City Council Workshop
Regular MeetingOakdale, MN · August 12, 2025
Minutes
WORKSHOP MINUTES
OAKDALE CITY COUNCIL
AUGUST 12, 2025
The City Council held a workshop on Tuesday, August 12, 2025 at Oakdale City Hall, 1584
Hadley Avenue North, Oakdale, Minnesota. The meeting began at 5:00 PM.
Present: Mayor Kevin Zabel
Council Members: Andy Morcomb
Kari Moore
Gary Severson
City Staff Members: Christina Volkers, City Administrator
Sara Ludwig, City Clerk
Brian Bachmeier, Consulting City Engineer
Jake Foster, Assistant City Administrator
Andy Gitzlaff, Community Development Director
Kristina Handt, Interim Finance Director
Megan Kissner, Police Sergeant
Melanie Lee, Human Resources Director
Max Lohse, Community Development Specialist
Nick Newton, Police Chief
Lori Pulkrabek, Communications Manager
Cory Tietz, Public Works Director
Others Present: Mike Prosser, Parks and Recreation Commissioner
Adam Sack, Woodbury Public Safety Community Support Team
Detective
Traci Thompson, Washington County Community Services
Clinical Social Services Supervisor
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH COORDINATED RESPONSE MODEL
Police Chief Nick Newton stated that he invited two guests to speak on the Coordinated
Response Team (CRT) model as it is a program that is being discussed for implementation in
Oakdale.
Traci Thompson, Washington County Community Services Clinical Social Services Supervisor,
introduced herself and the program as she helped create it several years ago. The Coordinated
Response Team model within Washington County aims to streamline the partnership between
law enforcement and specialized social workers to get mental health services to those in need
on a much quicker timeline.
Adam Sack, Woodbury Public Safety Community Support Team Detective, explained why
Woodbury Public Safety implemented the CRT model, citing an increase in mental health calls
to 9-1-1 and a missing piece in the crisis care continuum. The program also allows first
responders to look at the situation from a multi-disciplinary lens.
WORKSHOP MINUTES
AUGUST 12, 2025
PAGE TWO
Chief Newton pointed out that mental health crises know no borders so the partnerships that
the CRT creates is crucial to the success of the model. Detective Sack added that there is a
lot of overlap with local jurisdictions already so Oakdale would be a great fit for this program.
In response to Mayor Zabel’s question about the measures of success and goals of the
program, Detective Sack said there are situation-dependent results as each call is unique, but
overall the goals are better outcomes and better experiences for all who respond to or make
a call.
As for quantitative data measures, Ms. Thompson noted that it is hard to measure the
absence of need, but the diversion of 9-1-1 calls is one indicator of the program’s success.
The CRT is working to collect additional data that will help provide quantitative data over time.
In response to Council Member Severson’s question about how a call is handled when it
comes in after hours, Ms. Thompson stated that the CRT provides follow up the next day, but
the 24/7 mobile crisis response team could potentially go out to the scene once it has been
cleared. The CRT is very involved in the follow up to provide needed resources and possibly
prevent future 9-1-1 calls of this nature.
In response to a couple of questions from Council Member Severson, Ms. Thompson
confirmed that Oakdale would be assigned a social worker and billed per staff person.
Council Member Morcomb inquired if any city in Washington County is using the embedded
social work model. Ms. Thompson indicated that in the County the CRT is utilizing co-response,
coordinated response, and the embedded social work models.
In response to Council Member Morcomb’s question about staff turnover, Ms. Thompson
responded that the CRT has been fortunate to have almost no turnover.
Council Member Moore asked about the coordination between the law enforcement officer
and social worker as they partner and respond to calls. Detective Sack explained that all calls
are reviewed together to look at each call from every angle and strategize how to best address
the person or situation.
Council Member Moore stated that this program would be an amazing asset for the
community.
In response to Mayor Zabel’s question about the accessibility of the CRT outside of calling 9-
1-1, Detective Sack confirmed that many referrals come in through the community directly.
Regarding the coordination between Washington County and Ramsey County, Detective Sack
said there is a lot of collaboration between the two counties even though the crisis response
programs differ.
WORKSHOP MINUTES
AUGUST 12, 2025
PAGE THREE
Council Member Morcomb complimented the program and the impact it has on those it
serves. Chief Newton echoed that the Oakdale Police Department would strive to model this
program.
Police Sergeant Megan Kissner shared the challenges she has faced with repeat 9-1-1 callers
dealing with a mental health crisis without the support of a social worker.
