Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
07-27-26-WS
PUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONAL This is an opportunity for citizens to respectfully bring to the Council ’s attention any items which are relevant to the City. In addressing the Council, you must first state your name and address for the record. Comments shall be limited to three (3) minutes or less. Written documents or other materials should be handed to the City Clerk for distribution to the Council prior to or during the meeting. Council will generally not respond at the same meeting where an issue is initially raised by a member of the public but the Council may refer the issue to staff for further research and possible report or action at a future Council meeting. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC INQUIRIES AGENDA ITEMS Great River Greening Great River Greening MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF 2027 -2031 CIP Discussion Gayle Bauman Contracted Interim Finance Director MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF Code Of Conduct Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF Immigration Enforcement Discussion Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator MEMO.PDF Rice Creek Commons/TCAAP Discussion Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator MEMO.PDF Agenda Planning Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS ADJOURN Mayor: David Grant Councilmembers: Brenda Holden Emily Rousseau Tena Monson Kurt Weber City Council Work Session Agenda July 27, 2026 5:30 p.m. City Hall Address: 1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN 55112 Phone: 651 -792 -7800 Website : www.cityofardenhills.org City Vision Arden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play. Members of the public may attend a meeting in -person at City Hall or they may view the meeting remotely on the City ’s website using the below link. Meetings are also broadcast on Cable Channel 16 for those that live in Arden Hills. https://cityofardenhills.org/320/Watch -City -Meetings Some Councilmembers may be participating in this meeting by interactive technology/remotely. This meeting will be streamed live on local Cable Channel 16 and available for playback on our website. CALL TO ORDER 1. 2. 3. 3.A. Documents: 3.B. Documents: 3.C. Documents: 3.D. Documents: 3.E. Documents: 3.F. Documents: 4. PUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONALThis is an opportunity for citizens to respectfully bring to the Council ’s attention any items which are relevant to the City. In addressing the Council, you must first state your name and address for the record. Comments shall be limited to three (3) minutes or less. Written documents or other materials should be handed to the City Clerk for distribution to the Council prior to or during the meeting. Council will generally not respond at the same meeting where an issue is initially raised by a member of the public but the Council may refer the issue to staff for further research and possible report or action at a future Council meeting.RESPONSE TO PUBLIC INQUIRIESAGENDA ITEMSGreat River Greening Great River Greening MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF 2027 -2031 CIP Discussion Gayle Bauman Contracted Interim Finance Director MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF Code Of Conduct Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF Immigration Enforcement Discussion Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator MEMO.PDF Rice Creek Commons/TCAAP Discussion Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator MEMO.PDF Agenda Planning Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS ADJOURN Mayor:David GrantCouncilmembers:Brenda HoldenEmily RousseauTena MonsonKurt Weber City Council Work Session Agenda July 27, 2026 5:30 p.m. City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96Arden Hills MN 55112Phone:651 -792 -7800Website:www.cityofardenhills.orgCity VisionArden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play.Members of the public may attend a meeting in -person at City Hall or they may view the meeting remotely on the City ’s website using the below link. Meetings are also broadcast on Cable Channel 16 for those that live in Arden Hills. https://cityofardenhills.org/320/Watch -City -MeetingsSome Councilmembers may be participating in this meeting by interactive technology/remotely.This meeting will be streamed live on local Cable Channel 16 and available for playback on our website.CALL TO ORDER1.2.3.3.A. Documents: 3.B. Documents: 3.C. Documents: 3.D. Documents: 3.E. Documents: 3.F. Documents: 4. PUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONALThis is an opportunity for citizens to respectfully bring to the Council ’s attention any items which are relevant to the City. In addressing the Council, you must first state your name and address for the record. Comments shall be limited to three (3) minutes or less. Written documents or other materials should be handed to the City Clerk for distribution to the Council prior to or during the meeting. Council will generally not respond at the same meeting where an issue is initially raised by a member of the public but the Council may refer the issue to staff for further research and possible report or action at a future Council meeting.RESPONSE TO PUBLIC INQUIRIESAGENDA ITEMSGreat River GreeningGreat River GreeningMEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFATTACHMENT C.PDFATTACHMENT D.PDF2027-2031 CIP DiscussionGayle BaumanContracted Interim Finance DirectorMEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFATTACHMENT C.PDFATTACHMENT D.PDFCode Of ConductJessica Jagoe, City AdministratorMEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFATTACHMENT C.PDFATTACHMENT D.PDFATTACHMENT E.PDFImmigration Enforcement DiscussionJessica Jagoe, City AdministratorMEMO.PDFRice Creek Commons/TCAAP DiscussionJessica Jagoe, City Administrator MEMO.PDF Agenda Planning Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS ADJOURN Mayor:David GrantCouncilmembers:Brenda HoldenEmily RousseauTena MonsonKurt Weber City Council Work Session Agenda July 27, 2026 5:30 p.m. City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96Arden Hills MN 55112Phone:651 -792 -7800Website:www.cityofardenhills.orgCity VisionArden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play.Members of the public may attend a meeting in -person at City Hall or they may view the meeting remotely on the City ’s website using the below link. Meetings are also broadcast on Cable Channel 16 for those that live in Arden Hills. https://cityofardenhills.org/320/Watch -City -MeetingsSome Councilmembers may be participating in this meeting by interactive technology/remotely.This meeting will be streamed live on local Cable Channel 16 and available for playback on our website.CALL TO ORDER1.2.3.3.A.Documents:3.B.Documents:3.C.Documents:3.D.Documents:3.E.Documents: 3.F. Documents: 4. Page 1 of 2 AGENDA ITEM – 3A MEMORANDUM DATE: July 27, 2026 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator FROM: David Swearingen, P.E. Public Works Director / City Engineer SUBJECT: Natural Resources Rehabilitation – Great River Greening Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: $0 Review Attachment D PIR – Parks, Grants Council Should Consider Council should consider the presentation by Great River Greening and provide direction on: •The proposed new grant opportunity for a rehabilitation project at Chatham Open Space. •Natural Resources Management Plan goals and recommended maintenance and related budget needs for Floral Park and Hazelnut Park. Background/Discussion The City of Arden Hills partnered with Great River Greening in 2024 to begin Natural Resource management efforts in Floral Park and Hazelnut Park which included the removal of buckthorn and other invasive species of vegetation to then promote regrowth of native plants. Great River Greening (GRG) has applied for a new grant opportunity that is proposed to be for restoration activities at Chatham Open Space. When City staff was notified of the new grant opportunity, GRG requested a letter of support, due to the tight timeline of the application and positive feedback from the initial grant program, City staff provided that letter of support as seen in Attachment B. Due to the scheduling conflicts with the Parks Trails and Recreation Page 2 of 2 Committee meetings, they have not provided a recommendation on the new grant opportunity. There is no commitment for the City at this time. City staff is looking for direction from the City Council if they support moving forward with the new grant program for Chatham Open Space. If the grant is awarded for this project, a Cooperative Agreement with Great River Greening would be expected by July 2027 to proceed with the work in Chatham Open Space. Per the Natural Resources Management Plan (Attachment C), beginning in 2028 after the grant funds have been fully utilized, the city is proposed to begin performing ongoing maintenance of Floral Park and Hazelnut Park. Budget Impact The proposed level of service for Natural Resources management is beyond the typical operations that Arden Hills provides currently. Therefore, to meet the recommended maintenance of Floral Park and Hazelnut Park, there would be a significant increase to the budget related to the PIR Fund. City Council should provide direction in programming this scope of work into the 2027-2031 Capital Improvement Plan. Attachment D, provides the budget information in detail. For comparison, Arden Hills currently contracts the natural prairie space around City Hall at a rate of $1,730/acre annually. On a year scheduled for a prescribed burn that cost increases. Attachments Attachment A – Presentation Slides Attachment B – Letter of support for new grant opportunity Attachment C – Natural Resource Management Plan Attachment D – Budget information City of Arden Hills – City Council Work Session, July 27, 2026 – Becca Tucker, Twin Cities Metro Program Manager GRG Overview We address Minnesota’s most pressing conservation issues, from disappearing pollinator habitat to declining water quality. Our work spans from the Mississippi Headwaters through the Twin Cities and into south- central Minnesota. Guided by science, we advance restoration, helping to find new and better ways of solving Minnesota’s environmental challenges through partnerships. •Transforming degraded urban natural areas •Expanding wildlife and pollinator habitat •Building community-based models for sustainable agriculture Arden Hills - Grants and Projects ▪Outdoor Heritage Fund grants - ▪Currently Online - ▪Metro Big Rivers Phase 12 – ▪Hazelnut Park and NRMP writing, through June 2027 ▪Metro Big Rivers Phase 14 - ▪Floral Park, through June 2029 ▪Proposed - ▪Metro Forests for Minnesota Wildlife and Communities ▪Chatham Park, July 2027 – June 2032 City of Arden Hills – Proposed ▪Outdoor Heritage Fund Proposal - •Metro Forests for Minnesota Wildlife and Communities ▪Timeline •Proposal is subitted, currently being reviewed by the Lessard -Sams Outdoor Heritage Council •If invited, presentations August 25 -26, 2026 •If awarded, online July 2027 through June 2032 ▪Goals •Chatham Park, 23 acres of buckthorn control and native species establishment with continued maintenance. ▪$234,700 current budget (may be reduced depending on appropriation) ▪Includes contracting, supplies, and support for Greening labor and project management / volunteer event coordination ▪Requested city match of $20K cash and $15K in -kind over the 5 year period ▪May scale down depending on awarded appropriation City of Arden Hills – Updates ▪Hazelnut and Floral - o Initial buckthorn removal in Winter 2024-25 ▪Hand clearing and forestry mowing o Follow up summer and fall treatments (mowing and herbicide applications) 2025 /26 ▪Biochar kiln use o Initial native seeding in Jan 2026 City of Arden Hills - Updates ▪ Continued work at Hazelnut and Floral – o Hazelnut - ▪Fall volunteer planting event (native grasses, wildflowers and shrubs) ▪Winter overseeding of native grasses and wildflowers ▪Final contracted buckthorn follow up in May / June 2027 (grant end) o Floral - ▪Winter overseeding of native grasses and wildflowers ▪Spring / fall volunteer planting event (depending on state of the veg) ▪Greening crew / volunteers targeted invasive control ▪Grant ends June 2029 Upcoming Event – Hazelnut Park ▪National Public Lands Day - Saturday, September 26, 2026 •National Environmental Education Foundation (NEEF) •Approx. 50 - 75 volunteers •Planting native grasses and wildflowers as well as shrubs •Work will focus on northern forest where current buckthorn removal is happening Natural Resource Management Plan – ▪3 – Parks •Hazelnut, Floral, and Chatham Trails Parks ▪Goals •Outline conditions and habitat status in upland areas of all parks •Recommend management and maintenance activities •Propose anticipated timelines, pricing, and useful specifications ▪Discussion Points - •Proposed budgets and how they fit into current / planned work NRMP Recommendations - ▪Proposed Actions - •Types of specific management work with potential per/ acre costs ▪Year Timelines - •Order of operations of tasks w/ potential priorities ▪Summary Budgets - •Anticipated range of budget needs based on current state and priorities NRMP – Draft Summary Budgets "Year 1"= Hazelnut, 2027 (after completion of MBR12) Floral, 2029 (after completion of MBR14) Chatham, 2027 (supported by OHF funds for if allocated by L-SOHC) NRMP Appendices - ▪Seeding Species Lists - ▪Tree and Shrub Planting Lists ▪Soil Surveys ▪Invasive Species and Noxious Plant Management Protocols ▪Plant Species Reference List Questions? rtucker@greatrivergreening.org CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Celebrating 75 Years City Hall ▪ 1245 West Highway 96 ▪ Arden Hills, MN ▪ 55112 Phone 651.792.7800 ▪ Fax 651.634.5137 ▪ cityofardenhills.org May 12, 2026 Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council 658 Cedar Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 RE: Letter of support for FY 2028 / ML 2027 L-SOHC proposal, Great River Greening and City of Arden Hills. Dear L-SOHC Members, The City of Arden Hills supports Great River Greening’s request for funding through the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Fund, established by the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment, for habitat restoration and enhancement of publicly owned native forest ecosystems in the Metropolitan Urbanizing Section. This effort will expand access to healthy woodlands, oak savannas, and natural areas while benefiting the larger ecosystem. We support this request because it will address the need for environmentally conscious land management and natural resource preservation at Chatham Trails. We also support Great River Greening’s efforts to demonstrate conservation and stewardship practices that community members can participate in through public projects, while gaining a greater understanding of practices outlined in the Minnesota Conservation and Preservation Plan. Chatham Trails Park includes a significant natural area heavily overrun with invasive species, particularly buckthorn. These conditions have limited the health and diversity of the woodland understory, reduced native habitat value, and created long-term maintenance challenges for the City. Restoration support would help address these issues through invasive species removal, native plant reestablishment, and ongoing stewardship practices that improve ecological function and public enjoyment. This work directly supports the City’s goals of protecting natural resources, improving habitat quality, and ensuring Chatham Trails remains a healthy and accessible natural area for the community. Great River Greening’s effort to inspire and lead local communities in restoring and conserving the land and water that enrich our lives will be exemplified through the work outlined in this proposal, and the City of Arden Hills is pleased to support and partner in that effort. Sincerely, Jess Skalicky Parks and Recreation Manager 1 NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Hazelnut Park, Floral Park, and Chatham Park Great River Greening 2026 2 Natural Resource Management Plan: City of Arden Hills Hazelnut Park, Floral Park, and Chatham Park Prepared for: The City of Arden Hills, Minnesota Prepared by: Great River Greening, February 2026 Contributing Authors: Rebecca Tucker Alexander Bahr 3 About the Authors Rebecca Tucker, Twin Cities Metro Program Manager (M.S. Plant Ecology and Population Genetics, Purdue University) Rebecca has been with Great River Greening since fall of 2017, progressing from Ecologist to Program Manager in that time. She currently manages two staff and over 30 restoration projects throughout Minnesota, coordinating habitat enhancement contracts, pollinator monitoring projects, and frequent public engagement opportunities. Rebecca has a Master of Science in Botany from Purdue University and a Bachelor of Science in Biology from the University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point, during both of which she engaged the public with a variety of educational talks and worked on numerous farm and greenhouse research projects. rtucker@greatrivergreening.org Alexander Bahr, Twin Cities Metro Project Manager (B.S. Ecology, University of Minnesota) Alexander originally joined GRG in 2019 as a seasonal field technician. He worked for 2 seasons in that role as part of a 7-year period of conducting field work in natural land management before being hired as Project Manager in 2024. He now coordinates and implements contract and volunteer work throughout the west and south metro areas. abahr@greatrivergreening.org GREAT RIVER GREENING Great River Greening’s mission is to secure the legacy of Minnesota land and water through community- based restoration, stewardship, and partnership, striving to improve Minnesota’s natural resources, protect clean air and water, and increase community access to sustainable open space. Suggested Citation: Great River Greening, 2026. Natural Resource Management Plan: City of Arden Hills, Hazelnut Park, Floral Park, and Chatham Park. Front Cover Images taken by Becca Tucker: Footpath bridge at Floral Park, red baneberry (Actea rubra) at Hazelnut Park, a walking path trail marker at Floral Park, and labeled native plantings at Hazelnut Park . ©2026 by Great River Greening Great River Greening 251 Starkey St #2200 St Paul, MN 55107 4 Contents 1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 5 2. General Background and Current Site Conditions ................................................................................... 6 2.a. Summary of Park Locations ............................................................................................................. 6 2.b. Hazelnut Park Background .............................................................................................................. 7 2.c. Floral Park Background .................................................................................................................. 10 2.d. Chatham Park Background ............................................................................................................ 13 3. Natural Resources Management Recommendations ............................................................................. 15 3.a. Summary of Park Goals and General Management Recommendations ............................................ 16 3.b. Hazelnut Park Recommendations .................................................................................................. 19 3.c. Floral Park Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 25 3.d. Chatham Park Recommendations .................................................................................................. 33 4. Specifications for Restoration Activities ................................................................................................ 38 4.a. Forestry Mowing (Woody Tree / Shrub Initial Removal) ..................................................................... 38 4.b. Critical Period High Cutting (Woody Tree / Shrub Initial Removal) .................................................... 40 4.c. Woody Tree / Shrub Control and Maintenance ................................................................................ 41 4.d. Woody Herbicide Application ......................................................................................................... 42 4.e. Herbaceous Invasive Control ......................................................................................................... 43 4.f. Native Species Planting .................................................................................................................. 44 4.g. Native Species Seeding .................................................................................................................. 45 4.h. Prescribed Fire .............................................................................................................................. 46 4.i. Woody Debris Disposal Options ...................................................................................................... 48 4.j. Goat Browsing ................................................................................................................................ 49 Appendix A: Seeding Species Lists ............................................................................................................ 51 Appendix B: Tree and Shrub Planting Species List ...................................................................................... 59 Appendix C: Soil Surveys ............................................................................................................................ 60 Appendix D: Invasive Species and Noxious Plant Management Protocols .......................................................... 64 Appendix E: Plant Species Referenced in the Natural Resource Management Text ............................................. 69 Citations and References ......................................................................................................................... 70 .................................................................................................................................................................. 5 1. Executive Summary The City of Arden Hills is working to improve natural areas at Hazelnut Park, Floral Park, and Chatham Park. Native plant communities provide important ecological benefits, including habitat for pollinators and wildlife, carbon storage, water filtration, flood regulation, soil development, and improved water quality. However, urban development and increased land use have significantly reduced and degraded these habitats. Great River Greening conducted site assessments to evaluate existing plant communities and overall conditions. The project areas include about 12.5 acres of woodland, 1.2 acres of prairie or open savanna, 2.7 acres of turf lawn, and 0.36 acres of shoreline. Recommendations are based on existing vegetation, soils, and topography. This management brief outlines actions such as invasive species control, removal of debris and hazard trees, understory enhancement, shoreline stabilization, and turf-to-prairie conversion where appropriate. These actions represent the first phase of a long-term land management strategy. Because these sites exist within a heavily altered urban environment, full restoration to historic plant communities is not realistic. Instead, the goal is to improve ecological function, increase climate resiliency, enhance water quality, reduce erosion and runoff, and create healthy, attractive natural spaces for wildlife and park visitors. 6 2. General Background and Current Site Conditions 2.a. Summary of Park Locations General Location The City of Arden Hills is located in Ramsey County, about 12 miles north of downtown Saint Paul, Minnesota. Pre-settlement vegetation maps from the Minnesota Natural Resources Research Institute (NRRI), published through the Minnesota Natural Resource Atlas, identify the area primarily as Oak Openings and Barrens (Johnson 2022). Farming and urban development have significantly altered these habitats within the focus parks. However, some remnant green spaces and portions of historically undisturbed land remain. Many natural areas in the park system were donated or acquired because of their historic significance. Others remain undeveloped because their topography or geography limited development. As part of the Saint Paul–Minneapolis metropolitan area, Arden Hills is largely residential and commercial in character. The City’s park system includes 102 acres of parks and open space across 16 sites (Arden Hills 2026). These natural areas provide recreation opportunities while also serving as wildlife corridors and helping protect wetlands, woodlands, drainageways, and other natural resources. The three parks identified in this Natural Resources Management Brief reflect common conditions found in urban park systems. They also highlight the restoration and stewardship work needed to support healthy native habitats. 7 2.b. Hazelnut Park Background Overview of Historic and Current Site Conditions The earliest aerial imagery of the property, from 1937 in the Minnesota Historical Aerial Photographs Online (MHAPO) database, shows a mix of open land with scattered trees and cultivated agricultural fields (MHAPO 2015). By 1945, the area south of the park had largely transitioned to residential development, similar to what exists today. Since that time, the park’s overall boundaries have remained consistent. Today, about 7 acres of Hazelnut Park consist of turf lawn and athletic fields with spaced canopy trees. These areas are actively maintained by the City through mowing and are supplemented by hand-weeding from neighborhood volunteers. The remaining 6.9 acres consist of moderately shaded woodland. These areas are used primarily for passive recreation, including informal walking and mountain biking trails created and maintained by the public. The powerline corridor along the park’s western boundary functions as a community trail. If managed to support non-woody native species that are compatible with periodic mowing, this corridor could also help increase plant diversity within the park. Soils The park’s natural areas are primarily underlain by Zimmerman fine sand and loamy fine sand, with some sloped areas. These soils are well drained and highly permeable, whi ch results in very little surface runoff after rainfall (Soil Survey Staff 2005; Anderson 2021; see Appendix C). Soil conditions strongly influence the types of plant communities the site can support. In this case, the sandy soils help explain the relatively low diversity of understory species, which are adapted to dry, low - moisture environments. Because these soils hold limited organic matter and water -soluble nutrients, forest regeneration can be difficult. The presence of non-native earthworms—and the potential for invasive jumping worms—further reduces the leaf litter and organic layers that hardwood forests rely on. Figure 2.b.1 Hazelnut Park Work Areas. Map showing the main woodland areas and the full extent of park using city parcel data. 8 Together, these factors suggest the site may be better suited to a savanna-like habitat rather than a low- diversity woodland. Vegetation Plant surveys were conducted in fall 2024 before restoration work began. Surveys were repeated in 2025 after buckthorn-targeted mowing and follow-up treatments removed much of the invasive shrub layer. By 2025, overall site quality had improved. Invasive shrubs were reduced, though Percent Native Vegetation (%PNV) remains relatively low. The woodland canopy is dominated by black walnut, northern red oak, and boxelder. Patches of invasive species including common buckthorn, honeysuckle, and white mulberry remain in the shrub layer. Other native trees and shrubs present include poplar, maple, ash, raspberry, and Missouri gooseberry . See Appendix E for a list of species. Native herbaceous diversity increased in 2025. White snakeroot and spotted touch -me-not are common along trails. The interior woodland is largely dominated by Virginia creeper and Pennsylvania sedge, with a mix of spring wildflowers and other woodland species present. Non-native herbaceous plants—including burdock, smooth brome, Dame’s rocket, motherwort, and garlic mustard—remain at moderate levels. Continued management will be necessary to prevent invasive species from regaining dominance. Resource Threats and Habitat Goals Buckthorn and honeysuckle have dominated the understory and mid-canopy, limiting the diversity of native shrubs and ground-layer plants. In brighter edge areas, opportunistic native species such as spotted touch - me-not and raspberries have expanded. Without continued management, both invasive shrubs and aggressive native species are likely to reclaim space after the initial grant-funded work is complete. Ash (Fraxinus) and oak (Quercus) populations may also decline due to emerald ash borer and oak wilt. As these trees decline, new canopy openings may form. These openings could e ither allow invasive species to return or provide opportunities for intentional native planting and seeding. Under the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS), Hazelnut Park’s north woodland is classified as upland deciduous forest. The south woodland area was not mapped in 2004. Based on dominant species, the site most closely aligns with Native Plant Community type FDs37: Southern Dry-Mesic Oak (Maple) Woodland. As invasive shrubs are removed, restoration efforts should move toward a more diverse woodland structure similar to MHs38. This community type typically includes oak and maple in the canopy, native shrubs such as dogwood and Prunus, and a ground layer of sedges and woodland forbs (MNDNR 2003, 2005). Again due to the sandy soils, the plant community may be more open than a true MHs38 woodland. In areas of the park’s borders that are open air, they could either be planted into a similar woodland ecosystem, or maintained as prairie similar to Southern Mesic Prairie habitat (UPs23). 9 Restoration Objectives Overview Future restoration at Hazelnut Park should focus on controlling emerging buckthorn seedlings and invasive herbaceous species. Efforts should also work to increase native woodland diversity, including both woody plants and herbaceous species. In the short term, buckthorn is expected to decline because of the recent intensive removal work and its relatively short-lived seed bank (Schuster et al. 2023). Over the long term, management will likely require periodic shrub thinning. This could include mechanical removal or goat browsing to help support native understory establishment. Prescribed fire is not recommended. The understory may be too sparse to carry fire, and certain native species—particularly white snakeroot—could become overly dominant after burns. Planting clonal shrubs such as dogwoods, along with appropriate native forbs and grasses, will help resist reinvasion and improve wildlife habitat. Native tree regeneration should also be monitored and supplemented as needed. Volunteers can assist with invasive species control and native plantings. Detailed tasks, timelines, and species lists are provided in Section 3 and Appendices A and B. 10 2.c. Floral Park Background Overview of Historic and Current Site conditions By the 1940s, Floral Park was bordered by county roads and used largely for agriculture. Most of the site - except what are now Units 3 and 4 (Figure 2.3) - was cropland with scattered trees. This pattern continued through the 1950s and 1980s, though forest cover gradually reestablished in Units 1 & 2 and increased in density in Units 3 & 4. Today, Floral Park is a 20-acre mixed-use urban park with turf areas, native trees, repaved trails, sports facilities, a playground, and substantial undeveloped woodlands and wetlands. A powerline corridor runs east– west, dividing the park into north and south woodland areas. Community members have created informal walking trails through the 13 acres of woodland and established a native pollinator planting for habitat and educati on. The woodlands support diverse native species, including mature oaks that reflect pre -urban conditions. Several large bur oaks in the central turf area and Unit 3 may predate park development. Soils Floral Park reflects the glacial history of the Twin Cities, with kettle depressions visible on historic maps. Its soils align with the St. Paul–Baldwin Plains and Moraines ecological subsection (see Appendix C) (Soil Survey Staff 2005; Anderson 2021). The northeastern lowland contains Seelyville muck with heavy organic layers and poor drainage. Most other natural areas consist of Hayden fine sandy loam (222Md). Water generally moves from sandier upland woodlands toward wetlands in the northeast and west, and to a drainage ditch in the southeast. Shallow slopes promote prolonged soil saturation and nutrient retention, supporting hardwood forest species even without recurring fire. Vegetation Floral Park supports relatively high native diversity, and remnants of historic oak savanna remain visible. The canopy is dominated by white oak, bur oak, northern red oak, boxelder, and cottonwood, with smaller Figure 2.c.1 Floral Park Work Areas. Map showing the main woodland areas, utility corridor and the full extent of park using city parcel data. 11 amounts of quaking aspen, green ash, and black locust. Over time, faster-growing native species filled former open areas between oaks, creating a denser, shadier understory. Common buckthorn dominates much of the shrub layer. Other woody species include gray dogwood, red - osier dogwood, black walnut, and black cherry, along with smaller patches of glossy buckthorn, honeysuckle, and Amur maple. Invasive herbaceous species include reed canary grass, garlic mustard, burdock, Canada thistle, and bittersweet nightshade. Following buckthorn-targeted forestry mowing in winter 2024–25 and earlier community removal efforts, invasive shrub cover declined, though some native understory was also reduced. By spring 2025, early native regeneration included Virginia creeper, enchanter’s nightshade, lamb’s quarters, and common elder. Without active management, these species could become dominant and limit overall understory diversit y. Vegetation management in the powerline corridor (2023–24) favored grasses and herbaceous species, especially reed canary grass, which now dominates. In 2025, some native species—including hoary vervain, wild geranium, common milkweed, and native ferns—began establishing. Resource Threats and Habitat Goals The primary threats to Floral Park’s ecosystems are invasive species and soil erosion. Although buckthorn and honeysuckle were reduced during contracted work, they are likely to rebound without continued management. Other invasive species—particularly black locust, Amur maple, and reed canary grass—were largely unaffected and may expand into cleared areas or continue dominating the utility corridor. Recently cleared areas also face erosion risks. Exposed soils can wash into adjacent wetlands, increasing sediment and nutrient loading. Oak wilt appears present in mature bur oak stands, and active oak regeneration will be necessary to sustain this canopy component (Sagor 2024). Vegetation surveys were conducted by management unit to reflect differences across the site. Collectively, Floral Park aligns with several Minnesota DNR Native Plant Community types, including Southern Mesic Oak–Basswood or Maple–Basswood Forest (MHs38, MHs39), Central Mesic or Wet-Mesic Hardwood Forest (MHc36, MHc47), and Southern Dry-Mesic Oak–Maple Woodland (FDs37) (MNDNR 2003, 2005). At present, the park functions primarily as a wet to mesic hardwood forest, excluding wetlands and the powerline corridor. Future management should guide restoration toward mesic hardwood community types (MH series), though the powerline corridor should more so resemble (UPs23) Southern Mesic Prairie. Restoration Objectives Overview Woody invasive removal from 2023–2025 improved access to Floral Park’s understory and increased light to the forest floor, creating favorable conditions for native regeneration from the existing seedbank. In the near term, continued management will be necessary, particularly targeting the large Amur maple stand in the southeastern woodland, along with ongoing buckthorn and honeysuckle control (Schuster et al. 2023). Long-term maintenance will likely include periodic shrub thinning through mechanical removal or goat browsing. 12 Prescribed fire may be used to stimulate native species where appropriate. In the eastern woodland, where buckthorn removal created ground-layer openings, targeted seeding will help establish a dense native understory capable of resisting reinvasion. Volunteers may assist with invasive control and plan ting efforts. Detailed tasks, timelines, and species lists are provided in Section 3 and Appendices A and B. 13 2.d. Chatham Park Background Overview of Historic and Current Site conditions Discussion of this park will focus primarily on the woodland that is actively stewarded by the City, community members, and nearby residents, and the prairie space in the southeast corner of the property. The open, prairie-like space in the southeast of the property has been there at least since 1957, when the broader area was mostly open rangeland rather than forest. By 1997, when historical imagery is available again, much of the surrounding landscape has urbanized, with trees filling in most undeveloped spaces including the extent of the woodland space within the park. Today woodland restoration efforts are already visible, including buckthorn removal and native plant establishment. The following recommendations build on this work and align with planned, ongoing stewardship efforts. Soils Chatham Park is primarily underlain by Hayden fine sandy loam with 6–25% slopes (132C/D) and Urban land–Hayden-Kingsley complex soils with 3–5% slopes (860C) in upland areas. Central and northern wetlands consist of ponded aquolls and histosols (1055) (see Appendix C) (Soil Survey Staff 2005; Anderson 2021). Upland soils are moderately permeable, well-drained sandy glacial till. While likely remnants of pre-urban conditions, they have been significantly altered by human activity. In contrast, lowland areas have near - surface water tables and organic soils that retain moisture for extended periods, indicating they function as landscape water collection points. These conditions support wet to mesic hardwood forest species adapted to high humidity and regular water exchange between wetlands and the atmosphere. The organic soils likely retain substantial nutrients, contributing to strong vegetative growth. Soil data were obtained from the NRCS Web Soil Survey (2005). Vegetation Figure 2.d.1 Chatham Park Work Areas. Map showing the priority woodland area and the full extent of park using city parcel data. 14 In 2024, Chatham Park’s canopy was dominated largely by invasive buckthorn species, though quaking aspen and boxelder were also present. With scattered hydrophytic plant species, the site functioned overall as a mesic hardwood forest with pockets of depressional wetlands. By 2025, some areas remained unchanged while others shifted following management efforts. Survey results rated the vegetation community as low quality, with high invasive presence and low native vegetation abundance. However, these metrics do not fully reflect recent progress. Significant portions of the upland woodland have been cleared of invasive woody species and are now regenerating with a limited but increasing mix of native plants. As a result, the woodland currently reflects a clear contrast between treated and untreated areas. Resource Threats and Habitat Goals The primary threat to this park is continued invasive species pressure. Volunteer -led buckthorn removal has been effective where completed, but untreated areas remain a concern. Dense stands outside cleared zones will continue producing seed, which can spread by birds and wildlife and reinvade restored areas unless mature female plants are controlled. As restoration progresses, plant communities should be monitored and guided toward greater native diversity, similar to the MHs38 Southern Mesic Oak–Basswood Forest or, more likely, FFs59 Southern Terrace Forest type. The latter community includes a canopy of American elms and Maple species, a shrub and subcanopy layer of chokecherries, nannyberries, prickly ash, and hawthorns, and a ground layer of wood nettle, waterleaf, and other wet woodland forbs (MNDNR 2003, 2005). Because prescribed fire is not appropriate for the woodlands in this site, restoration should focus on establishing dense mid-canopy and understory layers using clonal shrubs such as dogwoods, along with native sedges and forbs. This approach will help resist reinvasion and improve habitat for migrating birds. Though not within the scope of the existing grant and project work, the prairie set in the southeast corner of the property could be enhanced in the future. No vegetation surveys were conducted on it, and no dense populations of invasives were identified , but passing observations indicate the area could benefit from management focused on attempting to guide the prairie towards a composition similar to UPs23 Southern Mesic Prairie or WMs83 – Southern Seepage Meadow/Carr. Unlike in the woodland, prescribed fire can be used effectively here to promote native species composition and control invasive species proliferation . Prescribed fire may not be possible during spring thaw as the prairie seems to retain water close to soil surface. Restoration Objectives Overview Chatham Park will require continued expansion of buckthorn removal using mechanical methods, followed by active native planting and seeding to limit reinvasion. Restoration should prioritize native species that establish quickly, compete well, and provide food for birds. In the near term, contracted services may be needed for large-scale buckthorn removal and follow-up treatment across the site (Schuster et al. 2023). Long-term maintenance will likely include periodic shrub thinning through mechanical removal or goat browsing to maintain invasive shrub populations at reduced levels in areas already cleared. 15 Prescribed fire is not recommended in the woodland because the park’s low landscape position and near- surface water table create poor burning conditions. Prescribed fire can be used in the southeastern prairie, but will depend on water saturation in the soil. Volunteers and community members can assist with invasive woody removal, seeding, and planting. Section 3 outlines recommended tasks and timelines, with species lists provided in Appendices A and B. 3. Natural Resources Management Recommendations The following priorities were used to propose the restoration actions described in Section 3: 1. Reduce and manage invasive species. Because these parks are small and located in urban settings, invasive species will likely persist. Management units therefore include initia l removal of dominant invasives, followed by revegetation strategies designed to compete with reinvasion. 2. Base restoration on existing vegetation structure. Enhancement efforts are more likely to succeed and remain cost-effective when they work with current site conditions. Areas with mature tree canopy should generally remain forested, even if species composition differs from pre -settlement conditions. Managed turf or grass areas offer the best opportunities for prairie, savanna, wet meadow, or other grassland conversions. 3. Minimize impacts to park users. Restoration activities can temporarily disrupt access and user experience. High-disturbance work—such as tree removal, forestry mowing, herbicide application, and turf removal—should be completed within condensed timeframes where possible. Final outcomes should balance habitat improvement with visual appeal through strategic plantings, seasonal bloom diversity, and thoughtful tree and shrub placement. 4. Promote native vegetation establishment. Existing non-native specimen trees may remain if functional; however, future plantings should prioritize native species of local origin to maximize habitat value. Underutilized turf areas are strong candidates for conversion to diverse grassland plantings that support pollinators and enhance seasonal interest. 5. Use adaptive management. Long-term success depends on monitoring and responsive management. Ongoing evaluation and consultation with ecological professionals will ensure progress toward natural resource goals and guide future stewardship actions. 16 3.a. Summary of Park Goals and General Management Recommendations Natural resource management has been underway for the past 5–10 years through City staff and community volunteers. Efforts have included buckthorn hand -cutting and follow-up control, goat browsing, garlic mustard management, and native grass and forb plantings. These plantings have been installed along trails for education, in prairie areas for pollinator habitat, and within woodland understories to support native regeneration. Through collaboration among the City, the Arden Hills Parks Trails and Recreation Committee, and groups such as Arden Hills Greening, Great River Greening secured Outdoor Heritage Fund support from the Minnesota State Legislature to design and implement the proposed goals and tasks. Great River Greening conducted plant surveys in September 2024 and July 2025 to assess current conditions and identify next steps for management and long -term stewardship. This section includes maps and tables outlining recommended habitat targets, initial work items with cost estimates, and a five -year maintenance framework. Seed lists are provided in Appendix A, planting lists in Appendix B, and invasive species management guidance in Appendix D. The following sections present site-specific management recommendations. Because these areas exist within altered urban ecosystems, full restoration to historic native conditions is not feasible. Instead, the goal is to guide and maintain these parks as functional, resilient natural spaces that support wildlife and provide meaningful experiences for park visitors. General Management Goal Native Plant Communities and Habitat Types The Native Plant Communities (NPCs) that most closely reflect current site conditions are (MNDNR 2003, 2005): • MHs37 – Southern Dry-Mesic Oak Forest • FFs59 – Southern Terrace Forest • UPs23 – Southern Mesic Prairie • WMs83 – Southern Seepage Meadow/Carr Table 3.a.1. General Native Plant Community Goals. Vegetation observed in the parks (2024 –26) also corresponds with additional Minnesota NPC types listed in Table 3.a.1. These classifications help guide habitat recommendations, especially in areas that differ from the primary target communities of Southern Dry-Mesic Oak Forest and Southern Terrace Forest. Target Native Plant Communities Parks and Specific Areas Hazelnut Park Floral Park Chatham Park Mesic Woodland - (MHs37, 38, 39, and MHc36 and 47) North and south woodlands (7 acres) Main southeast, west, and south woodlands (7 acres) Southern Mesic Prairie/ Savanna - (UPs23 and 24) Open path edge of powerline corridor (~0.1 acres) Powerline corridor through park (0.6 acres) Floodplain Forest - (FFs59) North woodland and lowland areas throughout (6.1acres) Forested areas of site (20 acres) Southern Seepage Meadow/ Carr – (WMs83) Prairie in SE corner (1 acre) 17 These classifications provide the most appropriate ecological reference points for existing vegetation across the site. The identified target communities serve as management guides based on dominant species suited to long - term native stewardship. Exact replication of NPC species composition is not expected. Given the parks’ urban land-use history and site alterations, these communities provide direction for restoration rather than a strict measure of completion. Generally Recommended Management Tasks for Hazelnut Park, Floral Park, and Chatham Park Table 3.a.2 Main Management Recommendations Each site has primary concerns or issues, and thus long-term management goals are given to focus future restoration and management efforts. Generally recommended actions are listed alongside helpful notes to give an overview of what to look for in subsequent subsections of Section 3 in this document. Site Name Long-term Management Goal Recommended Actions Notes Hazelnut Park Woodland and Powerline Area Buckthorn control, native understory establishment Periodic shrub layer thinning/ targeted cutting; native species seeding / planting Seeding native forbs and grasses should be prioritized, promoting the expansion of extant populations and inhibiting buckthorn population rebound. Floral Park Woodland Buckthorn control, native understory establishment Periodic shrub layer thinning/ targeted cutting of invasive trees; native species seeding/ planting Seeding / planting natives should begin shortly after contract work is completed to inhibit other invasive species proliferation such as burdock and thistle. Floral Park Powerline Area Herbaceous invasive control, native prairie establishment Initial reed canary grass removal and dense, native species planting in limited areas where those native species can be maintained Continued maintenance mowing and woody foliar herbicide application should be used to control black locust expansion (black locust should not be controlled by mowing as this encourages expansion). Chatham Park Buckthorn control, native understory and native prairie establishment Periodic shrub layer thinning for maintenance; continued targeted cutting of remaining buckthorn stand; native species seeding / planting in woodland and prairie areas Buckthorn removal, or at minimum control of actively berry producing “mother” plants should be prioritized. Native shrub establishment should focus on offering alternative food sources for wildlife. Woody invasive removal is the primary initial goal. Removing woody invasives will improve light conditions and create space for graminoid seeding and native understory recovery. Efforts should focus on common buckthorn, glossy buckthorn, white mulberry, and invasive honeysuckle. Winter forestry mowing, chain sawing, or brush cutting can reduce remaining woody invasives. Late-summer fine mowing or goat browsing may help maintain light penetration. Because of variable topography, forestry mowing may only be feasible in select areas and should be evaluated by an experienced operator. Hand cutting, stump herbicide treatment, and resprout removal can supplement mechanical methods. After woody removal, herbaceous invasives such as burdock, garlic mustard, and motherwort may expand if areas are not seeded promptly. If needed, foliar herbicide and targeted mowing should be used to limit spread. Erosion control may also be required where former shrub monocultures left exposed soils, helping reduce sediment and nutrient runoff into wetlands. Establishing native grasse s, sedges, and wildflowers will 18 be critical to suppress reinvasion. In some areas, planting native plugs, shrubs, and trees will be needed to restore structural diversity. 