (League of MN Cities Insurance Trust) for the other half that are not being repaired. The settlement amount would be based on similar estimates of repaired vehicles. Mr. Romanik stated that the City is in the process of finalizing the settlement with the League. He continued saying the majority of the buildings in the City were damaged, anywhere from a picnic shelter to buildings at the Public Works campus, including the salt shed and water treatment buildings. He added that Fire Chief Kevin Wold had been assisting with acquiring estimates on those buildings. There were some challenges with receiving quotes in a timely manner due to the sheer number of City buildings that have been damaged, and also based on the number of other buildings in the area that have been damaged. Mr. Romanik shared one estimate received so far for $1.2 million in overall city building damage. He explained that there is a $2,500 deductible paid to LMCIT (city insurance) from the May 19, 2022 storm to have vehicles and buildings repaired or to receive a settlement. Because it was cosmetic hail damage to the buildings, the League's evaluation would pay for the buildings to be repaired but the City would have to pay for the repairs upfront and get reimbursed. Mr. Romanik moved on to the September 20, 2022 hailstorm, which was a smaller hail event that came through the City. He said a few more vehicles were damaged and a separate deductible would be owed. Ms. Volkers asked Mr. Zimmerman if it was a $2,500 deductible per event. Mr. Zimmerman stated that was his understanding. Council Member Ingebrigtson asked if the City was required by law to use the insurance money to fix the damaged vehicles. Ms. Volkers said it was not, which is why the City would take a settlement on the nine older vehicles not being repaired as indicated in the packet. She continued by stating the City would use the settlement money during the trade-in of those damaged vehicles when it was time to replace them since the vehicles would be worth less with the hail damage. Mayor Reinke asked about the timeframe to file a claim. Mr. Romanik indicated the City had a year to file a claim, but the claim had already been filed. Council Member Zabel asked if there was damage to the Public Works roof, would the City replace it since there is already a plan in place due to the building project. Mr. Romanik indicated the City would take a settlement for the Public Works campus. Mayor Reinke said it seemed like a reasonable approach. Council Member Zabel asked about the number of police vehicles having to be repaired and how that is affecting vehicle availability. Additionally, he asked if there was enough flexibility with other vehicles for consistent operations if 1-2 vehicles were out being fixed. WORKSHOP MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 2022 PAGE SEVENTEEN Police Chief Nick Newton stated the Police Department was sending one vehicle in to be repaired at a time. Mr. Romanik added they have been using the repair shop on Hudson Blvd, which is in Oakdale, as they are preferred by the LMCIT. CONVERSATION WITH SUSAN VENTO, COMMISSIONER METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mayor Reinke welcomed Sue Vento and those in attendance provided introductions. Susan Vento congratulated the Mayor on his recognition by the St. Paul Area Chamber. Ms. Vento began by stating it has been almost four years since she was appointed to the Met Council, with two and a half of those years being during the pandemic. She wanted to share some lessons that she has learned in the last four years. The first lesson shared was the challenge of city governance. With COVID and the temperament of the country, it is hard for city staff. One lesson she learned as a citizen was to have a deeper understanding and a deeper respect for the role of city governance. She mentioned the news in Maplewood, which had her fielding calls, texts, emails, and social media responses for hours the night prior. She said her job at the Met Council is not to make the City Council's work harder. Another lesson she shared is that in order to be a good partner you must be a good listener, and be open to new ideas. This lesson is very important in civic engagement and public governance. Ms. Vento continued that the Met Council has four main areas. The first mentioned, and most interesting committee to Ms. Vento was Environmental Services (waste treatment). She saw firsthand the role that waste treatment plays in terms of forecasting spikes in COVID outbreaks. She told the group it would be interesting to see if the surveillance of waste products resumes as fears about RSV, the new variants of COVID, and the flu season arrive in a triple threat. The Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission had been something new for Ms. Vento as she had been recently appointed as the Council Liaison. Her sentiment is that Washington County is phenomenal with its regional parks. Ms. Vento moved on to two areas with the most work to do which were the Community Development Planning and Transit-related Development. As it relates to the planning piece, one of the things Ms. Vento kept pushing is the redefining of public engagement. She reiterated it is not enough to have a public comment session in an agenda. She would like a public engagement process that includes a conversation and a sharing of information, ideals, and goals when it relates to community development and transit development. Next, Ms. Vento shared as it relates