City Administrator Chris Volkers inquired about how long the startup process could take if
Oakdale were to adopt the CRT model. Ms. Thompson said that is depends on staffing
availability, but likely anywhere from 3-6 months.
REVIEW OF CITY OF OAKDALE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 9, ARTICLE 18 – CANNABIS
AND HEMP BUSINESS REGULATIONS
Community Development Specialist Max Lohse noted that this item is a follow up from the
June 10, 2025 Workshop and he provided follow up from that discussion. The first point of
clarification, per the City Attorney’s Office, is if Washington County reaches 23 registrations
(based on current population data and State statute calculations) before Oakdale reaches its
three, Oakdale would not be obligated to issue any additional registrations. Mayor Zabel
pointed out that the communication between cities, counties, and the Office of Cannabis
Management (OCM) regarding registrations is unclear. Mr. Lohse stated that City staff is
working on an internal process to address this, but it is a valid concern. The second point of
clarification, per the City Attorney’s Office, is that any cannabis business that opens in good
standing may continue to operate regardless of whether a setback-related business is opened
at a later date (e.g., childcare center, school, treatment center, etc.). Mr. Lohse concluded that
staff is seeking direction on proposed changes to the ordinance and the setback regulations
for schools.
Council Member Morcomb inquired about whether in-home childcare centers and commercial
childcare centers require different licenses from the Department of Human Services (DHS)
and therefore should be distinguished within the ordinance. To that point, Mayor Zabel
suggested referencing the State statute that regulates licensure within the ordinance. City
staff will look into this and report back.
Mayor Zabel inquired about how the City regulates setbacks when the trigger (park, school,
etc.) is outside of City boundaries. City staff offered to reach out to the City Attorney’s Office
for more clarity.
Mayor Zabel was hesitant to change the setback regulations at this point as there are too
many outstanding questions to make an informed decision.
Council Member Severson was open to lessening the setback regulations to 500 feet for
schools. Council Member Morcomb agreed.
WORKSHOP MINUTES
AUGUST 12, 2025
PAGE FOUR
Council Member Moore preferred to keep the setback for schools at 1,000 feet to reduce
youth exposure and to align with federal regulations.
Until a compelling reason arises, Mayor Zabel preferred to leave the ordinance as is.
In reference to available retail space in the City, Mr. Lohse noted that oftentimes property
owners cannot rent out their spaces for this type of business due to having federally-backed
mortgages.
Next steps involve the Council and staff thinking about policy and operational changes that
can filter into the 2026 legislative agenda. City staff will work to get answers from Washington
County and the OCM with the option to revisit this item in the future.
2026 PROPOSED BUDGET REVISIONS – GENERAL FUND/LEVY
Ms. Volkers explained that the current 2026 proposed budget equates to a 10.6% levy
increase; however, the Executive Team brainstormed ways to reduce expenses and would like
Council’s direction on the 2026 proposed budget reductions.
Ms. Volkers went over the 2026 proposed budget reductions and the Council agreed on the
following:
• Reduce the 2026 levy for the Street Improvement Fund by $300,000 and bond for
that same amount for the 2026 Street Reconstruction Project.
• Use the Closed Bond Fund (instead of 2026 levy) to make the 2017A and 2018A bond
payments totaling $225,993.
• Reduce the General Fund by $161,148 by moving the following items to the Special
Projects Fund: Social Worker, Grant Writing, additional Election Costs, Lobbyist, Fall
Clean Up, and Community Development Intern.
• Reduce the 2026 levy for the Municipal Building Fund (in provided calculations but not
specifically discussed).
The Council agreed to set the preliminary levy around 7.5% as this allows for additional
tweaking to lower the final tax levy percentage that will be approved in December.
Lastly, the Council was supportive of adding back the 2026 proposed Behavioral Health
Officer expense of $84,893 to the Police General Fund budget for a start date of July 1, 2026
for both that position and the social worker.
Mayor Zabel thanked City staff for pulling together possible 2026 budget reductions on such
short notice as it was helpful for the productivity of the conversation.
ADMINISTRATOR UPDATE
None.
COUNCIL TOPICS
WORKSHOP MINUTES
AUGUST 12, 2025
PAGE FIVE
Council Member Moore requested that consensus item g) Request that the City Council repeal
City Policy FR-016: Prevailing Wage Provision in its entirety, on the subsequent regular
meeting agenda, be tabled and brought back to a future Workshop to provide Council with
more information and the opportunity to ask questions. The Council was amenable.