19 3.b. Hazelnut Park Recommendations Initial Invasive Species Management and Contracted Restoration Hazelnut Park is currently undergoing contracted restoration work funded through the Great River Greening – facilitated Outdoor Heritage Fund. Work began in winter 2024–25 and will continue through spring 2027. Efforts focus on reducing mature buckthorn in the northern woodland and adjacent powerline corridor, as outlined in Table 3.b.1. Management methods include forestry mowing, critical period cutting during the growing season, and fall foliar herbicide applications to control resprouts and seedlings. It is important to preface here that critical period cutting is a new technique, developed by Friends of the Mississippi River (Domyancich-Lee August 18). Greening’s interpretation of the technique is detailed as Figure 3.b.1 Hazelnut Park Plant Communities. Map shows the full extent of park, highlighting native plant community goals. 20 specifications in section 4.b. the purpose of the technique is to further stress the rebounding buckthorn population after initial cutting, reducing the need for herbicide, inhibiting buckthorn during the season when it is actively outcompeting natives, and ideally reducing the duration of initial control efforts needed. Herbaceous invasive and noxious weed species will be monitored throughout the project period. Mechanical or chemical control will be implemented as needed, depending on vegetation response . Native Vegetation Establishment After initial buckthorn removal progresses, Great River Greening will coordinate woodland seeding beginning in winter 2026. Multiple seeding and planting events will continue through 2026 and into spring 2027 to guide succession toward mesic woodland systems identified in Table 3.a.1. This work remain s within the Outdoor Heritage Fund project and is intended to establish habitat that can be sustainably stewarded long term. Once contracted work in the northern woodland concludes, maintenance should shift to planting native trees and shrubs and seeding native graminoids and wildflowers selected from appropriate plant community types in Table 3.a.1. These plantings will compete directly with buckthorn and other woody invasives and indirectly reduce reinvasion by limiting bird -dispersed seed establishment. Plug and shrub plantings should occur in spring or fall for optimal survival. Understory seeding is recommended from fall through spring to improve germination and establishment. Beginning in year three, management should include targeted foliar herbicide applications to control invasive herbaceous species as needed. Buckthorn control should also continue every two to three years using critical period cutting, foliar herbicide, or other approved methods. Continued Maintenance Dense patches of weedy native species, such as jewelweed, may need to be cut back while seeded and planted natives establish. Buckthorn regrowth will also require ongoing control. In addition to herbicide application and critical period cutting, alternative management tools include prescribed fire and goat browsing. Where sufficient native understory has developed, fall burns may help suppress invasive woody and herbaceous species. Burns should occur when leaf litter and herbaceous cover are adequate to carry fire. Goat browsing can serve as a non-chemical alternative to reduce woody growth and may be used year- round, particularly where shrubs and trees have regained dominance. Each management method creates different ecological responses, and plant and wildlife outcomes will vary accordingly. In the southern woodland, volunteer and City-led efforts have substantially reduced invasive shrubs, and native plantings have been installed along the paved path. Continued follow -up will be needed to control remaining buckthorn and guide the area toward a mesic hardwood forest community. Although this area did not receive state-funded contract work, volunteer removal has eliminated most mature stems. For at least three years following full removal of large stems, management should include growing-season cutting and fall foliar herbicide treatment. 21 After this period, the southern woodland can follow a similar approach to the northern woodland, including seeding, planting, targeted herbaceous invasive control, and continued buckthorn suppression. 22 Table 3.b.1: Currently planned and funded management tasks for Hazelnut Park are listed below. Dollar values are rounded to the approximat e cost of contracted work. Estimated costs for future tasks are based on typical market rates in 2025. Invasive control tasks are highlighted in dull green. Native species establishment tasks are shown in light blue and include estimated budgets for seed, plants, and support supplies. Labor will come from a mix of volunteers, city staff, and Great River Greening staff.) Existing and Goal Landcover Contracted and Planned Actions 2024 / 2025 2025 2026 2027 Notes Un i t 1 - No r t h W o o d l a n d ( 5 . 5 a c r e s ) Altered/non- native hardwood forest to Mesic Hardwood Forest, MHs38 Buckthorn initial removal (winter) $27,225 Forestry mowing with hand cutting in less accessible areas or trail edges as needed. Growing season and fall continued buckthorn control $3,500 Mechanical mowing (equipment as well as brush cutters) regrowth and resprouts with fall foliar herbicide application for continued control. Initial grass and sedge seeding $2,500 Winter seeding of native monocot understory species to establish competition for invasives. Growing season and fall continued buckthorn control $4,675 Mechanical mowing (equipment as well as brush cutters) regrowth and resprouts with fall foliar herbicide application for continued control. Continued native understory seeding $3,500 Winter seeding of perennial wildflowers and other blooming native species to add understory diversity. Spring buckthorn follow-up treatment $4,125 Spring / early summer buckthorn follow up treatment, mechanical or chemical depending on the density of buckthorn seedlings seen. Plug and shrub planting $4,000 Native planting of plugs (grasses and perennial wildflowers) as well as native shrubs with potential fencing installation to prevent deer browsing and facilitate establishment. 23 Table 3.b.2: Recommended maintenance tasks for Hazelnut Park after completion of the currently funded restoration project. Dollar values a re estimates of labor costs based on 2025 market rates. Year 1 is assumed to begin in 2027, though the schedule can extend beyon d the first five years. Goal Native Plant Community Recommended Maintenance Actions Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Notes Un i t s 1 a n d 2 - No r t h an d S o u t h Wo o d l a n d s (7 ac r e s ) Continued Maintenance on Mesic Hardwood Forest, MHs38 Woody invasive shrub resprout or reinvasion control, mechanical or chemical treatments $2,000 /ac $2,000 /ac $2,000 /ac Regular sweeps of the park space should be conducted to control remaining patches of buckthorn and honeysuckle and keep them to small spatial extents. Herbaceous invasive plant control, mechanical or chemical treatments $2,300 /ac $2,000 /ac $1,700 /ac $1,500 /ac Repeated spot spraying and spot mowing will be needed, long term, to maintain a reduced population of invasive forbs and grasses, especially in the initial 5 years as native grasses and forbs establish. Goat browsing (alternative to herbicide) $500 /ac $450 /ac $450 /ac Goat browsing can be a lower cost option to control invasive woody species long term. Sheep grazing may also assist in suppressing invasive herbaceous populations. Supplemental planting (price varies by plant selection and quantity) $3,000 for labor $3,000 for labor As needed in areas that underperform. Good option for stewards or volunteers. Planted trees and shrubs may need herbivory protection for 2 – 5yrs. Supplemental seeding $1,700 /ac for labor $1,700 /ac for labor Hazard tree removal approximately $370 / tree depending on felling complexity May be required for continued native tree canopy and understory diversity maintenance as the existing ash and non-native populations diminish. Native Establishment in Powerline Prairie, UPs23 Supplemental seeding (price varies by species selection and quantity) $1,700 /ac for labor $1,700 /ac for labor The path underneath the powerlines may be periodically mowed by the utility company, but the initial forestry mowing targeting buckthorn created openings to establish native species that will survive this mowing like native grasses and forbs. 24 Table 3.b.3: Recommended summary budget for Hazelnut Park after completion of the currently funded restoration project. Year 1 is assumed to begin in July 2027, after the completion of the OHF funded work, though the schedule can extend beyond the first five years. All prices are estimates based on current market rates at the time of writing. Note - The Buckthorn Control Focused Plan is intended to be a bare minimum maintenance / low-cost option for continued park maintenance. The Additional Maintenance Activities recommend tasks for herbaceous control or native vegetation establishment. Entries with “Volunteers” written in assume that most of the labor will be handled by volunteers and does not account for whatever volunteer coordination labor the city conducts. Ha z e l n u t P a r k Buckthorn Control Focused Plan Plant Community Activity Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Over 5 years Mesic Hardwood Forest MHs38, 6.9ac Woody Invasive Control $13,800 $13,800 Goat Browsing maintenance $3,100 Planting or seeding Volunteers Volunteers Total Focus Plan $13,800 $ - $ 3,100 $ - $13,800 $30,700 Additional Maintenance Activities Powerline Prairie, UPs23, 1.8ac Planting or seeding Volunteers Volunteers Woodland and Prairie, 8.7ac Herbaceous Invasive control $20,000 $17,500 $14,500 $13,100 Total Additional $20,000 $17,500 $14,500 $13,100 $65,100 Total Combined $33,800 $17,500 $17,600 $0.00 $26,900 $95,800 25 3.c. Floral Park Recommendations Initial Invasive Species Management and Contracted Restoration Floral Park is undergoing contracted restoration work to reduce mature buckthorn across the site, as outlined in Table 3.c.1. This work will continue through fall 2026 and includes critical period cutting during the growing season and fall foliar herbicide applications to control resprouts and seedlings. See section 4.b for specifications guiding these activities. Note also that critical period cutting is a new technique, developed by Friends of the Mississippi River (Domyancich-Lee August 18). The purpose of the technique is to further stress the rebounding buckthorn population after initial cutting, reducing the need for herbicide, inhibiting buckthorn during the season when it is actively outcompeting natives, and ideally reducing the duration of initial control efforts needed. Figure 3.c.1 Floral Park Plant Communities. Map shows the full extent of park, highlighting native plant community goals. 26 As removal progresses, Great River Greening will coordinate woodland seeding to guide succession toward mesic woodland systems identified in Table 3.a.1. This effort remains part of the Outdoor Heritage Fund project and is intended to establish habitat that can be sustainably stewarded long term. Additional invasive species management will require both expanded control efforts and revegetation. Although buckthorn has been significantly reduced, Amur maple remains abundant in the eastern and southeastern portions of the park and presents the greatest risk of woody reinvasion. Black locust is also present along the powerline prairie edges and may expand into wo odland areas if not addressed. Invasive herbaceous species, including reed canary grass, motherwort, and burdock, are beginning to colonize cleared areas throughout the park. Ongoing maintenance should address these species alongside continued revegetation efforts. Native Vegetation Establishment The goal of native plant establishment is to compete directly with buckthorn and other invasive species for light and space. It also provides indirect competition by offering alternative food sources for birds, which are the primary dispersal agents for buckthorn. After contract work concludes in 2027, an additional round of mechanical tree removal is recommended during winter 2027–2028, targeting Amur maple and black locust (Year 1, Table 3.c.2). Because contracted work included only two years of foliar treatment for buckthorn, a third round of foliar application should occur in late 2027, as reflected in Year 1 of Table 3.c.2. Once woody invasive populations are controlled, Year 2 maintenance should focus on p lanting native trees and shrubs and seeding native graminoids selected from appropriate plant community types in Table 3.a.1. Planting should occur in spring or fall to maximize survival. Understory seeding is recommended from fall through spring to improve establishment. Wildflower seeding should be delayed in areas where invasive herbaceous species are actively establishing. Planned foliar herbicide treatments for motherwort and burdock could reduce native seed germination and survival. Continued Maintenance Beginning in year three, targeted foliar herbicide applications should address invasive herbaceous species as they emerge in areas cleared of buckthorn. The woodland should also receive renewed buckthorn control every two to three years using critical period cutting, foliar herbicide, or approved alternatives, as outlined in Table 3.c.2. Herbicide use should be carefully targeted to avoid damaging establishing native plants. Alternative control methods include prescribed fire and goat browsing. Where sufficient native understory has developed, fall burns may help suppress woody and herbaceous invasives. Burns should occur when leaf litter and herbaceous cover can carry fire. Goat browsing can serve as a non -chemical option to reduce woody growth and may be used year-round in areas where shrubs and trees regain dominance. Volunteer efforts can also supplement contracted work during off-years. Each management approach creates different ecological responses and should be applied with consideration of des ired outcomes. 27 The powerline prairie did not receive contract restoration work and presents distinct management challenges. Enhancement opportunities include targeted herbicide application and periodic overseeding, as shown in Table 3.c.2. Herbicide treatments should focus on reducing dominant reed canary grass and other invasive herbaceous species. Overseeding can increase biodiversity and improve long -term resistance to reinvasion. Because reed canary grass is persistent, restoration may be most effective in smaller, targeted areas—particularly near paved paths or existing native plantings. Black locust is present along the prairie’s edges. Stems within the prairie are likely suppressed by routine right-of-way mowing, but adjacent woodland areas remain vulnerable as the species responds to mowing with aggressive sprouting. Although prescribed fire is typically used in prairie systems, it is generally not feasible within utility corridors. Prairie maintenance may instead rely on sheep grazing, targeted herbicide application, and periodic shrub mowing coordinated with utility line maintenance. 28 Table 3.c.1: Currently funded and planned management tasks for Floral Park. Dollar values are rounded estimates of contracted work. Estimated costs for future tasks are based on typical market rates in 2025. Invasive control tasks are highlighted in dull green. Native species establishment tasks are highlighted in light blue and i nclude budgets for seed, plants, and support supplies (labor will be provided by volunteers, city staff, and Great River Greening staff). Existing and Goal Landcover Contracted and Planned Actions 2024 / 2025 2025 2026 2027 Notes Un i t s 1 , 2 , 3 , a n d 4 - Wo o d l a n d s ( 1 3 a c r e s ) Altered/non-native hardwood forest to Mesic and Wet Hardwood Forests Buckthorn initial removal (winter) $80,850 Forestry mowing with hand cutting in less accessible areas or trail edges as needed. Hazard Tree Removal $4,450 14 trees were cut down and removed adjacent to paths. Growing season and fall continued buckthorn control $5,400 Mechanical mowing (equipment as well as brush cutters) regrowth and resprouts with fall foliar herbicide application for continued control. Woody material disposal (biochar) $15,325 Biochar production was conducted as primary woody material disposal method with the biochar dispersed on site. Initial grass and sedge seeding $4,000 Winter seeding of native monocot understory species to establish competition for invasives. Growing season and fall continued buckthorn control $13,775 Mechanical mowing (equipment as well as brush cutters) regrowth and resprouts with fall foliar herbicide application for continued control. Continued forb seeding $7,000 Fall or winter seeding of perennial wildflowers and other blooming native species to add understory diversity. Plug and shrub planting $11,000 Native planting of plugs (grasses and perennial wildflowers) as well as native shrubs with potential fencing installation to prevent deer browsing and facilitate establishment. 29 Table 3.c.2: Recommended maintenance tasks for Floral Park after completion of the current project. Dollar values are estimated labor cost s based on 2025 market rates. Year 1 is assumed to begin in 2027, though the schedule can extend beyond the first five years. Goal Native Plant Community Recommended Maintenance Actions Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Notes Un i t s 1 , 3 , a n d 4 - Wo o d l a n d s ( 6 . 9 a c r e s ) Continued Maintenance on Mesic Hardwood Forest, MHs38 Woody invasive control $2,000 /ac + $10,000 /ac $2,000 /ac $2,000 /ac Regular sweeps of the park space should be conducted to control remaining patches and keep them to small spatial extents. Added cost reflects expected price for initial Amur maple removal. Herbaceous invasive control $2,300 /ac $2,000 /ac $1,700 /ac $1,500 /ac Repeated spot spraying and spot mowing will be needed, long term, to maintain a reduced population of invasive forbs and grasses, especially in the initial 5 years as native grasses and forbs establish. Goat browsing (alternative to herbicide) $500 /ac $450 /ac Goat browsing can be a lower cost option to control invasive woody species long term. Sheep grazing may also assist in suppressing invasive herbaceous populations. Supplemental planting (price varies by plant selection and quantity) $3,000 for labor $3,000 for labor As needed in areas that underperform. Good option for stewards or volunteers. Planted trees and shrubs may need herbivory protection for 2 – 5yrs. Supplemental seeding $1,700 /ac for labor $1,700 /ac for labor Hazard tree removal approximately $370 / tree depending on felling complexity May be required for continued native tree canopy and understory diversity maintenance as the existing ash and non-native populations diminish. 30 Goal Native Plant Community Recommended Maintenance Actions Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Notes Un i t 2 - Wo o d l a n d ( 6 . 1 a c r e s ) Continued Maintenance on Floodplain Forest, FFs59 Woody invasive control $2,000 /ac $2,000 /ac $2,000 /ac Regular sweeps of the park space should be conducted to control remaining patches and keep them to small spatial extents. Herbaceous invasive control $2,300 /ac $2,000 /ac $1,700 /ac $1,500 /ac Repeated spot spraying and spot mowing will be needed, long term, to maintain a reduced population of invasive forbs and grasses, especially in the initial 5 years as native grasses and forbs establish. Goat browsing (alternative to hand work/ herbicide) $500 /ac $450 /ac Goat browsing can be a lower cost option to control invasive woody species long term. Sheep grazing may also assist in suppressing invasive herbaceous populations. Supplemental planting (price varies by plant selection and quantity) $3,000 for labor $3,000 for labor As needed in areas that underperform. Good option for stewards or volunteers. Planted trees and shrubs may need herbivory protection for 2 – 5yrs. Supplemental seeding $1,700 /ac for labor $1,700 /ac for labor Hazard tree removal approximately $370 / tree depending on felling complexity May be required for continued native tree canopy and understory diversity maintenance as the existing ash and non-native populations diminish. 31 Goal Native Plant Community Recommended Maintenance Actions Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Notes Un i t 5 - Po w e r l i n e P r a i r i e ( 0 . 6 a c r e s ) Establishment and continued maintenance on Southern Mesic Prairie, UPs23 Herbaceous invasive control $2,500 /ac $2,000 /ac $1,700 /ac $1,500 /ac Initial and repeated spot spraying and spot mowing will be needed, long term, to maintain a reduced population of invasive forbs and grasses, especially in the initial 5 years as native grasses and forbs establish. Mowing $2,000 /ac $2,000 /ac If not done by powerline company, this should be done once every 2 to 3 years to inhibit woody species establishment and reduce thatch density/ thickness. Sheep grazing (alternative to herbicide) $500 /ac Sheep grazing can be a lower cost option to control invasive herbaceous species long term and should be done every other year after establishment. Supplemental planting (price varies by plant selection and quantity) $3,000 for labor As needed in areas that underperform. Good option for stewards or volunteers. Planted trees and shrubs may need herbivory protection for 2 – 5yrs. Supplemental seeding $1,700 /ac for labor 32 Table 3.c.3: Recommended summary budget for Hazelnut Park after completion of the currently funded restoration project. Year 1 is assumed to begin in July 2029, after the completion of the OHF funded work, though the schedule can extend beyond the first five years. All prices are estimates based on current market rates at the time of writing. Note - The Buckthorn Control Focused Plan is intended to be a bare minimum maintenance / low-cost option for continued park maintenance. The Additional Maintenance Activities recommend tasks for herbaceous control or native vegetation establishment. Entries with “Volunteers” written in assume that most of the labor will be handled by volunteers and does not account for whatever volunteer coordination labor the city conducts. Fl o r a l P a r k Buckthorn Control Focused Plan Plant Community Activity Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Over 5 years Mesic and Wet Forested areas 14ac Woody Invasive Control $28,000 $28,000 Goat Browsing maintenance $7,000 Planting or seeding Volunteers Volunteers Total $28,000 $ - $ 7,000 $ - $28,000 $63,000 Additional Maintenance Activities Amur Maple, Unit 1, 1ac Woody Invasive Control $10,000 Powerline Prairie, UPs23, 0.6ac Planting or seeding Volunteers Volunteers Woodland and Prairie, 14.6ac Herbaceous Invasive control $33,580 $29,200 $24,800 $21,900 Total Additional $43,580 $29,200 $24,800 $0.00 $21,900 $109,500 Total Combined $71,580 $29,200 $31,800 $0.00 $49,900 $172,500 33 3.d. Chatham Park Recommendations Initial Invasive Species Management and Contracted Restoration Chatham Park has benefited from ongoing volunteer work that has significantly reduced invasive shrubs in portions of the woodland, with native species planted in select areas. However, large sections of the park have not yet received coordinated invasive species management. Future work should combine maintenance in volunteer and city-cleared areas with initial removal in untreated sections. Some areas will require continued follow-up to prevent buckthorn reinvasion, while others will first need initial removal before being incorporated into a long -term maintenance program. Figure 3.d.1 Chatham Park Plant Communities. Map shows the full extent of park, highlighting native plant community goals. 34 Initial removal should focus on mechanical buckthorn control. Two primary strategies are recommended. One approach is winter cutting with stump treatment, supported by forestry mowing where feasible. The second approach is basal bark treatment in winter, followed by mechanical cutting once stems are confirmed dead during the next growing season. Both strategies require removal or disposal of cut material, which is often one of the most significant costs in woody invasive control. After initial removal, management should include three years of growing -season follow-up to control resprouts and seedlings emerging from the seed bank. Foliar herbicide application is typically used for this work, though alternative methods are listed in Table 3.d.1. Following this period, the remaining areas can transition into routine maintenance. Concerning the prairie in the SE portion of the park’s property, an initial survey of the plant community is needed before any work is conducted. GRG staff conducted a brief visit to the prairie in spring 2026 and determined that the prairie is more of a wet meadow, such as WMs83. A more thorough initial survey should be used to identify the balance of invasive versus native species present, and what those invasive species are. Depending on the community composition, and the invasive species present, the city should at least conduct some supplemental seeding, and consider other management tasks as warranted by the invasive species present. See table 3.c.2 for recommended tasks if invasive species are abundant and problematic. Otherwise, see table 3.d.2, below. Native Vegetation Establishment and Continued Maintenance After the third year of follow-up work, treated areas can transition into the same maintenance program used for previously cleared sections of the park. During the following growing season, restoration should focus on planting native trees and shrubs and seeding native graminoids and wildflowers. Species should be selected from the appropriate plant community types listed in Table 3.a.1. These plantings will compete directly with buckthorn and other invasives for space and light while also providing alternative food sources for birds, which are the primary dispersal agents for buckthorn. Planting should occur in spring or fall to maximize survival. Understory and prairie seeding is recommended from fall through spring to improve germination and establishment. Beginning in year five, targeted foliar herbicide applications should address invasive herbaceous species that colonize open areas created by buckthorn removal. Woodland areas should also receive renewed buckthorn control every two to three years using critical period cutting, foliar herbicide application, or other approved methods. Alternative control methods include prescribed fire and goat browsing. Due to wet soils and the proximity of wetlands, prescribed fire is unlikely to be effective in the wooded portions of this site, though the prairie would support it during drier months. Goat browsing may instead serve as a practical alternative to suppress woody growth within enclosed areas. This method is most effective where shrubs and trees regain dominance and can be used year-round. Goat browsing can also be used in combination with volunteer leaf stripping of invasive woody species. Each management technique creates different ecological responses. As a result, plant, fungal, and wildlife communities will vary depending on the methods applied. 35 Table 3.d.1: Recommended maintenance tasks for Chatham Park after completion of the current project. Dollar values are estimated labor cos ts based on 2025 market rates. Year 1 is assumed to begin in 2026, though the schedule can extend beyond the first five years. Goal Native Plant Community Recommended Actions Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Notes Pr i o r i t y Ar e a s , Un m a n a g e d (2 . 2 5 a c r e s ) an d O t h e r U n m a n a g e d P a r k A r e a s Initial Work in Floodplain Forest, FFs59 Initial woody invasive species removal and continued control $7,000 /ac $2,000 /ac $2,000 /ac $2,000 /ac The initial removal in the unmanaged areas of the park will be expensive due to topography, accessibility, and the density of the buckthorn. Regular sweeps of the park space should be conducted to control remaining patches and keep them to small spatial extents. Woody material disposal included in Year 2 price estimate. Herbaceous invasive control $2,000 /ac $1,500 /ac $1,500 /ac Repeated spot spraying and spot mowing will be needed, long term, to maintain a reduced population of invasive forbs and grasses, especially in the initial 5 years as native grasses and forbs establish. Goat browsing (alternative to hand work/ herbicide) $500 /ac Goat browsing can be a lower cost option to control invasive woody species long term. Sheep grazing may also assist in suppressing invasive herbaceous populations. Supplemental planting (price varies by plant selection and quantity) $3,000 for labor As needed in areas that underperform. Good option for stewards or volunteers. Planted trees and shrubs may need herbivory protection for 2 – 5yrs. Supplemental seeding $1,700 /ac for labor Hazard tree removal approximately $370 / tree depending on felling complexity May be required for continued native tree canopy and understory diversity maintenance as the existing ash and non- native populations diminish. 36 Goal Native Plant Community Recommended Maintenance Actions Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Notes Pr i o r i t y A r e a , V o l u n t e e r -wo r k e d ( 3 . 7 5 a c r e s ) an d S u r r o u n d i n g A r e a s Continued Maintenance on Floodplain Forest, FFs59 Woody invasive control $2,000 /ac $2,000 /ac $2,000 /ac Regular sweeps of the park space should be conducted to control remaining patches and keep them to small spatial extents. Herbaceous invasive control $2,300 /ac $2,000 /ac $1,700 /ac $1,500 /ac Repeated spot spraying and spot mowing will be needed, long term, to maintain a reduced population of invasive forbs and grasses, especially in the initial 5 years as native grasses and forbs establish. Goat browsing (alternative to hand work/ herbicide) $500 /ac $450 /ac Goat browsing can be a lower cost option to control invasive woody species long term. Sheep grazing may also assist in suppressing invasive herbaceous populations. Supplemental planting (price varies by plant selection and quantity) $3,000 for labor $3,000 for labor As needed in areas that underperform. Good option for stewards or volunteers. Planted trees and shrubs may need herbivory protection for 2 – 5yrs. Supplemental seeding $1,700 /ac for labor $1,700 /ac for labor Hazard tree removal approximately $370 / tree depending on felling complexity May be required for continued native tree canopy and understory diversity maintenance as the existing ash and non- native populations diminish. Native Establishment in SE Prairie, WMs83 Supplemental seeding (price varies by species selection and quantity) $1,700 /ac for labor $1,700 /ac for labor Initial efforts to establish native species as competition against invasive and weedy species, and to increase floral resources for local fauna. 37 Table 3.d.3: Recommended summary budget for Hazelnut Park after completion of the currently funded restoration project. Year 1 is assumed to begin in July 2027 and would be supported by the proposed OHF funding, though the schedule can extend beyond the first five years. All prices are estimates based on current market rates at the time of writing. Note - The Buckthorn Control Focused Plan is intended to be a bare minimum maintenance / low-cost option for continued park maintenance. The Additional Maintenance Activities recommend tasks for herbaceous control or native vegetation establishment. Entries with “Volunteers” written in assume that most of the labor will be handled by volunteers and does not account for whatever volunteer coordination labor the city conducts. Ch a t h a m P a r k Buckthorn Control Focused Plan Plant Community Activity Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Over 5 years Untouched Floodplain Forest FFs59, 15.5ac Initial Woody Invasive Control $108,500 $31,000 $31,000 $31,000 Planting or seeding Volunteers Floodplain Forest, FFs59, 4.2ac Woody Invasive Control $8,400 $8,400 Goat Browsing maintenance $2,100 Planting or seeding volunteers volunteers Total $116,900 $31,000.00 $33,100.00 $31,000 $8,400 $220,400 Additional Maintenance Activities Wet Prairie, WMs83, 2.8ac Planting or seeding Volunteers Volunteers Woodland and Prairie, 22.4ac Herbaceous Invasive control $51,500 $44,800 $38,100 $33,600 Total Additional $51,500 $44,800 $38,100 $0.00 $33,600 $168,000 Total Combined $168,400 $75,800 $71,200 $31,000 $42,000 $388,400 38 4. Specifications for Restoration Activities The following specifications provide general guidance for conducting restoration activities at the sites addressed in this document. Contractors should refine and tailor these specifications to the specific conditions and requirements of each work area. 4.a. Forestry Mowing (Woody Tree / Shrub Initial Removal) Example target species: • Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica and Frangula alnus) • Amur maple (Acer ginnala) • Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) Timing • Conduct forestry mowing only when soil is frozen at least 6 inches deep. This prevents soil damage and compaction. Follow-Up Treatment • All mowed areas must receive foliar herbicide treatment the first fall after removal. • See foliar herbicide specifications for details. Vegetation Protection • Avoid mowing or damaging non-target vegetation. • Brush near desirable trees must be removed with hand tools such as chainsaws or brush saws. • In areas dominated by high-quality native trees, use hand cutting instead of forestry mowing. Work Near Trails • Forestry mowing may occur along site edges. • Within 20 feet of interior trails, vegetation must be removed by hand cutting unless otherwise noted. • Close trails to the public during mowing. A spotter is required. • Direct debris away from trails. Use brush saws or other methods to reduce debris on trails. Equipment and Operation • Set mower heads low, no higher than 3 feet above ground. • Do not eject debris off site or toward private property. Debris Management • Mowed vegetation should be shredded and left in place to decompose. • If debris builds up, spread it out so the depth does not exceed 6 inches. Acceptable Incidental Removal • The following species may be removed during mowing if necessary: • Boxelder (Acer negundo) • Silver maple (Acer saccharinum) • Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) 39 • Black walnut (Juglans nigra) • Cottonwood (Populus deltoides) • American elm (Ulmus americana) Tree Protection • Contractors are responsible for any damage to desirable trees caused by operator negligence, including scalping with the mower head. • Use extreme care around designated save trees, especially oaks, to prevent the spread of oak wilt. • If a save oak tree is wounded, notify the project manager. The tree may require removal or pruning paint treatment. 40 4.b. Critical Period High Cutting (Woody Tree / Shrub Initial Removal) Target species: • Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica and Frangula alnus) Purpose • This method kills mature buckthorn by repeatedly removing new growth during the growing season. Treatment Scope • Applies to buckthorn greater than 2 inches DBH (diameter at breast height). • Stems less than 2 inches DBH must be controlled using other removal methods. Year 1 • Late May–Early June o Cut the main stem 3–5 feet above the ground using a hand saw, chainsaw, or brush cutter. o Remove all side branches and growth from the remaining stump using loppers or pruners. • Mid-September o Remove any new branches or regrowth from the sides of the stump (“re -strip”). Year 2 • May–Early June o After spring leaf-out, remove all new growth again. • Early–Mid September o Re-strip all target stumps before plants enter dormancy. o Once plants die, push over and remove the stumps. Handling Cut Material • Cut material may be bucked into pieces no longer than 4 feet. • Branches may not extend more than 45 degrees above the ground. • Spread material in wooded areas in a single layer that does not block movement or access. • Material may also be piled and burned where allowed. Ongoing Work • Repeat treatment until all target buckthorn is removed. 41 4.c. Woody Tree / Shrub Control and Maintenance Cut and Stump Treat • Brush near trees that will be saved, or in areas where forestry mowers cannot reach (including slopes), must be cut with handheld tools such as chainsaws or brush cutters. • Cut material may remain on site when mowing, burning, or chipping is not practical. • All cut material must be cut into smaller pieces and placed so it lies flat on the ground. Low-Density Areas • Cut material may be cut into pieces no longer than 4 feet. • Branches must not stick up more than 45 degrees above the ground. • Spread material in a single layer that does not block access or movement, or pile and burn it. Basal Bark Treatment • For black locust under 4 inches DBH, apply basal bark herbicide using an oil-based triclopyr ester formulation under appropriate weather conditions. • For black locust over 4 inches DBH, use frill cutting and treat the cut with Transline under appropriate weather conditions. Frill Cutting • Frill cutting is a type of girdling. • Make downward-angled cuts around the entire trunk. • Leave the bark and wood attached at the bottom of each cut. • Cuts may be made with a saw, axe, or hatchet. Follow-Up Treatment • Apply foliar herbicide during the following growing season to treat resprouts. Removal of Treated Trees • Trees treated with basal bark or frill cutting must be cut and mowed after at least 4 weeks. • The delay allows herbicide to move into the root system. Woody Follow-Up Maintenance • After forestry mowing, apply foliar herbicide in summer or fall to treat resprouting woody plant s. • Spray all leaf surfaces of the target species. Do not spray only the top layer. • Use an herbicide indicator dye during application. • Treatments must achieve at least 95 percent control. • Take care to avoid overspray. 42 4.d. Woody Herbicide Application Application Timing • Basal bark treatments are best applied in winter. • Foliar treatments are best applied in late summer or early fall. • Cut stump treatments should occur when sap flow is low and water -based herbicides are not suitable. Herbicide Selection • Triclopyr ester (Garlon 4 Ultra or approved equivalent) is preferred for winter, early spring, and late fall applications, including cut stump, basal stem, and foliar treatments, unless otherwise specified. • Amine formulations (for example, Garlon 3a) are preferred during summer (June –August) to reduce volatilization and off-target damage. • In wetlands or near aquatic areas, only aquatic-approved herbicides containing triclopyr amine may be used for cut stump or basal stem treatments. Mixing and Carriers • Oil carriers must be products designed for herbicide use (for example, Diluent Blue). Diesel fuel may not be used. • Blue indicator dye must be added to the herbicide mix, even if dye is already present in other ingredients. • Follow all herbicide label directions. Use concentrations strong enough for effective control. Application Methods • Apply herbicide to stumps or basal stems using a backpack or handheld sprayer. • Boom sprayers and similar equipment are not allowed. • Cut stumps must be treated within two hours of cutting. • Foliar sprays must cover more than 50 percent of each plant’s leaf surface. • Take care to prevent overspray. Weather and Site Conditions • Apply herbicide only when surfaces and air conditions are dry. Dry weather must continue for at least 24 hours after application. • Do not apply foliar herbicide if the forecast high temperature is 85°F or higher and relative humidity is 45 percent or lower at any time during the day. • Ester-based foliar herbicides (for example, Garlon 4) may not be used in June, July, or August. Safety and Documentation • Spill kits must be on site at all times. • Original herbicide and carrier containers, with labels, must remain on site or in the parking area for inspection. • Maintain daily herbicide logs and submit them weekly. 43 4.e. Herbaceous Invasive Control Cool-Season Grasses • Treatment window: April–June or September–October. • Herbicides: Clethodim, sethoxydim, or glyphosate. Warm-Season Grasses • Treatment window: June–September. • Herbicides: Clethodim, sethoxydim, or glyphosate. Initial Mowing • Mow multiple times during the growing season to reduce plant growth. • Cool-season grasses, especially reed canary grass, may regrow later in the season. Herbicide Application • At least 90% of target plants must be removed using mowing, herbicide, or both. • Report any additional invasive species to the project manager. • Some invasive species are outside the project scope and are not treatment priorities. • Clopyralid (e.g., Transline) is preferred for invasive forbs because it breaks down faster in soil. • Apply herbicide summer through early fall. • Spray all leaf surfaces. Do not spray only the top foliage. • Do not apply herbicide if temperatures exceed 85°F or humidity drops below 45%. • Allow plants to regrow between treatments so herbicide works effectively. Spot Mowing • Mow annual or biennial invasive forbs before they produce seed. • Use weed whips, brush cutters, or brush hogs. • Cut plants at ground level. • Avoid damaging nearby native plants. Turf or Invasive Grass Removal (Herbicide) • Up to two herbicide treatments may be used, with mowing between treatments. • Use aquatic-approved herbicides near water. • Boom sprayers may be used for the first treatment with landowner approval. • Timing depends on the species and earlier removal work. • At least one fall treatment is usually recommended. • Follow-up treatments must use spot spraying. Dethatching or Full Grass Removal • In dense turf, use a vertical cutter to remove the thatch layer. • Reed canary grass and other large grasses may be hand-pulled or dug out in small areas. • Remove the entire root mass to prevent regrowth. • At least 95% of target plants must be removed or controlled within each work unit. 44 4.f. Native Species Planting Storage and Handling • Store bare-root plants in dry conditions at 45–70°F, or place them outside on bare ground if temperatures allow. • Group plants into bundles of 5–10. Each bundle must contain only one species. • Keep plants out of direct sunlight. • Wet roots thoroughly with a hose or water dip. • Cover roots with wet straw, burlap, or excelsior to retain moisture. • Cover plants with plastic sheeting and secure the edges to maintain warm, humid conditions. • Do not allow roots to dry out. Planting Bare-Root Plants • Plant when buds begin to swell. • Dig a hole twice as wide and slightly deeper than the root length using a shovel or planting bar. • If the hole cannot fit the full root system, trim roots to no shorter than 10 inches. • Place roots so the top of the root system sits slightly below ground level. • Spread roots evenly. Do not bend or “J-root” them. • Backfill soil slightly above the first root and press soil firmly to remove air pockets. Planting Native Plugs • Plant plugs in clusters of the same species, spaced about 6 inches apart. • Distribute clusters throughout the planting area. • Dig holes twice as wide and slightly deeper than the plug’s root mass. • Remove the plug and gently loosen circling roots. • Form a small soil mound in the hole so roots can spread down the sides. • Plant plugs at the same depth as in the container. • Backfill and press soil firmly around the roots. • Water and firm the soil to remove air pockets. 