to transit, the Met Council is working very hard to forecast how to continue to progress out of both the economic challenges and the post-COVID challenges. The one bit of good news she shared is that bus Rapid transit is one area of public transportation right now that is showing a significant uptick. The one area that has not caught on is the Express bus between downtown St. Paul and downtown Minneapolis. She stated the Met Council has done a lot of internal work related to safety for staff, operators, the police officers and CSOs, and most importantly the riders. WORKSHOP MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 2022 PAGE EIGHTEEN She said you could not have one without the other. She was happy to report the last round of bargaining went well. An agreeable settlement was reached with the met transit police officers. The Met Council staff received positive feedback from the police officers during a meeting a couple months back especially in relation to the improvement of salary. As it relates to safety, Ms. Vento said the Met Council continues to work with the legislature to try to get some assistance from them in terms of policy and resources. She shared her sentiment that the last legislative session was a disappointment. She offered to meet for coffee to bounce ideas around; however, she was sensitive to the Open Meeting Law. She offered to come back to a future workshop. She opened up the discussion to any suggestions or requests from Council. Although her term ends on December 31, 2022, the new districts have not been drawn yet so she would probably serve until next spring. She was unsure of her status after December 31, 2022, as she has heard conflicting information. Mayor Reinke began by stating he does not know what to ask, however sometimes there is a want for financial reasons, advice, intellect, info gathering. Ms. Vento said she would check on the current grant options that are open. She asked if Oakdale was designated as an Age-Friendly City. Council Member Swedberg confirmed. Ms. Vento asked if the City has applied for any of the Governor's Task Force grants. Council Member Swedberg said there is a group in Oakdale that will be looking into those options. Council Member Zabel asked about the increased Met Council bill in relation to processing the City's wastewater. He referenced headlines about the Met Council spending hundreds of millions of dollars to bail out the Southwest light rail and spending on other projects while the City of Oakdale had to pass on increased Met Council costs to its residents. He asked what the Met Council is going to do about the residents who pay their taxes to the Met Council but continue to see the increased bills in wastewater while the Met Council is still spending millions of dollars on transit lines that may not open anytime soon. Ms. Vento clarified that none of the funds from wastewater fees has to do with transit or community development, it is all dedicated to waste treatment. Council Member Zabel said the money that is going toward transit could be reallocated to lower the bills and costs that have to be passed on to residents. Ms. Vento said that is not an option because much of the money, in reference to the Southwest light rail example, has come from counties, cities, and the federal government. The Met Council does not have taxing authority. They get their funds from other levels of government, or in the case of waste treatment, it comes from the State of Minnesota or the federal government, but it is mostly through the fees. Ms. Vento stated she would look at the increased wastewater fees. She encouraged Council to watch the MCES (Metropolitan Council Environmental Staff) virtual meetings each spring which explain in detail what the cost increases are going to be, what they are being used for, and why they are at the level they are. Part of the increase for this year has to do with the post-pandemic economic factors being faced. Mayor Reinke, in response to Council Member Zabel’s comment, said the perception of our residents is that Council is to blame for the increased fees because we made the decisions. There is no awareness or willingness to learn that it is another entity providing the service. He reiterated it is the difficulty of being on the City Council. WORKSHOP MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 2022 PAGE NINETEEN Ms. Vento shared his sentiment saying that it is the difficulty of being on the Met Council too. The other piece being faced is aging infrastructure that must be improved. She continued that financial solvency is important for the waste treatment process and keeping things as upgraded as possible. One piece of the waste treatment division that is really respected is how hard the staff works with communities when they are coming in to do a project. She stated the goal is always to leave that piece of land as good as or better than it was when they arrived. Council Member Zabel asked if the Met Council has a plan in place for how they will use the federal infrastructure dollars. Ms. Vento said the bulk of that money has been designated and it is part of the budget plan. The head of finance for the environmental services division has worked hard to ensure that the budget has the fiscal sustainability to meet those needs. Council Member Ingebrigtson made a comment about the issue in Maplewood brought up by Ms. Vento earlier in the conversation. He stated the lack of transparency was concerning, and shared that he brought