WORKSHOP RECESSED FOR THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AT 6:48 PM
WORKSHOP RECONVENED AT 8:00 PM after the Regular City Council Meeting
Council Member Morcomb suggested wrapped electrical boxes as a possible option for art in
the parks. Ms. Volkers mentioned reviewing the current language in City of Oakdale Code of
Ordinances, Chapter 15, Article 1 and City Policy CC-002: City Council Advisory Boards and
Commissions to see if anything should be added related to art in the parks. Mayor Zabel
brought up incorporating art in the parks to coincide with park improvements found in the
Park System Plan.
Council Member Moore shared a request from a resident to have the lines on the pickleball
courts at Tanners Lake Park repainted. Ms. Volkers stated that staff will look into this request.
Mayor Zabel inquired about how the Police Department responds to amplified sound
complaints within Willowbrooke Commons especially if the loud music is coming from
someone renting a picnic shelter. He suggested the City collect a deposit on shelter
reservations and withhold the deposit if the reservation holder does not abide by the agreed
upon rules and regulations. Ms. Volkers offered to discuss a process change at the next
Management Team meeting.
Mayor Zabel shared a request from a resident to have signage with park hours at Willowbrooke
Commons.
Council Member Moore requested more information about the Adopt-a-Wetland Program
within the City. Communications Manager Lori Pulkrabek will provide her with the link on the
City’s website.
Mayor Zabel reported that resident comments about the Oakdale Glen public hearing have
continued to be sent to him since the August 7, 2025 Planning Commission meeting. Mr.
Gitzlaff stated that a frequently asked questions (FAQ) document for the project will be created
by City staff. The Council had a discussion about how to manage community expectations
regarding communication on development projects. The Council also brainstormed how and
when to gather community feedback regarding both development and redevelopment
projects.
ADJOURNMENT
The workshop was adjourned at 8:29 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Sara Ludwig, City Clerk
Agenda
AGENDA
City Council
Workshop Meeting
August 12, 2025
Hadley Conference Room
5:00 PM
5:00 PM Behavioral Health Coordinated Response Model
5:25 PM Review of City of Oakdale Code of Ordinances, Chapter 9, Article 18 – Cannabis and Hemp
Business Regulations
5:40 PM 2026 Proposed Budget Revisions - General Fund/Levy
6:35 PM Administrator Update
6:40 PM Council Topics
6:55 PM Adjourn for Regular Meeting
Continue after Regular City Council Meeting, if needed
2026 Proposed Budget Revisions – General Fund/Levy
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Nick Newton, Police Chief
Date: August 12, 2025
Subject: Behavioral Health Coordinated Response Model
BACKGROUND
Over the past two years, the Police Department has researched various strategies for handling behavioral
health issues in the community. While there are a variety of different approaches, the Police Department
has determined that a Coordinated Response Model is the most effective approach to meet the needs of
the Oakdale community. Several agencies in Minnesota have adopted the Coordinated Response Model,
which has demonstrated success in reducing arrests, decreasing repeat 911 calls, increasing access to
care, and improving outcomes for people experiencing behavioral health challenges.
Coordinated Response Teams partner law enforcement officers with embedded social workers to address
behavioral health issues through early interventions, ongoing case management, and connection to
resources. At this Workshop, Woodbury Police Detective Adam Sack and Washington County Clinical
Social Services Supervisor Traci Thompson will provide a brief presentation about the current Coordinated
Response partnerships in Washington County including Woodbury’s Community Support Team.
Detective Sack is assigned to Woodbury’s mental health crisis response unit and is widely respected for
his work in coordinated response. Detective Sack has presented numerous times on the subject to a
variety of audiences including government agencies, professional organizations, and community
partners.
Traci Thompson has worked at Washington County for over 25 years and the majority of her career has
been focused in the mental health field. Ms. Thompson currently supervises the Washington County
Embedded Social Workers providing Law Enforcement Coordinated Response and Jail Mental Health.
Attachment
Presentation Slides
Coordinated
August 2025 Response in
Washington County
Introductions
Woodbury Public Safety
• Adam Sack, Community Support Team Detective
Washington County Community Services
• Traci Thompson, Clinical Social Services Supervisor
2
Objectives
1. Provide a historical and current context of the law enforcement /
social work partnership in Washington County.
2. Share uniqueness and success of the Coordinated Response
Program in Washington County.
3. Recognition of Coordinated Response in Washington County as a
model for other agencies.