45 4.g. Native Species Seeding Forbs and Grasses • In existing turf areas, seed with a mix that includes fine fescues at 5 pounds per 1,000 square feet. This helps increase grass diversity and reduce long -term maintenance. • If using a forb-only mix, apply seed at 0.5 pounds per square foot. • Some species may be added as plugs instead of seed due to cost, such as pussytoes, common violet, and wild petunia. • After seeding, culti-pack the area to ensure good soil contact, unless using equipment designed for native seed planting. • Water regularly for the first three weeks. Avoid heavy, infrequent watering. • Compost or aquagel may be added to help retain moisture. • Do not mow for at least three weeks after seeding. Woody Understory Seeding • After woody invasive removal, broadcast seed by hand across woodland areas. • Use an approved BWSR seed mix that matches the target ecosystem. • Winter seeding may occur about 30 days before consistent above-freezing temperatures. • Spread seed in open areas with good soil contact so freeze –thaw cycles help incorporate it into the soil. Turf to Prairie Seeding • In compacted soils, till the top 6 inches before seeding. • Seed immediately after site preparation. • Seed may be broadcast or drill-seeded using equipment designed for native seed. • Do not plant seed deeper than 0.25 inches. • Small seeds should be broadcast on the soil surface. • Culti-pack all seeded areas during or after seeding. Erosion Control Blanket • Install erosion control where needed to prevent seed washout and ensure even distribution. • Use Category 3N straw natural net blanket (MnDOT standard) on slopes steeper than 3:1. Cover Crop • Bare soil or erosion-control areas must receive a cover crop of oats or winter wheat. • The contractor must purchase, deliver, and seed the cover crop. • Establishment Maintenance • Mow seeded areas to 4–5 inches two to three times in the first year and at least once in the second year. • Mow when weeds reach 12–18 inches tall, before they produce seed. 46 4.h. Prescribed Fire Contractor Requirements • Provide one or more burn bosses with an RXB2 certification or equivalent. • Submit documentation of burn boss qualifications, including training, experience, number of burns, and any incident history. • Burn crew members must have S-130 and S-190 training or equivalent. • All crew members must complete an annual safety refresher (RT-130 or equivalent) and pass a physical fitness test. • The burn boss must have experience leading burns with similar fuels and complexity. • Provide all equipment and PPE needed for the burn. • Provide proof of insurance. • Provide two references for similar completed projects. Access and Staging • Vehicles may access the site for fire break preparation, burning, and mop -up. • Trails entering the property must remain open and accessible after the burn. • Coordinate with the landowner to temporarily close trails or field roads during the burn. Personnel Safety • The contractor must provide qualified personnel, PPE, equipment, and supplies. Minimum PPE • NFPA-certified fire-resistant shirt and pants. • Leather gloves. • Hard hat. NFPA shrouds available if requested. • Safety goggles or glasses with side shields. • Leather boots. • Fire shelters available if requested. • Radios or other communication equipment for all crew members. Permitting • The contractor must obtain all required state and local permits and prepare burn plans. • Provide copies of permits and burn plans to the project manager. • This includes permits for pile burning and running fire. • Coordinate with the landowner on neighbor notifications. Fire Break and Woody Debris Management • Fire breaks must contain the burn and meet DNR and local permit requirements. • Fire breaks must follow the burn unit perimeter shown on the site map, unless the contractor proposes a larger unit at no extra cost and receives approval. • Fire breaks may be prepared during the off-season if conditions allow. Fire Break Clearing • Woody debris must not bridge fire breaks. • Cut vegetation must not be windrowed along fire breaks or work area edges. 47 • Remove snags or hazards within 15 feet of the fire line as needed. • Remove all woody material on or across the fire break. Chainsaws may be required. Deadfall and Debris • Deadfall may be burned or hauled off site before the running fire. • If hauled, debris must be removed from the site. Do not push debris outside the unit or into wetlands. • Removing or pile-burning debris larger than 8 inches diameter requires project manager approval. • Removing snags before the burn is discouraged unless required for safety and must be approved. • Optional internal fire breaks may be created around snags. Running Fire • Provide the project manager at least 48 hours’ notice before the burn. • Follow all state and local permit requirements. • Manage smoke to avoid impacts to homes, livestock operations, roads, railways, and neighboring properties. • Follow weather prescriptions and check for drought conditions, red flag warnings, burn restrictions, and burn bans. Burn Objectives • Burn conditions should match resource goals, such as removing thatch or killing target trees. Protecting Desirable Trees • Protect trees by mowing, raking, leaf-blowing, or creating wet lines around trunks if needed. • The contractor is responsible for smoke management during the burn. • Notify the project manager within 12 hours after the burn is complete. Mop-Up and Snag Management • The contractor is responsible for all mop-up work and extinguishing smoke that could cause complaints or flare-ups. • Retain snags unless safety concerns require removal. • If snags or trees ignite, attempt to extinguish them before felling. • Return the next day to confirm the fire is fully out and no smoke remains. Documentation • Submit a brief burn report to the landowner. • Include weather conditions, burn results, unexpected events, and any changes from the burn plan. • Report must also describe conditions during the first day after the burn. • Report Requirements • Submit the report within one week of the burn. • Include a map of the burn results. • A hand-drawn map is acceptable, but a GPS-based map is preferred. 48 4.i. Woody Debris Disposal Options Dead Down Woody Debris Disposal • Remove dead down woody material with priority given to the following areas: • Along property lines, maintaining a 10-foot clearance • Along trails, maintaining a 20-foot clearance • Areas where dead down wood significantly interferes with buckthorn management • Dead down wood eligible for removal includes trunks, limbs, and branches from fallen trees that are less than 12 inches in diameter and shorter than 10 feet in length. • Woody debris may be managed using the disposal methods described in this section. Biochar Kilns • The contractor will burn piles of previously cut brush using county- or contractor-supplied biochar kilns. • The contractor must prepare, submit, and obtain all necessary permits and approvals before burning brush piles. • The contractor must address plant mortality caused by burn piles by preparing and reseeding the affected areas. • Ash and any remaining woody debris must be dispersed by the contractor, and the area must be thoroughly raked before seeding. Biochar kiln material requirements: • Biochar kilns are designed to process woody material less than 4 inches in diameter and no longer than 4 feet. • Any material in burn piles that does not meet these specifications must be processed on site to meet them or removed from the area by the contractor before seeding. Burn process: • After ignition, additional material may be added to the burning pile inside the kiln until the coals are within 1 foot of the top of the kiln. • Larger material, up to 4 inches in diameter, chars most effectively during the middle stages of the burn. • A pressurized water tank of at least 100 gallons, with hose, must be available on site. • Burned material must be quenched with water once flames are no longer visible within the kiln. Off-Site Removal by Contractor • Trees harvested from the project area may be chipped and removed from the site. • Trees may be hauled directly off site or chipped and then hauled off site. • Chips may be transported to a compost facility to reduce nutrient cycling within the project site. 49 4.j. Goat Browsing Requirements • Use Boer, Boer-cross, Spanish, Savanna, Kiko, or similar meat goat breeds. • Standard-size dairy goats may be used but may not exceed 50% of the herd. • Long-haired or miniature breeds are not allowed. • Herds must include mixed-age goats. Herds of only young goats are not allowed. • All goats must be fence trained. • Stocking density must be high enough to achieve ecological goals. • The Project Manager may increase or reduce herd size if needed. • The contractor must state the number of goats proposed in the project proposal. • Chemical deworming is not allowed on site and must occur at least two weeks before arrival. Winter Grazing • Target browse rate: 85–90% visible damage or bark stripping on target species. • The Project Manager may adjust this target based on site conditions and goat behavior. • Some non-target trees and shrubs may be affected by grazing. Growing Season Grazing • Each paddock should receive at least two grazing events during the growing season. • The schedule may be adjusted by agreement between the contractor and Project Manager. • Target defoliation per event: about 85%. • Lower defoliation targets may be used where escapes are a concern. • The contractor and Project Manager will determine grazing duration. Return Interval • Timing of additional grazing depends on vegetation regrowth. • A minimum three-week rest period between grazing events is preferred. • The contractor may adjust the rest period with Project Manager approval. Stocking and Paddock Size • The contractor determines the initial paddock size and stocking rate. • The PM may adjust paddock size, stocking rate, return interval, or defoliation targets based on site conditions. • Some impact to desirable trees and shrubs is expected. Fencing • Existing trails may divide sites into paddocks. Larger units may require additional paddocks. • The contractor must supply enough electric mesh fencing to enclose at least one paddock at a time. • The proposal must include a map or description of paddock sizes and fence locations. • Fence Specifications • Electric mesh fencing must be at least 35 inches tall. • Fencing must include at least 8 horizontal strands, with 7 conductive strands. • Vertical supports must be spaced no more than 12 inches apart. 50 Fence Posts • Many systems include built-in posts spaced about 12.5 feet apart. • Additional step-in posts may be needed on uneven ground. • If posts are not built in, the contractor must install posts no more than 12.5 feet apart. Optional Equipment • A 12-volt deep-cycle battery may be used to power fencing where electricity is unavailable. • A solar fence energizer may be used to recharge the battery if properly sized for the fence. Grounding • Ground rods must provide adequate electrical flow. • A general guideline is 3 feet of grounding rod per joule of energizer output. Fence Maintenance • The contractor must maintain fencing at all times. • Remove fallen branches or debris and reset fallen posts as needed. Fence Lanes and Installation • Brush and vegetation may be cleared to install fencing. • Non-target trees may not be cut without Project Manager approval. • Permanent fencing is not allowed. • All fencing must be removed when goats leave the site. • Brush and debris must be removed from trails and mow strips. • The contractor must repair any damage to park property, including trail rutting. Site Visits • The contractor and Project Manager will coordinate site visits and animal health checks. • The contractor must inspect the site and animals at least twice per week. • The contractor must respond within two hours to issues such as damaged fencing or escaped goats. Weekly Communication • The contractor and Project Manager will maintain regular communication throughout the project. • The contractor will conduct weekly project check-ins on a mutually agreed schedule. Initial Mobilization • About one week before mobilization, the contractor and Project Manager will discuss the target move date. • About 24 hours before arrival, the contractor will confirm the estimated arrival time. • When goats are in transit, the contractor will notify the Project Manager. Paddock Rotations • The contractor will notify the Project Manager 12–24 hours before moving goats to a new paddock. • The contractor will notify the Project Manager immediately after the move. Performance Assessment • The project goal is at least 85% removal of target species. 51 Appendix A: Seeding Species Lists The following table outlines recommended seed mixes for each site’s habitat types. Full mix details are available on the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources website for each referenced seed mix code (Shaw 2023). The mixes listed were selected as the best fit for the project’s plant communities and site conditions based on Minnesota Department of Natural Resources guidance. They are not intended to be exhaustive. A professional seed vendor should be consulted when selecting and purchasing seed for the site. Table A.1 General Seed Species Lists (shaded cells denote recommended seed mix use in those units). Site / Unit Hazelnut Park Floral Park Chatham Park BWSR Mix Code or Vendor BWSR Habitat or Vendor Mix Name Woodland Mesic Hardwood Woodland Utility / powerline Woodland Mesic Hardwood Wet Prairie MNL Modified Buckthorn Replacement Mix Yes Yes Yes 36-212 Woodland Edge S and W Yes Yes Yes 36-712 Woodland Edge Central Yes Yes Yes 35-642 Mesic Prairie SE Yes Pilot Mesic Short Urban Buffer S and W Yes 34-161 Early Successional Floodplain General Yes These mix lists may also guide native plug selection. Most species are available through native plant nurseries. Plant material should be sourced within 250 miles of Arden Hills, and ideally within 150 miles, to improve establishment success. Species availability may require substitutions. A reference table for approved seed mix substitutions is available through the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources here: https://bwsr.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/2021-02/seedmix-substitution.pdf (Shaw 2017). 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Appendix B: Tree and Shrub Planting Species List This table recommends tree and shrub species to be planted in the habitat types present at any of the sites. Herbaceous species can also be planted based on the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) species listed in Appendix A, Table A.1. (Tree / Shrub plant types are designated by the color coding in the Key). Species Lists by Habitat Type Lowland/ Wet Woodland Wooded shoreline Mesic Woodland Common name Scientific name Common name Scientific name Common name Scientific name Black Maple Acer nigrum Red Maple Acer rubrum Paper Birch Betula papyrifera Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Silver Maple Acer saccharinum Gray Dogwood Cornus racemosa Sugar Maple Acer saccharum Chokeberry Aronia melanocarpa American Hazelnut Corylus americana Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia River Birch Betula nigra Beaked Hazelnut Corylus cornuta Gray Dogwood Cornus racemosa Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Wild Honeysuckle Lonicera dioica Round Leaved Dogwood Cornus rugosa Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis Ironwood Ostrya virginiana American Hazelnut Corylus americana Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia Jack Pine Pinus banksiana Bush Honeysuckle Diervilla lonicera Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum Red Pine Pinus resinosa Black Cherry Prunus serotina Red Osier Dogwood Cornus sericea White Pine Pinus strobus Chokecherry Prunus virginiana Tamarack Larix laricina Big Toothed Aspen Populus grandidentata White Oak Quercus alba Cottonwood Populus deltoides Quaking Aspen Populus tremuloides Swamp White Oak Quercus bicolor American Plum Prunus americana Northern Pin Oak Quercus ellipsoidalis Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa Swamp White Oak Quercus bicolor Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa Red Oak Quercus rubra Wild Black Currant Ribes americanum Red Oak Quercus rubra Prickly Gooseberry Ribes cynosbati Prickly Gooseberry Ribes cynosbati Common Elderberry Sambucus canadensis Missouri Gooseberry Ribes missouriense Missouri Gooseberry Ribes missouriense Downy Arrowood Viburnum ralinesquianum Black Raspberry Rubus occidentalis Bebb's Willow Salix bebbiana Prickly Ash Zanthoxylum americanum Common Elderberry Sambucus canadensis Pussy Willow Salix discolor Basswood Tilia americana Red Berried Elder Sambucus racemosa Key - Plant Type American Elm Ulmus americana Nannyberry Viburnum lentago Tree Shrub High Bush Cranberry Viburnum opulus 60 Appendix C: Soil Surveys Hazelnut Park 61 Floral Park 62 Chatham Park 63 64 Appendix D: Invasive Species and Noxious Plant Management Protocols Note – the full 27-page document will be attached to the final draft after updates; example pages follow – 65 66 67 68 69 Appendix E: Plant Species Referenced in the Natural Resource Management Text Tree and Shrub Species Forb Species Common Name Species Name Common Name Species Name Amur maple Acer ginnala Bittersweet nightshade Solanum dulcamara Ash Fraxinus spp. Burdocks Arctium spp. Basswood Tilia americana Canada thistle Cirsium arvense Black Cherry Prunus serotina Common burdock Arctium minus Black locust Robinia pseudoacacia Common milkweed Asclepias syriaca Black walnut Juglans nigra Dame's rocket Hesperis matronalis Box elder Acer negundo Early meadow rue Thalictrum dioicum Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa Enchanter's nightshade Circaea canadensis Chokecherry Prunus virginiana Garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata Common elder Sambucus canadensis Goldenrods Solidago spp. Common buckthorn Rhamnus cathartica Hoary vervain Verbena stricta Cottonwood Populus deltoides Jack-in-the-pulpit Arisaema triphyllum Glossy buckthorn Frangula alnus Jewelweed Impatiens capensis Grey dogwood Cornus racemosa Lamb's quarters Chenopodium album Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica Motherwort Leonurus cardiaca Hawthorns Crataegus spp. Raspberry Rubus spp. Honeysuckle Lonicera spp. Red baneberry Actaea rubra Ironwood Ostrya virginiana Rue anemone Thalictrum thalictroides Maple Acer spp. Solomon's plume Maianthemum racemosum Missouri gooseberry Ribes missouriense Solomon's seals Polygonatum spp. Nannyberry Viburnum lentago Spotted touch-me-not Impatiens spp. Northern red oak Quercus rubra Spiderwort Tradescantia spp. Oak Quercus spp. Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia Poplar Populus spp. Virginia waterleaf Hydrophyllum virginianum Prickly ash Zanthoxylum americanum White snakeroot Ageratina altissima Quaking aspen Populus tremuloides Wild geranium Geranium maculatum Red-osier dogwood Cornus sericea Wood nettle Laportea canadensis White mulberry Morus alba Grass / Sedge Species White oak Quercus alba Common Name Species Name Pennsylvania sedge Carex pennsylvanica Dark = Species highlighted for management Reed canary grass Phalaris arundinacea Gray = Species of management concern Smooth brome Bromus inermis 70 Citations and References Anderson, James. “Soil Orders and Suborders in Minnesota.” Extension at the University of Minnesota, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, 2021, extension.umn.edu/soil-management-and-health/soil- orders-and-suborders-minnesota. Arden Hills. “Parks.” Parks | Arden Hills, MN - Official Website, 2006, www.cityofardenhills.org/185/Parks. Domyancich-Lee, Laura. August 18, “A New Tool in Our Toolbox for Buckthorn Control: Critical Period Cutting.” Friends of the Mississippi River, Minnesota Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund, LCCMR, 18 Aug. 2023, fmr.org/updates/conservation/new-tool-our-toolbox-buckthorn-control- critical-period-cutting. Johnson, Lucinda, et al. “Minnesota Natural Resource Atlas.” Minnesota Natural Resource Atlas: Online Mapping Tools and Data for Natural Resource Planning, Management, and Research in Minnesota, Natural Resources Research Institute, University of Minnesota Duluth, 2022, mnatlas.org/. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Field Guide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota. The Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province. Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources, 2005. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. “Minnesota’s Native Plant Communities.” Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2003. www.dnr.state.mn.us/npc/index.html. “Minnesota Historical Aerial Photographs Online.” MHAPO, John R Borchert Map Library, University of Minnesota, and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2015, apps.lib.umn.edu/mhapo/. “Minnesota Land Cover Classification System User Manual Version 5.4.” Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2004, files.dnr.state.mn.us/assistance/nrplanning/community/mlccs/mlccs_manual_v5_4.pdf. Sagor, Eli. “Oak Wilt in Minnesota.” UMN Extension, 2024, extension.umn.edu/plant-diseases/oak-wilt- minnesota. Schuster, Michael J., et al. “No evidence of a long-lived seedbank in common buckthorn, Rhamnus cathartica L., within Minnesota deciduous forests.” Biological Invasions, vol. 25, no. 10, 22 June 2023, pp. 3043–3048, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-023-03113-4. Shaw, Dan. “Seed Mixes.” Seed Mixes | MN Board of Water, Soil Resources, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2023, bwsr.state.mn.us/seed-mixes. Shaw, Dan. “Seed Substitution List.” MN Board of Water, Soil Resources, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 5 Jan. 2017, bwsr.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/2021-02/seedmix-substitution.pdf. Soil Survey Staff. “Web Soil Survey Mapper.” Web Soil Survey, United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 16 Aug. 2005, websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. 24 Table 3.b.3: Recommended summary budget for Hazelnut Park after completion of the currently funded restoration project. Year 1 is assumed to begin in July 2027, after the completion of the OHF funded work, though the schedule can extend beyond the first five years. All prices are estimates based on current market rates at the time of writing. Note - The Buckthorn Control Focused Plan is intended to be a bare minimum maintenance / low-cost option for continued park maintenance. The Additional Maintenance Activities recommend tasks for herbaceous control or native vegetation establishment. Entries with “Volunteers” written in assume that most of the labor will be handled by volunteers and does not account for whatever volunteer coordination labor the city conducts. Ha z e l n u t P a r k Buckthorn Control Focused Plan Plant Community Activity Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Over 5 years Mesic Hardwood Forest MHs38, 6.9ac Woody Invasive Control $13,800 $13,800 Goat Browsing maintenance $3,100 Planting or seeding Volunteers Volunteers Total Focus Plan $13,800 $ - $ 3,100 $ - $13,800 $30,700 Additional Maintenance Activities Powerline Prairie, UPs23, 1.8ac Planting or seeding Volunteers Volunteers Woodland and Prairie, 8.7ac Herbaceous Invasive control $20,000 $17,500 $14,500 $13,100 Total Additional $20,000 $17,500 $14,500 $13,100 $65,100 Total Combined $33,800 $17,500 $17,600 $0.00 $26,900 $95,800 32 Table 3.c.3: Recommended summary budget for Hazelnut Park after completion of the currently funded restoration project. Year 1 is assumed to begin in July 2029, after the completion of the OHF funded work, though the schedule can extend beyond the first five years. All prices are estimates based on current market rates at the time of writing. Note - The Buckthorn Control Focused Plan is intended to be a bare minimum maintenance / low-cost option for continued park maintenance. The Additional Maintenance Activities recommend tasks for herbaceous control or native vegetation establishment. Entries with “Volunteers” written in assume that most of the labor will be handled by volunteers and does not account for whatever volunteer coordination labor the city conducts. Fl o r a l P a r k Buckthorn Control Focused Plan Plant Community Activity Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Over 5 years Mesic and Wet Forested areas 14ac Woody Invasive Control $28,000 $28,000 Goat Browsing maintenance $7,000 Planting or seeding Volunteers Volunteers Total $28,000 $ - $ 7,000 $ - $28,000 $63,000 Additional Maintenance Activities Amur Maple, Unit 1, 1ac Woody Invasive Control $10,000 Powerline Prairie, UPs23, 0.6ac Planting or seeding Volunteers Volunteers Woodland and Prairie, 14.6ac Herbaceous Invasive control $33,580 $29,200 $24,800 $21,900 Total Additional $43,580 $29,200 $24,800 $0.00 $21,900 $109,500 Total Combined $71,580 $29,200 $31,800 $0.00 $49,900 $172,500 37 Table 3.d.3: Recommended summary budget for Hazelnut Park after completion of the currently funded restoration project. Year 1 is assumed to begin in July 2027 and would be supported by the proposed OHF funding, though the schedule can extend beyond the first five years. All prices are estimates based on current market rates at the time of writing. Note - The Buckthorn Control Focused Plan is intended to be a bare minimum maintenance / low-cost option for continued park maintenance. The Additional Maintenance Activities recommend tasks for herbaceous control or native vegetation establishment. Entries with “Volunteers” written in assume that most of the labor will be handled by volunteers and does not account for whatever volunteer coordination labor the city conducts. Ch a t h a m P a r k Buckthorn Control Focused Plan Plant Community Activity Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Over 5 years Untouched Floodplain Forest FFs59, 15.5ac Initial Woody Invasive Control $108,500 $31,000 $31,000 $31,000 Planting or seeding Volunteers Floodplain Forest, FFs59, 4.2ac Woody Invasive Control $8,400 $8,400 Goat Browsing maintenance $2,100 Planting or seeding volunteers volunteers Total $116,900 $31,000.00 $33,100.00 $31,000 $8,400 $220,400 Additional Maintenance Activities Wet Prairie, WMs83, 2.8ac Planting or seeding Volunteers Volunteers Woodland and Prairie, 22.4ac Herbaceous Invasive control $51,500 $44,800 $38,100 $33,600 Total Additional $51,500 $44,800 $38,100 $0.00 $33,600 $168,000 Total Combined $168,400 $75,800 $71,200 $31,000 $42,000 $388,400 Page 1 of 4 AGENDA ITEM – 3B MEMORANDUM DATE: July 27, 2026 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator FROM: Gayle Bauman, Contracted Interim Finance Director SUBJECT: 2027 – 2031 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A Various Council Should Consider Provide feedback to staff on Preliminary 2027 – 2031 CIP Plan. Background Annually, the City prepares a five (5) year Capital Improvement Plan for budgeting and forecasting. The focus of the CIP is on the maintenance and protection of the City’s existing assets, redevelopment, and investment in new initiatives. The CIP is part of the budget process, but it is not a budget; it is a plan, and one that changes often. The CIP does not commit the council to the proposed projects, nor implement the assumptions made during the preparation; however, this is the basis for the 2027 Budget as we continue with its preparation. The City has a finite amount of resources, so prioritizing and then being able to finance projects is crucial for ensuring the city’s long-term sustainability and being responsible stewards of the city’s investments. Staff has been working on completing a comprehensive study of the City’s current and future needs for infrastructure projects to better estimate project costs and ensure more accurate forecasting of available fund balances. Discussion A preliminary plan has been prepared and is attached which includes a summary of projects, detailed project sheets, sources of funds, and estimated fund balances (since the operating budgets have not yet been completed, these fund balances are estimated operating costs). Please note that project timelines are subject to change and that the current timeline is City Staff’s best estimate. The 2026-2030 CIP was a $47.3 million plan, while the proposed 2027-2031 CIP is listed for $42.4 million in expenditures. This is a 10.3% decrease from the previous year’s program or $4,875,476. The largest increase is in Parks due to the addition of the Natural Resources Restoration and County Road Trail projects, the increase in the cost of the Lake Johanna Blvd Trail project and changes in cost assumptions. The decrease in Streets is because there were three PMP projects included in the Page 2 of 4 2026-2030 CIP, whereas two PMP projects are included within the 2027-2031. Water is down due to removing the TCAAP projects (these are funded with sources outside of the Water Fund). PIR Fund • The City has about $60 million of streets and trails (based on 29.42 miles of city streets). Estimating the useful life of these assets at 40 years would require an annual investment of approximately $1.5 million. The current funding sources, which consist of the tax levy, Municipal State Aid, and special assessments account for about $1.5M on average per year for 2027-2031, due to the tax levy increase included in the 2026 budget. • A property tax levy of $430,000 is being proposed for 2027, which is unchanged from 2026. Based on potential projects, this amount should be increased to ensure there is appropriate funding to meet future project expenditures. • Current projections include prepayments of special assessments, which is based on a 5-year historical collection rate of 40%. • The Old Highway 10 Trail project is programmed for 2027 and estimated to cost $4.635 million, with the City’s cost estimated to be $1.32 million, and the remaining $3.32 million expected to be funded through grants and Ramsey County. This project is Municipal State Aid eligible. The City did not receive state bonding dollars for this project. • The Lake Johanna Boulevard Trail is programmed to start Planning and Design in 2026 with construction anticipated in 3 phases starting in 2029, 2030 and 2031, with an estimated cost of $4.2 million. This project is Municipal State Aid eligible. • The City has been able to self-finance the special assessment portion of the PMP street projects thus far. However, with the cost of these projects increasing, the City should discuss alternative and long-term financing methods for these projects. Some options to the City could include: o Bonding biennially for the special assessment portion of the PMP street projects o Bonding annually for all projects within the PIR fund o A dual approach that increases the property tax levy for smaller projects and utilizes bond financing for the larger infrastructure projects Bonding provides the near-term cash needed to fund projects and reduces the overall impact to the PIR fund through leveled and structured debt service payments. • There is a definite need to stay on top of street improvement projects to ensure streets reach their useful lives and don’t require costly premature full reconstructions. Several areas of the City are reaching those crucial ages where significant outlay is needed to ensure the long-term vitality of the streets. • The 3 types of street improvement projects being considered based on condition are: o Resurfacing is the milling of the top 1.5 to 2 inch surface layer of street pavement and overlaying the street with a new bituminous surface layer. o Full Depth Reclamation involves spot repair of existing curb, milling or reclaiming the full depth of existing bituminous pavement, blending milled material with underlying aggregate material and installing a new bituminous pavement section. o Reconstruction involves removal and replacement of larger quantities of existing curb, installing underlying subgrade correction materials, new aggregate base and a new bituminous pavement section. • Projects were programmed to get the City on a schedule of completing a major street reconstruction project every other year. Page 3 of 4 Public Safety Capital Equipment Fund • The fund is currently being used to account for capital expenditures made by the Lake Johanna Fire Department. • Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) replacements are scheduled for 2027, with engine truck replacements scheduled for 2027 and 2031. • A property tax levy of $120,000 is being proposed for 2027 based on future capital needs. Equipment & Building Replacement Fund • The current plan includes recommendations from the comprehensive building reserve study that was completed by Reserve Advisors in May 2025. • The current $100,000 tax levy will not support the needs of this fund. A property tax levy of $163,500 is being proposed for 2027, and the levy may need additional increases over the next couple of years. Utility Funds • Public Works staff continues to evaluate the condition of City utilities throughout the community. The majority of street projects currently include a minimum amount for isolated utility repairs, but these amounts could increase as locations are identified where broader water, sanitary sewer, and drainage replacement is needed. • For the Sewer Fund, no I&I grant funds have been included in the plan as the amounts are unpredictable. • Rate increase assumptions are as follows: Water – 2027 (3%), 2028-2029 (4%), 2030 (3%), 2031 (0%) Sewer – 2027-2031 (0%) Storm – 2027 (5%), 2028-2029 (2%), 2030-2031 (0%) Council Direction Staff is seeking direction from the City Council regarding the following items: 2027 Projects As we review the 2027 projects, does the Council have any questions, comments or concerns about including them during budget preparation? 2027 Property Tax Levy The levy for the Equipment/Building Replacement Fund is proposed to increase from $100,000 to $163,500 and the levy for the Public Safety Capital Fund in proposed to decrease from $312,000 to $120,000 in this plan. No levy is proposed for the EDA Fund. What changes, if any, should staff assume? Park Development Fund Park projects are currently being programmed in the PIR Fund. There is approximately $200,000 in the Park Development Fund which can be transferred to the PIR Fund to assist with the funding of park projects. Does the Council want to look at transferring these funds? Page 4 of 4 2027 Rate Increases - Enterprise Funds A rate study was completed in 2018. Annually, staff perform a review to ensure rates are at an appropriate level in order to meet future anticipated expenditures. Rate increase assumptions are proposed in 2027 and in future years in order to maintain a positive fund balance across the three funds. What changes, if any, should staff assume? Local Government Aid (LGA) Arden Hills was certified $24,051 of LGA in 2026. Staff recommends that these funds are not used for general operations (the state has unallotted LGA in the past) but instead direct them toward capital projects. They are included in the PIR Fund in this plan, similar to last year. CIP Franchise Fees Update Included in this budget are franchise fee revenues of $435,000 annually that will be used to offset debt service for the new fire station of approximately $270,000 annually. Excess franchise fees will be approximately $165,000 annually. Where does Council want to direct this excess? Budget Impact The Council should review the estimated fund balances and funding sources with special attention given to the PIR and Equipment/Building Replacement Funds. When considering what tax levy increases are needed to support the capital funds, it should be noted that preliminary results of department submissions and other assumptions have the General Fund expenditures increasing by $1,090,641, which would equate to an overall 16.22% levy increase (which includes the reduction in the capital levy noted above). Attachment C gives a preliminary snapshot of the increases being considered for the General Fund. Attachments Attachment A: PowerPoint Overview of Capital Improvement Plan Attachment B: Capital Improvement Plan Attachment C: Preliminary levy impact and 2027 General Fund Budget Attachment D: Equipment Replacement Guidelines Preliminary 2027-2031 Capital Improvement Plan Budget July 27, 2026 1 Summary of Capital Improvement Plan Expenditures The above table shows the City of Arden Hills’ estimated costs for capital projects and equipment for the next five years broken down by department. Department 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Economic Development 180,000 130,000 0 0 0 310,000 Government Buildings 15,495 124,849 0 59,781 516,847 716,972 Parks Department 7,676,175 818,255 8,846,695 2,760,705 1,318,755 21,420,585 Public Safety Department 502,090 203,999 20,371 112,175 227,932 1,066,567 Sewer Department 795,000 0 703,000 39,000 325,000 1,862,000 Street Department 100,000 6,425,000 0 5,355,000 0 11,880,000 Surface Water Department 0 0 0 0 0 0 Water Department 1,450,000 300,000 46,750 850,000 14,000 2,660,750 Equipment 534,135 691,245 490,820 288,200 480,751 2,485,151 Total 11,252,895 8,693,348 10,107,636 9,464,861 2,883,285 42,402,025 Expenditures by Year Changes from Prior Year CIP Expenditures The above table shows the differences between the 2026-2030 CIP and the 2027-2031 CIP by department. The largest changes stem from 1) Parks, due to cost assumption updates and the addition of new Park projects, 2) Water, due to removing the TCAAP projects as they will be funded with sources outside the Water Fund, and 3) Streets, due to cost assumption updates and the timing of PMP project expenditures.3 Department 2026-2030 CIP 2027-2031 CIP Difference Economic Development 310,000 310,000 0 Government Buildings 721,458 716,972 (4,486) Parks Department 10,141,400 21,420,585 11,279,185 Public Safety Department 2,142,748 1,066,567 (1,076,181) Sewer Department 1,617,000 1,862,000 245,000 Street Department 15,415,000 11,880,000 (3,535,000) Surface Water Department 0 0 0 Technology 0 0 0 Water Department 13,919,750 2,660,750 (11,259,000) Equipment 3,010,145 2,485,151 (524,994) Total 47,277,501 42,402,025 (4,875,476) Changes by Department Projects in 2027 4 Department Project Funding Source Amount Gateway Signs EDA 180,000 Economic Development 180,000$ Old Hwy 10 Trail - 96 to Valentine Park PIR/Grants/Ramsey County 4,635,000 GRG Floral Park NRMB PIR 5,225 GRG Hazelnut & Chatham NRMB PIR 4,000 Snelling Ave N. & Royal Hills Trail Improvements PIR/Park Dedication/Developer 472,500 Park Planning & Design Concepts PIR 10,500 2027 - Perry Park Improvement Project PIR 686,500 2027 - Ingerson Park Improvement Project PIR 550,500 2027 - Sampson Park Improvement Project PIR 442,200 Hamline Avenue N Trail Connection Improvement PIR/Ramsey County 220,000 Natural Resources Restoration PIR 189,750 Lake Johanna Blvd Trail PIR 175,000 Trail and Walkway Rehabilitation PIR 100,000 Park Shelter and Building Renewal PIR 85,000 Hazelnut Park Parking Lot Improvements PIR 100,000 Parks Department 7,676,175$ LJFD General Equipment Public Safety 239,893 LJFD Engine/Ladder Replacement Public Safety 153,135 LJFD Station Capital Public Safety 79,182 LJFD Rescue/Command/Utility Vehicle Replacement Public Safety 29,880 Public Safety 502,090$ Sewer Lining/Rehabilitation Sewer 660,000 Lift Station Rehabilitation Sewer 135,000 Sanitary Sewer Department 795,000$ County Rd D Improvements - Ramsey County project PIR 100,000 Street Department 100,000$ Water Tower Maintenance Water 375,000 Booster Station Improvements (1230 Red Fox Rd) Water 175,000 Water Meter Replacement Water 900,000 Water Department 1,450,000$ Total Project Expenditures 10,703,265$ Equipment in 2027 5 Department Project Funding Source Amount Trade-In Net Amount Replace 1993 Case 621 Loader #103 Equipment/Building Replacement 300,000 25,000 275,000 Emergency Generator Replacement Schedule Sewer 75,000 5,000 70,000 Equipment 375,000$ 30,000$ 345,000$ Replace 2009 Sterling Acterra Truck #431 Equipment/Building Replacement 159,135 20,000 139,135 Vehicles 159,135$ 20,000$ 139,135$ City Hall Security System Equipment/Building Replacement 15,495 - 15,495 Government Buildings 15,495$ -$ 15,495$ Total Building & Equipment Expenditures 549,630$ 50,000$ 499,630$ Estimated Ending Fund Balance by Year 6 Fund 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Capital Improvement Fund 215,586 (2,312,307) (5,000,301) (9,249,780) (9,272,309) Economic Development Fund 442,186 202,946 90,426 (25,474) (144,844) Equipment Building Replacement Fund 836,361 679,767 747,947 972,466 550,368 Public Safety Capital Fund 208,194 144,195 263,824 291,649 203,717 Sanitary Sewer Fund 1,001,242 932,177 922,777 812,607 834,107 Surface Water Fund 1,329,782 221,692 429,532 549,542 846,032 Water Fund 1,607,466 1,004,266 1,327,251 88,631 619,611 Net Fund Surplus (Deficit) by Year Council Considerations •Questions, comments or concerns about the 2027 CIP? •Tax Levy –Equipment/Building increasing by $63,500 –Public Safety decreasing by $192,000 –No change to PIR –EDA to remain at -0- What changes, if any, does Council want to see? •Park Development Fund –Should funds be transferred to PIR to help cover park project costs? •Enterprise Funds –Proposed rate increases are very preliminary. •Franchise Fees –Where should excess franchise fees be directed? 7 2027-2031 Proposed CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Council Work Session July 27, 2026 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Department Summary 1 Capital Improvement Plan by Department 2 Capital Improvement Project Detail Sheets 5 Projects by Funding Source 80 Sources and Uses of Funds 85 2027 through 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Department Summary Department 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Parks Department 7,676,175 818,255 8,846,695 2,760,705 1,318,755 21,420,585 Water Department 1,450,000 300,000 46,750 850,000 14,000 2,660,750 Sanitary Sewer Department 795,000 703,000 39,000 325,000 1,862,000 Equipment 534,135 691,245 490,820 288,200 480,751 2,485,151 Public Safety 502,090 203,999 20,371 112,175 227,932 1,066,567 Economic Development 180,000 130,000 310,000 Street Department 100,000 6,425,000 5,355,000 11,880,000 Government Buildings 15,495 124,849 59,781 516,847 716,972 GRAND TOTAL 11,252,895 8,693,348 10,107,636 9,464,861 2,883,285 42,402,025 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 1 2027 through 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Projects By Department Department Project # Priority 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Economic Development Gateway Signs 25-EDA-001 180,000 130,000 310,000 Economic Development Total 180,000 130,000 0 0 0 310,000 Equipment Replace 1993 Case 621 Loader #103 25-Eqp-001 300,000 300,000 Replace 2009 Sterling Acterra Truck #431 27-EqpV-001 3 159,135 159,135 Emergency Generator Replacement Schedule 27-Eqp-004 2 75,000 125,000 125,000 325,000 Replace 2017 Mack Plow/Wing/ Dump Truck #123 28-EqpV-001 5 154,500 207,700 362,200 Replace 2015 Ford F-450 Plow/ Dump Truck #320 27-EqpV-003 2 146,000 146,000 Replace 2011 Bobcat E50 Compact Excavator #85214 28-Eqp-005 2 130,000 130,000 Replace 2016 F-350 Pickup w/ Liftgate #455 27-EqpV-002 4 84,975 84,975 Replace 2013 Ford Escape #504 26-EqpV-003 41,500 41,500 Replace Bobcat Snowblower 84" #118 28-Eqp-001 3 9,270 9,270 Replace 2016 Stepp Asphalt Patch Trailer #121 28-Eqp-004 3 95,000 95,000 Replace 2023 Bobcat Toolcat #85478 29-Eqp-004 2 80,000 80,000 Replace 2012 Workman #445 29-Eqp-003 3 37,050 37,050 Replace 1998 Tow Behind Air Compressor #107 28-Eqp-003 3 36,050 36,050 Replace 2019 Bobcat Miller/Planer #129 29-Eqp-002 3 16,480 16,480 Replace 2009 Husqavarna Pavement Saw #113 28-Eqp-002 3 10,300 10,300 Replace Snowblower 72" #468 29-Eqp-001 4 8,240 8,240 Replace 2025 Bobcat Toolcat #85484 30-Eqp-004 3 80,000 80,000 Replace 2 Toro Zero Turn Mowers Asset 85485, 85486 30-Eqp-005 3 42,000 42,000 Replace 2016 Workman #456 30-Eqp-002 3 36,050 36,050 Replace Hotsy Pressure Washer #470 30-Eqp-001 4 5,150 5,150 Replace 2020 Bobcat Toolcat #461 25-Eqp-004 2 82,400 82,400 Replace 2018 Bobcat Skid Steer #85460 31-Eqp-002 3 80,000 80,000 Replace 2019 Ford F350 Crew Cab w/Tommygate #85323 29-EqpV-002 4 78,000 78,000 Trade in Program Toro Z Mowers #473 & #474 25-Eqo-001 3 47,741 47,741 Replace 2019 Ford F-150 Ext Cab #601 28-EqpV-002 3 46,350 46,350 Replace 2019 Ford F-150 #602 29-EqpV-001 3 46,350 46,350 Replace 2020 Ford F-150 #603 31-EqpV-002 3 46,350 46,350 Replace 2018 Ford Escape #85505 31-EqpV-001 41,200 41,200 Replace 2016 Trailer Tilt Deck for Mowers #85454 31-Eqp-001 3 12,360 12,360 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 2 Department Project # Priority 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equipment Total 534,135 691,245 490,820 288,200 480,751 2,485,151 Government Buildings City Hall Security System 27-BLDG-003 4 15,495 15,495 City Hall Elevator 27-BLDG-001 4 103,507 103,507 City Hall Furnishings 27-BLDG-002 4 21,342 21,342 Air Handler/HVAC Maintenance 29-BLDG-001 5 59,781 59,781 City Hall Roof 30-BLDG-001 3 410,278 410,278 City Hall Entrance Canopy & Masonry Replacements 30-BLDG-002 4 106,569 106,569 Concrete Flatwork, Partial 30-BLDG-003 5 0 0 Government Buildings Total 15,495 124,849 0 59,781 516,847 716,972 Parks Department Old Hwy 10 Trail - 96 to Valentine Park 27-Park-003 4,635,000 4,635,000 *2027 - Perry Park Improvement Project 27-Park-002 3 686,500 686,500 *2027 - Ingerson Park Improvement Project 27-PARK-004 3 550,500 550,500 Snelling Ave N. & Royal Hills Trail Improvements 26-Park-009 2 472,500 472,500 *2027 - Sampson Park Improvement Project 27-PARK-003 3 442,200 442,200 Hamline Avenue N Trail Connection Improvement 26-Park-001 3 220,000 220,000 Natural Resources Restoration 26-PARK-022 3 189,750 359,930 300,070 260,705 280,955 1,391,410 Lake Johanna Blvd Trail 28-Park-001 3 175,000 250,000 1,400,000 1,500,000 750,000 4,075,000 *Trail and Walkway Rehabilitation 26-PARK-020 3 100,000 700,000 800,000 Hazelnut Park Parking Lot Improvements 25-Park-004 4 100,000 100,000 *Park Shelter and Building Renewal 26-PARK-017 3 85,000 93,000 178,000 *Park Planning & Design Concepts 25-Park-007 2 10,500 11,000 11,500 12,000 12,500 57,500 GRG Floral Park NRMB 26-Park-006 5,225 5,225 5,225 15,675 GRG Hazelnut & Chatham NRMB 26-Park-007 4,000 4,000 *Athletic Court / Hardcourt Rehabilitation 26-PARK-010 3 184,000 156,500 340,500 *Park Furnishings Replacements 26-PARK-014 3 8,100 8,900 16,200 33,200 County Road Trail Projects 28-Park-002 2 6,350,000 6,350,000 *Playground Replacement 26-PARK-019 3 471,250 471,250 *Park Pavement Rehabilitation 26-PARK-016 3 50,250 50,250 *Hockey Rink Improvements 26-PARK-012 3 288,000 255,000 543,000 *Park Signage Replacement 26-PARK-018 3 4,100 4,100 Parks Department Total 7,676,175 818,255 8,846,695 2,760,705 1,318,755 21,420,585 Public Safety LJFD General Equipment 26-Pub-003 239,893 15,755 20,371 2,366 2,490 280,875 LJFD Engine/Ladder Replacement 27-Pub-001 153,135 189,088 342,223 LJFD Station Capital 26-Pub-004 79,182 74,700 0 0 0 153,882 LJFD Rescue/Command/Utility Vehicle Replacement 27-Pub-002 29,880 113,544 109,809 36,354 289,587 Public Safety Total 502,090 203,999 20,371 112,175 227,932 1,066,567 Sanitary Sewer Department Sewer Lining/Rehabilitation 26-Sew-001 2 660,000 460,000 325,000 1,445,000 Lift Station Rehabilitation 26-Sew-002 2 135,000 243,000 39,000 417,000 Sanitary Sewer Department Total 795,000 0 703,000 39,000 325,000 1,862,000 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 3 Department Project # Priority 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Street Department County Rd D Improvements - Ramsey County project 27-Str-002 3 100,000 100,000 2028 PMP 28-Str-001 2 6,425,000 6,425,000 2030 PMP 30-Str-001 2 5,355,000 5,355,000 Street Department Total 100,000 6,425,000 0 5,355,000 0 11,880,000 Water Department Water Meter Replacement 26-W-006 3 900,000 900,000 Water Tower Maintenance 26-W-004 2 375,000 14,000 389,000 Booster Station Improvements (1230 Red Fox Rd) 27-W-001 2 175,000 175,000 Meter Vault Improvements 28-W-002 2 300,000 320,000 620,000 Water System Model Update 26-W-007 3 46,750 46,750 Lake Johanna Blvd Watermain Assessment 26-W-002 3 530,000 530,000 Water Department Total 1,450,000 300,000 46,750 850,000 14,000 2,660,750 GRAND TOTAL 11,252,895 8,693,348 10,107,636 9,464,861 2,883,285 42,402,025 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 4 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 25-EDA-001 Project Name Gateway Signs Total Project Cost $310,000 Department Economic Development Type Improvement Category Economic Devl Improvement Priority n/a Status Active TCAAP No Description Install gateway signs at major entry points to the City. Potential locations for signs include: (1) Highway 96 at Round Lake Road, (2) Highway 96 at Lexington Avenue, (3) Lake Valentine Road at 35W, (4) County Road E at Lexington Avenue, (5) Lexington Avenue at County Road F, (6) Lexington Avenue at County Road D, and (7) County Road E at Highway 51. Potential sign locations are not listed in order of priority and are subject to change. There are three existing gateway signs in the following locations: (1) County Road E2 at I-35W, (2) County Road D at Cleveland Avenue, and (3) Lake Johanna Boulevard at the Roseville border. Staff has budgeted for the completion of an additional gateway sign in 2027 at a location to be determined. Justification Advance the economic development goals in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Implement the Guiding Plan for the B2 District. Work to better identify the entrance points to the City for businesses and visitors. Foster civic pride and community identity. Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Construction/Maintenance 180,000 130,000 0 0 0 310,000 Total 180,000 130,000 0 0 0 310,000 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total EDA General Fund 180,000 130,000 0 0 0 310,000 Total 180,000 130,000 0 0 0 310,000 Budget Impact Annual maintenance costs for sign cleaning and care of landscaping is estimated by the Public Works Department at $500 per sign annually. Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 5 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 25-Eqp-001 Project Name Replace 1993 Case 621 Loader #103 Total Project Cost $300,000 Department Equipment Type Equipment Category Vehicles Priority n/a Status Active Useful Life 20 years TCAAP No Description Vehicle #103 - 1993 Case 621 Loader & Plow Total Hours 3,683 Hour gauge: 2018 - 3,073; 2019 - 3,344; 2020 - Not available; 2021 - 3,438; 2022 - 3,50;1 2023 - Not available; 2024 - 3,630; 2025 - Current 3,772 New Loader estimate - $225,000 Frontwing /Plow - $75,000 Justification Vehicle will be 34 years old. This piece of equipment is used year round for loading trucks, stock pile management, and is a backup to our snow plow fleet. Also, during emergencies, it is used for clearing trees to open roadways and access utilities. Due to its age, this loader is showing deterioration and some significant corrosion. Replacement parts are hard to find and equipment is at end of life for wiring, hoses, and hydraulic seals. Downtime is increasing with constantly repairing fluid leaks from old lines and broken fittings. Staff recommends replacement in 2026. Fleet CEP Points Replacement Guidelines Rating is 63.5 (Needs immediate consideration) Parts and labor costs: Total PM Repairs 2019 - $1,652 2020 - $2,361 2021 - $5,150; $1,070; $4,080 2022 - $2,220; $2,220; $0 2023 - $0 2024 - $3,766; $0 $3,766 (2 weeks of total downtime) 2025- $2,745 $625 $2,120 (2 weeks of total downtime) 2026 (April) Duties for Loader: Snow plowing, Wing back banks, Bucket snow in cul-da-sacs, PW shop materials handling, Storm damage management, Tree debris management at the Old Shop property,Stuck equipment recovery. Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 300,000 0 0 0 0 300,000 Total 300,000 0 0 0 0 300,000 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equipment/Building Replacement Fund 275,000 0 0 0 0 275,000 Trade-In Value 25,000 0 0 0 0 25,000 Total 300,000 0 0 0 0 300,000 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 6 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 27-EqpV-001 Project Name Replace 2009 Sterling Acterra Truck #431 Total Project Cost $303,635 Department Equipment Type Equipment Category Vehicles Priority 3 Important Status Active Useful Life 10 years TCAAP No Description Replace 2009 1,500 gallon tanker truck used for watering, sweeping, dust control and rink flooding. Mileage 27,400 ** This equipment was ordered by Council approval on xx, 2025. **Delivery of chassis will be received in 2026; Buildout invoices will occur in 2027. Justification Current vehicle will be 18 years old in 2027. Corrosion due to winter operations and availability of parts. Fleet CEP Points Replacement Guidelines Rating is 31.75 (Needs immediate consideration) Parts and labor costs: 2018 - $2,112 2019 - $2,618 2020 - $3,303 2021 - $2,060 2022 - $5,613 - PM: $600; Repairs $5,013 2023 - $ 323 - PM: $323; Repairs $0 2024 - TBD Duties: Watering trees/gardens Filling garden barrels Assisting with sewer cleaning operations Pressure washing water source Rink flooding Assist with street sweeping Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 159,135 0 0 0 0 159,135 Total 159,135 0 0 0 0 159,135 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equipment/Building Replacement Fund 139,135 0 0 0 0 139,135 Trade-In Value 20,000 0 0 0 0 20,000 Total 159,135 0 0 0 0 159,135 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 7 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 27-Eqp-004 Project Name Emergency Generator Replacement Schedule Total Project Cost $325,000 Department Equipment Type Equipment Category Equipment: Public Works Priority 2 Very Important Status Active Useful Life 20 years TCAAP No Description The water department, sewer department, and city hall standby power (EOC) utilizes a total of 4 standby generators ranging in model years (1999-2005). This equipment is in need of a replacement schedule. Estimated auction return is $5,000 each. Justification Due to the emergency needs, factors like outdated technology, parts availability, dependability, and repair costs are taken into account with the replacement plan. Additionally, stationary mount natural gas fueled generators are much more efficient and do not suffer from the reliability issues seen with diesel fueled units. PW plans to replace generators on a priority basis. Analysis of emergency operations is being completed in 2026 for strategic planning/ generator replacements. 2025- $$6,530 for preventative maintenance.. (4 units) Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 75,000 125,000 0 125,000 0 325,000 Total 75,000 125,000 0 125,000 0 325,000 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund 70,000 0 0 60,000 0 130,000 Water Utility Funds 0 120,000 0 0 0 120,000 Equipment/Building Replacement Fund 0 0 0 60,000 0 60,000 Trade-In Value 5,000 5,000 0 5,000 0 15,000 Total 75,000 125,000 0 125,000 0 325,000 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 8 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 28-EqpV-001 Project Name Replace 2017 Mack Plow/Wing/Dump Truck #123 Total Project Cost $362,200 Department Equipment Type Equipment Category Vehicles Priority 5 Future Consideration Status Active Useful Life 10 years TCAAP No Description Vehicle #123 - 2017 Mack Single Axle Plow Wing Dump Truck (streets) Mileage 19,318 Hours 1873 Justification Due to long lead times for specifying, ordering and taking delivery, staff recommends ordering the plow truck chassis in 2027 and doing the build out in 2028. This will provide time to take delivery of a finished truck by 2029, making the current one 12 years old. Fleet CEP Points Replacement Guidelines Rating is 19.8 (Good condition) Repair costs for parts and labor: Total PM Repair 2019 - $3,206; 2020 - $4,557; 2021 - $9,092; 2022 - $8,443; 2023 - $7,394; 2024 - $5,022; $1,022; $4,000 2025 - $2,362; $462; $1,900 2026 TBD Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 0 154,500 207,700 0 0 362,200 Total 0 154,500 207,700 0 0 362,200 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equipment/Building Replacement Fund 0 154,500 172,700 0 0 327,200 Trade-In Value 0 0 35,000 0 0 35,000 Total 0 154,500 207,700 0 0 362,200 Budget Impact Reduce repair and maintenance costs and improve reliability of our primary snow removal equipment. Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 9 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 27-EqpV-003 Project Name Replace 2015 Ford F-450 Plow/Dump Truck #320 Total Project Cost $146,000 Department Equipment Type Equipment Category Vehicles Priority 2 Very Important Status Active Useful Life 10 years TCAAP No Description Replace 2015 Ford F-450 Plow/ Dump Truck. This replacement would include plow, dump body and salt spreader with related controls. Mileage: 36,241 Hours 3494 Estimated auction return $25,000 Justification This truck is a primarily used year round for street route snow plowing, park maintenance, surface water repairs, and miscellaneous utility projects. A 12 year replacement cycle is recommended for reliability and maximizing return on investment. Fleet CEP Points Replacement Guidelines Rating is 28.5 (Needs immediate consideration) Repair costs through 2019-2023 total - $9,850 PM Repairs 2024 - $1,327; $695; $632; 2025; $470 $2,182; 2026 TBD Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 0 146,000 0 0 0 146,000 Total 0 146,000 0 0 0 146,000 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equipment/Building Replacement Fund 0 120,000 0 0 0 120,000 Trade-In Value 0 26,000 0 0 0 26,000 Total 0 146,000 0 0 0 146,000 Budget Impact Reduced repair and maintenance costs. Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 10 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 28-Eqp-005 Project Name Replace 2011 Bobcat E50 Compact Excavator #85214 Total Project Cost $130,000 Contact Public Works Director Department Equipment Type Equipment Category Equipment: Public Works Priority 2 Very Important Status Active Useful Life 15 years TCAAP No Description The compact excavator is used within all departments of PW but primarily used in surface water. Excavation of small structures for maintenance and repair. Current hours- 1200 Justification The need for a longer boom reach and larger lifting capacity has been found. The compact excavator has taken the place of the 2000 Case backhoe for our current PW operations. Staff recommends replacement of the existing compact excavator with a slightly larger model. This new excavator would replace our current 2000 Case backhoe and the 2011 Bobcat compact excavator. Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Unassigned Expenditure 0 130,000 0 0 0 130,000 Total 0 130,000 0 0 0 130,000 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equipment/Building Replacement Fund 0 105,000 0 0 0 105,000 Trade-In Value 0 25,000 0 0 0 25,000 Total 0 130,000 0 0 0 130,000 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 11 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 27-EqpV-002 Project Name Replace 2016 F-350 Pickup w/Liftgate #455 Total Project Cost $84,975 Department Equipment Type Equipment Category Vehicles Priority 4 Less Important Status Active Useful Life 10 years TCAAP No Description Vehicle #455 - 2016 Ford F-350 Crew Cab with Liftgate (parks). VIN # 3955 Current Mileage: 64,300 Hours- 5,978 Justification The crew cab truck is used year round for efficiency with more staff seating. Seasonal staff can utilize one truck for up to 4 people. Due to rising repair costs, the recommendation is to replace at 10 years. Fleet CEP Points Replacement Guidelines Rating is 23.1 (Qualifies for replacement) Parts and labor costs: 2019 - $ 965; 2020 - $ 486; 2021 - $1,200; 2022 - $1,408; 2023 - $ 435; 2024 - $4,865; $721; $4,144 2025 - $45 pm 2026- TBD Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 0 84,975 0 0 0 84,975 Total 0 84,975 0 0 0 84,975 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equipment/Building Replacement Fund 0 74,975 0 0 0 74,975 Trade-In Value 0 10,000 0 0 0 10,000 Total 0 84,975 0 0 0 84,975 Budget Impact Reduce maintenance and repair costs. Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 12 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 26-EqpV-003 Project Name Replace 2013 Ford Escape #504 Total Project Cost $41,500 Department Equipment Type Equipment Category Vehicles Priority n/a Status Active Useful Life 10 years TCAAP No Description Replace 2013 Ford Escape. Current Mileage (April 2026): 70,200 Justification The current vehicle will be 13 years old and there is corrosion on the undercarriage. A multipurpose vehicle, like an Escape, will serve other City employees when they want to use a City vehicle to attend meetings and conferences - especially when they are out of town. Fleet CEP Points Replacement Guidelines Rating is 29.7 (Needs immediate consideration) Preventative maintenance and repair costs: 2018 - $ 429 2019 - $1,205 2020 - $ 0 2021 - $ 530 2022 - $ 48 PM; $0 Repairs 2023 - $ 85 PM; $0 Repairs 2024 - $ 680 PM; $390 Repairs 2025 - $40 PM; $845 Repairs 2026- $0 Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 0 41,500 0 0 0 41,500 Total 0 41,500 0 0 0 41,500 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equipment/Building Replacement Fund 0 33,500 0 0 0 33,500 Trade-In Value 0 8,000 0 0 0 8,000 Total 0 41,500 0 0 0 41,500 Budget Impact Cost of maintenance. Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 13 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 28-Eqp-001 Project Name Replace Bobcat Snowblower 84" #118 Total Project Cost $9,270 Department Equipment Type Equipment Category Equipment: Public Works Priority 3 Important Status Active Useful Life 10 years TCAAP No Description Replacement of a Bobcat Snowblower attachment used for snow removal along sidewalks, trails, parking lots, and miscellaneous snow removal needs. Estimated auction return - $2,000 Justification The attachment will be at the end of its useful life in 2028. Fleet CEP Points Replacement Guidelines Rating is 21 (Good condition) 2019- 2023 repairs costs- $328 2024 - $0 2025 - $0 2026 - TBD Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 0 9,270 0 0 0 9,270 Total 0 9,270 0 0 0 9,270 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equipment/Building Replacement Fund 0 7,270 0 0 0 7,270 Trade-In Value 0 2,000 0 0 0 2,000 Total 0 9,270 0 0 0 9,270 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 14 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 28-Eqp-004 Project Name Replace 2016 Stepp Asphalt Patch Trailer #121 Total Project Cost $95,000 Department Equipment Type Equipment Category Equipment: Public Works Priority 3 Important Status Active Useful Life 10 years TCAAP No Description Replace 2016 Stepp Asphalt Patch Trailer. Estimated auction return - $25,000 Justification The patch trailer is used for street maintenance operations. This equipment will be 12 years old in 2028, near the end of its useful life and also with a relatively high auction return. Fleet CEP Points Replacement Guidelines Rating is 22 (Good condition) Preventative maintenance and repair costs: Repair costs between 2019- 2022- $4,665 PM Repairs 2023 - $554 $150 2024 - $45 $0 2025 - 115 $0 2026 - TBD Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 0 0 95,000 0 0 95,000 Total 0 0 95,000 0 0 95,000 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equipment/Building Replacement Fund 0 0 70,000 0 0 70,000 Trade-In Value 0 0 25,000 0 0 25,000 Total 0 0 95,000 0 0 95,000 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 15 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 29-Eqp-004 Project Name Replace 2023 Bobcat Toolcat #85478 Total Project Cost $80,000 Department Equipment Type Equipment Category Equipment: Public Works Priority 2 Very Important Status Active Useful Life 5 years TCAAP No Description The Toolcat's are used across all departments and serve as primary sidewalk and trail snow removal equipment. Current Hours 443 Justification Fleet CEP Points Replacement Guidelines Rating is 15 (Excellent condition) Preventative maintenance and repair costs: PM; Repairs; 2024 - $251; $1,930 2025 - $95 $64 2026 - TBD Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 0 0 80,000 0 0 80,000 Total 0 0 80,000 0 0 80,000 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equipment/Building Replacement Fund 0 0 50,000 0 0 50,000 Trade-In Value 0 0 30,000 0 0 30,000 Total 0 0 80,000 0 0 80,000 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 16 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 29-Eqp-003 Project Name Replace 2012 Workman #445 Total Project Cost $37,050 Department Equipment Type Equipment Category Equipment: Public Works Priority 3 Important Status Active Useful Life 13 years TCAAP No Description Current Hours : 935 Justification Fleet CEP Points Replacement Guidelines Rating is 26 (Qualifies for replacement) Preventative maintenance and repair costs: PM; Repairs; 2023 - $45; $0; 2024 - $60; $540; 2025 - $128 $324 2026 - TBD Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 0 0 37,050 0 0 37,050 Total 0 0 37,050 0 0 37,050 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equipment/Building Replacement Fund 0 0 35,550 0 0 35,550 Trade-In Value 0 0 1,500 0 0 1,500 Total 0 0 37,050 0 0 37,050 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 17 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 28-Eqp-003 Project Name Replace 1998 Tow Behind Air Compressor #107 Total Project Cost $36,050 Department Equipment Type Equipment Category Equipment: Public Works Priority 3 Important Status Active Useful Life 30 years TCAAP No Description Replace 1998 LeRoi tow behind Air Compressor. Replacement parts becoming obsolete. Hours 593 Estimated auction return - $1,500 Justification This piece of equipment is used for street and irrigation maintenance. In 2028, this equipment will be 30 years old and past its useful life. Fleet CEP Points Replacement Rating is 41 (Needs immediate consideration) Repair costs between 2019- 2022- $1,250 2023 - $190 PM 2024 - $292 PM 2025 - $384 Repair 2026 TBD Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 0 0 36,050 0 0 36,050 Total 0 0 36,050 0 0 36,050 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equipment/Building Replacement Fund 0 0 34,550 0 0 34,550 Trade-In Value 0 0 1,500 0 0 1,500 Total 0 0 36,050 0 0 36,050 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 18 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 29-Eqp-002 Project Name Replace 2019 Bobcat Miller/Planer #129 Total Project Cost $16,480 Department Equipment Type Equipment Category Equipment: Public Works Priority 3 Important Status Active TCAAP No Description This attachment is used for street patching operations. Justification Fleet CEP Points Replacement Guidelines Rating is 18 (Excellent condition) Preventative maintenance and repair costs: PM Repair 2023 - $60; $0; 2024 - $150; $0; 2025 - $80 $245 2026 - TBD Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 0 0 16,480 0 0 16,480 Total 0 0 16,480 0 0 16,480 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equipment/Building Replacement Fund 0 0 16,480 0 0 16,480 Total 0 0 16,480 0 0 16,480 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 19 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 28-Eqp-002 Project Name Replace 2009 Husqavarna Pavement Saw #113 Total Project Cost $10,300 Contact Public Works Director Department Equipment Type Equipment Category Equipment: Public Works Priority 3 Important Status Active Useful Life 15 years TCAAP No Description Replace walk behind pavement saw. Hours - 111 Estimated auction return - $2,500 Justification This saw is used to cut asphalt and concrete for street patching and concrete repairs. In 2028, this equipment will be 19 years old and past its useful life. Fleet CEP Points Replacement Guidelines Rating is 23.6 (Qualifies for replacement) Repair costs between 2019- 2023- $1,300 2024 - $0 2025 - $80 2026 - TBD Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 0 0 10,300 0 0 10,300 Total 0 0 10,300 0 0 10,300 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equipment/Building Replacement Fund 0 0 7,800 0 0 7,800 Trade-In Value 0 0 2,500 0 0 2,500 Total 0 0 10,300 0 0 10,300 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 20 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 29-Eqp-001 Project Name Replace Snowblower 72" #468 Total Project Cost $8,240 Department Equipment Type Equipment Category Equipment: Public Works Priority 4 Less Important Status Active Useful Life 10 years TCAAP No Justification This snowblower attachment is used in the parks department for ice rink clearing and other misc. parks needs. Fleet CEP Points Replacement Guidelines Rating is 13 (Excellent condition) Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 0 0 8,240 0 0 8,240 Total 0 0 8,240 0 0 8,240 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equipment/Building Replacement Fund 0 0 8,240 0 0 8,240 Total 0 0 8,240 0 0 8,240 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 21 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 30-Eqp-004 Project Name Replace 2025 Bobcat Toolcat #85484 Total Project Cost $80,000 Contact Public Works Director Department Equipment Type Equipment Category Equipment: Public Works Priority 3 Important Status Active Useful Life 5 years TCAAP No Description The toolcat is used throughout all division of PW. One primary use is snow removal from trails and sidewalks citywide. Asset 85484 Current Hours 152 Justification The 5-7 year replacement cycle is what PW has programmed historically for replacement of our Toolcats. This is due to higher resale value and corrosion factors that lead to increased repairs and downtime. Fleet CEP Points Replacement Guidelines Rating is 14.6 (excellent) PM Repairs 2025 - $256 $0 2026 - TBD Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Unassigned Expenditure 0 0 0 80,000 0 80,000 Total 0 0 0 80,000 0 80,000 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equipment/Building Replacement Fund 0 0 0 50,000 0 50,000 Trade-In Value 0 0 0 30,000 0 30,000 Total 0 0 0 80,000 0 80,000 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 22 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 30-Eqp-005 Project Name Replace 2 Toro Zero Turn Mowers Asset 85485, 85486 Total Project Cost $42,000 Contact Public Works Director Department Equipment Type Equipment Category Park Capital Equipment Priority 3 Important Status Active Useful Life 5 years TCAAP No Description The zero turn mowers are used to mow city property, boulevards/ medians, and is primarily used in the parks Spring, Summer, and Fall. Justification Historically PW has recommended replacing our two zero turn mowers every 3 years due to resale and a manufacturers warranty for 3 years. The machines that were purchased in 2025 now come with a 5 year warranty. PW now recommends replacement of the machines in 5 years for this cycle and evaluate in 2030 whether to continue recommending a 5 year replacement cycle. Asset 85486- PM Repairs 2025- $234 $0 2026- TBD Asset 85485 PM Repairs 2025 - $256 $28 2026 - TBD Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Unassigned Expenditure 0 0 0 42,000 0 42,000 Total 0 0 0 42,000 0 42,000 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equipment/Building Replacement Fund 0 0 0 28,000 0 28,000 Trade-In Value 0 0 0 14,000 0 14,000 Total 0 0 0 42,000 0 42,000 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 23 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 30-Eqp-002 Project Name Replace 2016 Workman #456 Total Project Cost $36,050 Department Equipment Type Equipment Category Equipment: Public Works Priority 3 Important Status Active Useful Life 13 years TCAAP No Justification Fleet CEP Points Replacement Guidelines Rating is 15.5 (Excellent condition) Preventative maintenance and repair costs: PM; Repairs; 2023 - $25; $0; 2024 - $40; $0; 2025 - $40 $60 2026 - TBD Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 0 0 0 36,050 0 36,050 Total 0 0 0 36,050 0 36,050 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equipment/Building Replacement Fund 0 0 0 36,050 0 36,050 Total 0 0 0 36,050 0 36,050 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 24 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 30-Eqp-001 Project Name Replace Hotsy Pressure Washer #470 Total Project Cost $5,150 Department Equipment Type Equipment Category Equipment: Public Works Priority 4 Less Important Status Active TCAAP No Description The portable hot water Hotsy pressure washer is used across most departments with the primary use in the parks, equipment cleaning, and vandalism removal. Justification Fleet CEP Points Replacement Guidelines Rating is 17.5 (Excellent condition) Preventative maintenance and repair costs: PM Repairs 2025 - $24 $0 2026 - TBD Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 0 0 0 5,150 0 5,150 Total 0 0 0 5,150 0 5,150 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equipment/Building Replacement Fund 0 0 0 5,150 0 5,150 Total 0 0 0 5,150 0 5,150 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 25 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 25-Eqp-004 Project Name Replace 2020 Bobcat Toolcat #461 Total Project Cost $162,400 Department Equipment Type Equipment Category Equipment: Public Works Priority 2 Very Important Status Active Useful Life 5 years TCAAP No Description Replace 2020 Bobcat Toolcat #461. Hours 705 Estimated auction return $25,000 Equipment may need to be replaced in 6 years. Parts & Labor Costs: PM Repairs 2023 - $1,725 $1,123 $602 2024 - $2,030 $190 $1,840 Justification PW currently owns 2 Toolcat's and the primary purpose is snow removal along sidewalks and park trails. During the winter months, the machines are cleaned but salt and the heavy load out on the machine equates to costly repairs and down time. The machine is also used in the summer months on a weekly basis. Equipment repair costs from 2020-2024 total - $6,934 Toolcat Duties: Daily rink cleaning/snow removal Snow removal sidewalks/trails citywide Push back snow banks Trail sweeping Fertilizing Weed management/spraying Tree removal operations PW shop material handling Street maintenance/paving Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 0 0 0 0 82,400 82,400 Total 0 0 0 0 82,400 82,400 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equipment/Building Replacement Fund 0 0 0 0 57,400 57,400 Trade-In Value 0 0 0 0 25,000 25,000 Total 0 0 0 0 82,400 82,400 Budget Impact Time efficiency resulting in labor savings. Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 26 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 31-Eqp-002 Project Name Replace 2018 Bobcat Skid Steer #85460 Total Project Cost $80,000 Contact Public Works Director Department Equipment Type Equipment Category Equipment: Public Works Priority 3 Important Status Active Useful Life 12 years TCAAP No Description Replace the 2018 Bobcat skid steer Current hours 732 Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Unassigned Expenditure 0 0 0 0 80,000 80,000 Total 0 0 0 0 80,000 80,000 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equipment/Building Replacement Fund 0 0 0 0 70,000 70,000 Trade-In Value 0 0 0 0 10,000 10,000 Total 0 0 0 0 80,000 80,000 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 27 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 29-EqpV-002 Project Name Replace 2019 Ford F350 Crew Cab w/Tommygate #85323 Total Project Cost $78,000 Department Equipment Type Equipment Category Vehicles Priority 4 Less Important Status Active Useful Life 10 years TCAAP No Description This truck is uses across all PW departments and trailer towing. Current miles : 49,600 Asset 85323 Justification Fleet CEP Points Replacement Guidelines Rating is 19 Preventative maintenance and repair costs: PM; Repairs; 2023 - $101; $0 2024 - $90; $0 2025 - $90 $398 2026 - TBD $3,495 Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 0 0 0 0 78,000 78,000 Total 0 0 0 0 78,000 78,000 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equipment/Building Replacement Fund 0 0 0 0 63,000 63,000 Trade-In Value 0 0 0 0 15,000 15,000 Total 0 0 0 0 78,000 78,000 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 28 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 25-Eqo-001 Project Name Trade in Program Toro Z Mowers #473 & #474 Total Project Cost $144,914 Department Equipment Type Equipment Category Equipment: Public Works Priority 3 Important Status Active Useful Life 5 years TCAAP No Description Replace Two 2021 Toro "Z" Lawn Mowers #473 & #474 (parks). #473 - 507 hours #474 - 482 hours These were last replaced in January 2022. Cost of 2 machines: $40,930 Trade in values: -$15,000 Net cost of 2 machines: $25,930 Parts and labor costs: #473 PM Repairs 2022 - $312.72 $115 $197.72 2023 - $1,230.12 $67 $1,163.12 2024 - $1,114 $197 $917 #474 PM Repairs 2022 - $182 $115 $67 2023 - $649.68 $67 $582.68 2024 - $1,651 $197 $1,454 Justification The trade in value of the Toro "Z" mowers is maximized if they are traded in with warranty still remaining. Due to the amount of time these pieces of equipment are used during the summer months, they are traded in on a five-year cycle. Major repair costs are under factory warranty. Note: The new models will have a 5-year / 1,500 hour warranty. Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 0 0 0 0 47,741 47,741 Total 0 0 0 0 47,741 47,741 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equipment/Building Replacement Fund 0 0 0 0 32,741 32,741 Trade-In Value 0 0 0 0 15,000 15,000 Total 0 0 0 0 47,741 47,741 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 29 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 28-EqpV-002 Project Name Replace 2019 Ford F-150 Ext Cab #601 Total Project Cost $46,350 Department Equipment Type Equipment Category Vehicles Priority 3 Important Status Active Useful Life 8 years TCAAP No Description Replace 2019 F-150 Extended Cab 4x4 Pickup. Mileage 41,700 Hours 3891 Estimated auction return - $15,000 Justification The truck is used for miscellaneous use across departments within Public Works. In 2028, the truck will be 9 years old and at its useful life expected. The new replacement for asset 601 would cycle to the Superintendent, and asset 602 would cycle for PW crew use. Fleet CEP Points Replacement Guidelines Rating is 15.8 (Excellent condition) Repair costs between 2019- 2022- $2,576 Total PM Repair 2023: $129; $129; $0; 2024: $1,120; $873; $247; 2025 ; $82; $0; 2026 TBD Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 0 0 0 0 46,350 46,350 Total 0 0 0 0 46,350 46,350 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equipment/Building Replacement Fund 0 0 0 0 31,350 31,350 Trade-In Value 0 0 0 0 15,000 15,000 Total 0 0 0 0 46,350 46,350 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 30 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 29-EqpV-001 Project Name Replace 2019 Ford F-150 #602 Total Project Cost $46,350 Department Equipment Type Equipment Category Vehicles Priority 3 Important Status Active Useful Life 10 years TCAAP No Description Current PW Superintendent truck- This truck is scheduled to cycle into PW crew use in 2028 and could possibly be pushed to replacement in 2030.Staff will reassess in 2027. Current miles18,961 Justification Fleet CEP Points Replacement Guidelines Rating is 12.7 (Excellent condition) Preventative maintenance and repairs: PM; Repairs; 2022 - $84; $0 2023 - $282; $0 2024 - $84; $0 2025 - $85 $0 2026 - TBD Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 0 0 0 0 46,350 46,350 Total 0 0 0 0 46,350 46,350 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equipment/Building Replacement Fund 0 0 0 0 31,350 31,350 Trade-In Value 0 0 0 0 15,000 15,000 Total 0 0 0 0 46,350 46,350 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 31 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 31-EqpV-002 Project Name Replace 2020 Ford F-150 #603 Total Project Cost $46,350 Department Equipment Type Equipment Category Vehicles Priority 3 Important Status Active Useful Life 10 years TCAAP No Description This truck is used for PW/ Engineering. Current miles15,000 Justification Fleet CEP Points Replacement Guidelines Rating is 13.7 (Excellent condition) Preventative maintenance and repair costs: PM; Repairs; 2022 - $90; $0; 2023 - $62; $0; 2024 - $60; $0; 2025 - $60 $$477 Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 0 0 0 0 46,350 46,350 Total 0 0 0 0 46,350 46,350 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equipment/Building Replacement Fund 0 0 0 0 36,350 36,350 Trade-In Value 0 0 0 0 10,000 10,000 Total 0 0 0 0 46,350 46,350 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 32 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 31-EqpV-001 Project Name Replace 2018 Ford Escape #85505 Total Project Cost $41,200 Department Equipment Type Equipment Category Vehicles Priority n/a Status Active Useful Life 10 years TCAAP No Description City Hall/ Building Inspections vehicle. Current miles 34,255 Justification Fleet CEP Points Replacement Guidelines Rating is 15.7 (Excellent condition) Preventative maintenance and repair costs: PM; Repairs; 2023 - $70; $0; 2024 - $60; $0; 2025 - $55 $0 2026 - TBD Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 0 0 0 0 41,200 41,200 Total 0 0 0 0 41,200 41,200 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equipment/Building Replacement Fund 0 0 0 0 36,200 36,200 Trade-In Value 0 0 0 0 5,000 5,000 Total 0 0 0 0 41,200 41,200 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 33 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 31-Eqp-001 Project Name Replace 2016 Trailer Tilt Deck for Mowers #85454 Total Project Cost $12,360 Department Equipment Type Equipment Category Equipment: Public Works Priority 3 Important Status Active Useful Life 15 years TCAAP No Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 0 0 0 0 12,360 12,360 Total 0 0 0 0 12,360 12,360 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equipment/Building Replacement Fund 0 0 0 0 10,360 10,360 Trade-In Value 0 0 0 0 2,000 2,000 Total 0 0 0 0 12,360 12,360 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 34 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 27-BLDG-003 Project Name City Hall Security System Total Project Cost $34,944 Contact Building Official Department Government Buildings Type Maintenance Category Building Repair & Maint Priority 4 Less Important Status Active Useful Life 15 years TCAAP No Description The current security systems will be approaching the end of their useful life and should be budgeted for phased replacement. Justification New systems would result in a more secure building. As long as current systems are operational, the time of replacement would be at the discretion of the City. Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 15,495 0 0 0 0 15,495 Total 15,495 0 0 0 0 15,495 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equipment/Building Replacement Fund 15,495 0 0 0 0 15,495 Total 15,495 0 0 0 0 15,495 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 35 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 27-BLDG-001 Project Name City Hall Elevator Total Project Cost $103,507 Contact Building Official Department Government Buildings Type Improvement Category Building Repair & Maint Priority 4 Less Important Status Active Useful Life 20 years TCAAP No Description Upgrades to the City Hall elevator system. Justification The elevator currently in use at City Hall is original to the building. Most elevator components have an estimated lifespan of 25 years, at this point the original components have usually become obsolete. Refer to pages 4.13 and 4.25-4.26 of the full reserve study. Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 0 103,507 0 0 0 103,507 Total 0 103,507 0 0 0 103,507 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equipment/Building Replacement Fund 0 103,507 0 0 0 103,507 Total 0 103,507 0 0 0 103,507 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 36 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 27-BLDG-002 Project Name City Hall Furnishings Total Project Cost $46,445 Contact Building Official Department Government Buildings Type Equipment Category Building Repair & Maint Priority 4 Less Important Status Active Useful Life 20 years TCAAP No Description Update City Hall furnishings and equipment which vary in age. Justification Useful life of different elements greatly vary, but it is recommended to budget for replacements, Reference Reserve Advisors Study, pages 4.15 - 4.17. Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 0 21,342 0 0 0 21,342 Total 0 21,342 0 0 0 21,342 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equipment/Building Replacement Fund 0 21,342 0 0 0 21,342 Total 0 21,342 0 0 0 21,342 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 37 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 29-BLDG-001 Project Name Air Handler/HVAC Maintenance Total Project Cost $59,781 Contact Building Official Department Government Buildings Type Maintenance Category Building Repair & Maint Priority 5 Future Consideration Status Active Useful Life 50 years TCAAP No Description This will cover ongoning preventitive maintenance and replacement parts for the existing air handlers to keep them operational. Justification Consistent maintenance of the air handlers and HVAC system will ensure the longest possible usefule lifespan before replacement is required. Refer to Reserve Advisors Study, Pages 4.20-4.21. Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Construction/Maintenance 0 0 0 59,781 0 59,781 Total 0 0 0 59,781 0 59,781 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equipment/Building Replacement Fund 0 0 0 59,781 0 59,781 Total 0 0 0 59,781 0 59,781 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 38 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 30-BLDG-001 Project Name City Hall Roof Total Project Cost $410,278 Contact Building Official Department Government Buildings Type Maintenance Category Building Repair & Maint Priority 3 Important Status Active Useful Life 25 years TCAAP No Description Complete replacement of all buit-up roof components. Justification The current roof system is mostly original from the time of the buildings construction and is reaching the end of it's useful lifespan. Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Construction/Maintenance 0 0 0 0 410,278 410,278 Total 0 0 0 0 410,278 410,278 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equipment/Building Replacement Fund 0 0 0 0 410,278 410,278 Total 0 0 0 0 410,278 410,278 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 39 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 30-BLDG-002 Project Name City Hall Entrance Canopy & Masonry Replacements Total Project Cost $106,569 Contact Building Official Department Government Buildings Type Maintenance Category Building Repair & Maint Priority 4 Less Important Status Active Useful Life 20 years TCAAP No Description Replacement of deteriorating masonry and grout work as well as painting of corroded steel components. Justification Lintels and other structural steel components are starting to corrode, and the brick facade is showing evidence of weeping. Further explanation is provided in the Reserve Advisors Full Reserve Study, Pages 4.2-4.7. Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 0 0 0 0 106,569 106,569 Total 0 0 0 0 106,569 106,569 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equipment/Building Replacement Fund 0 0 0 0 106,569 106,569 Total 0 0 0 0 106,569 106,569 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 40 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 27-Park-003 Project Name Old Hwy 10 Trail - 96 to Valentine Park Total Project Cost $4,635,000 Contact Public Works Director Department Parks Department Type Improvement Category Park Capital Improvements Priority n/a Status Active Useful Life 25 years TCAAP No Description Construction of a new 6,500-feet in length, grade separated, 10-ft wide bituminous trail along the West side of Old Highway 10 from Lake Valentine Rd to Lakeshore Pl. Justification The new trail will improve safety and adequately accommodate pedestrians & bicyclists along the Old Highway 10 Corridor between Lake Valentine Rd and Lakeshore Pl in Arden Hills. The proposed trail improvements will complete the North-South connection from MN-51 to Hwy-96. Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Construction/Maintenance 4,635,000 0 0 0 0 4,635,000 Total 4,635,000 0 0 0 0 4,635,000 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Grants 2,000,000 0 0 0 0 2,000,000 Capital Improvement Funds (PIR) 1,317,500 0 0 0 0 1,317,500 Ramsey County 1,317,500 0 0 0 0 1,317,500 Total 4,635,000 0 0 0 0 4,635,000 Budget Impact The 6,500-feet of new trail will be the responsibility of the City to maintain. Maintenance includes, snow/ice control (seasonally), crack sealing and fog sealing (approx. every 5 years). Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 41 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 27-Park-002 Project Name *2027 - Perry Park Improvement Project Total Project Cost $686,500 Contact Park & Recreation Mgr Department Parks Department Type Improvement Category Park Capital Improvements Priority 3 Important Status Active TCAAP No Description 2027 Perry Park Improvement Project This category is used for larger, site-specific park improvement projects that combine multiple asset types into one coordinated project. When a park-wide improvement project is developed, budgets for individual assets may be moved into the specific park project to support coordinated planning, design, bidding, and construction. Each asset listed below was previously budgeted in a different CIP category and has now been moved here for this specific project. The 2025 Park System Plan & parks staff identified the following needs for Perry Park's 2027 improvements: Location Asset Condition Timeline Year Cost Perry Ballfields & Dog Park Field Fair 1-3 Years 2027 $90,000 Perry Picnic Table - Shaded Fair 1-3 Years 2027 $6,500 Perry Picnic Pavilion - Fiber Optics Missing 1-3 Years 2027 $2,500 Perry Warming House - Fiber Optics Missing 1-3 Years 2027 $2,500 Perry Parking Lot Poor 1-3 Years 2027 $485,000 Perry Retaining wall - trail Poor 1 Year 2027 $100,000 Parking lot pavement rehabilitation project involving full-depth reclamation, spot curb repairs, ADA improvements and subgrade soil corrections - $485,000; Ball field and dog park grading, irrigation improvements, fencing repairs - $90,000. Justification Parking lot pavement is deteriorating and reaching the end of service life. Public Works has placed large area patches to extend usability. Cost of maintenance is increasing each year. . Drainage is poor at the ballfields and dog park, which leads to standing water, wet turf, muddy conditions, and reduced usability after rain events. Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Construction/Maintenance 686,500 0 0 0 0 686,500 Total 686,500 0 0 0 0 686,500 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Capital Improvement Funds (PIR) 686,500 0 0 0 0 686,500 Total 686,500 0 0 0 0 686,500 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 42 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 27-PARK-004 Project Name *2027 - Ingerson Park Improvement Project Total Project Cost $550,500 Contact Park & Recreation Mgr Department Parks Department Type Improvement Category Park Capital Improvements Priority 3 Important Status Active TCAAP No Description 2027 Ingerson Park Improvement Project This category is used for larger, site-specific park improvement projects that combine multiple asset types into one coordinated project. When a park-wide improvement project is developed, budgets for individual assets may be moved into the specific park project to support coordinated planning, design, bidding, and construction. Each asset listed below was previously budgeted in a different CIP category and has now been moved here for this specific project. 2027 The 2025 Park System Plan & parks staff identified the following needs for Ingerson Park's 2027 improvements: . Location Asset Condition Timeline Year Cost Ingerson Bench Fair 3-5 Years 2027 $2,000 Ingerson Bench - Swing Bench Poor 1-3 Years 2027 $3,000 Ingerson Picnic Table - 3 Fair 1-3 Years 2027 $10,500 Ingerson Trail Improvement New 2027 $100,000 Ingerson Picnic Shelter (Small ) Fair 1-3 Years 2027 $85,000 Ingerson Playground Poor 1-3 Years 2027 $350,000 Justification The playground equipment and park furnishings at Ingerson Park are aging, in poor condition, and due for replacement. Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Construction/Maintenance 550,500 0 0 0 0 550,500 Total 550,500 0 0 0 0 550,500 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Capital Improvement Funds (PIR) 550,500 0 0 0 0 550,500 Total 550,500 0 0 0 0 550,500 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 43 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 26-Park-009 Project Name Snelling Ave N. & Royal Hills Trail Improvements Total Project Cost $472,500 Contact Public Works Director Department Parks Department Type Improvement Category Park Capital Improvements Priority 2 Very Important Status Active Useful Life 30 years TCAAP No Description Construction of a new 1,800-feet in length, grade separated, 10-ft wide bituminous trail along the West side of Snelling Ave N. Royal Hills Park to Highway 96. Justification The new trail will improve safety and adequately accommodate pedestrians & bicyclists along the Snelling Ave. N. Corridor between Royal Hills Park and Highway 96. The proposed trail improvements are in coordination with the North Heights Apartments Development Agreement. Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Construction/Maintenance 472,500 0 0 0 0 472,500 Total 472,500 0 0 0 0 472,500 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Park Capital Fund (Park Dedication Fees) 250,000 0 0 0 0 250,000 Developer Contribution 200,000 0 0 0 0 200,000 Capital Improvement Funds (PIR) 22,500 0 0 0 0 22,500 Total 472,500 0 0 0 0 472,500 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 44 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 27-PARK-003 Project Name *2027 - Sampson Park Improvement Project Total Project Cost $442,200 Contact Park & Recreation Mgr Department Parks Department Type Improvement Category Park Capital Improvements Priority 3 Important Status Active TCAAP No Description 2027 Sampson Park Improvement Project This category is used for larger, site-specific park improvement projects that combine multiple asset types into one coordinated project. When a park-wide improvement project is developed, budgets for individual assets may be moved into the specific park project to support coordinated planning, design, bidding, and construction. Each asset listed below was previously budgeted in a different CIP category and has now been moved here for this specific project. The 2025 Park System Plan & parks staff identified the following needs for Sampson Park's 2027 improvements: Location Asset Condition Timeline Year Cost Sampson Basketball Court (Half) Poor 1-3 Years 2027 $80,000 Sampson Basketball Hoop Poor 1-3 Years 2027 $7,000 Sampson Bench Poor 1-3 Years 2027 $2,000 Sampson Picnic Table Fair 1-3 Years 2027 $3,500 Sampson Receptacle - Trash - 2 Missing 1-3 Years 2027 $1,200 Sampson Sign (Park Entrance) Missing 1-3 Years 2027 $3,500 Sampson Playground (Climber) Poor 1-3 Years 2027 $260,000 Sampson Playground (Swings) Poor 1-3 Years 2027 $85,000 Justification The playground equipment and park furnishings at Sampson park are aging, in poor condition, and due for replacement. Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Construction/Maintenance 442,200 0 0 0 0 442,200 Total 442,200 0 0 0 0 442,200 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Capital Improvement Funds (PIR) 442,200 0 0 0 0 442,200 Total 442,200 0 0 0 0 442,200 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 45 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 26-Park-001 Project Name Hamline Avenue N Trail Connection Improvement Total Project Cost $220,000 Contact Public Works Director Department Parks Department Type Improvement Category Park Capital Improvements Priority 3 Important Status Active Useful Life 25 years TCAAP No Description Multi-use grade-separated 10-foot wide bituminous trail improvement approximately 500-feet in length along the East side of Hamline Avenue North from the City of Roseville to the existing trail on Hamline Avenue North in Arden Hills. Justification This trail improvement has been identified as a high priority connection. Coordination with surrounding agencies provides cost effectiveness and anticipated 2026 construction. Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Construction/Maintenance 220,000 0 0 0 0 220,000 Total 220,000 0 0 0 0 220,000 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Ramsey County 110,000 0 0 0 0 110,000 Capital Improvement Funds (PIR) 110,000 0 0 0 0 110,000 Total 220,000 0 0 0 0 220,000 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 46 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 26-PARK-022 Project Name Natural Resources Restoration Total Project Cost $2,777,705 Contact Park & Recreation Mgr Department Parks Department Type Maintenance Category Park Maintenance Priority 3 Important Status Active TCAAP No Description Great River Greening Projects Great River Greening projects, including restoration, invasive species removal, native plantings, habitat improvements, and stewardship work . This category tracks grant-funded or partner-led natural resources projects completed with Great River Greening. Projects may include restoration, invasive species removal, native plantings, habitat improvements, and related stewardship work. Justification Great River Greening has previously funded work which is accounted for in other projects. This project is specifically for as-of-yet unfunded projects proposed in the 2026 Natural Resources Managerment Brief that Great River Greening Produced for Chatham, Floral, and Hazelnut Parks. . Park Area Name Acreage 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Hazelnut Mesic Forest & Power lines Prarie 9 $36,000 $30,150 $33,075 $21,150 Floral Woodland & Powerline Prarie 13.6 $163,880 $118,320 $89,080 $109,480 Chatham Floodplain Forest and Prarie 23 $189,750 $134,550 $125,350 $111,550 $122,475 Crepeau Nature Preserve 11 $25,500 $26,250 $27,000 $27,850 Totals $189,750 $359,930 $300,070 $260,705 $280,955 Note: These estimates come from the Great River Greening Natural Resources Management Brief, Pgs 22-23; 27-30, 33-34. GRG instructed to divide totals by 2, which is included in the totals above. Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Construction/Maintenance 189,750 359,930 300,070 260,705 280,955 1,391,410 Total 189,750 359,930 300,070 260,705 280,955 1,391,410 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Capital Improvement Funds (PIR) 189,750 359,930 300,070 260,705 280,955 1,391,410 Total 189,750 359,930 300,070 260,705 280,955 1,391,410 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 47 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 28-Park-001 Project Name Lake Johanna Blvd Trail Total Project Cost $4,175,000 Department Parks Department Type Improvement Category Park Capital Improvements Priority 3 Important Status Active Useful Life 20 years TCAAP No Description Construction of a new 8,100-feet in length, grade separated, 10-ft wide bituminous trail along Lake Johanna Blvd in the North/West orientation from County Rd D to Old Snelling Ave. This will be a Ramsey County led project, proposed for design to begin in 2026 and construction in three phases: 2026-2028: Planning and Design 2029: Construction of Phase 1 from County Rd D to Lake Ln and the trail on County Rd E from New Brighton Rd to Lake Johanna Blvd. 2030: Construction of Phase 2 from County Rd E to Old Snelling 2031: Construction of Lake Ln to County Rd E The cost estimates are based off of the Ramsey County's 2026-2030 Transportation Improvement Plan and current cost-share policy. Justification The new trail will improve safety and adequately accommodate pedestrians & bicyclists along the Lake Johanna Boulevard Corridor between Old Snelling Ave and County Road D in Arden Hills. The proposed Lake Johanna Boulevard trail improvements will provide critical connections between Arden Hills neighborhoods, neighboring Cities, Tony Schmidt Regional Park, Bethel College and Mounds View High School. Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Construction/Maintenance 0 0 1,000,000 900,000 750,000 2,650,000 Land Acquisition 0 100,000 200,000 600,000 0 900,000 Planning/Design 175,000 150,000 200,000 0 0 525,000 Total 175,000 250,000 1,400,000 1,500,000 750,000 4,075,000 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Capital Improvement Funds (PIR) 175,000 250,000 1,400,000 1,500,000 750,000 4,075,000 Total 175,000 250,000 1,400,000 1,500,000 750,000 4,075,000 Budget Impact The 8,100-feet of new trail will be the responsibility of the City to maintain. Maintenance includes, snow/ice control (seasonally), crack sealing and fog sealing (approx. every 5 years). Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 48 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 26-PARK-020 Project Name *Trail and Walkway Rehabilitation Total Project Cost $800,000 Contact Park & Recreation Mgr Department Parks Department Type Improvement Category Park Capital Improvements Priority 3 Important Status Active TCAAP No Description Trail and Walkway Rehabilitation Park trails, internal walkways, paved paths, accessible routes, trail connections, viewing platforms . This category supports the repair and replacement of park trails and walkways to maintain safe, accessible, and reliable routes through the park system. Projects may include internal walkways, paved paths, accessible routes, trail connections, viewing platforms, and related trail improvements. Justification 2026: . The 2025 Park System Plan identified the following trail for rehabilitation in the years 2027-2031. . Location Asset Condition Timeline Year Cost Hazelnut Trails Poor 1-3 Years 2027 $100,000 Elmer Anderson Trails Poor 1-3 Years 2030 $700,000 . Additionally, a new trail in Ingerson Park connecting the two cul-de-sacs was budgeted for $100,000 in the CIP for 2027. This amount has been moved to the "2027 Ingerson Park Improvement Project" in the CIP along with all other 2027 Ingerson Park Improvement projects. Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Construction/Maintenance 100,000 0 0 700,000 0 800,000 Total 100,000 0 0 700,000 0 800,000 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Capital Improvement Funds (PIR) 100,000 0 0 700,000 0 800,000 Total 100,000 0 0 700,000 0 800,000 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 49 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 25-Park-004 Project Name Hazelnut Park Parking Lot Improvements Total Project Cost $100,000 Department Parks Department Type Improvement Category Park Capital Improvements Priority 4 Less Important Status Active TCAAP No Description Pavement rehabilitation project involving full-depth reclamation. Justification The entirety of pavement for the parking lot is deteriorating and has exceeded its service life. Parking lot resides on property owned by church and is available for public use under the terms of a Joint Use agreement. Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Construction/Maintenance 100,000 0 0 0 0 100,000 Total 100,000 0 0 0 0 100,000 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Capital Improvement Funds (PIR) 100,000 0 0 0 0 100,000 Total 100,000 0 0 0 0 100,000 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 50 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 26-PARK-017 Project Name *Park Shelter and Building Renewal Total Project Cost $539,700 Contact Park & Recreation Mgr Department Parks Department Type Improvement Category Building Repair & Maint Priority 3 Important Status Active TCAAP No Description Park Shelter and Building Renewal Shelters, pavilions, restrooms, storage buildings, warming houses, roofs, doors, utility improvements . This category supports reinvestment in park shelters, buildings, and support facilities to keep them safe, functional, and in good condition. Projects may include shelters, pavilions, restrooms, storage buildings, warming houses, roofs, doors, and utility improvements. Justification Several older park shelters are in fair-to-poor condition and should be updated over time to match the City’s standard park shelter style and quality expectations. . The 2025 Park System Plan identified the following specific shelters for replacement in 2027-2031: . (Please note: Ingerson Park's improvements were moved into the "2027 Ingerson Park Improvement Project" category and are no longer included in this specific project's Expenditures and Funding Sources tab.) . Location Asset Condition Timeline Year Cost Hazelnut Picnic Shelter (Small) Poor 1-3 Years 2027 $85,000 Ingerson Picnic Shelter (Small) Fair 1-3 Years 2027 $85,000 Royal Hills Picnic Shelter (Small) Poor 1-3 Years 2029 $93,000 Freeway Warming House Poor 3-5 Years 2033 $247,500 Perry Portable enclosure Fair 10-20 Years 2034 $3,200 Community Gardens Picnic Shelter (Proposed) N/A N/A 2036 $107,500 Floral Portable enclosure Fair 10-20 Years 2037 $3,500 Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Construction/Maintenance 85,000 0 93,000 0 0 178,000 Total 85,000 0 93,000 0 0 178,000 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Capital Improvement Funds (PIR) 85,000 0 93,000 0 0 178,000 Total 85,000 0 93,000 0 0 178,000 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 51 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 25-Park-007 Project Name *Park Planning & Design Concepts Total Project Cost $297,850 Contact Park & Recreation Mgr Department Parks Department Type Administration Category Park Capital Improvements Priority 2 Very Important Status Active Useful Life 9 years TCAAP No Description Park Planning and Design Master plans, feasibility studies, engineering, engagement, concept design, cost estimating . This category supports the planning, analysis, and design work needed to make informed park investment decisions. Projects may include master plans, feasibility studies, engineering, public engagement, concept design, and cost estimating. Justification 2025 The $75,000 fund included development and implementation of the City-Wide Park System Plan adopted by the City Council April 13, 2026. . 2026-2034 The budgetted amounts per year for the next ten years will continue to support park system vision planning and implementation of the Park System Plan. Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Planning/Design 10,500 11,000 11,500 12,000 12,500 57,500 Total 10,500 11,000 11,500 12,000 12,500 57,500 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Capital Improvement Funds (PIR) 10,500 11,000 11,500 12,000 12,500 57,500 Total 10,500 11,000 11,500 12,000 12,500 57,500 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 52 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 26-Park-006 Project Name GRG Floral Park NRMB Total Project Cost $26,125 Department Parks Department Type Unassigned Category Unassigned Priority n/a Status Active TCAAP No Description Partnership with Great River Greening for buckthorn and general habitat management at Floral Park. Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Other 5,225 5,225 5,225 0 0 15,675 Total 5,225 5,225 5,225 0 0 15,675 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Capital Improvement Funds (PIR) 5,225 5,225 5,225 0 0 15,675 Total 5,225 5,225 5,225 0 0 15,675 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 53 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 26-Park-007 Project Name GRG Hazelnut & Chatham NRMB Total Project Cost $12,000 Department Parks Department Type Unassigned Category Unassigned Priority n/a Status Active TCAAP No Description Partnership with Great River Greening for buckthorn and general habitat management at Hazelnut & Chatham Parks. Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Other 4,000 0 0 0 0 4,000 Total 4,000 0 0 0 0 4,000 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Capital Improvement Funds (PIR) 4,000 0 0 0 0 4,000 Total 4,000 0 0 0 0 4,000 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 54 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 26-PARK-010 Project Name *Athletic Court / Hardcourt Rehabilitation Total Project Cost $340,500 Contact Park & Recreation Mgr Department Parks Department Type Maintenance Category Park Capital Improvements Priority 3 Important Status Active TCAAP No Description Athletic Court Rehabilitation Basketball courts, basketball hoops, tennis courts, pickleball courts, sport courts, court fencing, surfacing, striping, nets/posts . This category includes rehabilitation and replacement of athletic courts and related amenities to keep park assets in excellent condition while providing safe, functional, accessible, and high-quality recreation facilities for the community. Projects may include court surfacing, striping, fencing, basketball hoops, nets, posts, and improvements to basketball, tennis, pickleball, and other sport and hardcourts. Justification The 2025 Park System Plan includes an inventory of all park assets and identifies recommended improvements and replacements through the Park Asset Inventory and Investment Plan. . The following improvements were identified for 2026–2031. . (Please note: Sampson Park's improvements were moved into the "2027 Sampson Park Improvement Project" category and are no longer included in this specific project's Expendditures and Funding Sources tab.) . Location Asset Condition Timeline Year Cost Sampson Basketball Court (Half) Poor 1-3 Years 2027 $80,000 Sampson Basketball Hoop Poor 1-3 Years 2027 $7,000 Hazelnut Combined Pickleball / Tennis Courts Poor 3-5 Years 2028 $184,000 Cummings Basketball Court (Full) Fair 5-7 Years 2032 $151,500 Cummings Basketball Hoop (2) Fair 5-7 Years 2032 $19,700 Cummings Sport Courts Fair 5-7 Years 2032 $82,500 Cummings Tennis Courts (2) Fair 5-7 Years 2032 $343,000 Hazelnut Basketball Court & hoops Fair 10 Years 2037 $200,000 Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Construction/Maintenance 0 184,000 156,500 0 0 340,500 Total 0 184,000 156,500 0 0 340,500 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Capital Improvement Funds (PIR) 0 184,000 156,500 0 0 340,500 Total 0 184,000 156,500 0 0 340,500 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 55 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 26-PARK-014 Project Name *Park Furnishings Replacements Total Project Cost $106,600 Contact Park & Recreation Mgr Department Parks Department Type Maintenance Category Park Capital Equipment Priority 3 Important Status Active TCAAP No Description Park Furnishings Replacement Benches, picnic tables, grills, trash/recycling containers, bike racks, pet waste stations, dog park gates, garden fencing, and related site amenities. . This category provides for the replacement of frequently used site amenities that support comfort, cleanliness, accessibility, and the overall quality of park visits. Projects may include benches, picnic tables, grills, trash and recycling containers, bike racks, pet waste stations, dog park gates, garden fencing, and related furnishings. Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 56 Justification Many benches, recycling containers, and trash receptacles in the park system are in poor condition and vary in style; this project will replace aging furnishings with consistent, durable amenities that are in good condition and create a more unified park system. . The 2025 Park System Plan identified the following furnishings for replacement in the years 2027-2031: . (Please note: Sampson Park's improvements were moved into the "2027 Sampson Park Improvement Project" category and are no longer included in this specific project's Expenditures and Funding Sources tab.) . (Please note: Ingerson Park's improvements were moved into the "2027 Ingerson Park Improvement Project" category and are no longer included in this specific project's Expenditures and Funding Sources tab.) . (Please note: Perry Park's improvements were moved into the "2027 Perry Park Improvement Project" category and are no longer included in this specific project's Expenditures and Funding Sources tab.) Location Asset Condition Timeline Year Cost Ingerson Bench Fair 3-5 Years 2027 $2,000 Ingerson Bench - Swing Bench Poor 1-3 Years 2027 $3,000 Ingerson Picnic Table - 3 Fair 1-3 Years 2027 $10,500 Perry Picnic Table - Shaded Fair 1-3 Years 2027 $6,500 Sampson Bench Poor 1-3 Years 2027 $2,000 Sampson Picnic Table Fair 1-3 Years 2027 $3,500 Sampson Receptacle - Trash - 2 Missing 1-3 Years 2027 $1,200 Cummings Receptacle - Recycling Fair 3-5 Years 2029 $1,300 Cummings Receptacle - Trash Fair 3-5 Years 2029 $3,200 Floral Bench - Qty. 2 Fair 3-5 Years 2029 $4,400 Arden Oaks Bench Poor 1-3 Years 2031 $2,400 Gardens Bench - Storage Fair 5 - 10 Years 2031 $3,500 Royal Hills Bench - 2 Fair 5-10 Years 2031 $4,700 Royal Hills Receptacle - Recycling Fair 5-10 Years 2031 $1,400 Royal Hills Receptacle - Trash Good 5-10 Years 2031 $1,400 Royal Hills Receptacle - Trash - 2 Fair 3-5 Years 2031 $2,800 Cummings Bench (5) Fair 5-10 Years 2032 $12,000 Floral Receptacles & Bench (4) Fair 5-10 Years 2034 $11,400 Crepeau Receptacles (4) Good 5-10 Years 2034 $6,100 Royal Hills Bench (3) & Picnic Table (2) Fair 5-10 Years 2034 $16,500 Perry Receptacles (5) Fair 10-20 Years 2034 $8,900 Johanna Marsh Receptacles (2) Fair 10-20 Years 2035 $3,000 South Point Bench Fair 10-20 Years 2035 $2,500 Community Gardens Picnic Table Proposed 10-20 Years 2036 $4,700 Hazelnut Bench (3) Good 5-10 Years 2037 $8,300 Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 0 8,100 8,900 0 16,200 33,200 Total 0 8,100 8,900 0 16,200 33,200 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Capital Improvement Funds (PIR) 0 8,100 8,900 0 16,200 33,200 Total 0 8,100 8,900 0 16,200 33,200 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 57 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 28-Park-002 Project Name County Road Trail Projects Total Project Cost $6,350,000 Contact Public Works Director Department Parks Department Type Improvement Category Park Capital Improvements Priority 2 Very Important Status Active Useful Life 30 years TCAAP No Description 2028/2029 solicitation (As of May 2026, these have not been confirmed with Ramsey County): Lexington Ave. Trail (County Rd D/Harriet Ave.) - $2,100,000 estimate New Brighton Rd. Trail (County Rd D/County Rd E2) - $4,250,000 estimate Justification Typically, on an annual basis, Ramsey County sends out a solicitation to accept applications for City-led projects that would occur within Ramsey County Right-of- Way and require coordination between both agencies. The proposed trails are identified within the City's Park System Plan as future trails. The City Council discussed priorities and provided direction on the proposed trails. The north side of County Rd D from Cleveland Ave to New Brighton Rd was not included at this time, as Ramsey County stated that segment would need to be constructed after their reconstruction project of County Rd D. Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Construction/Maintenance 0 0 6,350,000 0 0 6,350,000 Total 0 0 6,350,000 0 0 6,350,000 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Ramsey County 0 0 5,080,000 0 0 5,080,000 Capital Improvement Funds (PIR) 0 0 1,270,000 0 0 1,270,000 Total 0 0 6,350,000 0 0 6,350,000 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 58 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 26-PARK-019 Project Name *Playground Replacement Total Project Cost $1,532,000 Contact Park & Recreation Mgr Department Parks Department Type Improvement Category Park Capital Improvements Priority 3 Important Status Active TCAAP No Description Playground Replacement Playgrounds, swings, play containers, safety surfacing, play-area accessibility, gaga pits, play-based fitness equipment. This category supports the ongoing replacement and improvement of playgrounds to provide safe, accessible, engaging, and high-quality play experiences. Projects may include play structures, swings, play containers, safety surfacing, play-area accessibility, gaga pits, and play-based fitness equipment. Justification Playgrounds should be replaced approximately every 20 years to maintain current safety, accessibility, and quality standards. Regular replacement also ensures play areas remain in good condition, meet community expectations, and continue to provide safe, engaging play experiences for children and families. . The 2025 Park System Plan and the Arden Hills Playground Replacement Schedule both identfiy the following playgrounds needing replacement in the 2027-2031 years: . (Please note: Sampson Park's improvements were moved into the "2027 Sampson Park Improvement Project" category and are no longer included in this specific project's Expenditures and Funding Sources tab.) . (Please note: Ingerson Park's improvements were moved into the "2027 Ingerson Park Improvement Project" category and are no longer included in this specific project's Expenditures and Funding Sources tab.) . Location Asset Condition Timeline Year Cost Ingerson Playground Poor 1-3 Years 2027 $350,000 Sampson Playground (Climber) Poor 1-3 Years 2027 $260,000 Sampson Playground (Swings) Poor 1-3 Years 2027 $85,000 Royal Hills Playground Fair 1-3 Years 2029 $471,250 . Future years Location Asset Condition Timeline Year Cost Cummings Gaga Pit Good 5-10 Years 2032 $3,600 Valentine Playground Fair 5-10 Years 2033 $460,000 Valentine Playground (Swings) Fair 5-10 Years 2033 $35,000 Hazelnut Gaga Pit Good 10-20 Years 2037 $4,150 Perry Playground Good 10-20 Years 2037 $558,000 Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Construction/Maintenance 0 0 471,250 0 0 471,250 Total 0 0 471,250 0 0 471,250 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Capital Improvement Funds (PIR) 0 0 471,250 0 0 471,250 Total 0 0 471,250 0 0 471,250 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 59 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 26-PARK-016 Project Name *Park Pavement Rehabilitation Total Project Cost $50,250 Contact Park & Recreation Mgr Department Parks Department Type Maintenance Category Park Capital Improvements Priority 3 Important Status Active TCAAP No Description Park Pavement Rehabilitation Parking lots, access drives, pavement reconstruction, overlays, sealcoating, curbing, striping, pavement-related drainage . This category supports the repair and replacement of paved park infrastructure to maintain safe access, extend pavement life, and protect the overall condition of park assets. Projects may include parking lots, access drives, pavement reconstruction, overlays, sealcoating, curbing, striping, and pavement-related drainage. Justification The 2025 Park System Plan identified pavement rehabilitation needs throughout the park system, including the following for the years 2027-2031. The Freeway Park parking lot on County Rd. E should be expanding to accomodate the heavy hockey rink use in the winter. . (Please note: Sampson Park's improvements were moved into the "2027 Sampson Park Improvement Project" category and are no longer included in this specific project's Expenditures and Funding Sources tab.) . (Please note: Ingerson Park's improvements were moved into the "2027 Ingerson Park Improvement Project" category and are no longer included in this specific project's Expenditures and Funding Sources tab.) . (Please note: Ingerson Park's improvements were moved into the "2027 Perry Park Improvement Project" category and are no longer included in this specific project's Expenditures and Funding Sources tab.) Location Asset Condition Timeline Year Cost Perry Parking Lot Poor 1-3 Years 2027 $485,000 Freeway Parking Lot Fair 3-5 Years 2029 $50,250 Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Construction/Maintenance 0 0 50,250 0 0 50,250 Total 0 0 50,250 0 0 50,250 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Capital Improvement Funds (PIR) 0 0 50,250 0 0 50,250 Total 0 0 50,250 0 0 50,250 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 60 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 26-PARK-012 Project Name *Hockey Rink Improvements Total Project Cost $821,000 Contact Park & Recreation Mgr Department Parks Department Type Maintenance Category Park Capital Improvements Priority 3 Important Status Active TCAAP No Description Hockey Rink Improvements Hockey rinks, rink boards, rink surfacing/base, rink fencing . This category includes rehabilitation and replacement of hockey rinks and related amenities to keep park assets in excellent condition while providing safe, functional, accessible, and high-quality winter recreation facilities for the community. Projects may include improvements to hockey rinks, rink boards, rink surfacing or base, and rink fencing. Justification 2026: . The 2025 Park System Plan includes an inventory of all park assets and identifies recommended improvements and replacements through the Park Asset Inventory and Investment Plan. . The following improvements were identified for 2026–2031: . The Hockey Rink at Freeway is in poor condition, with visible wear, deterioration, and aging materials that no longer meet the desired standard for a safe, functional, and high-quality park amenity. Location Asset Condition Timeline Year Cost Freeway Hockey Rink Poor 3-5 Years 2030 $175,000 Freeway Hockey Rink Lights (4) Fair 5-10 Years 2030 $113,000 In addition, Parks staff have identified Perry Park's Hockey Rink as having reached the end of it's service life and is in need of replacement: Location Asset Condition Timeline Year Cost Perry Hockey Rink Poor 3-5 Years 2031 $175,000 Perry Hockey Rink Lights Fair 5-10 Years 2031 $80,000 These two projects are budgeted only to replace the boards, fencing and lights with no other improvements to the rinks. Future Location Asset Condition Timeline Year Cost Hazelnut Hockey Rink /Dog Park Fair 10-20 Years 2037 $278,000 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 61 Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Construction/Maintenance 0 0 0 288,000 255,000 543,000 Total 0 0 0 288,000 255,000 543,000 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Capital Improvement Funds (PIR) 0 0 0 288,000 255,000 543,000 Total 0 0 0 288,000 255,000 543,000 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 62 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 26-PARK-018 Project Name *Park Signage Replacement Total Project Cost $4,100 Contact Park & Recreation Mgr Department Parks Department Type Improvement Category Park Maintenance Priority 3 Important Status Active TCAAP No Description Park Signage Replacement Entrance signs, regulatory signs, wayfinding signs, trail markers, kiosks, interpretive signs, dog park signs . This category provides for clear, consistent, and well-maintained park signage that supports navigation, safety, rules, accessibility, and public information. Projects may include entrance signs, regulatory signs, wayfinding signs, trail markers, kiosks, interpretive signs, and dog park signs. Justification The parks department has adopted a new standardized park sign design. As signs come to end of life, the new signs should match the standard signage. All park entrances should have an identifying sign. . While the east side of Sampson Park has a new park sign, there is a missing sign on the west side. . The Community Gardens has a sign in fair condition that should be replaced with the new sign design when it reaches end of life. . The 2025 Parks System Plan identified the following signs for addition or replacement in the years 2027-2031: . (Please note: Sampson Park's improvements were moved into the "2027 Sampson Park Improvement Project" category and are no longer included in this specific project's Expenditures and Funding Sources tab.) . Location Asset Condition Timeline Year Cost Sampson Sign (Park Entrance) Missing 1-3 Years 2027 $3,500 Community Gardens Sign (Park Entrance) Fair 5 -10 Years 2031 $4,100 Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Construction/Maintenance 0 0 0 0 4,100 4,100 Total 0 0 0 0 4,100 4,100 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Capital Improvement Funds (PIR) 0 0 0 0 4,100 4,100 Total 0 0 0 0 4,100 4,100 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 63 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 26-Pub-003 Project Name LJFD General Equipment Total Project Cost $532,530 Department Public Safety Type Equipment Category Public Safety Priority n/a Status Active TCAAP No Description Lake Johanna Fire Department provides a detailed capital budget, which includes the costs to each City. 2026. SCBA Replacement, Tire Replacement, Radio Programming/Repair, Mobile Radio Replacement, 2026 Utility/UTV Equipment, Wildhand Hose/Nozzle/Bag Kits, New Hire Turnout Gear, ID Printer. Total Cost ($833,007) / Arden Hills Cost ($203,254) 2027. Tire/Computer Replacement, Network Devices, Radio Programmer/Repair, 2027 Engine Equipment, New Hire Turnout Gear, Replacement Turnout Gear. Total Cost ($232,094) / Arden Hills Cost ($56,631) 2028. Tire Replacement, Radio Programming/Repair, New Hire Turnout Gear. Total Cost ($67,275) / Arden Hills Cost ($16,415) 2029. Tire/Computer/Mobile Tablet Replacement, Radio Programming/Repair, New Hire Turnout Gear, Replacement Turnout Gear. Total Cost ($217,912) / Arden Hills Cost ($53,171) 2030. Tire/Computer Replacement. Total Cost ($31,025) / Arden Hills Cost ($7,570) 2031. Tire Replacement, Hydro Test SCBA Bottles. Total Cost ($13,660) / Arden Hills Cost ($3,333) 2032. Tire Replacement. Total Cost ($10,000) / Arden Hills Cost (2,440) Justification More detailed explanations can be found in the Lake Johanna Capital Budget. Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 239,893 15,755 20,371 2,366 2,490 280,875 Total 239,893 15,755 20,371 2,366 2,490 280,875 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Public Safety Capital Fund 239,893 15,755 20,371 2,366 2,490 280,875 Total 239,893 15,755 20,371 2,366 2,490 280,875 Budget Impact There are no impacts to the operating budget of the City as it contracts for Fire Services from Lake Johanna Fire Department. Any savings as a result of this project would be reflected in the fire services contract in reduced maintenance costs. Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 64 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 27-Pub-001 Project Name LJFD Engine/Ladder Replacement Total Project Cost $487,403 Department Public Safety Type Equipment Category Public Safety Priority n/a Status Active TCAAP No Description Lake Johanna Fire Department provides the City with a Capital Budget each year outlining expected capital outflows the fire department has budgeted for the replacement of Rescue/Command/Utility vehicles in future years. 2026. Engine/Ladder Replacement. Total Cost ($595,000) / Arden Hills Cost: $145,180 2027. Engine/Ladder Replacement. Total Cost ($615,000) / Arden Hills Cost: $150,060 2032: Engine/Ladder Replacement. Total Cost ($784,913) / Arden Hills Cost: $191,519 Justification More detailed explanations can be found in the Lake Johanna Capital Budget. Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 153,135 0 0 0 189,088 342,223 Total 153,135 0 0 0 189,088 342,223 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Public Safety Capital Fund 153,135 0 0 0 189,088 342,223 Total 153,135 0 0 0 189,088 342,223 Budget Impact There are no impacts to the operating budget of the City as it contracts for Fire Services from Lake Johanna Fire Department. Any savings as a result of this project would be reflected in the fire services contract in reduced maintenance costs. Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 65 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 26-Pub-004 Project Name LJFD Station Capital Total Project Cost $193,882 Department Public Safety Type Equipment Category Public Safety Priority n/a Status Active TCAAP No Description Lake Johanna Fire Department provides the City with a Capital Budget each year outlining expected capital outflows. • 2026. No Capital expected for 2026. • 2027. Total Cost is $268,000 / Arden Hills Cost is $65,392. ◦ Station 120 - Gear Dryer ($9,000); Arden Hills Cost ($2,178) ◦ Station 130 - Remodel of Admin Space to Staffed Station ($250,000), Gear Dryer ($9,000); Arden Hills Cost ($62,678) • 2028. Total Cost is $300,000 / Arden Hills Cost is $73,200. ◦ Roof Replacement ($300,000) Justification More detailed explanations can be found in the Lake Johanna Capital Budget. Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 79,182 74,700 0 0 0 153,882 Total 79,182 74,700 0 0 0 153,882 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Public Safety Capital Fund 79,182 74,700 0 0 0 153,882 Total 79,182 74,700 0 0 0 153,882 Budget Impact There are no impacts to the operating budget of the City as it contracts for Fire Services from Lake Johanna Fire Department. Any savings as a result of this project would be reflected in the fire services contract in reduced maintenance costs. Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 66 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 27-Pub-002 Project Name LJFD Rescue/Command/Utility Vehicle Replacement Total Project Cost $380,667 Department Public Safety Type Equipment Category Public Safety Priority n/a Status Active TCAAP No Description Lake Johanna Fire Department provides the City with a Capital Budget each year outlining expected capital outflows the fire department has budgeted for the replacement of Rescue/Command/Utility vehicles in future years. 2026. UV/Trailer/Utility Purchase. Total Cost ($210,000) / Arden Hills Cost ($51,240) 2027. Command/Vehicle Replacement. Total Cost ($120,000) / Arden Hills Cost ($29,820) 2028. Rescue Replacement, Command Vehicle Replacement. Total Cost ($462,300) / Arden Hills Cost ($112,801) 2029. No Capital expected in 2026. 2030. Tanker/Utility Replacement. Total Cost ($441,000) / Arden Hills Cost ($107,604) 2031. Command/Vehicle Replacement. Total Cost ($153,154) / Arden Hills Cost ($37,370) 2032. No Capital expected in 2032. 2033. Command/Vehicle Replacement. Total Cost ($168,852) / Arden Hills Cost ($41,200) Justification More detailed explanations can be found in the Lake Johanna Capital Budget. Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Equip/Vehicles/Furnishings 29,880 113,544 0 109,809 36,354 289,587 Total 29,880 113,544 0 109,809 36,354 289,587 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Public Safety Capital Fund 29,880 113,544 0 109,809 36,354 289,587 Total 29,880 113,544 0 109,809 36,354 289,587 Budget Impact There are no impacts to the operating budget of the City as it contracts for Fire Services from Lake Johanna Fire Department. Any savings as a result of this project would be reflected in the fire services contract in reduced maintenance costs. Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 67 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 26-Sew-001 Project Name Sewer Lining/Rehabilitation Total Project Cost $2,755,000 Department Sanitary Sewer Department Type Maintenance Category Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Priority 2 Very Important Status Active Useful Life 40 years TCAAP No Description Sewer Lining and Rehabilitation of the sanitary sewer system on a 2-year cycle or when timing corresponds with the MCES I&I grant program. (2027): Venus Avenue Neighborhood (2029): Lift Station 2 Service Trail (2031): Hamline Avenue, Eide Circle, Floral Park connection (2033): Hamline Ave N. and Glenhill Rd (2035): Lift Station 5 and TH-10 manhole rehabilitation Justification As part of our sanitary sewer program, manhole structures and sewer lines found with holes and cracks allowing for infiltration should be lined or repaired as needed. As the sewer infrastructure is aging, staff will continue to perform sewer inspections and identify locations needing sewer lining and other sewer improvements. Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Construction/Maintenance 660,000 0 460,000 0 325,000 1,445,000 Total 660,000 0 460,000 0 325,000 1,445,000 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund 660,000 0 205,000 0 325,000 1,190,000 Surface Water Mgmt Utility Funds 0 0 135,000 0 0 135,000 Capital Improvement Funds (PIR) 0 0 60,000 0 0 60,000 Ramsey County 0 0 60,000 0 0 60,000 Total 660,000 0 460,000 0 325,000 1,445,000 Budget Impact This project will help the overall I&I reduction program. Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 68 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 26-Sew-002 Project Name Lift Station Rehabilitation Total Project Cost $1,989,000 Department Sanitary Sewer Department Type Maintenance Category Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Priority 2 Very Important Status Active Useful Life 20 years TCAAP No Description Rehabilitation of lift stations to standardize and replace aging equipment, including pumps, valves, wet well components and electrical components. 2026: • LS 1 is scheduled for two pump rebuilds. Parts and Labor cost- $20,000 • LS 4 is scheduled for two pump rebuilds. Parts and Labor cost- $20,000 • LS 5 is scheduled for a full wet well rehab. This includes 2 pump replacements, base elbows, wet well misc. plumbing, and wet well epoxy coating and bypass pumping. Budget Estimate is $150,000 2027: • LS11 is scheduled for 2 pump rebuilds. The budget cost is $20,000 • LS 12 is scheduled for 2 pump rebuilds. The budget cost is $20,000 • LS 9 is scheduled for 2 pump rebuilds. The budget cost is $20,000 • Lift station SCADA phased update. The budget cost is $75,000 2029: • LS 8 is scheduled for a full wet well rehab. This includes 3 pump replacements, base elbows, wet well misc. plumbing, check valves, and wet well epoxy coating and bypass pumping. Budget Estimate is $220,000 • LS 9 is scheduled for 2 pump rebuilds. The budget cost is $23,000 2030: • LS 3 is scheduled for 2 pump rebuilds. The budget cost is $24,000 • LS 6 is scheduled for 2 pump rebuilds. The budget cost is $15,000 2032: • LS 7 is scheduled for 2 pump rebuilds. The budget cost is $24,000 • LS 13 is scheduled for 2 pump rebuilds. The budget cost is $24,000 2034 • LS 10 is scheduled for 2 pump rebuilds. The budget cost is $10,000 • LS 3 is scheduled for 2 pump rebuilds. The budget cost is $24,000 • LS 5 is scheduled for two pump rebuilds. Parts and Labor cost- $25,000 2036 • LS 9 is scheduled for a full wet well rehab. This includes 2 pump replacements, base elbows, wet well misc. plumbing, check valves, and wet well epoxy coating and bypass pumping. Budget Estimate is $170,000 • LS 4 is scheduled for a full wet well rehab. This includes 2 pump replacements, base elbows, wet well misc. plumbing, check valves, and wet well epoxy coating and bypass pumping. Budget Estimate is $170,000 • LS 14 is scheduled for 2 pump rebuilds. The budget cost is $10,000 • LS 13 is scheduled for 2 pump rebuilds. The budget cost is $15,000 Justification The City has maintained a program to refurbish and update sanitary sewer lift stations on a frequencies that meet the demand and use, technology and risk management. Lift station pumps are routinely inspected, tested and replaced as necessary to prevent failure. Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 69 Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Construction/Maintenance 135,000 0 243,000 39,000 0 417,000 Total 135,000 0 243,000 39,000 0 417,000 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund 135,000 0 243,000 39,000 0 417,000 Total 135,000 0 243,000 39,000 0 417,000 Budget Impact Reduced maintenance costs. Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 70 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 27-Str-002 Project Name County Rd D Improvements - Ramsey County project Total Project Cost $100,000 Contact Public Works Director Department Street Department Type Improvement Category Streets: Reconstruction Priority 3 Important Status Active Useful Life 25 years TCAAP No Description County Road D, from Cleveland Avenue to New Brighton Road, is located on the border of Arden Hills (to the north) and Roseville (to the south), and adjacent to New Brighton (to the northeast). Ramsey County is resurfacing the roadway (0.49 miles) and incorporating a pedestrian and bike trail on the Roseville side of County Rd D, improved Metro Transit bus stops, new storm sewer, and new curb. Justification This project is programmed in the Ramsey County's Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) scheduled for 2027 construction. Arden Hills is obligated to cover costs associated with the project following Ramsey County's cost participation policy. Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Construction/Maintenance 100,000 0 0 0 0 100,000 Total 100,000 0 0 0 0 100,000 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Capital Improvement Funds (PIR) 100,000 0 0 0 0 100,000 Total 100,000 0 0 0 0 100,000 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 71 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 28-Str-001 Project Name 2028 PMP Total Project Cost $6,425,000 Department Street Department Type Improvement Category Streets: Reconstruction Priority 2 Very Important Status Active Useful Life 20 years TCAAP No Description Pavement Management Program (PMP) improvements consisting of spot curb repair, resurfacing as mill & overlay or full depth reclamation with new bituminous pavement, repairs to storm sewer inlets, dredging Fernwood, Hunters and Benton ponds and adding grit chambers, repairs to sanitary sewer manholes and castings, CIPP lining of existing clay pipe, watermain replacement within Benton Way neighborhood that affects the streets, hydrant repairs, valve repairs and protection improvements to the 16-inch trunk watermain. Street segments include: Benton Way, Tiller Lane (Lexington to Cannon Ave), Cannon Ave. (Tiller Ln to Dunlap), Dunlap St. N. (Cannon Ave to Ingerson Rd), Dellwood Ave., Carlton Dr., Fernwood St., Fernwood Ct., Pine Tree Dr., Harriet Ave, Walden Pl., Hunters Ct., Lametti Ln., Lametti Ct., Bussard Ct., Stowe Ave. (coordination with New Brighton), and Glenhill Rd. (coordination with Roseville). Justification Pavement conditions are showing distress with condition ratings from 43 to 67. Pavement conditions will continue to decline. Proposed improvements are necessary to continue safe and reliable street and utility services. These improvements will address the increasing costs for patching and maintaining highly deteriorated street pavement within the City, extensive large area patching was performed in 2022 by Public Works to extend the drivability of the streets until this project could occur. Watermain within Benton Way neighborhood consists of 58-year old cast iron pipe and has experienced several breaks in recent years, the goal will be to replace the segments that could impact the new road surface. Pond dredging is overdue in several ponds within the project corridor, City staff has received feedback from residents to perform maintenance. CIPP lining of the existing clay sanitary sewer pipe will prevent inflow and infiltration and root intrusion as well as extending the life of the pipe for 50+ years. Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Construction/Maintenance 0 6,425,000 0 0 0 6,425,000 Total 0 6,425,000 0 0 0 6,425,000 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Other 0 2,000,000 0 0 0 2,000,000 Surface Water Mgmt Utility Funds 0 1,450,000 0 0 0 1,450,000 Capital Improvement Funds (PIR) 0 1,275,000 0 0 0 1,275,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund 0 575,000 0 0 0 575,000 Water Utility Funds 0 500,000 0 0 0 500,000 State Aid 0 425,000 0 0 0 425,000 Other City Governments 0 200,000 0 0 0 200,000 Total 0 6,425,000 0 0 0 6,425,000 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 72 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 30-Str-001 Project Name 2030 PMP Total Project Cost $5,355,000 Department Street Department Type Improvement Category Streets: Reconstruction Priority 2 Very Important Status Active Useful Life 20 years TCAAP No Description Proposed improvements to Lake Valentine Rd. (Old Hwy 10 to MVHS), Northwoods Dr (Red Fox to cul-de-sac), Red Fox Rd (Lexington to cul-de-sac), Grey Fox (Lexington to Highway 51), Dunlap Street N, Connelly Ave, and Hamline Ave N (County Rd E to dead end) .Improvements include spot repair to existing curb, repairs to storm sewer catch basins, hydrant repairs, sanitary sewer manhole and casting repairs and CIPP lining at Red Fox Road and along Lake Valentine Rd. Pavement is proposed to be milled or full depth reclamation with new bituminous pavement. Replace existing watermain along Grey Fox Road. Replace water services on Dunlap St. Protection improvements to the 16-inch trunk watermain. Justification Existing street pavement conditions are declining with ratings from 25 to 44. Proposed improvements are necessary to continue safe and reliable street and utility services. These improvements will address the increasing costs for patching and maintaining highly deteriorated street pavement within the City, extensive large area patching was conducted on streets in 2024. Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Construction/Maintenance 0 0 0 5,355,000 0 5,355,000 Total 0 0 0 5,355,000 0 5,355,000 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Other 0 0 0 2,300,000 0 2,300,000 Water Utility Funds 0 0 0 1,025,000 0 1,025,000 State Aid 0 0 0 875,000 0 875,000 Capital Improvement Funds (PIR) 0 0 0 530,000 0 530,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund 0 0 0 425,000 0 425,000 Surface Water Mgmt Utility Funds 0 0 0 200,000 0 200,000 Total 0 0 0 5,355,000 0 5,355,000 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 73 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 26-W-006 Project Name Water Meter Replacement Total Project Cost $1,430,000 Contact Public Works Director Department Water Department Type Improvement Category Utility Improvements Priority 3 Important Status Active Useful Life 25 years TCAAP No Description Commercial water meters were replaced in 1997. Residential water meters were replaced in 2000. Meter Readers were replaced in 2012. This is a placeholder for replacing them throughout the City. $30,000 budgeted in 2026 for consultant work. Justification Meters are at the end of their useful life. If TCAAP begins to develop, a new metering system must be determined before meters are needed for properties within TCAAP. Highly recommended to begin the consulting work in 2026 to prepare for future development. Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Other 900,000 0 0 0 0 900,000 Total 900,000 0 0 0 0 900,000 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Water Utility Funds 900,000 0 0 0 0 900,000 Total 900,000 0 0 0 0 900,000 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 74 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 26-W-004 Project Name Water Tower Maintenance Total Project Cost $3,028,000 Contact Public Works Director Department Water Department Type Unassigned Category Utility Maintenance Priority 2 Very Important Status Active Useful Life 25 years TCAAP No Description 2027 - North Water Tower maintenance. Clean, inspect and repair tank interior of this 500,000 gallon storage facility in accordance with MN Department of Health guidelines. 2031 - South Water Tower order inspection report. 2032 - South Water Tower maintenance. Clean, inspect and repair tank interior of this 1 million gallon storage facility in accordance with MN Department of Health guidelines. 2033 - North Water Tower order inspection report. 2034 - North Water Tower maintenance. Clean, inspect and repair tank interior of this 500,000 gallon storage facility in accordance with MN Department of Health guidelines. 2038 - South Water Tower Full Rehabilitation Listed costs are estimates only. Inspections will determine the extent of minor repairs required. Justification The MN Department of Health recommends that storage facilities for public water supply systems are inspected and maintained on a 5-year cycle. Last full rehabilitation project on South Tower was completed in 2013 ($816,256). Next one due in 2038. Last full rehabilitation project on North Tower was completed in 2018 ($608,125). Next one due in 2043. Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Construction/Maintenance 375,000 0 0 0 14,000 389,000 Total 375,000 0 0 0 14,000 389,000 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Water Utility Funds 375,000 0 0 0 14,000 389,000 Total 375,000 0 0 0 14,000 389,000 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 75 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 27-W-001 Project Name Booster Station Improvements (1230 Red Fox Rd) Total Project Cost $175,000 Department Water Department Type Unassigned Category Utility Maintenance Priority 2 Very Important Status Active Useful Life 20 years TCAAP No Description Booster Station motor pump rehab, minor electrical components, building and site improvements, and water system SCADA upgrade - $175,000 The pumps and motors were inspected and tested in 2025 and found to have no issues at that point. Public Works recomends inspecting the pumps annually to plan for furture replacment budgeting. Per the arcitexcual and site inspection report dated August 16, 2023, the below items need mainence or replacment. Proposed 2027 Project Scope- • Replace the existing standby generator fencing with a TREX no maintence product. Budget cost- $25,000 • Maintenance needed for spot roof repiars, and virtcal sealant joints on the building exterior. Budget cost- $10,000 • Replacment of the current water system monitoring system and design/ impliment an updated and expandable system as we look forward to TCAAP expanssion. Budget cost- $140,000 Justification The booster station is a critical component of the water distribution system to supply water to the northern portion of the City. Proactive rehabilitation will better manage risks associated with water supply disruptions. Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Construction/Maintenance 175,000 0 0 0 0 175,000 Total 175,000 0 0 0 0 175,000 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Water Utility Funds 175,000 0 0 0 0 175,000 Total 175,000 0 0 0 0 175,000 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 76 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 28-W-002 Project Name Meter Vault Improvements Total Project Cost $620,000 Contact Public Works Director Department Water Department Type Improvement Category Utility Improvements Priority 2 Very Important Status Active Useful Life 40 years TCAAP No Description The City of Roseville is planning replacement of the two existing water meter vaults located at County Rd D and Cleveland Avenue and County Rd D and New Brighton Rd in 2028 and 2030. Justification Per the existing water service agreement with the City of Roseville, meter related costs are the responsibility of the City of Arden Hills. Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Construction/Maintenance 0 300,000 0 320,000 0 620,000 Total 0 300,000 0 320,000 0 620,000 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Water Utility Funds 0 300,000 0 320,000 0 620,000 Total 0 300,000 0 320,000 0 620,000 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 77 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 26-W-007 Project Name Water System Model Update Total Project Cost $89,500 Department Water Department Type Operational Maintenance Category Utility Improvements Priority 3 Important Status Active TCAAP No Description Conduct a Water System Model update. Justification The last water model was conducted in 2019 and updated in 2026. Upgrades to the water distribution system are expected to occur with a new booster station (2027), watermain improvements on the Roseville connection at Hamline Ave. (2027), Spine Rd. utilities (2027). An update is needed to show current conditions. Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Planning/Design 0 0 46,750 0 0 46,750 Total 0 0 46,750 0 0 46,750 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Water Utility Funds 0 0 46,750 0 0 46,750 Total 0 0 46,750 0 0 46,750 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 78 2027 thru 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Project # 26-W-002 Project Name Lake Johanna Blvd Watermain Assessment Total Project Cost $550,000 Contact Public Works Director Department Water Department Type Improvement Category Utility Improvements Priority 3 Important Status Active Useful Life 50 years TCAAP No Description Condition assessment of 3.600-feet of existing 12-inch Ductile Iron Pipe (DIP) watermain along Lake Johanna Blvd. from County Rd E to Ridgewood Ct. This watermain has experienced a few leaks/breaks in recent years. Proposed replacement of watermain in 2030 if determined by condition assessment. Justification This watermain has experienced a few leaks/breaks in recent years. With the proposed trail improvements along this corridor, tentatively scheduled for construction in 2030, it is important to evaluate the condition of the existing pipe to plan for replacment if needed. The existing watermain material is DIP was installed in 1968 and the soil conditions are unknown but likely corrosive due to its proximity next to Lake Johanna. The funding proposed in 2030 is considered a placeholder until the condition assessment determines a recommendation for replacement of the existing watermain. Expenditures 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Construction/Maintenance 0 0 0 530,000 0 530,000 Total 0 0 0 530,000 0 530,000 Funding Sources 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Water Utility Funds 0 0 0 530,000 0 530,000 Total 0 0 0 530,000 0 530,000 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 79 2027 through 2031 Capital Improvement Plan Arden HIlls, MN Projects By Funding Source Source Project # Priority 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Capital Improvement Funds (PIR) Old Hwy 10 Trail - 96 to Valentine Park 27-Park-003 1,317,500 1,317,500 *2027 - Perry Park Improvement Project 27-Park-002 3 686,500 686,500 *2027 - Ingerson Park Improvement Project 27-PARK-004 3 550,500 550,500 *2027 - Sampson Park Improvement Project 27-PARK-003 3 442,200 442,200 Natural Resources Restoration 26-PARK-022 3 189,750 359,930 300,070 260,705 280,955 1,391,410 Lake Johanna Blvd Trail 28-Park-001 3 175,000 250,000 1,400,000 1,500,000 750,000 4,075,000 Hamline Avenue N Trail Connection Improvement 26-Park-001 3 110,000 110,000 *Trail and Walkway Rehabilitation 26-PARK-020 3 100,000 700,000 800,000 Hazelnut Park Parking Lot Improvements 25-Park-004 4 100,000 100,000 County Rd D Improvements - Ramsey County project 27-Str-002 3 100,000 100,000 *Park Shelter and Building Renewal 26-PARK-017 3 85,000 93,000 178,000 Snelling Ave N. & Royal Hills Trail Improvements 26-Park-009 2 22,500 22,500 *Park Planning & Design Concepts 25-Park-007 2 10,500 11,000 11,500 12,000 12,500 57,500 GRG Floral Park NRMB 26-Park-006 5,225 5,225 5,225 15,675 GRG Hazelnut & Chatham NRMB 26-Park-007 4,000 4,000 2028 PMP 28-Str-001 2 1,275,000 1,275,000 *Athletic Court / Hardcourt Rehabilitation 26-PARK-010 3 184,000 156,500 340,500 *Park Furnishings Replacements 26-PARK-014 3 8,100 8,900 16,200 33,200 County Road Trail Projects 28-Park-002 2 1,270,000 1,270,000 *Playground Replacement 26-PARK-019 3 471,250 471,250 Sewer Lining/Rehabilitation 26-Sew-001 2 60,000 60,000 *Park Pavement Rehabilitation 26-PARK-016 3 50,250 50,250 2030 PMP 30-Str-001 2 530,000 530,000 *Hockey Rink Improvements 26-PARK-012 3 288,000 255,000 543,000 *Park Signage Replacement 26-PARK-018 3 4,100 4,100 Capital Improvement Funds (PIR) Total 3,898,675 2,093,255 3,826,695 3,290,705 1,318,755 14,428,085 Developer Contribution Snelling Ave N. & Royal Hills Trail Improvements 26-Park-009 2 200,000 200,000 Developer Contribution Total 200,000 0 0 0 0 200,000 EDA General Fund Gateway Signs 25-EDA-001 180,000 130,000 310,000 EDA General Fund Total 180,000 130,000 0 0 0 310,000 Equipment/Building Replacement Fund Replace 1993 Case 621 Loader #103 25-Eqp-001 275,000 275,000 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 80 Source Project # Priority 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Replace 2009 Sterling Acterra Truck #431 27-EqpV-001 3 139,135 139,135 City Hall Security System 27-BLDG-003 4 15,495 15,495 Replace 2017 Mack Plow/Wing/ Dump Truck #123 28-EqpV-001 5 154,500 172,700 327,200 Replace 2015 Ford F-450 Plow/ Dump Truck #320 27-EqpV-003 2 120,000 120,000 Replace 2011 Bobcat E50 Compact Excavator #85214 28-Eqp-005 2 105,000 105,000 City Hall Elevator 27-BLDG-001 4 103,507 103,507 Replace 2016 F-350 Pickup w/ Liftgate #455 27-EqpV-002 4 74,975 74,975 Replace 2013 Ford Escape #504 26-EqpV-003 33,500 33,500 City Hall Furnishings 27-BLDG-002 4 21,342 21,342 Replace Bobcat Snowblower 84" #118 28-Eqp-001 3 7,270 7,270 Replace 2016 Stepp Asphalt Patch Trailer #121 28-Eqp-004 3 70,000 70,000 Replace 2023 Bobcat Toolcat #85478 29-Eqp-004 2 50,000 50,000 Replace 2012 Workman #445 29-Eqp-003 3 35,550 35,550 Replace 1998 Tow Behind Air Compressor #107 28-Eqp-003 3 34,550 34,550 Replace 2019 Bobcat Miller/Planer #129 29-Eqp-002 3 16,480 16,480 Replace Snowblower 72" #468 29-Eqp-001 4 8,240 8,240 Replace 2009 Husqavarna Pavement Saw #113 28-Eqp-002 3 7,800 7,800 Emergency Generator Replacement Schedule 27-Eqp-004 2 60,000 60,000 Air Handler/HVAC Maintenance 29-BLDG-001 5 59,781 59,781 Replace 2025 Bobcat Toolcat #85484 30-Eqp-004 3 50,000 50,000 Replace 2016 Workman #456 30-Eqp-002 3 36,050 36,050 Replace 2 Toro Zero Turn Mowers Asset 85485, 85486 30-Eqp-005 3 28,000 28,000 Replace Hotsy Pressure Washer #470 30-Eqp-001 4 5,150 5,150 City Hall Roof 30-BLDG-001 3 410,278 410,278 City Hall Entrance Canopy & Masonry Replacements 30-BLDG-002 4 106,569 106,569 Replace 2018 Bobcat Skid Steer #85460 31-Eqp-002 3 70,000 70,000 Replace 2019 Ford F350 Crew Cab w/Tommygate #85323 29-EqpV-002 4 63,000 63,000 Replace 2020 Bobcat Toolcat #461 25-Eqp-004 2 57,400 57,400 Replace 2020 Ford F-150 #603 31-EqpV-002 3 36,350 36,350 Replace 2018 Ford Escape #85505 31-EqpV-001 36,200 36,200 Trade in Program Toro Z Mowers #473 & #474 25-Eqo-001 3 32,741 32,741 Replace 2019 Ford F-150 #602 29-EqpV-001 3 31,350 31,350 Replace 2019 Ford F-150 Ext Cab #601 28-EqpV-002 3 31,350 31,350 Replace 2016 Trailer Tilt Deck for Mowers #85454 31-Eqp-001 3 10,360 10,360 Concrete Flatwork, Partial 30-BLDG-003 5 0 0 Equipment/Building Replacement Fund Total 429,630 620,094 395,320 238,981 885,598 2,569,623 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 81 Source Project # Priority 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Grants Old Hwy 10 Trail - 96 to Valentine Park 27-Park-003 2,000,000 2,000,000 Grants Total 2,000,000 0 0 0 0 2,000,000 Other 2028 PMP 28-Str-001 2 2,000,000 2,000,000 2030 PMP 30-Str-001 2 2,300,000 2,300,000 Other Total 0 2,000,000 0 2,300,000 0 4,300,000 Other City Governments 2028 PMP 28-Str-001 2 200,000 200,000 Other City Governments Total 0 200,000 0 0 0 200,000 Park Capital Fund (Park Dedication Fees) Snelling Ave N. & Royal Hills Trail Improvements 26-Park-009 2 250,000 250,000 Park Capital Fund (Park Dedication Fees) Total 250,000 0 0 0 0 250,000 Public Safety Capital Fund LJFD General Equipment 26-Pub-003 239,893 15,755 20,371 2,366 2,490 280,875 LJFD Engine/Ladder Replacement 27-Pub-001 153,135 189,088 342,223 LJFD Station Capital 26-Pub-004 79,182 74,700 0 0 0 153,882 LJFD Rescue/Command/Utility Vehicle Replacement 27-Pub-002 29,880 113,544 109,809 36,354 289,587 Public Safety Capital Fund Total 502,090 203,999 20,371 112,175 227,932 1,066,567 Ramsey County Old Hwy 10 Trail - 96 to Valentine Park 27-Park-003 1,317,500 1,317,500 Hamline Avenue N Trail Connection Improvement 26-Park-001 3 110,000 110,000 County Road Trail Projects 28-Park-002 2 5,080,000 5,080,000 Sewer Lining/Rehabilitation 26-Sew-001 2 60,000 60,000 Ramsey County Total 1,427,500 0 5,140,000 0 0 6,567,500 Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund Sewer Lining/Rehabilitation 26-Sew-001 2 660,000 205,000 325,000 1,190,000 Lift Station Rehabilitation 26-Sew-002 2 135,000 243,000 39,000 417,000 Emergency Generator Replacement Schedule 27-Eqp-004 2 70,000 60,000 130,000 2028 PMP 28-Str-001 2 575,000 575,000 2030 PMP 30-Str-001 2 425,000 425,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund Total 865,000 575,000 448,000 524,000 325,000 2,737,000 State Aid 2028 PMP 28-Str-001 2 425,000 425,000 2030 PMP 30-Str-001 2 875,000 875,000 State Aid Total 0 425,000 0 875,000 0 1,300,000 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 82 Source Project # Priority 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total Surface Water Mgmt Utility Funds 2028 PMP 28-Str-001 2 1,450,000 1,450,000 Sewer Lining/Rehabilitation 26-Sew-001 2 135,000 135,000 2030 PMP 30-Str-001 2 200,000 200,000 Surface Water Mgmt Utility Funds Total 0 1,450,000 135,000 200,000 0 1,785,000 Trade-In Value Replace 1993 Case 621 Loader #103 25-Eqp-001 25,000 25,000 Replace 2009 Sterling Acterra Truck #431 27-EqpV-001 3 20,000 20,000 Emergency Generator Replacement Schedule 27-Eqp-004 2 5,000 5,000 5,000 15,000 Replace 2015 Ford F-450 Plow/ Dump Truck #320 27-EqpV-003 2 26,000 26,000 Replace 2011 Bobcat E50 Compact Excavator #85214 28-Eqp-005 2 25,000 25,000 Replace 2016 F-350 Pickup w/ Liftgate #455 27-EqpV-002 4 10,000 10,000 Replace 2013 Ford Escape #504 26-EqpV-003 8,000 8,000 Replace Bobcat Snowblower 84" #118 28-Eqp-001 3 2,000 2,000 Replace 2017 Mack Plow/Wing/ Dump Truck #123 28-EqpV-001 5 35,000 35,000 Replace 2023 Bobcat Toolcat #85478 29-Eqp-004 2 30,000 30,000 Replace 2016 Stepp Asphalt Patch Trailer #121 28-Eqp-004 3 25,000 25,000 Replace 2009 Husqavarna Pavement Saw #113 28-Eqp-002 3 2,500 2,500 Replace 2012 Workman #445 29-Eqp-003 3 1,500 1,500 Replace 1998 Tow Behind Air Compressor #107 28-Eqp-003 3 1,500 1,500 Replace 2025 Bobcat Toolcat #85484 30-Eqp-004 3 30,000 30,000 Replace 2 Toro Zero Turn Mowers Asset 85485, 85486 30-Eqp-005 3 14,000 14,000 Replace 2020 Bobcat Toolcat #461 25-Eqp-004 2 25,000 25,000 Replace 2019 Ford F350 Crew Cab w/Tommygate #85323 29-EqpV-002 4 15,000 15,000 Replace 2019 Ford F-150 Ext Cab #601 28-EqpV-002 3 15,000 15,000 Replace 2019 Ford F-150 #602 29-EqpV-001 3 15,000 15,000 Trade in Program Toro Z Mowers #473 & #474 25-Eqo-001 3 15,000 15,000 Replace 2020 Ford F-150 #603 31-EqpV-002 3 10,000 10,000 Replace 2018 Bobcat Skid Steer #85460 31-Eqp-002 3 10,000 10,000 Replace 2018 Ford Escape #85505 31-EqpV-001 5,000 5,000 Replace 2016 Trailer Tilt Deck for Mowers #85454 31-Eqp-001 3 2,000 2,000 Trade-In Value Total 50,000 76,000 95,500 49,000 112,000 382,500 Water Utility Funds Water Meter Replacement 26-W-006 3 900,000 900,000 Water Tower Maintenance 26-W-004 2 375,000 14,000 389,000 Booster Station Improvements (1230 Red Fox Rd) 27-W-001 2 175,000 175,000 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 83 Source Project # Priority 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Total 2028 PMP 28-Str-001 2 500,000 500,000 Meter Vault Improvements 28-W-002 2 300,000 320,000 620,000 Emergency Generator Replacement Schedule 27-Eqp-004 2 120,000 120,000 Water System Model Update 26-W-007 3 46,750 46,750 2030 PMP 30-Str-001 2 1,025,000 1,025,000 Lake Johanna Blvd Watermain Assessment 26-W-002 3 530,000 530,000 Water Utility Funds Total 1,450,000 920,000 46,750 1,875,000 14,000 4,305,750 GRAND TOTAL 11,252,895 8,693,348 10,107,636 9,464,861 2,883,285 42,402,025 Produced Using Plan-It CIP Software 84 City of Arden Hills, Minnesota Capital Improvement Plan SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Capital Improvement Funds (PIR) - 411 Beginning Balance (Fund Balance) 2,952,649 3,021,401 215,586 (2,312,307) (5,000,301) (9,249,780) Revenues and Other Fund Sources Developer/Park Dedication 1,423,500 450,000 - - - - Transfers - - - - - - Special Assessments 731,181 240,020 1,137,522 285,861 1,363,386 443,386 MSA State Street Aid 390,970 398,790 398,790 398,790 398,790 398,790 LGA 24,051 24,050 24,050 24,050 24,050 24,050 Grants 480,000 2,000,000 200,000 - - - Ramsey County 80,000 1,427,500 - 5,140,000 - - Tax Levy 430,000 430,000 430,000 430,000 430,000 430,000 Total Revenues and Other Fund Sources 3,559,702 4,970,360 2,190,362 6,278,701 2,216,226 1,296,226 Total Funds Available 6,512,351 7,991,761 2,405,948 3,966,394 (2,784,075) (7,953,554) Expenditures and Uses Prior year projects - final costs (394,225) - - - - - Park Planning & Design Parks (10,000) (10,500) (11,000) (11,500) (12,000) (12,500) Hamline Avenue N Trail Connection Improvement Parks (160,000) (220,000) - - - - Arden Oaks ADA Improvements Parks (67,500) - - - - - Old Highway 10 Trail, Lake Valentine to Hwy 96 Parks - (4,635,000) - - - - Perry Park Improvements Parks - (686,500) - - - - Ingerson Park Improvements Parks - (550,500) - - - - Snelling Ave N & Royal Hills Trail Improvement Parks (450,000) (472,500) - - - - Sampson Park Improvements Parks - (442,200) - - - - Lake Johanna Blvd Trail Parks (100,000) (175,000) (250,000) (1,400,000) (1,500,000) (750,000) Trail & Walkway Rehabilitation Parks - (100,000) - - (700,000) - Hazelnut Park Parking Lot Improvements Parks (100,000) Park Shelter & Building Renewal Parks - (85,000) - (93,000) - - GRG Floral Park NRMB Parks (5,225) (5,225) (5,225) (5,225) - - GRG Hazelnut & Chatham NRMB Parks (4,000) (4,000) - - - - Athletic Court/Hardcourt Rehabilitation Parks (200,000) - (184,000) (156,500) - - Natural Resources Restoration Parks - (189,750) (359,930) (300,070) (260,705) (280,955) Park Furnishings/Signage Replacements Parks - - (8,100) (8,900) - (20,300) County Road Trail Projects Parks - - - (6,350,000) - - Playground Replacement Parks - - - (471,250) - - Park Pavement Rehabilitation Parks - - - (50,250) - - Hockey Rink Improvements Parks - - - - (288,000) (255,000) Park Lighting/Electrical/Utility Improvements Parks - - - - - - Sewer Lining/Rehabilitation Sewer - - - (120,000) - - County Rd D Improvements - Ramsey County Streets - (100,000) - - - - 2026 PMP Streets (2,100,000) - - - - - 2028 PMP Streets - - (3,900,000) - - - 2030 PMP Streets - - - - (3,705,000) - Total Expenditures and Uses (3,490,950) (7,776,175) (4,718,255) (8,966,695) (6,465,705) (1,318,755) Change in Fund Balance 68,752 (2,805,815) (2,527,893) (2,687,994) (4,249,479) (22,529) Ending Balance 3,021,401 215,586 (2,312,307) (5,000,301) (9,249,780) (9,272,309) -$11.5 -$9.5 -$7.5 -$5.5 -$3.5 -$1.5 $0.5 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Mi l l i o n s 85 City of Arden Hills, Minnesota Capital Improvement Plan SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 EDA General Fund - 250 Beginning Balance (Fund Balance) 831,679 728,241 442,186 202,946 90,426 (25,474) Revenues and Other Fund Sources Grant - Twin Cities Gateway - - - - - - Tax Levy - - - - - - Total Revenues and Other Fund Sources - - - - - - Total Funds Available 831,679 728,241 442,186 202,946 90,426 (25,474) Expenditures and Uses Gateway Signs - (180,000) (130,000) - - - Operating Expenditures (103,438) (106,055) (109,240) (112,520) (115,900) (119,370) Total Expenditures and Uses (103,438) (286,055) (239,240) (112,520) (115,900) (119,370) Change in Fund Balance (103,438) (286,055) (239,240) (112,520) (115,900) (119,370) Ending Balance 728,241 442,186 202,946 90,426 (25,474) (144,844) -$200.0 -$100.0 $0.0 $100.0 $200.0 $300.0 $400.0 $500.0 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Th o u s a n d s 86 City of Arden Hills, Minnesota Capital Improvement Plan SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Equip/Bldg Replacement Fund - 408 Beginning Balance (Fund Balance) 772,991 802,491 836,361 679,767 747,947 972,466 Revenues and Other Fund Sources Transfers from Utility funds 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 Trade in Value 39,500 45,000 71,000 95,500 46,500 112,000 Tax Levy 100,000 163,500 163,500 163,500 163,500 163,500 Total Revenues and Other Fund Sources 439,500 508,500 534,500 559,000 510,000 575,500 Total Funds Available 1,212,491 1,310,991 1,370,861 1,238,767 1,257,947 1,547,966 Expenditures and Uses Building - (15,495) (124,849) - (59,781) (516,847) Vehicles (229,500) (159,135) (426,975) (207,700) - (258,250) Equipment (180,500) (300,000) (139,270) (283,120) (225,700) (222,501) Total Expenditures and Uses (410,000) (474,630) (691,094) (490,820) (285,481) (997,598) Change in Fund Balance 29,500 33,870 (156,594) 68,180 224,519 (422,098) Ending Balance 802,491 836,361 679,767 747,947 972,466 550,368 $0.0 $200.0 $400.0 $600.0 $800.0 $1,000.0 $1,200.0 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Th o u s a n d s 87 City of Arden Hills, Minnesota Capital Improvement Plan SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Public Safety Capital Fund - 412 Beginning Balance (Fund Balance) 637,958 570,284 208,194 144,195 263,824 291,649 Revenues and Other Fund Sources Charitable Gambling 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Tax Levy 312,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 Total Revenues and Other Fund Sources 332,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 Total Funds Available 969,958 710,284 348,194 284,195 403,824 431,649 Expenditures and Uses LJFD Engine/Ladder Replacement (145,180) (153,135) - - - (189,088) LJFD Rescue/Chief/Utility Vehicle Replacement (51,240) (29,880) (113,544) - (109,809) (36,354) LJFD General Equipment (203,254) (239,893) (15,755) (20,371) (2,366) (2,490) LJFD Station Capital - (79,182) (74,700) - - - Total Expenditures and Uses (399,674) (502,090) (203,999) (20,371) (112,175) (227,932) Change in Fund Balance (67,674) (362,090) (63,999) 119,629 27,825 (87,932) Ending Balance 570,284 208,194 144,195 263,824 291,649 203,717 $0.0 $0.2 $0.4 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Mi l l i o n s 88 City of Arden Hills, Minnesota Capital Improvement Plan SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund - 602 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Beginning Balance (Cash Balance) 1,203,016 1,294,687 1,001,242 932,177 922,777 812,607 Revenues and Other Fund Sources Trade in Value - 5,000 - - 2,500 - Operating Revenue 2,808,020 2,791,880 2,786,730 2,786,810 2,786,890 2,786,970 Total Revenues and Other Fund Sources 2,808,020 2,796,880 2,786,730 2,786,810 2,789,390 2,786,970 Total Funds Available 4,011,036 4,091,567 3,787,972 3,718,987 3,712,167 3,599,577 Expenditures and Use Prior year projects - final costs (181,344) - - - - - Lift Station Rehabilitation (190,000) (135,000) - (243,000) (39,000) - Sewer Lining/Rehabilitation - (660,000) - (205,000) - (325,000) Emergency Generators - (75,000) - - (62,500) - 2026 PMP (200,000) - - - - - 2028 PMP - - (575,000) - - - 2030 PMP - - - - (425,000) - Debt Service (39,350) (37,950) (36,725) (40,600) - - Operating Expenses (1,979,655) (2,056,375) (2,118,070) (2,181,610) (2,247,060) (2,314,470) Operating transfer to Equipment Fund (126,000) (126,000) (126,000) (126,000) (126,000) (126,000) Total Expenditures and Uses (2,716,349) (3,090,325) (2,855,795) (2,796,210) (2,899,560) (2,765,470) Change in Fund Balance 91,670 (293,445) (69,065) (9,400) (110,170) 21,500 Ending Balance 1,294,687 1,001,242 932,177 922,777 812,607 834,107 $0.0 $0.2 $0.4 $0.6 $0.8 $1.0 $1.2 $1.4 $1.6 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Mi l l i o n s 89 City of Arden Hills, Minnesota Capital Improvement Plan SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Surface Water Mgmt Utility Funds - 604 5.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% Beginning Balance (Cash Balance) 1,158,957 987,032 1,329,782 221,692 429,532 549,542 Revenues and Other Fund Sources Operating Revenue 1,078,288 1,134,160 1,154,840 1,177,940 1,177,940 1,177,940 Total Revenues and Other Fund Sources 1,078,288 1,134,160 1,154,840 1,177,940 1,177,940 1,177,940 Total Funds Available 2,237,245 2,121,192 2,484,622 1,399,632 1,607,472 1,727,482 Expenditures and Uses 2026 PMP (500,000) - - - - - 2028 PMP - - (1,450,000) - - - 2030 PMP - - - - (200,000) - Sewer Lining/Rehabilitation - - - (135,000) - - Operating Expenses (676,213) (717,410) (738,930) (761,100) (783,930) (807,450) Transfer to Equipment Fund (74,000) (74,000) (74,000) (74,000) (74,000) (74,000) Total Expenditures and Uses (1,250,213) (791,410) (2,262,930) (970,100) (1,057,930) (881,450) Change in Fund Balance (171,925) 342,750 (1,108,090) 207,840 120,010 296,490 Ending Balance 987,032 1,329,782 221,692 429,532 549,542 846,032 $0.0 $0.5 $1.0 $1.5 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Mi l l i o n s 90 City of Arden Hills, Minnesota Capital Improvement Plan SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Water Utility Funds - 601 3.0% 4.0% 4.0% 3.0% 0.0% Beginning Balance (Cash Balance) 2,799,047 2,782,351 1,607,466 1,004,266 1,327,251 88,631 Revenues and Other Fund Sources Operating Revenue 3,292,978 3,440,830 3,568,810 3,706,500 3,814,110 3,815,040 Trade in Value - - 5,000 - - - Grants 882,364 - - - - - Total Revenues and Other Fund Sources 4,175,342 3,440,830 3,573,810 3,706,500 3,814,110 3,815,040 Total Funds Available 6,974,390 6,223,181 5,181,276 4,710,766 5,141,361 3,903,671 Expenditures and Uses Water Meter Replacement (530,000) (900,000) - - - - Water Tower Maintenance (12,000) (375,000) - - - (14,000) Booster Station Improvements - (175,000) - - - - Meter Vault Improvements - - (300,000) - (320,000) - Water System Model Update (42,750) - - (46,750) - - Lake Johanna Blvd Watermain Assessment (20,000) - - - (530,000) - Trunk Water Main Condition Assessment (20,000) - - - - - Emergency Generators - - (125,000) - - - 2026 PMP (500,000) - - - - - 2028 PMP - - (500,000) - - - 2030 PMP - - - - (1,025,000) - Debt Service (248,150) (249,150) (250,950) (248,675) - - Operating Expenses (2,719,139) (2,816,565) (2,901,060) (2,988,090) (3,077,730) (3,170,060) Transfer to Equipment Fund (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) Total Expenditures and Uses (4,192,039) (4,615,715) (4,177,010) (3,383,515) (5,052,730) (3,284,060) Change in Fund Balance (16,697) (1,174,885) (603,200) 322,985 (1,238,620) 530,980 Ending Balance 2,782,351 1,607,466 1,004,266 1,327,251 88,631 619,611 $0.0 $0.5 $1.0 $1.5 $2.0 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Mi l l i o n s 91 PRELIMINARY 2027 BUDGET LEVY IMPACT Description Effect on Levy % Chg Step increases 68,333 3% COLA Adjustments 59,240 Health (15%) & Dental (4%) Insurance 43,430 Work Comp (17,260) 153,743 2.27% 45,071 39,159 (9,070) 11,250 (16,727) (32,481) 247,792 383,221 14,920 165,000 15,000 8,192 2,381 120,000 (60,000) 26,000 6,000 65,000 33,272 General Fund Personnel Costs Increase in Delinquent Taxes Decrease in Building Permits/Plan Check Fees Increase in MSAS maintenance aid Decrease in Rec Program fees Increase in Antenna rental revenue Increase in RamCo Sheriff training reimb revenue Increase in RamCo Sheriff Increase in LJFD Increase in Ramco Dispatch Remove transfer for LJFD fte's (franchise fees) Election Equipment (next 3-4 years) Metro-INET IT Services RamCo Facility Maintenance Facility - Rent 2040 Comp Plan 2040 Comp Plan - $60k funded by Gen'l Fund fund balance Legal Expenses Tuition Reimbursement Street Maintenance Program (sealcoating/resurfacing) Technology (new permit software) Net changes in other GF Budget Areas 10,781 Other General Fund Costs 1,074,761 15.85% TOTAL GENERAL FUND COSTS 1,228,504 18.12% PIR Fund - EDA Fund - Equipment/Bldg Replacement 63,500 Public Safety (192,000) Total Capital Fund Costs (128,500) -1.89% TOTAL GENERAL & CAPITAL FUND COSTS 1,100,004 16.22% 2024 2025 2026 2027 $ Increase % Increase GENERAL FUND Actual Actual Budget Budget (Decrease)(Decrease) REVENUES Taxes 4,622,581$ 5,201,279$ 5,892,322$ 7,074,048$ 1,181,726$ 20.1% Special assessments - - - - - N/A Licenses and permits 448,587 962,258 574,150 564,570 (9,580) -1.7% Intergovernmental 116,870 134,054 165,379 206,930 41,551 25.1% Charges for services 504,134 639,948 470,251 447,470 (22,781) -4.8% Fines & forfeits 27,298 27,610 24,225 26,530 2,305 9.5% Investment earnings 163,638 264,255 50,000 50,000 - 0.0% Miscellaneous 9,247 57,211 13,330 15,750 2,420 18.2% Transfers In - - 165,000 - (165,000) -100.0% TOTAL REVENUES 5,892,355$ 7,286,615$ 7,354,657$ 8,385,298$ 1,030,641$ 14.0% EXPENDITURES Mayor & Council 80,035$ 91,970$ 85,743$ 85,980$ 237$ 0.3% Administration 507,785 471,814 524,881 555,950 31,069 5.9% Elections 32,141 34,285 35,906 53,840 17,934 49.9% Finance 163,075 198,924 225,193 238,240 13,047 5.8% TCAAP 119,702 78,267 139,170 142,980 3,810 2.7% Planning & Zoning 307,494 257,497 327,410 497,170 169,760 51.8% Government Buildings 224,822 247,307 250,032 254,630 4,598 1.8% Police 1,583,188 1,927,657 1,994,763 2,242,555 247,792 12.4% Dispatch 70,394 42,913 86,350 101,270 14,920 17.3% Fire 833,933 892,173 1,065,552 1,448,773 383,221 36.0% Emergency Management 5,134 7,414 9,270 9,420 150 1.6% Protective Inspections 331,654 338,413 428,700 463,810 35,110 8.2% Street Maintenance 716,138 723,305 943,854 1,034,950 91,096 9.7% Recreation 195,101 295,159 378,008 398,580 20,572 5.4% Park Maintenance 556,736 728,167 759,825 817,150 57,325 7.5% Transfers out 50,000 50,000 100,000 100,000 - 0.0% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 5,777,329$ 6,385,267$ 7,354,657$ 8,445,298$ 1,090,641$ 14.8% NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE 115,025$ 901,348$ -$ (60,000)$ (60,000)$ N/A Arden Hills Equipment Replacement Guidelines 3 Year Cycle Zero Turn Mowers 5-7 Year Cycle Weed Trimmers, Push Type Lawn Mowers, Walk behind Snow Blower, handheld blower, Toolcat 8-10 Year Cycle Pick-up Trucks, Power Hedge Trimmer, Back Pack Blowers, Power Pole Pruner, Large Area Mower 10-12 Year Cycle 1-Ton Dump Trucks, City Hall Vehicles, Asphalt Hot Box, Large Dump Truck 13-15 Year Cycle Skid Steer, J Tamper, Plate Compactor, Chain Saws, Chop Saws, Cement Mixer, Turf Utility Carts, Small Generators 15-17 Year Cycle Street Sweeper, Tanker Truck, Asphalt Roller, Backhoe, Misc. Pumps, Sewer Camera Trailer, Brush Chipper, Trailers 18-20 Year Cycle Pavement Saw, Large Air Compressor, Trench Box 20-22 Year Cycle Sewer Jetter-Vac Combo, Mini Ex 20-25 Year Cycle Front End Loader, Sewer Easement Machine, Aerator 25+ Year Cycle Large Generators, Turf Sweeper Page 1 of 2 AGENDA ITEM – 3C MEMORANDUM DATE: July 27, 2026 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator SUBJECT: City Council Code of Conduct/Norms of Behavior Discussion Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A Council Should Consider Council should review Resolution 2016-022 for City Council Norms of Behavior and provide direction to Staff on next steps. Background At the April 14th Work Session, the City Council reviewed Resolution 2016-22 which is the City Council Norms of Behavior. Council requested that staff verify if the League of MN Cities had a template Code of Conduct policy that could be a starting point for this discussion. Additionally, there was a reference to the Elected Officials Guide that LMC also produces. Staff were asked to gather some of these resources together and share those with the Council for future discussion. LMC states that generally policies will take one of two forms: either a values statement expressing core principles for ethical conduct or a formal code of conduct. From the Minnesota Mayors Handbook produced by the League of Minnesota Cities there is the following suggestion: • Codes of conduct are written more like bylaws or regulations for an organization. Generally, they prescribe explicit standards of behavior and provide for formal complaints, hearings, and censure. For example, a code of conduct might state, “No member may knowingly violate the Open Meeting Law.” Included as Attachment D is a sample Code of Conduct created by the League of Minnesota Cities Ethics Advisory Panel from the Minnesota Mayors Handbook. Additionally, City staff is including as Attachment E the Blaine City Council Code of Conduct. Page 2 of 2 For Resolution 2016-22, the City Council should review to determine if this remains sufficient or provide Staff with direction on updates for the Norms of Behavior. Budget Impact N/A Attachments Attachment A: Resolution 2016-22 Attachment B: January 3, 2024 Special Work Session Minutes Attachment C: April 14, 2025 Work Session Minutes Attachment D: LMC Sample Code of Conduct Attachment E: Blaine City Council Code of Conduct It ARZEN HILLS Approved: February 12, 2024 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JANUARY 3, 2024 5:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Grant called to order the Special City Council Work Session at 5:30 p.m. Present: Mayor David Grant, Councilmembers Brenda Holden, Emily Rousseau, Tena Monson and Tom Fabel Absent: None Also present: City Administrator Dave Perrault and League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) Collaboration Services Manager Aimee Gourlay 1. AGENDA ITEMS A. Council Discussion with LMCIT Collaboration Services Ms. Gourlay said the goal is to give them the opportunity to discuss what they might like to do or change about the Norms of Behavior/Code of Conduct, and what the process would be for moving forward. She reviewed the items they hope to achieve; productive and efficient Council meetings, improved teamwork and agreement on process. She asked if anyone wanted to add anything else. Council also requested to talk about respect and decency. Ms. Gourlay said she would add that under meeting management. She explained the agenda and said she had brought a short Code of Conduct summary from the League of Minnesota Cities. She said the League doesn't have a standard code as they are specific to each community. Some cities have very detailed codes and Duluth has one paragraph. She expanded on the items they would be discussing. The idea was to share and hear others ideas and incorporate as many considerations as they could. The goal of a Code of Conduct is to increase their ability to have positive conflict that helps get good outcomes, and decrease the likelihood of interpersonal negative conflicts that can detract from making good decisions. Ms. Gourlay explained the Norms of Behavior 2016 could be a starting point because it already exists. Discussion was probably more important than the paper at this point. ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION - JANUARY 3, 2024 2 Council discussed issues in the past related to processes and how they have or have not come to agreement on items. Ms. Gourlay said it was about perceptions and how you're feeling about the discussion. What they seem to agree on the need to balance the meeting efficiency with making sure everyone's voice is heard and making sure the conversation is appropriate to the topic. They could talk about how to move on when all opinions have been voiced. If they feel like they're hearing the same thing and want to move on for efficiency sake, how does the Mayor know? Council discussed how side comments or underhanded remarks affect decorum. Ms. Gourlay said you're probably not listening well if there are side comments, and people will shut down if they're hearing things as attacks. That is a part of meeting decorum. It can be difficult if Councilmembers are speaking for long periods of time. So how do they balance making sure everyone has a voice? Maybe everyone says their initial thoughts and has longer to speak after that. Ms. Gourlay thought there was already a divide about how they were feeling about respect. She wondered if only some people were experiencing that or if it was a council -wide consideration. Council discussed past issues or events that they have felt contributed to feelings of disrespect or mistrust. Ms. Gourlay thought getting to a point of understanding that could be another piece of the code. And whatever code they come up with everyone has to be willing to go along with. She watched a video of a meeting but she didn't see much of this dynamic. Ms. Gourlay said there may be a need to address some of the past hurt in some way however, something that can be helpful is to look at places they've been more successful and see how they can take what is working and build on that. Council discussed teamwork and their perspectives on information sharing. Ms. Gourlay stated they're talking about Code of Conduct, but it really keeps coming back to this one issue. She asked what they needed to move forward. Council discussed better communication moving forward and past issues, also discussed looking forward not at the past when making decisions. Council discussed adding agenda items to formally report back to Council, such as, Committee/Commission updates. Ms. Gourlay said one thing they were talking about was committee reports and separating that from Council Comments. They also talked about agreeing to disagree about the past and not bring it up going forward. They talked about annual committee updates and sharing City goals. Ms. Gourlay commented that one of the things she's observing is that it's hard to get to consensus because what they're talking about keeps shifting. ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION - JANUARY 3, 2024 3 Ms. Gourlay reiterated they wanted efficient meetings, to stay on appropriate topics, everyone's voice be heard, and to avoid personal comments. Some of the items they are considering would address some of that list. Ms. Gourlay said sometimes councils have struggles with how to get things on the agenda, what's the complaint process, or the process for taking something off the consent agenda. Oftentimes it has to do with how things get heard. She wondered what's the process for assigning committees, is there an assumption that everyone gets a committee and similar types of things. Council discussed adding committee/commission reports to future agendas, and about tying it into committee/commission liaison responsibilities. Ms. Gourlay recommended they have a work session item for discussion of committee updates before it be brought for a vote at a regular meeting so there is no misunderstanding of what the policy will be. She asked if this session was a useful conversation. Council discussed not bring up past issues when making decisions affecting the present and future. Ms. Gourlay said they should move forward with discussing the issues they talked about at work sessions and if they would like her to come back she could. She could also arrange for not full group discussions. Ms. Gourlay said they remind her of good people with knowledge coming together from different places but the team can't come together. Council thanked Ms. Gourlay for her time. 2. COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS City Administrator Perrault said he had emailed two questions to the Council. The 2024 PMP was at 80% plan and was scheduled to be an item on the upcoming work session, did they prefer to leave it on that meeting. Also, did they want to schedule a retreat, if so he will find a date. Councilmember Rousseau would rather do a special work session on January 22 for the PMP, and she would love to have a retreat in March or April. Councilmember Monson was comfortable with having the PMP discussion on either date but she could make January 22 work. Mayor Grant explained there's what they go in at and then there's the bid. So, 80% was probably close enough. Councilmember Monson said then she was fine with it being on January 8 at 80%. She would like to have city goals at a retreat but didn't think they needed the personality piece. Mayor Grant felt a retreat was the wrong way to approach it. He thought it would be better for the group to look at some strategic topics and discuss them. He didn't know if they needed ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION — JANUARY 3, 2024 4 someone else to help them do that. He thought a facilitator would make it more touchy-feely and they would probably waste time with ice breaker type stuff. Councilmember Fabel agreed. Councilmember Monson said she found Ms. Gourlay to be valuable in these discussions. Councilmember Rousseau asked if they were going to go through the list of work session topics at the next work session and prioritize them. Mayor Grant was thinking more strategic than chickens or food trucks; he was worried more about bigger things like trails and the fire station. City Administrator Perrault said he was planning to include the list of work session priorities on the next work session so Council can let staff know what they want to bring forward in what order. Councilmember Rousseau explained that things they see on the list as a priority could be what they base a strategic plan on. Councilmember Holden asked if they were going to update the Council Tracker. City Administrator Perrault said past practice was they only removed things at Council direction. Councilmember Rousseau asked how they were moving forward with a Code of Conduct for committees. Ms. Gourlay said she had examples from other cities to send to the Mayor and Councilmember Rousseau. I\ 11 rsl IMok Mayor Grant adjourned the Special City Council Work Session at 7:09 p.m. ai Zii 4j. itimi David Grant Mayor ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 14, 2025 14 regarding how PTRC are going to pay for the parks is a priority, above some of the other items on the list. We need to decide what is most important. Councilmember Rosseau asked if it could be two Fridays vs. a Friday and Saturday. Councilmember Holden can’t do 14 hours. Back to back days doesn’t work. In the past, it was nice to take a step back and think about what was discussed. Councilmember Weber asked if it had to be consecutive days. City Administrator Jagoe didn’t ask that question. Her experience was the Friday/Saturday. She will ask if there is an option to do a Friday and then a second Friday a month later. Councilmember Weber said he could support that, with Hue Life. He is not interested in the other proposal. Councilmember Holden asked when it was decided it would be a Friday. City Administrator Jagoe said she heard Council talk about a Friday. Councilmember Monson said they did a similar session with the Fire Board. There were three months between sessions. We can’t spread it that far because we will want this complete in time for budgeting. It was nice to have that space between sessions. Mayor Grant said we should try to keep the hours down, maybe not two full days. City Administrator Jagoe will follow up with the consultant to see about scheduling two sessions with some time between. She sought clarification if Council wanted to agree on availability and see if it works for the consultant, or should we schedule it when they can fit us in. Councilmember Holden said everyone needs to be at the first one. Councilmember Weber said we will probably have to have the consultant say when they are available and then move on it when we find a date that works for everyone. City Administrator Jagoe said she will follow up on dates. She wanted to confirm that Council plus the Directors and City Clerk should attend. She asked if there was anyone else that should be included in the invitation. Discussion ensued regarding start time, possible dates and what items will be focused on. City Administrator Jagoe will discuss availability with the consultant and send out dates to Council. C. Council Norms of Behavior City Administrator Jagoe said on March 10th, this item was brought to the Work Session along with the Committee/Commission Code of Conduct Policy. The Council Norms of Behavior, ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 14, 2025 15 Resolution 2016-22 is being brought back for Council review. She asked Council if there are any updates or changes, they want to make. Councilmember Monson thinks the Norms of Behavior is a good place to start but she feels that reading it, it was written in response to the dynamics that were happening at that time. She provided something previously that more broadly discussed honesty and integrity. She thought we could check with LMC to see if they have a template. She thinks the items are very specific. Councilmember Weber said he went through all the chapters of the Elected Officials Guides on the LMC site. He thinks the information is very comprehensive guidance for elected officials and ethics guidance. He provided the information to City Administrator Jagoe. He requested she share that information with the rest of the Council. City Administrator Jagoe said she will pass that along to the entire council. Councilmember Rousseau asked if City Administrator Jagoe would share that along with Councilmember Holden’s notes, as well. Councilmember Holden said in item #3, there is language regarding public testimony. She believes the word ‘immoral’ should be removed. We shouldn’t use that word. We talk about being respectful of one another but we also have to include resident interactions. D. Twin Cities Gateway Funding Discussion Mayor Grant said there is just under $20,000 plus some roll-over from the previous year. He is grateful the Visitor’s Bureau allowed that. These funds need to be used to advertise and promote events that will bring people into Arden Hills to use hotels and patronize our businesses. He believes the ice swim event would qualify. We’ve used it for Rib Fest and Bethel Homecoming. He reminded that we have the 75th Anniversary of Arden Hills coming in 2026. He asked Council if they had any preference for prioritizing the list. Councilmember Rousseau said she is interested in using half of the amount for Rib Fest and the other half for the ice swim. She would like John Connelly to talk with Al Stauffacher to help shepherd the process of the Regional Grant for the ice swim event. She understands they will do that for a newer event. Mr. Stauffacher seemed interested in the ice swim. She said it seems like we typically discuss this funding source in April. She wondered if the 75th Anniversary should be on the list for next year, with all of the 2026 funds going towards that event. Mayor Grant said that is the Council’s decision to make. He said the grant awards are based on a formula. He said the numbers are holding and we can probably expect about the same amount next year. Councilmember Holden would like to use a little of the 2025 money to advertise a save the date for the 75th Anniversary. She thinks we should send out one big flyer. A mailing is $2,000. She thinks we should send out a mailing announcing that 2026 is the 75th Anniversary. Something that advertises us as a City to all the residents and businesses. She isn’t willing to give it to Bethel. They never even thanked us. Mayor Grant isn’t aware if Staff has received any communication. Minnesota Mayors Handbook October 2024 Produced by the League of Minnesota Cities for the Minnesota Mayors Association Attachment D MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -1 Contents Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3 I. Purpose ......................................................................................................................................... 3 II. Scope and applicability ................................................................................................................. 4 Chapter 2: Legal requirements ..................................................................................................................... 4 I. Statutory or home rule charter ..................................................................................................... 4 II. Forms of city organization ............................................................................................................ 5 A. Weak mayor-council ..................................................................................................................... 5 B. Strong mayor-council .................................................................................................................... 5 C. Council-manager ....................................................................................................................... 6 III. Legal powers and responsibilities of the mayor ........................................................................... 6 IV. Selected areas of law .................................................................................................................... 8 A. Open Meeting Law ........................................................................................................................ 8 B. Data practices ............................................................................................................................... 9 C. Contracts ................................................................................................................................. 12 D. Budgeting ................................................................................................................................ 13 E. Land use ...................................................................................................................................... 13 F. City as employer .......................................................................................................................... 14 Chapter 3: Meeting management ............................................................................................................... 15 I. Role of the mayor in managing meetings ................................................................................... 15 A. Role of presiding officer .............................................................................................................. 