the question of eminent domain in Oakdale to the last workshop meeting, mentioning that when he first got on Council that was his big concern with the project – the possibility of property owners being forced out if they did not want to leave. He would encourage anyone in government to err on the side of transparency. Ms. Vento believed there had been a breakdown in communication. There was not a plan for eminent domain at Birch Run. There have been conversations about the buyer of Birch Run (the developer who wants to come in) and what he can and cannot do as it relates to both his purchase of it as well as the purple line being in that area. She believes there was a misunderstanding and a belief that it meant there was going to be a use of eminent domain. Nothing had been planned; all options were being considered including having the terminus at Maplewood Mall, County Road E and 35E in Vadnais Heights, and at Century College. Ms. Vento favored the terminus proposed at Century College due to the students’ need for transportation. Council Member Ingebrigtson asked another question on the same topic - would the Met Council support forcing a bus line through a city if the city were opposed. Ms. Vento responded that the project was not forced on White Bear Lake. Council Member Zabel said there are advantages to the longevity of the Gold Line project, with one being the opportunity for transparency. He continued that in the case of the Purple Line project in Maplewood, it had only been an idea for a couple of months, and it only came about when White Bear Lake withdrew support. Ms. Vento agreed, however she said the Purple Line project had been talked about since the late 90's, and the Bruce Vento Trail, which is a big part of the fight over this, was designated as a future transit route from the beginning. She was unsure that any length of time would have changed the contentious nature of the project. She thought it is a combination of people valuing uninterrupted trails that are not near transit and a 'not my community' mindset. Council Member Ingebrigtson thanked Ms. Vento for coming. WORKSHOP MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 2022 PAGE TWENTY Council Member Olson asked about waste treatment and COVID, and mentioned reading a headline about wastewater being tested for drugs in Stearns County. Ms. Vento said she is not aware of any testing taking place here. Mayor Reinke made a comment about a concern that the Gold Line transit was going to bring a criminal element or homeless population into communities. He was reassured that it is not part of the plan for individuals to be sleeping on the buses. Ms. Vento also gave her reassurance that she will assist with this as long as she is on the Met Council. She was opposed to it for transit safety and cleanliness, but also said that is not a place where people should be sleeping. The Homeless Action Team has been in coordination with the homeless finance division along with the police department to address this. She continued to state that the bulk of the living and sleeping on public transit happens on the light rail. Mayor Reinke said if everything goes as planned, riders getting on the Gold Line here could end up on the light rail continuing on to other destinations just like the transit systems in Dallas, Washington D.C., Atlanta, and San Francisco. MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION – FINANCE DIRECTOR Mayor Reinke stated that Mr. Zimmerman had outlined eight things for discussion. Ms. Volkers added Council has shared that they understand what Mr. Zimmerman is doing because he presents at workshops often. She asked if the Council had any questions for him or if they wanted to continue the conversation at the next workshop. Council Members Swedberg and Zabel agreed the conversation was not needed, as Mr. Zimmerman is always thorough. Council Member Zabel asked to see a sample of the Truth in Taxation Supplement. A draft was handed out to Council for review. Mr. Zimmerman went over various sections on the handout. Ms. Volkers stated this could be changed as the cities and counties are not happy with it at current state. Mr. Zimmerman said there is clarity and adjustments that need to be made within this process as it is being administered by individuals who do not understand government accounting, finance, and taxation. Council Member Zabel requested that staff create a 'cheat sheet' that says what section of the City's budget corresponds to categories on the Truth in Taxation handout. Ms. Volkers said some categories did not align perfectly, but still had to be inserted with numbers. Mr. Zimmerman indicated the request could be accommodated. Mayor Reinke said to be in contact with Chris or Jason on any of the finance items if there was a desire to be discussed further. RECESS FOR REGULAR MEETING 6:55 PM WORKSHOP RECONVENED 7:48 PM after the Regular Council Meeting COUNCIL TOPICS Council Member Olson would like an update on the hot asphalt signs. Ms. Volkers said it is on Public Works’ list to do. Council Member Swedberg would like the Council to consider a job fair in conjunction with the OACC to assist with staffing. This had been talked about during BREA visits and by Kim O'Brien. The suggested timeframe would be in the next couple of months or after Christmas. WORKSHOP MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 2022 PAGE TWENTY-ONE ADJOURNMENT The workshop was adjourned at 7:51 pm. Respectfully submitted, Sara Ludwig City Clerk