4. Highlight the work through data.
3
Historical Context
4
•Washington County Sheriff’s Office (4)
Coordinated •Woodbury Police Department (4)
Response
Teams (CRT) •Stillwater Police Department (2)
in Washington
County •Cottage Grove Police Department (2)
•Oak Park Heights Police Department (1.5)
5
Law Enforcement and Social Worker Partnerships
Address 911 mental health calls
National and statewide
Not a mandated service
Unique programs based on a community’s need
Varying types of partnership models
6
Types of Law Enforcement/Social Work Partnerships
Co-Response
• Paired law enforcement and social worker response to active 911 mental health-related calls.
Coordinated Response
• Paired law enforcement and social worker follow up to mental health police calls/reports.
Embedded Social Work
• Social worker follow up to mental health-related law enforcement cases independently.
Alternative Response
• Non-law enforcement professional paired with a social worker to respond to emergency situations.
7
Washington County Program Highlights
Combination of three law Law enforcement are Social workers are county
enforcement/social work specialized Mental Health staff and credentialed mental
models Detectives health professionals
Person-centered approach Fills a critical service gap and
and part of a continuum of improves relationships with
care law enforcement & residents
Creates a vested Diversion of 911 calls for
ownership for cities mental health
8
Specialized Detective Position
• Specialized skillset and training
• Unmarked car / modified uniform helps reduce stigma
• Able to build rapport with ongoing clients and families
• Ability to stay with cases longer term
• Patrol is pulled into many directions and constrained by time – a
dedicated detective helps identify and focus on the situations that the
social worker can help with
• Liaison for the program within the department and the community
9
Specialized Social Work Position
• Specialized skillset and knowledge
• Clinical training and/or background
• Access to County systems/history
• Direct connection to current County providers/case managers
• Proactive approach to service delivery and less reactive (traditional County
services…need to qualify based on pre-defined criteria)
• Liaison between community services, law enforcement, and
individuals we serve…when applicable
10
The Washington County Model for CRT
Co-Response Coordinated Embedded Alternative
Response Social Work Response
Type of
In-Progress Follow Up Follow Up Active
Response
Specialized Social worker assigned to one specific jurisdiction, located on site within the law
Pilot Project (08/2025):
Washington enforcement agency, and responds to both in-progress and follow up calls with same
911 Communication Call
County Specialized Mental Health Law Enforcement partner. Same Specialized Social Worker also
Center Social Worker
independently provides ongoing support to identified clients in the community as needed.
• Viewed locally as a leader in the field and as an innovative service
• Requests from other cities/counties/mental health providers to learn more about our program (consult/shadowing)
• Visible as partners at community events, presentations, County employee events, Law Enforcement events
• Program is frequently mentioned and acknowledged in a variety of settings
11
Program Data Overview
• Date Range: 2022 - 2025
• Varied All Programs and By Jurisdiction
12
CRT Program Data
13
CRT Program Data
14
CRT Program Data
15
CRT Program Data
16
Questions?
17
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Max Lohse, Community Development Specialist
Date: August 12, 2025
Subject: Review of City of Oakdale Code of Ordinances, Chapter 9, Article 18 – Cannabis and
Hemp Business Regulations
BACKGROUND
At the June 10, 2025 City Council workshop meeting, the City Council discussed the Cannabis and Hemp
Regulations section of the City Code (City of Oakdale Code of Ordinances, Chapter 9, Article 18). The
conversation focused on setback regulations for cannabis businesses from schools as well as minor
clarifying improvements proposed by the City Attorney’s Office. During the meeting, questions arose about
the role of the County in issuing cannabis registrations and whether cannabis businesses are exempted
from setback regulations once established. A follow-up discussion of the Cannabis and Hemp Regulations
section was requested for a future workshop meeting. In general, cities have limited discretion to regulate
Cannabis; some common areas that can be regulated include zoning districts, setback requirements from
select uses, caps on the number of retail registrations, and hours of operation.
Role of the County in Issuing Cannabis Registrations
Per Minnesota Statutes 342.13(i), if a county has reached the threshold of one active registration for
every 12,500 residents county-wide, a city within that county is not required to register additional
cannabis businesses. Washington County has an estimated 2023 population of 278,936, allowing for up
to 23 registrations. The City of Oakdale Code of Ordinances, Chapter 9, Article 18, Sec. 9-187(a)(1) states
that the City will issue one registration per 12,500 residents, except for if Washington County reaches its
registration cap first. Oakdale has up to three registrations available. Per the City Attorney’s Office, this
means in practice that if Washington County reaches 23 registrations before Oakdale reaches its three,
Oakdale would not be obligated to issue any additional registrations. In response to Council direction,
staff has added a new step into the registration process to confirm with Washington County how many
registrations have been issued.
Exemption Status of Cannabis Businesses Once Established
During the June 10, 2025 City Council workshop meeting, a question was raised regarding whether
cannabis businesses, once established, are exempt from future setback violations that could arise from
the opening of new businesses or land uses. According to the City Attorney’s Office, any cannabis business
that opens in good standing may continue to operate regardless of whether a setback-related business
is opened at a later date (e.g., childcare center, school, treatment center, etc.). Given that there is
considerable legal precedent for exempting existing businesses, legal staff do not recommend the
addition of exemption language to the Ordinance.
COUNCIL DIRECTION REQUESTED
Given this additional information and any consideration since the last discussion, it is requested that the
Council discuss Chapter 9, Article 18, and state their intent regarding whether setback requirements from
schools should be modified from 1,000 ft to 500 ft.
1
Attachments
Comparison of Adopted Cannabis Setbacks in Peer Communities
Map – Cannabis Setbacks (Existing)
Map – Cannabis Setbacks (500 ft Buffer for Schools)
Proposed Changes to the City of Oakdale Code of Ordinances, Chapter 9, Article 18 – Cannabis and
Hemp Regulations
June 10, 2025 Council Workshop Memo – Review of Cannabis and Hemp Business Regulations
2
Comparison of Adopted Cannabis Setbacks in Peer Communities
City Adopted Setbacks
Oakdale 1000 ft from schools; 500 ft from day cares, treatment facilities, and park features
Cottage Grove 1000 ft from schools; 500 ft from day cares, treatment facilities, and park features
Roseville 500 ft from treatment facilities; 100 ft from schools and day cares
Stillwater 1000 ft from parks and schools
White Bear Lake 1000 ft from schools; 500 ft from day cares, treatment facilities, and park features
Woodbury 1000 ft from schools; 500 ft from day cares, treatment facilities, and park features
Existing Cannabis Setbacks
Legend
General Industrial Parcels -
Cultivation Permitted
Commercial PUD Parcels -
Retail Likely Permitted
Commercial Parcels - Retail
Not Permitted
Commercial Parcels - Retail
Permitted
Playground or Athletic Field -
500 ft Buffer
Schools - 1000 ft Buffer
Child Care Centers - 500 ft
Buffer
Treatment Centers - 500 ft
Buffer
Disclaimer
This map is intended to visualize which
commercial and industrial parcels may be eligible
for cannabis-related businesses with a buffer
required from all schools, licensed child care
centers, public playgrounds, public athletic fields,
and treatment centers. All parcel calculations are
approximate and not intended as a siting tool for
prospective businesses. If an applicant presents
staff with a potential location for a cannabis
business, staff will conduct a more detailed,
parcel-level analysis of eligibility.
¯ 0 0.5 1 2 Miles
Maxar
Cannabis Setbacks (500 ft Option)
Legend
General Industrial Parcels -
Cultivation Permitted
Commercial PUD Parcels -
Retail Likely Permitted
Commercial Parcels - Retail
Not Permitted
Commercial Parcels - Retail
Permitted
Playground or Athletic Field -
500 ft Buffer
Child Care Centers - 500 ft
Buffer
Treatment Centers - 500 ft
Buffer
Schools - 500 ft Buffer
Disclaimer
This map is intended to visualize which
commercial and industrial parcels may be eligible
for cannabis-related businesses if a buffer was
required from all schools, licensed child care
centers, public playgrounds, public athletic fields,
and treatment centers. All parcel calculations are
approximate and not intended as a siting tool for
prospective businesses. If a buffer requirement
for cannabis businesses is approved by the City
Council, staff would conduct a more detailed,
parcel-level analysis of eligibility for future
cannabis business candidates.
¯ 0 0.5 1 2 Miles
Maxar
CITY OF OAKDALE
ORDINANCE NO. XXX
AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES FOR THE CITY OF OAKDALE, CHAPTER 9, ARTICLE
18 RELATED TO LOCATION REQUIREMENTS AND UPDATING TERMINOLOGY
The City Council of the City of Oakdale ordains:
Section 1. The Oakdale Code of Ordinances, Chapter 9, Article 18, Section 9-185
is amended as follows:
Sec. 9-185 PROHIBITED LOCATION.
No cannabis business may be located within one thousand (1,000)five hundred (500) feet of
a school, or five hundred (500) feet of a licensed day care, park feature, or a residential
treatment facility, as measured from the closest point of the property line where the Cannabis
Business is proposed to be located to the closest point of the property line of the school,
licensed day care, park feature, or residential treatment facility.
Section 2. The Oakdale Code of Ordinances, Chapter 9, Article 18, Section 9-187
is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 9-187 CANNABIS RETAILER REGISTRATION LIMITS.
(a) Cap on number of cannabis retailer registrations:
(1) The city will issue one registration per twelve thousand five hundred (12,500)
residents in the city, except that the city will not issue any registrations if there is
one registration per twelve thousand five hundred (12,500) residents in
Washington County.
(2) The number of registrations available will be calculated by dividing the state
demographer’s estimate of the city’s population.
(3) The city will update the number of registrations available based on the most recent
data available from the state demographer on January 1 and June 1 each year.
(4) The number of registrations in the county will be based on the number of
registrations in the county on the day the application is received.
(5) If the number of registrations available within the city decreases based on the
county reaching the one per twelve thousand five hundred 12,500 threshold or the
city’s population decreases below a previous threshold, businesses with current
registrations will be allowed to maintain and renew their registrations but no new
registration will be issued.
(6) Registrations issued to businesses with a preliminary license approval preapproval
will count toward the city’s registration limit.
1
(b) The following businesses are not subject to the cap on registration under Paragraph
A above:
(1) Businesses operating under a tribal compact entered into under Minnesota
Statutes, Section 3.9224 or 3.9228;
(2) Tribally issued licenses and registrations;
(3)(1) Lower-Potency Hemp Retailer;
(4)(2) Municipal cannabis store; and
(5)(3) Medical cannabis combination businesses.
Section 3. The Oakdale Code of Ordinances, Chapter 9, Article 18, Section 9-189
is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 9-189 APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION.
All applicants for initial registration or renewal registration must submit a registration
application or renewal form provided by the city. The form may be amended from time to time
by the City Administrator, but must include or be accompanied by:
(a) Name of the property owner;
(b) Name and date of birth of the applicant;
(c) Address and parcel ID for the property for which the registration is sought;
(d) Certification that the applicant complies with the requirements of this article;
(e) Fee Required. At the time of initial application, and prior to the city’s consideration of
any renewal application, each cannabis retailer must pay, as established in the city’s
fee schedule, the following fees:
(1) At the time of initial registration:
a. An initial registration fee. The initial registration fee will pay for the
costs of registration and the cost of the first year of operation.
b. The renewal fee for the second year of operation.
(2) At the time of the first annual renewal (prior to the second year of operation),
no fee will be due.
2
(3) At the time of the second annual renewal, and each year thereafter, the renewal
fee must be paid prior to the city issuing any renewal registration.
(4) Initial registration fees and renewal registration fees are nonrefundable.
(f) A copy of a valid state license or written notice of OCM preliminary license approval
preapproval;
(g) Proof of taxes, assessments, utility charges, or other financial claims of the city and
state are current.
Section 4. Incorporation. City staff is authorized and directed to update the table of contents,
reformat this ordinance, and to make such other non-substantive changes as are necessary
to incorporate the amendments adopted by this Ordinance into the City of Oakdale Code of
Ordinances.
Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on _________,
after its adoption and publication, as provided by law.
Voting For: Mayor Zabel, Council Members Moore, Morcomb, and
Severson;
Voting Against: None.
Adopted this ___ day of ________, 2025 by the Oakdale City Council.
_____________________________________
Kevin Zabel, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
Sara Ludwig, City Clerk
Posted:
Published:
3
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Max Lohse, Community Development Specialist
Date: June 10, 2025
Subject: Review of City of Oakdale Code of Ordinances, Chapter 9, Article 18 – Cannabis and
Hemp Business Regulations
BACKGROUND
At the May 27, 2025, City Council Workshop, it was requested that staff add a discussion on the Cannabis
and Hemp Regulations section of the City Code (City of Oakdale Code of Ordinances, Chapter 9, Article
18) to a future Council Workshop with an emphasis on setback regulations for schools. Additionally, the
City Attorney’s Office is proposing minor adjustments to the ordinance, including improved clarity for
setback measurements, removal of tribal exemptions, and minor changes to license terminology to
comply with recent statutory updates.
Setback Regulations
Minnesota Statutes 342.13 permits cities to adopt setback regulations that prohibit cannabis businesses
from operating within a specified distance of certain business types. In particular, cities may adopt a
maximum setback distance of 1,000 ft from schools, and 500 ft from day cares, residential treatment
facilities, or park features oriented towards minors (playground, athletic field, etc.). The current ordinance
for the City of Oakdale utilizes the maximum setback allowed by Minnesota Statutes 342.13.
Below is a comparison of cannabis setbacks adopted by peer communities:
City Adopted Setbacks
Oakdale 1,000 ft from schools; 500 ft from day cares, treatment facilities, and park features
Cottage Grove 1,000 ft from schools; 500 ft from day cares, treatment facilities, and park features
Roseville 500 ft from treatment facilities; 100 ft from schools and day cares
Stillwater 1,000 ft from parks and schools
White Bear Lake 1,000 ft from schools; 500 ft from day cares, treatment facilities, and park features
Woodbury 1,000 ft from schools; 500 ft from day cares, treatment facilities, and park features
COUNCIL DIRECTION REQUESTED
It is requested that the Council discuss Chapter 9, Article 18, and state their intent regarding whether
setback requirements from schools should be modified from 1,000 ft to 500 ft.
Attachments
Map – Cannabis Setbacks (Existing)
Map – Cannabis Setbacks (500 ft Buffer for Schools)
Proposed Changes to City of Oakdale Code of Ordinances, Chapter 9, Article 18 – Cannabis and Hemp
Regulations
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Kristina Handt, Interim Finance Director
Date: August 12, 2025
Subject: 2026 Proposed Budget Revisions - General Fund/Levy
BACKGROUND
At the June 16, 2025 City Council Workshop, General Fund operating expenses were reviewed. The
General Fund expenses for 2026 were proposed to increase over 2025 budgeted General Fund
expenses. During that Workshop, changes made to the operating budgets are as follows:
• Moved $7,500 from the Recreation budget to Charitable Gambling Fund for bandshell
entertainment.
• Added $5,000 to Recreation budget for accessible and inclusive programming.
• Reduced Recreation furniture and fixtures by $2,000.
• Increased Human Resources budget by $3,500 for Employee Assistance Program.
• Decreased Civil Legal fees by $20,000.
• Consolidated all advisory body meeting fees under City Council.
• Decreased Finance budget for overtime by $3,000.
• Decreased Police budget $3,000 for forensic computer to be paid for out of IT budget.
• Increased General Liability Insurance about $5,000 to reflect updated quote including new Public
Works Facility.
• Moved $55,000 from Administration budget for elections to Special Projects.
• Moved $28,750 from Police for cameras to Forfeiture.
• Moved $3,000 from Police for North Star Mini Storage to Special Projects.
• Moved $3,000 from Police for first aid kits to Special Projects.
• Moved $6,000 from Fire for cabinet to Special Projects.
• Moved $13,000 from IT for network switches to Special Projects.
• Reduced Special Projects Manager to only one quarter in 2026 reducing Administration and
Community Development budgets.
• Removed $75,000 from Community Development budget for Comprehensive Plan update and
added $72,000 to SEED budget for it.
Following the June 16, 2025 Workshop, staff are proposing the following additional cuts/changes:
• Reduce Community Development Intern from $23,000 to $15,000.
• Propose to fund reduced Special Projects Manager ($22,000) out of the SEED fund instead of
General Fund.
• Eliminate Metro Cities membership for 2026 for a total reduction of $9,508.
• Reduce employer paid portion of Paid Family and Medical Leave to 0.44% which is half of the new
tax with the employee paying the other 0.44%.
• Move Drone ($64,000) funding to Forfeiture Fund.
• Propose using fund balance from Closed Bond Fund to eliminate levy needed for 2016A bond
payment = $99,811.
• Eliminate Behavioral Health Police Officer = $168,590.
• Move increase in Building Inspections for roofing ($25,000) to Special Projects.
1
• Further reduce 2026 levy to Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fund (VERF) by $150,000 to
$1,050,000 from the Mayor’s requested reduction June 16 to $1.2M.
Revenues
Permits: Building permit revenue is shown to decrease as development in the City has begun to slow.
Developers are waiting for the Zoning Code update and more favorable interest rates before moving
forward.
Intergovernmental: Increase of $253,000 due to increase in ambulance reimbursement (offset by
increased expense), increase in Police services for School Resource Officer (offset by increased expense),
5% increase in highway aid and budgeting fire aid and police aid more closely to 2024 actuals.
Other Financing Sources: Decreased by over $300,000 due to decrease in public safety aid from
$300,000 to $250,000 as planned in 2023, and 2025 one-time use of excess franchise fees that will
now be going to the Street Improvement Fund. The levy was further reduced due to a transfer of $20,000
from the Pandemic Business Loan Fund. The Pandemic Business Loan Fund tracks the loans the City of
Oakdale offered during the pandemic to businesses and its fund balance is made up of repaid loans.
These changes reduced the proposed 2026 General Fund Expenses by $591,659 to $25,047,642, or
$1,686,099 more than the 2025 adopted budget. In addition, there is a proposed reduction in non-tax
revenues of $97,475 which is resulting in the need for a levy increase of $1,783,574 in the General Fund
to $16,926,364 or 11.8%.
At the July 8 and 22, 2025 City Council Workshops, the VERF and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) were
reviewed. The levy amounts identified in the CIP funds for 2026 were $2,125,000. As noted above, staff
is proposing to further reduce the levy for VERF in 2026. The current proposed CIP levy is $1,975,000 or
an increase of $4,526 from 2025 adopted budget.
2025 Adopted 2026 25 to '26
Capital Project Levy 2024 Actual Budget Proposed Change % Change
Municipal Building Fund $135,000 $135,000 $135,000 $0 0%
Park Capital Fund $245,000 $320,000 $395,000 $75,000 23%
Street Improvement Fund $345,000 $395,000 $395,000 $0 0%
Vehicle & Equip. Replace. Fund $965,000 $1,120,474 $1,050,000 ($70,474) -6%
Total $1,690,000 $1,970,474 $1,975,000 $4,526 0%
Debt
Debt levies needed to make bond payments in 2026 are $2,345,130. As noted previously, staff are
proposing to use Closed Bond Fund balance to pay the 2016A bond in 2026 which is its final payment
year, so the current proposed levy for Debt Service is $2,245,319 or an increase of $231,455, mainly
due to the tax abatement bonds for the Willowbrooke Park and trail projects in 2025.
2
Bond 2026 Levy
2016A Closed Bond Fund
2017A $173,682
2018A $52,311
2019A $217,874
2020A $199,940
2021A $140,875
2022A $334,063
2023A $268,188
2024A $345,375
2025A est $513,011
Total $2,245,319
With the above noted changes, the proposed 2026 total levy is $21,146,683 or a 10.6% increase over
2025.
2026
Levy Adopted 2022 2023 2024 2025 Proposed % Change
General 10,798,983 12,631,812 14,352,993 15,142,790 16,926,364 11.8%
Capital Improvement Plan 640,000 1,143,346 1,690,000 1,970,474 1,975,000 0.2%
Debt Service 2,520,139 2,289,699 2,022,665 2,013,864 2,245,319 11.5%
Other 384,500 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Total Levy Adopted 14,343,622 16,064,857 18,065,658 19,127,128 21,146,683 10.6%
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
To further reduce the levy, the Council may want to consider the following:
• Other Fund Balances available for use include the General Fund Unassigned ($2-$3 million at
45.83%-50% of 2026 operating expenses).
• The Closed Bond Fund was used (above) to eliminate the levy for the 2016A bond, however it
could also be used to eliminate the levy for the 2017A and 2018A bonds with additional use of
fund balance for 2026 payments totaling about $226,000. There would remain enough in the
Closed Bond Fund balance through 2027 in order to make the remaining years’ payments (2027
and 2028) for the 2017A and 2018A bonds so this would not be a one-year reduction.
• The Special Projects Fund has about $700,000 unallocated. Are there any other expenses in the
General Fund levy for 2026 that could be paid out of this fund?
• The Charitable Gambling Fund projected fund balance for 12/31/26 is over $227,000. Are there
any other General Fund levy expenses for 2026 that Council would like to move to this fund?
COUNCIL DIRECTION REQUESTED
Staff requests feedback and intent on the General Fund budget and the overall levy in preparation for
approval of the 2026 Proposed Property Tax Levy at the September 9, 2025 City Council meeting. The
proposed property tax levy set is a maximum which can only be decreased prior to setting the final levy
scheduled for the December 9, 2025 City Council meeting.
3
Remaining Budget Calendar
August 26, 2025 Workshop
Staff presents Council with department-proposed 2026 Enterprise and Special Revenue Funds.
September 9, 2025
City Council certifies 2026 Proposed Property Tax Levy and sets meeting date for the Truth in
Taxation meeting.
October 14 2025 Workshop
City staff presents Council with department 2026-2030 CIP including the 2026-2035 VERF Plan,
Enterprise Funds, and Special Revenue Funds.
November 10, 2025 Workshop
Final update on 2026 General Fund Budget/Levy.
Mid-Nov, 2025
Proposed Property Tax (Truth in Taxation) notices sent by County to all property owners in the City.
Dec 9, 2025
Truth in Taxation meeting for 2026 Budget and Tax Levies. City Council adopts 2026 Budget, 2026
Tax Levy, and 2026-2030 CIP including the 2026-2035 VERF Plan.
4
Get email alerts for Oakdale
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.