15 II. Bylaws and rules of order ........................................................................................................... 17 III. Meeting decorum ....................................................................................................................... 18 A. Typical decorum requirements ................................................................................................... 18 B. Enforcing decorum among council members ............................................................................. 18 IV. Citizen input and audience participation in council meetings .................................................... 19 A. Forums for public comment ....................................................................................................... 19 B. Meeting disruptions and unruly citizens ..................................................................................... 2 0 C. Public hearings ........................................................................................................................ 21 V. Building an adequate record ....................................................................................................... 22 A. Legal requirements for meeting records ...................................................................................... 23 B. Mayor’s role in building an adequate record ............................................................................. 25 Chapter 4: Mayoral Leadership ................................................................................................................... 26 I. Key traits of successful mayors ................................................................................................... 26 II. Inspirational leadership .............................................................................................................. 27 MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -2 A. Promoting citizen involvement ................................................................................................... 28 B. Long-term planning ..................................................................................................................... 30 C. New programs and initiatives ................................................................................................. 31 III. Ethical leadership ........................................................................................................................ 31 A. Key traits of ethical leaders ......................................................................................................... 31 B. Ethics laws and official conflict of interest ................................................................................. 32 IV. Mayor-council relationship ......................................................................................................... 36 A. Meetings and the mayor-council relationship ................................................................................ 36 B. Keys to team-building success .................................................................................................... 38 V. Mayor-staff relations .................................................................................................................. 38 A. City staff and their roles .............................................................................................................. 39 B. Job direction and supervision ..................................................................................................... 40 VI. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 42 MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -3 Chapter 1: Introduction It’s easy to understand why a person would be excited about becoming a newly elected or appointed mayor. It’s a terrific hallmark in one’s life. Serving a city says a lot about a person’s sense of public responsibility! With conscientious leadership, the mayor is in a great position to help guide a city forward in policy and development. But being a mayor isn’t easy, and it’s only natural that a new mayor would on occasion feel intimidated. The office of mayor requires commitment to service and a willingness to take on sometimes significant challenges for the benefit of the city. Even if the mayor and council do everything right, they may receive little gratitude, all the while being overworked and underpaid. When one realizes they have become the chair of a board for a corporation with assets of significant value, it is natural to feel overwhelmed by the responsibilities as well. Enter the Minnesota Mayors Handbook. I. Purpose Being a mayor requires skills and knowledge not endowed by winning an election. While it is true there is a lot to know, it’s also true there isn’t just one way to be a successful mayor. No single source of information is enough to tell a mayor what to do and how to do it well, that being said, you are encouraged to use the Minnesota Mayors Handbook as a starting point. This handbook starts with an overview of some of the most important laws every Minnesota mayor must be aware of as well as some general areas of law requiring careful consideration. Next, since the mayor is the presiding officer at meetings, the handbook discusses meeting and hearing management skills. The handbook then focuses on general leadership skills. Lastly, appendices include sample council bylaws and rules of order for meetings and hearings. Again, this is merely a starting point for information. When it comes to municipal affairs, there are many places to find answers. One purpose of this handbook is to help a mayor know when to ask questions and where to find answers. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -4 II. Scope and applicability The League of Minnesota Cities is the secretariat of the Minnesota Mayors Association. Both can be reached at (651) 281-1200 or (800) 925-1122. Since this handbook is not intended to be an exhaustive resource, finding additional places for information is a must. This handbook contains citations in the margins to Minnesota state statutes and other resources to help mayors find more information on a given topic. In addition to the city’s administrative staff and attorney, mayors will find state agencies often have answers to their questions. Always remember when a problem comes along, it’s likely someone somewhere in the state has run into the same sorts of issues. Don’t hesitate to consult fellow mayors of the Minnesota Mayors Association or the staff of the League of Minnesota Cities. They have decades of collective experience and are always eager to help. Minn. Const. Art XII, § 4. Minn. Stat. § 410.16. This handbook is, of course, for mayors of Minnesota cities. As such, it’s written to generally describe the powers, authority, and responsibilities of mayors in most Minnesota cities. However, the state constitution allows for home rule charter cities, which can uniquely define mayoral roles and authority. On top of this, charter cities may have any administrative form of government “not inconsistent with [either] Constitution or statute.” Given the variables this creates, mayors of charter cities should review their city’s charter to see if their authority, powers, or responsibilities deviate from what is presented in this handbook. Chapter 2: Legal requirements This chapter is intended to provide an overview of legal powers and responsibilities of a mayor as well as some key areas of municipal law for mayors to know. There are some powers that all mayors possess by law but, many aspects of the office are affected by whether the city is a statutory city or a charter city. Additionally, a city’s administrative structure will determine the extent of authority the mayor and council have over day-to-day affairs. I. Statutory or home rule charter The legal powers a mayor possesses mostly depend upon whether a city is governed by state statute alone, or by a home rule charter as well as state statute. The central difference between home rule charter cities and statutory cities in Minnesota is the enabling documents under which they operate: The Handbook for Minnesota Cities: The Statutory City. The Handbook for Minnesota Cities: The Home Rule Charter City. x Statutory cities derive their powers from Minnesota Statutes, primarily from Chapter 412. x Home rule charter cities obtain their powers from both statute and a home rule charter. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -5 The mayor of a charter city could have more limited or more expansive powers than those of a mayor of a statutory city, depending upon what the charter says. II. Forms of city organization Cities in Minnesota generally use one of three administrative formats in their internal organization: weak mayor-council, strong mayor-council, and council- manager. There’s overlap as well; almost all cities with a council-manager form of organization simultaneously follow a weak mayor-council form. A. Weak mayor-council The weak mayor-council plan is by far the most common plan in Minnesota. Under the weak mayor-council plan, administrative as well as legislative authority is the ultimate responsibility of the council as a whole. The only exception would be if under authority of statute or home rule charter, a city has an independent board, such as a utilities commission, to handle one or more specific functions. The mayor’s powers in the weak mayor-council system are no greater than those of other members of the council, except that the mayor is the presiding officer at council meetings and has a few other legal and ceremonial responsibilities listed below. The weak mayor has no extraordinary power to individually make administrative decisions for the city. B. Strong mayor-council The strong mayor-council plan is rare in Minnesota and can only appear in a home rule charter city. Only four cities in Minnesota operate under this form of government including Duluth, Minneapolis, St. Cloud, and St. Paul. Under the strong mayor-council plan, the mayor is responsible for the operation of all administrative agencies and departments within the city. Typically, a strong mayor has the following powers. x Can appoint and remove department heads and other subordinate staff, subject to civil service provisions where applicable. x Is not a council member but can veto council legislation subject to the right of the council to override the veto by an extraordinary majority. x Prepares and administers a budget that the council approves. These and other features can vary under city charter provisions. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -6 C. Council-manager Minn. Stat. § 412.541, subd. 2. Minn. Stat. § 412.611. Some home rule charter cities and statutory cities have a council-manager form of government. Under this form, the council has policy-making and legislative authority, but administration of the government is the responsibility of the council-appointed city manager. The manager is directly responsible to the council. The manager appoints department heads, usually without council approval. In this form, neither the mayor, nor any other individual member of council, nor council as a whole typically has any decision-making authority in day-to- day administration of the city. Again, a home rule charter can modify this. III. Legal powers and responsibilities of the mayor The powers and responsibilities of a mayor may vary depending upon whether the city is a statutory city or governed by a home rule charter. Below are the basic powers of a mayor in a statutory city. A city charter may add to or limit this list. Ceremonial head of the city. As the head of the city, the mayor often has certain responsibilities not found in statute but based on custom or tradition. For instance, the mayor may represent the city before other governmental bodies such as the Legislature. The public and media also usually regard the mayor as the official spokesperson for the city and its policies. Minn. Stat. § 412.191, subd. 2. See Chapter 3: Meeting Management. Presiding officer at council meetings. In most cities, the mayor’s greatest authority is that of presiding officer at council meetings. Though not a legal requirement, the presiding officer clearly has a responsibility to be impartial and objective in conducting the meeting. To maintain this objectivity, many mayors choose to minimize making or seconding motions and to allow other members of the council to speak before the mayor expresses their opinion. Minn. Stat. § 412.191, subd. 2. Calling meetings. Mayors can call a special meeting. Two members of a five- member council or three members of a seven-member council, can also call special meetings. Minn. Stat. § 412.191, subd. 4. Minn. Stat. § 412.201. A.G. Op. 61-J (June 2, 1966). Executing official documents. The mayor of a statutory city must sign ordinances, contracts authorized by the council, and written orders for payment of claims that have been audited and allowed by the council. These are ministerial duties meaning the mayor may not refuse to sign if the purpose, approval, and form are legally correct and complete. Power to make some appointments. While the power to appoint usually resides in the council as a whole, the mayor has authority to make the following appointments, subject to council approval: MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -7 Minn. Stat. § 412.501. x Park board members (for a non-advisory park board). Minn. Stat. § 134.09, subd. 1. Minn. Stat. § 134.195, subd. 2. x Public library board members. Minn. Stat. § 412.221, subd. 16. x Hospital board members. Minn. Stat. § 44.04, subd. 1. x Some civil service commission members. Minn. Stat. § 469.003, subd. 6. x Housing and redevelopment authority members. Minn. Stat. § 469.095, subd. 2. x Economic development authority members. The mayor has authority to make the following appointments without council approval: Minn. Stat. § 450.20. x City art commission members (First Class cities). Minn. Stat. § 12.25, subd. 1. x Director of the local organization for emergency management. Minn. Stat. § 412.02, subd. 2a. x Filling a vacancy on council if the council vote to fill the vacancy is tied. Minn. Stat. § 204C.07, subd. 3. Minn. Stat. § 204C.31, subd. 1. Election duties. Mayors of all cities have election responsibilities. At elections where residents will vote on a question, the mayor, upon receiving a written petition signed by at least 25 eligible voters, must appoint one voter for each precinct to act as a challenger of voters in the polling place. Also, the mayor of the most populous municipality in a given county (or the mayor’s designee) serves as a member of that county’s canvassing board. Minn. Stat. § 12.29, subd. 1. Minn. Stat. § 12.29, subds. 2, 3. Declaring local emergencies. Only the mayor can declare a local emergency. A local emergency cannot last for more than three days except with the consent of the city council. A local emergency must receive prompt and general publicity. The next two powers, while still found in statute, are generally no longer powers exercised by the mayor. Minn. Stat. § 18.80, subds. 2, 3. Minn. Stat. § 18.81, subd. 2. Weed inspector. The mayor is the city weed inspector. The city may appoint one or more assistant weed inspectors to fulfill the mayor’s statutory weed inspector obligations. Minn. Stat. § 299F.04. Fire investigator. In cities without fire departments, the mayor must investigate or have investigated the cause, origin, and circumstances of any fire where damages exceed $100. The investigation must begin within two days of the fire. The mayor must report the fire to the state fire marshal. Within one week of the fire, the mayor must furnish a written statement to the state fire marshal. Minn. Stat. § 412.02, subd. 1a. All this without being a full-time employee! Neither the mayor, nor a council member, may be a full-time, permanent city employee. But not so fast . . . In light of changes to state law and perhaps a myth or two, here are a few powers mayors do not have: MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -8 x Designation as the head of the police department (repealed). x An automatic seat on the fire relief board (repealed). x The duty of grasshopper inspector (repealed). x The ability to marry people by virtue of the office (myth). IV. Selected areas of law There are a few major areas of municipal law of which every mayor should be aware simply because they are full of traps and easy to get wrong. Some include a particular role for the mayor, some do not, but they are all integral components to running a municipal corporation. This handbook is not intended to tell a mayor everything they need to know about the law, or even these areas. But it should give a mayor enough information to know when to be cautious and find out more. A. Open Meeting Law Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 1. With only a few exceptions, all city council meetings or gatherings must be noticed and open to the public. This rule applies not only to meetings of council, but meetings of any committee or subcommittee of council, as well as any board, department, or commission formed under the city’s authority. Moberg v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 281, 336 N.W.2d 510 (Minn. 1983). St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. Dist. 742 Community Schools, 332 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1983). The law does not define the term “meeting.” The Minnesota Supreme Court, however, has ruled that under the Open Meeting Law, meetings are gatherings where a quorum or more of the council or other governing body, or of a committee, board, department, or commission of the city council or other governing body are present, and at which the members intentionally discuss, decide, or receive information as a group on issues relating to the official business of that body. Minn. Stat. § 412.191, subd. 2. Moberg v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 281, 336 N.W.2d 510 (Minn. 1983). The Open Meeting Law does not generally apply in situations where less than a quorum of the council is involved. A quorum is a majority of the members of council (home rule charter cities may have different quorum requirements). However, serial meetings in groups of less than a quorum that are held in order to avoid the requirements of the Open Meeting Law may be found to violate the law, depending on the specific facts. As a result, while a mayor can call special meetings, in order to avoid the appearance of a serial meeting, the mayor should not call a special meeting by directly contacting other council members. Rather, best practice is to have the clerk or other city staff contact the council members to notify them of a special meeting. In most cities, the mayor has the authority to lead meetings. Therefore, it’s critical the mayor be familiar with the Open Meeting Law and its exceptions. Again, meetings of council must generally be noticed and open to the public. In two cases, however, the council must close a meeting: MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -9 Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 2(b). Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd. 2(4). Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 2. x Meetings for preliminary consideration of allegations or charges against an individual subject to the public body’s authority (unless the individual wants the meeting held open). x Portions of meetings at which the council discusses data that would identify alleged victims or reporters of criminal sexual conduct, domestic abuse, or maltreatment of minors or vulnerable adults; internal affairs data relating to allegations of law enforcement personnel misconduct or active law enforcement investigative data; educational data, health data, medical data, welfare data, or mental health data that are non-public data, or; an individual’s medical records governed by the Minnesota Health Records Act. And in the following five cases, the council has the option to close the meeting: Minn. Stat. § 13D.03. Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 3. x Meetings to consider strategies for labor negotiations. Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 3. Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 3. x Meetings to evaluate the performance of an individual subject to the public body’s authority (unless the individual requests the meeting held open). Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 3. Prior Lake American v. Mader, 642 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 2002). x Meetings between council and its attorney to discuss active, threatened, or pending litigation when the balancing of the purposes served by the attorney-client privilege against those served by the Open Meeting Law dictates the need for absolute confidentiality. Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 3. x Meetings to determine the asking price for real or personal property to be sold, review confidential or protected nonpublic appraisal data, or develop/consider offers or counteroffers for the purchase or sale of property. Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 3. x Meetings to receive security briefings and reports, to discuss issues related to security systems, to discuss emergency response procedures, and to discuss security deficiencies in, or recommendations regarding, public services, infrastructure, and facilities. Minn. Stat. § 13D.05, subd. 1 (d). Except for meetings closed under the attorney-client privilege, all closed meetings must be electronically recorded. B. Data practices Minn. Stat. ch. 13. Cities are often asked to release information. In doing so, every city in Minnesota must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA). Government data means all data collected, created, received, maintained, or disseminated by the city regardless of its physical form, storage media, or conditions of use. This would include data one receives or creates in the capacity of mayor. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -10 The Act presumes that government data are public and are accessible by the public for inspection and copying unless there is a federal law, state statute, or temporary classification of data classifying the data as not public or private. Minn. Stat. § 13.02, subd 16. Minn. Stat. § 13.03, subd. 2. Minn. Stat. § 13.05, subd. 13. If a city receives a request for government data, it is the role of the city- appointed “responsible authority” or their designee to respond. Unless the council decides otherwise, for statutory or home rule charter cities, the elected or appointed city clerk is the “responsible authority” by default. If a home rule charter does not provide for a city clerk, the “responsible authority” is the chief clerical officer for filing and record keeping purposes. Minn. Stat. § 13.05, subd. 13. The “responsible authority” is responsible for the collection, use, and dissemination of any governmental data as well as other obligations of administering the MGDPA, including preparing a public document containing procedures that the official will use to administer the MGDPA. The “responsible authority” must appoint or also act as a “compliance official.” The “compliance official” responds to questions or concerns from persons who are attempting to access data or enforce their rights. The MGDPA is one of the most complex laws that a city has to comply with. Accordingly, all elected officials should consult with the city’s responsible authority before releasing any city data. Minn. Stat. § 13.072. To request an advisory opinion, write to the Commissioner of Administration, c/o Data Practices Office, 201 Administration Building, 50 Sherburne Ave. St. Paul, Minnesota 55155, (651) 296- 6733 or (800) 657-3721. DPO opinions. Cities may request advisory opinions from the commissioner of the Department of Administration on any question concerning public access to government data, rights of subjects of data, or classification of data. Advisory opinions are not binding, but a court or other tribunal must give deference to the opinion in a proceeding that involves the data in dispute. Cities that take action in conformance with the opinion will not be liable for compensatory or exemplary damages, awards of attorney fees, or penalties. Cities interested in requesting an opinion can contact the Department of Administration, Information Policy Analysis Division. The Department of Administration maintains an index to advisory opinions on its website. The Department of Administration’s Data Practices Offices is also responsible for providing free informal advice to members of the public and members of government who have questions about data practices. Minn. Stat. § 13.08. Minn. Stat. § 13.085. Navarre v. South Washington County Sch., 652 N.W.2d 9 (Minn. 2002). It’s important to remember, there are significant administrative remedies and civil penalties for willfully releasing private and confidential data and for willfully refusing to release public data, including attorney’s fees. In addition, a city that violates any provision of the MGDPA is liable for any damage as a result of the violation. The person damaged may bring an action against the city to cover any damages, plus costs and reasonable attorney fees. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -11 Minn. R. 1205.0400, subp. 2. Minn. R. 1205.0600, subp. 2. See Chapter 4, Section I-B-1. Mayors may wonder what right of access they themselves have to data that isn’t public. Whether a mayor, council member, or staff, the law says that access is limited to individuals “whose work assignments reasonably require access.” Whether the mayor falls into that legal description is a question for each city to decide with the help of the city attorney because it likely depends on the specific situation. For this reason, mayors shouldn’t be surprised if they don’t get a key to the city offices just because the mayor of another city does. And of course, there’s always a difference between whether one can access private or confidential data and whether one should. Since the data a person collects, creates, receives, maintains, or disseminates in the capacity of mayor is government data, a mayor must exercise caution about where that data is created, collected, etc. Government data can easily, even accidentally, be created at home that is both public and subject to a retention schedule. Also, mayors may wish to take care in what they say in their official capacity within e-mails and even text messages. Minn. Stat. § 13.601, subd. 2. DPO 97-002 (Jan. 15, 1997) and DPO 97-014 (Apr. 1, 1997). Minn. Stat. § 13.393. The MGDPA states that correspondence between individuals and elected officials is private—though either party may make it public. However, correspondence between elected officials and city employees is public unless it contains information specifically classified as non-public. This even applies to the city administrator’s status reports to the city council. The attorney-client privilege, however, would apply to documents created for the purpose of giving legal advice, such as a letter between the city attorney and a city official. Minn. Stat. § 13D.05. The Open Meeting Law doesn’t allow the closing of a meeting solely to discuss private data (except in limited circumstances clearly listed in the statute), and provides that private data may be discussed openly at any public meeting without fear of liability or penalty as long as the release of the data is reasonably necessary to conduct the business the data relates to. If private data needs to be discussed at a public meeting, it is recommended that the city try to protect the information by assigning numbers, letters, or similar designations to it, and that those designations be used instead of the actual data. Discussing private data in a closed meeting does not change the fact that it is private. Therefore, even though an open meeting might have just occurred in which private data was discussed, that data shouldn’t be discussed with family, friends, or the media as if it is now public information. While in most cases private data may be discussed in an open meeting without fear of liability, mayors should remember the seven situations mentioned in the previous section in which the Open Meeting Law requires a meeting to be closed. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -12 C. Contracts Minn. Stat. § 471.345. All cities contract for services and equipment, and laws govern many of those contracts. The most important contracting law to be familiar with is the uniform municipal contracting law. Minn. Stat. § 471.345, subd. 2. Competitive Bidding Requirements in Cities Memo If a city plans to enter an agreement with any party for the sale, purchase, or rental of supplies, materials, or equipment, or the construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance of any city property, there is a process (competitive bidding) cities must follow depending upon the estimated dollar amount of the contract. This is true regardless of the source of funds, the size of the city, and whether a statutory or charter city. Minn. Stat. § 471.345, subd. 3. Minn. Stat. § 471.345, subd. 15(a). State CPV program. Minn. Stat. § 471.345, subd. 3a. Minn. Stat. § 471.345, subd. 15(b). If the amount of the contract is estimated to exceed $175,000, sealed bids must be solicited by public notice. Generally, the council must award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder. If a contract for supplies, materials, or equipment is estimated to exceed $25,000, the city must consider the availability, price, and quality available through the state’s cooperative purchasing venture (CPV) program. If the CPV is not used, cities may purchase the supplies, materials, or equipment from certain national municipal associations’ purchasing alliances or cooperatives. Minn. Stat. § 471.345, subd. 3a. If the contract to exceed $175,000 is for construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance work, and the city has received requisite “training,” the contract may be awarded to the vendor or contractor offering the best value under a request for proposals described in statute. Minn. Stat. § 471.345, subds. 4, 4a. If a contract subject to the law is estimated to exceed $25,000, but not $175,000, the contract may be made either upon sealed bids or by direct negotiation. If by direct negotiation, the city obtains two or more quotations when possible, and without advertising for bids or otherwise going through competitive bidding. The best value provision applies to these contracts as well, and, again, the CPV must be considered. Minn. Stat. § 471.345, subd. 5. If the amount of the contract is estimated to be $25,000 or less, the contract may be made either upon quotation or in the open market, whichever council prefers. If the contract is made upon quotation, it must be based, so far as practicable, on at least two quotations, which must be kept on file for at least one year after their receipt. Best value is again an option for certain contracts. None of these provisions apply to professional service contracts, and there are many other exceptions out of the scope of this handbook. Mayors should simply remember these laws as a basic starting point as well as the fact that only a majority of council may approve a contract on behalf of the city. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -13 D. Budgeting All cities must budget, and there are many technical requirements pertaining to city budgets. Cities have limited revenue streams coupled with annually growing expenditures. Cities have reporting requirements, publishing requirements, expenditure restrictions, funding obligations to fulfill, and often a requirement that citizens be allowed to participate in the budgeting process. And once again, council should rely on staff to help meet these requirements. But for the policy makers, budgeting is a critical annual exercise. One thing the mayor was elected to do is to think about the city’s goals and how to advance them. At budgeting time every year, the mayor can help focus council’s discussion with the following sorts of questions: x What does the city need and what are its goals? x What can realistically be done about those goals and needs this year? x What are the costs of the various options? x How much does the city have and how will the city use its resources to fund the goals identified? Having goals is always the city’s starting point. From there, with a mayor’s leadership, a city council can work with what funds it has, choose what it will fund, determine how much it will need, and thereby optimally manage citizen expectations and tax dollars. E. Land use Minn. Stat. §§ 462.351 to 462.365. Land use encompasses many legal areas, which are not easily described concisely, but it amounts to enormous power for cities. The Municipal Planning Act gives cities the authority to regulate how land is used. It is only through uniform procedures set by these statutes that the city council decides where residences are allowed, approves proposed developments, and determines every regulation of land use that best serves a city’s own “comprehensive plan.” Equally important to passing land use ordinances as a legislative body is the council’s responsibility to apply those ordinances—much like a court— when a certain use of land is proposed to council. Most areas of land use law are uniform to all cities and dictated by state law. One area of land use that may differ from city to city is its regulation of public nuisances. When a use of land interferes with the enjoyment of those nearby, it may be a public nuisance. If it is, ideally council has enacted a nuisance ordinance to address such situations through removal, otherwise called abatement. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -14 Minnesota law contains the procedures for zoning, subdivisions of land, and hearing requirements related to land use. It provides for a planning commission, an advisory group dedicated to helping council make land use decisions. It provides how cities may allow for uses of land upon certain conditions, and when approvals by the city must be recorded with the county. As mayor, it’s critical to be aware that a city has tremendous power to regulate land use, and that power itself is regulated by state law. The decisions the city makes must follow a dictated process and cannot occur without the authority and approval of a majority of council. Often individuals and organizations come to the mayor—as apparent head of the city—and propose a land use project. While the mayor may be an excellent first contact for requests to the city, whether a sophisticated development company or the lone resident looking for help, the party might need to be reminded that formal approval requires the consideration of the full council, if not a planning commission first. A mayor may understandably be eager to encourage developers with personal commitments to see a project approved, but this is something to avoid. F. City as employer MN Department of Labor and Industry. Federal Department of Labor. As much law as there is governing land use, there are innumerable laws to know at the state, federal, and even local levels when it comes to employment. If the city violates employment laws or applicable union contracts, it can be held accountable, it exposes the city to liability. In short, there are many things to get wrong when it comes to employment. HR Reference Manual. Some employment laws where mistakes are commonly made are in the area of non-discrimination protections, laws affecting preference requirements for veterans, and leave laws such as the Family Medical Leave Act and the Minnesota Parenting Leave Act. Also of concern are employee benefits laws providing continuation of coverage rights and labor relations laws for cities with unionized employees. The League of Minnesota Cities has Human Resources Reference Manual with detailed information on these topics and more. Handbook, City Administrative Staff. The most basic distinction mayors should know is the difference between having a city manager and having a city administrator or clerk. In the former, a city manager hires and fires the rest of the staff, and council hires and fires the city manager. In the latter, it is the council that hires and fires all staff. In either case, there are laws governing wages, leave, overtime, age requirements, unions, policies, and termination—to name a few areas. Ironically, the council must rely on staff as well as others to help the city be a legally compliant employer. This is one reason developing a healthy working relationship with the staff is critical. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -15 See Chapter 4. Mayors have no extraordinary authority when it comes to employment. Employment matters are likely to come up at council meetings, and the presiding member is wise to know when the meeting must or can be closed, and when it cannot in relation to employment issues. However, the mayor has no independent authority to hire or fire city staff, and decisions to do so must be the will of council as a whole. Chapter 3: Meeting management Meetings of city council are where the business of the city is conducted and vital decisions for the city’s future are made. Meetings are often also the principal place where citizens interact with their governing body and form an impression about their city. As a result, meeting management is one of the most important components of a mayor’s duties. I. Role of the mayor in managing meetings Minn. Stat. § 412.191, subd. 1. The mayor of a statutory city is a member of the council and has the same right to vote and make and second motions at meetings as the other council members. Charter cities may have a different role for the mayor specified in their charter. In addition to participating in meetings, mayors have two additional roles to play. They preside over the meeting to facilitate discussion and they preserve order. A. Role of presiding officer Minn. Stat. § 412.191, subd. 2. Minn. Stat. § 412.121. The mayor is the presiding officer of the meeting. In the absence of the mayor, the acting mayor must perform the duties of the mayor. The acting mayor is sometimes also called the mayor pro-tem and is usually appointed by the council. See Section II – Bylaws and rules of order. See Appendix A: Minnesota Mayors Association City Council Bylaws. The authority of the presiding officer may vary slightly from city to city, depending on the council’s bylaw or policies. Typically, however, the presiding officer at a meeting is the person vested with the authority to: x Call a meeting to order and propose adjournment. x Recognize and call upon speakers. x Call for debate and vote on motions. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -16 x Clarify or request clarifications of motions made by members. x Rule motions out of order. x Interpret and enforce any meeting management policies, bylaws, or rules of order. x Call members to order if they disregard rules of procedure or decorum for the meeting. See Appendix A: Minnesota Mayors Association City Council Bylaws. As the presiding officer, the mayor has a great deal of control and influence over how a meeting progresses—for example, who is heard, and not heard, and which topics are brought forward for discussion. However, this power is often not absolute. Most rules of order provide some method for members of the council to question the presiding officer’s decisions and, on some occasions, to overrule them by a vote. See Appendix D: Minnesota Mayors Association Sample Rules of Order for City Councils. Because presiding officers have such influence over the meeting, most council bylaws or rules of order emphasize that presiding officers should strive to be fair and impartial. This often means listening more than speaking—even on contentious issues—and allowing council members with opposing viewpoints to each have an opportunity to speak. A fair and impartial presiding officer protects the rights of all members to participate in the meeting. One way of looking at this is that while the presiding officer wields the most power to direct the meeting, they are also the person most a servant to meeting rules. 1. Role in preserving order Minn. Stat. § 412.191, subd. 2. A statutory city council is authorized to preserve order at its meetings. The mayor, as the presiding officer, is also vested with some authority to prevent disturbances. See Appendix A: Minnesota Mayors Association City Council Bylaws. A presiding officer’s authority may vary slightly from city to city. Typically, however, the presiding officer at a meeting is the person vested with the authority to preserve order by: See Section III-A and IV-D. x Following the council’s approved agenda and limiting discussion to current agenda items. x Ruling on questions of procedure and entertaining appeals to rulings. x Calling members of the council or public to order if they are being unruly or disruptive. x Declaring meetings recessed or adjourned if they become too unruly. x Requesting the removal of unruly or disruptive persons from the meeting room. The mayor may request the assistance of law enforcement if unruly persons refuse to depart the meeting rooms. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -17 II. Bylaws and rules of order Minn. Stat. § 412.191, subd. 2. See Appendix A: Minnesota Mayors Association City Council Bylaws. A statutory city council has the power to regulate its own meeting procedures. Home rule charter cities may have similar provisions in their charters. Councils often regulate their procedures through bylaws and rules of order. Rules of order are also commonly referred to as parliamentary rules of procedure, parliamentary procedure, rules of procedure or procedural rules. Councils are not required to adopt bylaws or rules of order for meeting management, but they are highly recommended for the following reasons: x They set common values and expectations for interactions among council members. x They can provide structure to a meeting, promoting timeliness and efficiency. x They can help resolve conflicts in a positive way that promotes the best interests of the city, rather than allowing conflicts to grow, potentially disrupting city operations and slowing vital council decisions. Within or separate from bylaws, city councils often have meeting rules of order. Many cities have formally adopted or informally observe some version of Robert’s Rules of Order as rules of order. There are, however, disadvantages to adopting Robert’s Rules to govern procedure at council meetings. Some of the disadvantages of using Robert’s Rules are: x They were not crafted with Minnesota law in mind and sometimes diverge from legal requirements for Minnesota cities. x They were crafted to govern large bodies of assembly (such as a parliament) and are sometimes unwieldy for smaller bodies. x While shorter condensed versions of Robert’s Rules exist, typical volumes of the rules are 200 pages or longer. This can be difficult for new members to learn. Council members who are unfamiliar with the intricacies of Robert’s Rules may feel silenced by their unfamiliarity with technical points or outmaneuvered by council members who are more familiar with the rules. See Appendix D: Minnesota Mayors Association Sample Rules of Order for City Councils. For these reasons, city councils may prefer to adopt more simplified rules of order. Several other models exist, or the council can draft its own policy to fit the organization and desired level of formality. Sample simplified rules of order (complete with a 2-page cheat sheet!) are in the appendices of this handbook. It’s very important to adopt written rules of order before there is a problem that rules of order could solve. If a meeting becomes contentious for whatever reason, it may be impossible to get back on track if there isn’t already agreement on how the meeting should proceed. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -18 Whatever policy the council adopts, it should follow it. Although the council can vote to change or suspend its rules, it is probably better to stick with the adopted rules except on rare occasions. III. Meeting decorum Meeting decorum may be an aspect of the city council’s bylaws or it may be a separate set of expectations and rules that may or may not be formally adopted in written form. However, written decorum rules usually provide for clearer expectations that everyone can understand. It also is usually easier to enforce expectations if they are written out. Appendix A of this memo has sample bylaws that cities may use to help create and adopt their own council bylaws. A. Typical decorum requirements See Appendix A: Minnesota Mayors Association City Council Bylaws. Typical rules of decorum require council members to: x Refrain from private conversation while in the council chamber that interrupts the proceedings of the council. x Refrain from the use of offensive words, threats of violence, or other objectionable language in or against the council or against any member. x Limit speech to subject of current debate. x Abide by time limits for speaking. More modern policies on decorum may also emphasize: x Refraining from the use of cell phones or other personal electronic devices during meetings. In addition to being a decorum problem, this may also create problems under the Open Meeting Law. x Allowing the use of cameras, video, and other recording devices, but requiring them to be used in an unobtrusive manner that does not disrupt or delay the meeting. Rules of decorum are often also established to govern the conduct of the public when participating in meetings. See Appendix E: Council Handouts B. Enforcing decorum among council members Council meetings on important community issues may become contentious very quickly. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -19 Establishing rules of decorum before a controversy arises can prevent meetings from becoming unproductive due to conflict. On occasion, members of the council may not follow the rules. On these occasions, the mayor’s role as the meeting’s presiding officer is particularly important. See Appendix E at the end of this memo for some helpful tips if/when certain situations arise during council meetings. See Appendix A: Minnesota Mayors Association City Council Bylaws. Bylaws may vary from city to city. Generally, when council members violate rules of order and decorum, the presiding officer is authorized to: x Not recognize a breaching council member’s request to speak, limiting the member’s role in debate until decorum is observed. x Declare the council member’s actions out of order. x Order removal from the council chambers by law enforcement until the council member agrees to abide by council rules of decorum. In addition, if provided in the council’s policy, generally any council member (including the mayor), may make a motion to censure a council member for conduct that breaches decorum. A censure often takes the form of a resolution adopted by council vote noting the council member’s conduct and expressing disapproval of such conduct. IV. Citizen input and audience participation in council meetings Audience members do not have a statutory right to take an active part in the council’s discussion at a meeting. Only the council can make motions and vote at a council meeting. Audience members may not speak unless they have been recognized by the presiding officer. A. Forums for public comment See Appendix A: Minnesota Mayors Association City Council Bylaws and Appendix C, Summary Rules for Public Comment. See Section IV-C. While cities do not have to allow the public to speak at a meeting, many city councils schedule a portion of each council meeting for public comment. These are often referred to as “open forums.” During this part of the meeting, the presiding officer will recognize members of the audience to speak briefly on topics that concern them. These forums are different from formal public hearings required by law on specific issues. It is best practice to have a policy in place related to city responses to citizen input at meetings. Often it is helpful to have a policy to not respond immediately or to take direct action in response to citizen requests. Instead, the city should adopt a policy referring most citizen comments or requests to city staff for further research and a written report back to council. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -20 This allows the city the opportunity to gather all the facts and make a measured and fair response. You can find a sample Summary of Rules for Public Comment in Appendix C of this memo for your city to use. While many councils recognize the value of citizen input, citizen comment can negatively affect meeting efficiency if not managed. For example, if a large number of audience members wish to speak, the meeting may not progress efficiently. Likewise, if one person spends a long time expressing their view, others may not get the opportunity to present their views. The following sections discuss ways to address some of these problems. 1. Limiting time Some councils have addressed this problem by placing a limit on the amount of time audience members are allowed to speak at a meeting. For example, the council may ask people to limit their remarks to no more than three minutes or allow only a specified amount of time for the whole comment period. Time limits should be adopted in a policy, applied equally and neutrally to all members of the public, and practiced consistently at every meeting. 2. Limiting topic Another option may be to limit the scope of comments to those matters being addressed by the council at the specific meeting. While this may be a way to focus the meeting on the matters being addressed by the council, it might also keep people from making the council aware of any new issues. Cities considering this approach may want to consider other ways for people to bring up other topics. Limits on topic should also be adopted in a policy and applied equally and neutrally to all members of the public. 3. Advance written notice As a third alternative, cities may choose to adopt policies that require advance notice of a person’s desire to address council. The notice usually must be submitted in writing a few days before the actual meeting. The specific topic and the speaker’s name are then put on the agenda. Such procedures are helpful in allowing the council to plan an efficient meeting. It also helps to remind the speaker that they may only address those issues listed on the notice. B. Meeting disruptions and unruly citizens Minn. Stat. § 412.191, subd. 2. A statutory city council is authorized to preserve order at its meetings. The mayor, as the presiding officer, is also vested with some authority to prevent disturbances. Home rule charter cities may have similar provisions in their charters. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -21 While council meetings must be open to the public, no one has the right to disrupt the council proceedings. When the council decides that a disorderly person should not remain in the meeting hall, the police may be called to execute the orders of the presiding officer or the council. If the audience becomes so disorderly that it is impossible to carry on a meeting, the mayor has the right and duty to declare the council meeting temporarily recessed or adjourned to some other time (and place, if necessary). The members of the council can also move for adjournment. If the mayor is not conducting the meeting in an orderly fashion, there is relatively little the other council members can do to control the action of the presiding officer. However, a majority of the council can force adjournment whenever the council members feel it is necessary. If the city council anticipates meeting disruptions or unruly citizens to occur at an upcoming meeting, the city should connect with their city attorney. C. Public hearings See Appendix A: Minnesota Mayors Association City Council Bylaws and Appendix C: Summary Rules for Public Comment. A public hearing is a special type of city council meeting (or a portion of a meeting) designed to solicit public input and allow members of the public to express their opinions on a designated topic. Conducting a public hearing can pose different challenges to a mayor than conducting a regular council meeting. Cities may find it helpful to adopt rules of procedure specifically for conducting public hearings and managing citizen comment. There are two types of hearings: those that are discretionary, and those that are required by a specific statute, ordinance, or charter provision. 1. Discretionary public hearings Many city councils will hold public hearings even when not legally required to do so. Generally, hearings of this type are for the purpose of allowing the public to comment on a specific issue of interest to the community. Such hearings can be helpful in raising concerns about an issue that the council may not have considered. 2. Required public hearings See Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 3. Minn. Stat. § 429.031 subd. 1(a). Minn. Stat. § 429.061 subd. 1. On some matters, state statute requires that the council hold a public hearing before acting. The following are common matters that require public hearings: Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 3. x Adoption or amendment of a zoning ordinance. Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd. 3b. x Subdivision applications. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -22 Minn. Stat. § 462.3595, subd. 2. x Granting of a conditional use permit. Minn. Stat. § 412.851. x Vacation of any street, alley, public grounds, public way, or any part thereof. Minn. Stat. § 414.033, subd. 2b. x Annexation by ordinance. Minn. Stat. § 429.031. x Public improvements that will be specially assessed. There are numerous other instances where a public hearing is required by state statute. When a public hearing is a legal requirement, it is important that the specific statute imposing the hearing be read and all conditions related to notice of the hearing be followed carefully. Often there are special notice requirements that are more substantial than the notice that is needed for a simple special meeting. For example, hearings mandated for zoning ordinance amendments have special notice requirements that may obligate the city to mail individual notices to nearby landowners. While a mayor should be generally aware of these requirements, usually city staff will keep abreast of them and work with council to ensure compliance. 3. Conducting public hearings The focus of a public hearing is different from a regular council meeting. A public hearing is a meeting where members of the public can express their opinions. The mayor presides at the meeting in order to regulate the hearing and make sure that people who want to speak on the issue get the opportunity. The council does not deliberate or discuss matters during the public hearing portion of this type of meeting; instead, it listens to the public. Once the public comment period is finished, the council will often wrap up the meeting or move to the next agenda item. In order to recess or continue a meeting of this sort, the council should not formally end the public comment part of the hearing. If the city would like to continue a public hearing, there would need to be a motion to continue the public hearing to a specific time, date, and place. V. Building an adequate record Council meetings, including any special public hearings, are where city decisions are made, and city business is conducted. Because city business affects citizens in vital and sometimes personal ways, such as the approval or denial of a land use permit, cities are required to keep an adequate record of their proceedings. In addition, an adequate record can be a vital tool in defending the city’s decisions should a lawsuit result. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -23 A. Legal requirements for meeting records Minn. Stat. § 15.17. Municipal officers must keep all records necessary to provide a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities. Keeping adequate records involves preserving through a records retention policy the documents that are considered by the council. These include such documents as bills, contracts, and correspondence. Another vital component of keeping adequate records involves taking meeting minutes. 1. Records retention Minn. Stat. § 15.17. Minn. Stat. § 138.225. Minn. Stat. §§ 138.161-.21. Records that public officers are required to keep, and those that are necessary and appropriate to the proper discharge of the duties of an office, are government records. It is a crime to destroy such records without statutory authority. To get a copy of the General Records Retention Schedule, see “Records Retention Data” at www.mcfoa.org or contact the Research Department of the League of Minnesota Cities (651-281-1220 or 1-800-925 1122). The state has adopted a general schedule for the retention and destruction of a variety of city records. This is commonly known as the “Records Retention Schedule.” Cities that have adopted the general schedule have continuing authority to destroy listed records after keeping them for the prescribed time. A city must not destroy any government records that are not on the schedule without specific authorization from the State Records Disposition Panel. 2. Meeting minutes Minn. Stat. § 412.151, subd. 1. Whalen v. Minneapolis Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 309 Minn. 292, 245 N.W.2d 440 (Minn. 1976). A statutory city clerk must keep a minute book of all city council meetings. Generally, the clerk has wide discretion as to how to keep the minutes. A verbatim record of everything that was said is not normally required. However, the law does require that the following be included in the minutes: Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 4. Minn. Stat. § 331A.01, subd. 6. Minn. Stat. § 15.17, subd. 1. x The members of the public body who are present. Minn. Stat. § 412.151, subd. 1. Minn. Stat. § 412.191, subd. 3. Minn. Stat. § 331A.01, subd. 6. x The members who make or second motions. Minn. Stat. § 331A.01, subd. 6. Minn. Stat. § 412.151, subd. 1. Minn. Stat. § 412.191, subd. 3. Minn. Stat. 13D.01, Subd. 4. x Roll call vote on motions. Minn. Stat. § 331A.01, subd. 6. Minn. Stat. § 412.151, subd. 1. x Subject matter of proposed resolutions or ordinances. Minn. Stat. § 331A.01, subd. 6. Minn. Stat. § 412.191, subd. 3. x Whether the resolutions or ordinances are defeated or adopted. Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 4. Minn. Stat. § 331A.01, subd. 6. Minn. Stat. § 412.151, subd. 1. Minn. Stat. § 412.191, subd. 3. x The votes of each member, including the mayor. Home rule charter cities may have additional requirements in the charter. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -24 Swanson v. City of Bloomington,, 421 N.W.2d 307 (Minn. 1988). Dietz v. Dodge County, 487 N.W.2d 237 (Minn. 1992). Although not generally required by statute, several court decisions suggest that including certain information in the minutes can help to defend a city’s actions should a lawsuit occur. The following types of data are examples of information that should be included in the minutes: See LMC memo Taking the Mystery out of Findings of Fact. x Findings of fact. Case law requires them for land use decisions and some personnel decisions. x The council’s conclusions. Case law requires them for land use decisions and some personnel decisions. Minn. Stat. § 412.151, subd. 1. x The specific reasons behind the council’s conclusions. Examples would include such things as the economic, social, political, or safety factors that were considered when the council made a particular decision. x Signature of clerk and mayor. Because minutes would likely be considered official papers of the city, they should be signed by the clerk. And although the law does not require it, in many cities the mayor also signs the minutes after they are approved by the council. 3. Adequate records and defending city decisions City councils make two types of decisions—legislative decisions and quasi- judicial decisions. A typical legislative decision a council makes is to adopt an ordinance. Legislative decisions are made when the city exercises its general lawmaking authority in a broad manner that applies city-wide. In contrast, quasi-judicial decisions involve applying standards found in an ordinance or policy to individuals. A typical quasi-judicial decision a council makes is to grant or deny a landowner’s request for a zoning conditional use permit. Quasi-judicial decisions are made when the city exercises its authority over individuals to grant or deny their specific applications for privileges under existing city ordinance. Both legislative and quasi-judicial decisions of the council may result in lawsuits against the city. When a reviewing court examines a city’s decisions, it applies different standards of review to legislative decisions and quasi-judicial decisions. a. Court review of legislative decisions Swanson v. City of Bloomington, 421 N.W.2d 307 (Minn. 1988). When reviewing a city’s legislative actions, the court looks to see whether the actions were constitutional, rational, and in some way related to protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the public. This is known as the “rational basis standard,” and it is a standard that is generally not difficult for cities to meet. The court may not always agree with a city council’s decisions, but it will not substitute its judgment for that of the city council—if the council can establish through an adequate record that its actions met the rational basis standard. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -25 b. Court review of quasi-judicial decisions Northwestern College v. City of Arden Hills, 281 N.W.2d 865 (Minn. 1979). In quasi-judicial situations, a reviewing court will more closely scrutinize the city’s decision to determine whether they city has provided a legally and factually sufficient basis for its decision in an adequate record. This is especially true in the area of land use regulation such as zoning and subdivision. In quasi-judicial situations, due process and equal protection are the main reasons for the more stringent scrutiny. Due process and equal protection under the law demand that similar applicants must be treated uniformly by the city. A reviewing court will overrule a quasi-judicial city decision if it determines that the decision was arbitrary (failed to treat equally situated applicants equally or failed to follow ordinance requirements). c. Role of records in building the city’s case Swanson v. City of Bloomington,, 421 N.W.2d 307 (Minn. 1988). The public record is being increasingly reviewed by the courts to determine whether the city’s action involved a reasonable means to a legal end. The law provides that cities have considerable discretion in developing plans, setting standards, and deciding applications. The public record, as a whole, must demonstrate that the city acted reasonably in enforcing its plans, standards, and regulations. It does not matter that the city acted reasonably if it is unable to prove its actions through the public record. In reviewing the public record, courts look primarily to a city council’s findings of fact. A city council must apply the facts to the law and find reasons upon which to base its decision. The reasons or rationale are referred to as findings of fact and need to be an adequate factual basis in the public record to support the council’s decision. Inadequate findings may result in a reversal of the council’s decision. B. Mayor’s role in building an adequate record As the presiding officer at city meetings, the mayor can be essential to ensuring that an adequate record protects the city’s decisions from being overruled by a court. Key ways to build a complete record include: x Following rules of procedure that require formal motions for all council actions. x Restating motions clearly for the minute taker prior to opening debate and voting. x Announcing the vote clearly on city motions. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -26 x Requesting that complex motions and all resolutions, findings of fact, and conclusions of law be reduced to written form. x Allowing adequate time for public comment and participation at public hearings. The mayor is not alone, of course, in working to build an adequate record. However, as presiding officer, the mayor can certainly provide necessary leadership to ensure that this important work for the city is accomplished. Chapter 4: Mayoral Leadership Mayors have the responsibility to exert leadership in city affairs. Because the mayors of statutory cities lack significant individual authority, this responsibility frequently calls for consensus building and tact rather than overt acts of direction or supervisory control. Leadership plays an essential role in successful city governance. However, pinpointing the characteristics of a successful leader is no simple task. One thing is certain—no one trait alone creates a leader. Instead, successful leadership depends upon a blend of several characteristics that can be pulled from the mayor’s “tool kit” when needed. In addition, mayoral leadership not only depends upon having the right tools in the tool kit, but also upon knowing when to use them. For example, no leader is successful simply because they are decisive alone, or thoughtful and measured all the time. Rather leaders are successful, because they are decisive when needed and thoughtful and measured at the right moment in time. I. Key traits of successful mayors While there are many differences in mayors, there are many common traits in their approach to governing that seem to strongly influence their success as leaders. These traits include the following: x Successful mayors have an attitude of humility. All mayors can be justifiably proud that they have been elected—it is a significant accomplishment and a reflection of the trust that others have they will be ethical and competent representatives. However, truly successful mayors are also humble; they realize they are no smarter than before their election, there is much to learn, and much is expected of them. x Successful mayors reject an attitude of entitlement. Effective mayors expect to give more than they receive. They recognize their position is not one of entitlement, but rather one of responsibility to their constituents, council colleagues, and staff and—equally important—to the office they hold and will eventually pass on to others. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -27 x Successful mayors are willing to learn. To have an open mind means to appreciate the value that comes from having one’s opinions and ideas challenged. Successful mayoral leaders listen, respect diverse opinions, and realize the correct decisions might be different than they initially believed. x Successful mayors recognize the difference between being responsive and responsible. Often the mayor is the most visible representative of city government in the community. As a result, mayors may spend a great deal of their time simply listening to the concerns of their constituents—who are often also their neighbors, friends, coworkers, and customers. However, it is important to recognize that the public’s interest is often different than a particular constituent’s desires and needs. Successful mayors know that while it is sometimes appropriate to respond to the needs of individual constituents, in other instances they must act for the betterment of the whole community, even when some residents may not like it. It is essential to evaluate each decision against both principles and having the courage to act appropriately. x Successful mayors value partnership and teamwork. Effective governments are no more than effective teams. When the mayor, city council members, and staff view each other as resources and partners, they are more likely to be able to meet their community’s needs, no matter how difficult. However, when the city’s elected officials look for scapegoats and blame staff or each other it chills innovation and risk taking, leads to low morale and turnover, and ultimately to failure. Both elected and appointed officials must be held accountable even though mistakes will occur. Effective mayors spend their energy on learning from mistakes and how to avoid them in the future, and not on finding someone to blame. x Successful mayors gather their facts before making decisions. Some issues that arise do require immediate action, even when all the facts or opinions have not been collected. However, successful mayors recognize that these rare situations are the exception rather than the rule. Mayors and city councils may at times feel enormous pressure from constituents to act immediately in response to a crisis or new event. Taking the time to plan a thoughtful, concerted response may not always be a popular decision. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that, even in a crisis, better decisions invariably result when there is opportunity and effort to gather crucial information and thoroughly discuss alternatives. II. Inspirational leadership While mayors of statutory cities lack significant individual legal authority, their role as an inspirational leader of the city cannot be underestimated. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -28 Mayors can provide important leadership by promoting citizen involvement in government, championing long-term planning for the city’s future, and promoting new programs and initiatives. A. Promoting citizen involvement Many observers of local government strongly correlate the level of engagement between citizens and their government with the overall success and vitality of a community. 1. The value of citizen involvement Increasingly, public officials are learning that one of the most effective ways to address challenging community issues is through citizen and stakeholder dialogue. When issues are discussed in citizen and stakeholder groups, people can more easily balance individual needs with the common good. Group interaction promotes civic skills—such as talking, debate, persuasion, negotiation, creativity, and compromise. When citizens with different viewpoints talk to each other to develop policy recommendations that serve the common good of the community, the participants: x Learn more about the issues. x Connect their personal experiences to the policy debate. x Develop more detailed plans and policy recommendations. x Are more likely to devote their own time and energy to implementing the action ideas they’ve recommended. x Forge effective working relationships with others, including city elected officials and staff. 2. The mayor’s role and citizen involvement One of the easiest ways mayors can promote citizen involvement is by modeling compliance with the Minnesota Open Meeting Law—both the letter of the law and its intent—and other laws aimed at soliciting public input. For example, most changes to a city zoning ordinance will require a public hearing for citizen input. Modeling compliance and respect for the law builds trust in government, which in turn inspires greater citizen confidence, communication, and involvement. Other ways mayors can inspire citizen participation in government include: MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -29 x Be an advocate for your city’s story. Mayors are often characterized as the ceremonial head of the city. As a result, they are often in the best position to communicate news about the city and city programs. Mayors often communicate the good word through communications with traditional media (such as the local newspaper and local cable television shows), through discussions at council meetings, in city hall forums, in city newsletters, and on city websites. x Be honest with constituents. Effective mayors can separate what is desirable from what is possible and communicate this to constituents. It is important to communicate the dilemmas the city faces and real limits (budgetary or otherwise) that may hinder a much-wanted city project such as a new ball field or hockey rink. Honest communications prevent unrealistic expectations on the part of city constituents and encourage them to engage the problem as an active participant alongside the city. x Model respect and civility. The mayor is in a unique position as the presiding officer at city council meetings to model meeting decorum, civility, and respect. The mayor should conduct meetings in a manner that encourages open discussion of issues and honest differences of opinion, without the use of personal attacks, name calling or scapegoating. For both council members and citizen participants in city meetings, the mayor can demonstrate that city hall is a safe place to voice one’s point of view. x Share information freely. The mayor can set the tone for city communications with citizens by communicating in a language that citizens can easily understand. Avoid acronyms and language that only insiders can interpret. Encourage your city council to consider placing public information such as the city code, meeting minutes, council packets, and committee information on the city’s website. An informed and educated citizenry is an effective citizenry. x Engage citizens as citizens. Cities often focus on providing courteous, prompt, and efficient customer service to their citizens. Employing concepts of customer service is a valuable tool in some instances. However, city residents are more than just customers of the city—they’re citizens. Treat them like citizens. The mayor can serve an inspirational role in challenging citizens to think about their own obligations to build and maintain the community. Mayors can advocate for city councils to use surveys to ask citizens for their input or to hold town hall meetings to talk about long-term plans for the city, projects, and priorities. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -30 x Be an advocate for engaging youth and diverse communities with government. Engaging younger generations and diverse communities can be a difficult challenge. Mayors can advocate for inclusion by making efforts to meet with constituents in places where they are comfortable— such as coffee shops, community centers, places of worship, and athletic events—rather than city hall. Mayors can promote interaction with school age citizens and encourage city councils to institute youth commissions and advisory boards. Finally, mayors can be advocates for using the Internet and technology to reach new citizen groups. B. Long-term planning The day-to-day demands of local government can be challenging. However, while working on the problems of the immediate present, it is vital to remember the promise of the future. Many cities use long-term planning to guide daily decisions and to ensure that that their communities stay on track with longer-term goals. 1. The value of long-term planning Minn. Stat. § 473.175. Planning provides an opportunity for policymakers to consider the future impacts of today’s decisions. Planning can take many forms, both formal and informal. Some planning may be mandated such as comprehensive land use planning for many cities in the metro area. Some formal planning that the city may be most familiar with include: x Financial planning. A budget is a yearly plan for how the city will allocate its resources. In addition to budgeting, many cities have long-term financial plans for managing their cash flow, reserves, and investments. x Capital planning. A capital plan sets priorities for city improvements and infrastructure such as a new city hall, recreational and community facilities, streets, and water and sewer facilities. A capital plan identifies the useful life of existing facilities, plans for their replacement or upgrading, and anticipates the need for new facilities in areas of growth. x Land use planning. A land use plan anticipates and regulates future development of land within the city, establishing areas for growth or revitalization, and setting aside areas for preservation. The formal plans discussed above help cities tackle specific concrete issues and challenges. Cities may also engage in broader planning or visioning process for their future. Cities may engage in planning processes with their citizens that ask broader questions such as: How can the city promote more inclusive democracy? How can the city create a more livable or equitable community? Planning may address varying problems and goals. However, successful planning processes typically all have common beneficial secondary effects. Planning can also: MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -31 x Promote a shared understanding of important and complex issues and potentially a shared consensus for tackling difficult issues. x Highlight alternative strategies for meeting big challenges. x Create an understanding of the relationships between issues and strategies for meeting challenges. 2. The mayor’s role in long-term planning Certainly, mayors in statutory cities do not have the authority to initiate or engage in long-term planning on their own initiative. However, as an inspirational leader, mayors can advocate the importance of long-term planning for a community—particularly when short-term considerations seem overwhelming. One of the most concrete ways that mayors can promote long-term planning is in their role as presiding officer at city council meetings. Mayors can suggest that debate consider the long-term implications of city actions or that city decisions be evaluated for their consistency with long term plans already in place. C. New programs and initiatives A mayor’s initiative project or program is a common way to create or revitalize interest in city services. Mayors in statutory cities must, of course, work closely with their city councils to gain approval for and financing of any new programs. However, it is important to stress that a mayor’s initiative need not be a costly or expensive campaign. An inexpensive mayor’s initiative may center on promoting use of community parks and recreational opportunities or encouraging volunteerism. The mayor’s role as ceremonial head of the city can often be harnessed to generate interest in valuable community projects. III. Ethical leadership Ethical leadership on the part of the mayor is vital to the functioning of the city and to maintaining the public’s trust and confidence in both the city and the democratic process. In their duties as ceremonial leader of the city and as presiding officer at city meetings, mayors can play a significant role in promoting ethical government. A. Key traits of ethical leaders While most people agree that it is desirable to be an ethical person, deciding what is “ethical” in a given situation may be more difficult. Some common traits of ethical public officials are: MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -32 x Ethical mayors recognize that ethical questions may be complex. As a result, they are willing to seek out and accept the advice of knowledgeable officials such as the city attorney or senior city staff. x Ethical mayors recognize that ethical conflicts are inevitable and should be dealt with quickly. Elected officials are human and citizens of their communities. On occasion, it is to be expected that they will have needs or roles in their private lives that conflict with the obligations of public office. Ethical officials are open about potential conflicts of interest and follow applicable rules for disclosing and dealing with the conflict (such as refraining from voting on a particular issue) to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. x Ethical mayors are driven by fairness. The most ethical mayors recognize that many city decisions will have adverse as well as positive outcomes and they, therefore, strive to make the best decision as defined by its ultimate fairness to all concerned. This often means making impartial decisions on the merits of the issues alone, while disregarding personal allegiances. It can also mean considering interests of citizens who are not present or who have not otherwise commented, but who are nonetheless affected by a decision. Ethical officials try to make decisions in the best interest of all in the community, not just those who show up at a meeting or protest the loudest. x Ethical mayors recognize the importance of conscientious and ethical government as a value in itself. Ethical mayors do not use their office or authority for revenge, prestige, or personal gain. Ethical mayors recognize that government is a human institution. The human motivations of those in government will determine if the government itself is effective or ineffective, good or bad, ethical or unethical. Ethical mayors care enough to make a positive difference and then act accordingly. B. Ethics laws and official conflict of interest State law includes extensive regulation on the ethical behavior of city officials and criminalizes violations of the law. State law regulates—among other things—conflict of interest, incompatible offices, and gifts to elected officials. 1. Official conflict of interest in contracts Minn. Stat. § 471.87. Generally state law prohibits public officers from having a personal financial interest in a sale, lease, or contract they are authorized to make in their official capacity. A “public officer” certainly includes a mayor, a council member, or an elected official. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -33 Minn. Stat. § 471.88, subd. 1. 1989 Street Improvement Program v. Denmark Township, 483 N.W.2d 508 (Minn. App. 1992). An interested officer should disclose their interest at the earliest stage and abstain from voting or deliberating on any contract in which they have an interest. There are some exceptions to the general prohibition on contracting with city officials defined in state law. When the exceptions are used, generally the contract must be approved by unanimous vote of the council. There are detailed procedures that must be followed to use any exception to the conflict of interest law. State statute and the city attorney should be consulted on the procedures to follow. a. Statutory cities Minn. Stat. § 412.311. Statutory cities must consider an additional law. The law provides that no member of a statutory city council may be directly or indirectly interested in any contract the council makes, except for the limited exceptions discussed previously. This law may apply to some situations where the general law does not. For example, even though the actual contract is not made with a council member, the fact that they have an indirect interest in it could violate this law. b. Home rule charter cities Many home rule charters contain provisions on conflict of interest in contracts. Some of these go beyond the statute to include any city official, even though the official has no part in making the contract. These charter provisions may apply to situations where the statute does not. However, the exceptions discussed previously apply to all cities, despite any other statute or city charter. (Because charter provisions vary from city to city, they are not covered in this document). Some home rule charters contain provisions preventing all officers and employees from being interested in a contract with the city. Such a provision evidently applies to every city officer or employee whether or not they have a part in making contracts. 2. Conflicts of interest in non-contract situations Conflicts in non-contractual situations, such as the approval of a license held by a council member or the determination of qualifications for office, may also arise. While conflicts in contractual situations are closely regulated by state law, unfortunately, there is little statutory guidance related to non-contractual conflicts. Guidance in these situations comes through Minnesota attorney general opinions and court decisions. This adds a layer of complexity to dealing with conflicts in non-contractual situations. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -34 56 Am. Jur. 2d Municipal Corporations § 142. Lenz v. Coon Creek Watershed Dist., 278 Minn. 1, 153 N.W.2d 209 (1967). Township Bd. of Lake Valley Township v. Lewis, 305 Minn. 488, 234 N.W.2d 815 (1975). Generally, any official who has personal financial interest in an official non- contractual action is disqualified from participating in the action. This is especially true when the matter concerns the member’s character, conduct, or right to hold office. Another situation may be when the official’s own personal interest is so distinct from the public interest that the member cannot be expected to represent the public interest fairly in deciding the matter. Dealing with conflicts in non-contractual situations requires the advice and guidance of the city attorney. 3. Incompatible offices State v. Sword, 157 Minn. 263, 196 N.W. 467 (1923). Kenney v. Goergen, 36 Minn. 190, 31 N.W. 210 (1886). Generally, all individuals in elected office are prohibited from holding incompatible offices. The question of whether a city official can also serve the city in some other capacity is quite complicated. One must look at both the statutory law and the common law that has been developed through Minnesota court decisions. The city attorney should be consulted on concerns about elected officials holding two separate offices. 4. Gifts to elected officials Minn. Stat. § 471.895. Elected and appointed “local officials” may not receive a gift from any “interested person.” An “interested person” is a person, or representative of a person or an association, who has a direct financial interest in a decision that a local official is authorized to make. This law applies to all cities in Minnesota. Minn. Stat. § 471.895, subd. 3. There are a few exceptions to the gift law. Some commonly encountered exceptions include lawful campaign contributions and food, or beverages given at a reception, meal, or meeting the official has been invited to attend. 5. Other laws on ethical behavior Various other state laws regulate the ethical behavior of elected officials. A non-exhaustive list of these laws includes: Minn. Stat. § 15.054. x Sale of government-owned property. In general, officers and employees of the state or its subdivisions are prohibited from selling government-owned property to another officer or employee of the state or its subdivisions. However, the law does not apply to the sale of items acquired or produced for sale to the general public in the ordinary course of business. In addition, the law allows government employees and officers to sell public property if the sale is in the normal course of their duties. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -35 Minn. Stat. § 471.895. Minn. Stat. § 10A.071. Minn. Stat. § 10A.01, subd. 21, 24. x Gifts from lobbyists for officials in metropolitan cities with populations over 50,000. Metropolitan cities with a population over 50,000 are subject to an additional law related to gifts. Local officials in these cities are also prohibited from receiving gifts from “lobbyists.” A “lobbyist” is defined as someone engaged in lobbying in the private or public sector, or a city employee or non-elected city official who spends more than 50 hours in any month attempting to influence governmental action. Minn. Stat. § 10A.07. x Conflict of interest and economic disclosure in metropolitan cities with populations over 50,000. Elected and appointed officials of metropolitan cities with populations over 50,000 must disclose certain information if they will be involved in a decision that will affect their financial interests. The law affects elected or appointed city officials, or city employees with authority to make, recommend, or vote on major decisions regarding the expenditure or investment of public funds. The law applies if the official or employee must make a decision or take an action that substantially affects their financial interests or those of a business with which they are associated. However, there is an exception if the effect is no greater for the interested business than for others in that business, occupation, or position. Minn. Stat. § 10A.01, subd. 22. Minn. Stat. § 10A.09, subds. 1, 6a. x Statements of economic interest. City officials in cities within the seven- county metropolitan area with populations over 50,000 (as determined by the most recent federal census, a special U.S. census, an estimate by the Met Council, or the state demographer) must file a statement of economic interest. The statement must be filed with the local official’s governing body and the Minnesota Public Disclosure Board. 6. City values statements and ethics policies Ethical expectations can be difficult to convey. In addition, the conflict of interest laws are scattered throughout many statutes and court cases, making them difficult to find and hard to interpret. As a result, some cities have developed and adopted their own policies on ethics and conflicts of interest. Policies must be consistent with state law. Generally, these policies can take two forms: a values statement expressing core principles for ethical conduct, or a formal code of conduct. Cities may adopt a values statement or a code of conduct or both. However, it is important to note that state law does not require formal adoption of a city ethics policy. a. Values statements See Appendix F: Sample Statement of Values. Values statements are written to reflect the core ethical values of the city. They are a way to compare preferred values against actual behaviors. Values statements may take many forms, but generally they contain four to six cardinal values surrounded by “I” statements and examples. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -36 For example, “I serve the public interest when I recognize and support the public’s right to know the public’s business.” Values-based codes generally set aspirational “do’s,” while codes of conduct stress “don’ts,” as discussed below. You can find a sample Statement of Values in Appendix F at the end of this memo. b. Codes of conduct See Appendix G: Sample Code of Conduct. Codes of conduct are written more like bylaws or regulations for an organization. Generally, they prescribe explicit standards of behavior and provide for formal complaints, hearings, and censure. For example, a code of conduct might state, “No member may knowingly violate the Open Meeting Law.” You can find a sample Code of Conduct in Appendix G at the end of this memo. c. Enforceability i. Values statements Because of the aspirational and sometimes subjective nature of values-based codes, formal enforcement might be difficult and likely counterproductive. Compliance is better left to the individual’s conscience. ii. Codes of conduct Minn. Stat. § 410.20. Charter cities may provide for recall of elected public officials in their charter. However, recall of public officials is not possible in statutory cities. In addition, there is no authority in state statute to provide for removal of a council member by vote of the council or through application of a city-based ethics policy. There is also no authority to levy fines for violations. As a result, city codes of conduct for elected officials are generally enforced through censure. Censure is a formal resolution of council stating that a council member has violated the city’s ethical rules and expressing disapproval of their actions. IV. Mayor-council relationship Because mayors of statutory cities lack significant individual authority, the key to a successful mayor-council relationship often lies in recognizing the mayor’s role (and its limits) and working from there to build productive partnerships with fellow council members. A. Meetings and the mayor-council relationship MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -37 See Chapter 3. Because of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, most interactions between mayor and council will occur in public during an open meeting where the mayor is the presiding officer. As a result, meeting management and meeting decorum are key to developing a successful mayor-council relationship. Some keys to success in this area include: See Appendix A: Minnesota Mayors Association Sample City Council Bylaws. x Presiding officers should not dominate discussion. In most cities, the mayor participates equally in council meetings. Generally, the mayor has the same right as any other council member to discuss issues, make and second motions, and vote. Since the mayor is also a presiding officer at meetings, this can create a difficult situation on issues where the mayor may have strong views. In recognition of their dual role as participant and meeting facilitator, mayors may choose to limit their comments or save their comments until all other members have had a chance to voice their views. However, this is not a legal requirement, just common practice. If the mayor has particularly strong views on an issue, some city policies on meeting management allow the mayor to step aside as presiding officer and for the appointment of a temporary presiding officer. x Presiding officers should allow all participants to speak and present their views. The role of the presiding officer is to facilitate the discussion. Most city policies on meeting management prohibit speaking out of turn and require the presiding officer to recognize a council member prior to speaking. The reason for this requirement is to prevent the inevitable disorder and confusion of many voices speaking at once. It also greatly simplifies the work of the minute taker and allows an accurate record to be created. Mayors should not use this authority to silence political opponents or suppress views with which the mayor does not agree. x Presiding officers should know and enforce applicable city policies on meeting management and/or rules of procedure. Successful meetings require leadership to keep participants on task. Most city policies on meeting management specify expected conduct for meetings that is essential to an organized meeting. For example, time limits on comments by participants, procedures for being recognized by the presiding officer before speaking, limits on public participation, formal language for making and amending motions, and procedures for voting. If the presiding officer is not familiar with or does not enforce the city policies or rules, often there is little recourse for other meeting participants to enforce the rules themselves. This may create frustration, delay, or unduly extend meetings, lead to confusion over actions taken, and potentially create embarrassment for the council as a whole. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -38 x Presiding officers should model and enforce decorum. The mayor is in a unique position, as the presiding officer at city council meetings, to model meeting decorum, civility, and respect. The mayor should conduct meetings in a manner that encourages open discussion of issues and honest differences of opinion, without the use of personal attacks, name calling or scapegoating. Civility and decorum, perhaps more than any other factor—both inside meetings and outside – is the key to building successful relationships with council. B. Keys to team-building success Many observers of government have linked city success with the ability of the mayor and council to work together as a team. Both inside meetings and during one-to-one interactions, mayors can promote a team model of government by: x Sharing information freely. Mayors sometimes play a unique role for the city in meeting with citizens, business representatives, and other governmental officials and dignitaries. In addition, mayors may have unique duties as meeting leaders, agenda setters, emergency managers, and public spokespersons, depending on each city’s policies. As a result, mayors often obtain vital information related to the city’s operations before other council members and even city staff. Timely sharing of information equally with all stakeholders and in an inclusive manner is a key to successful team building. It is important to stress, however, that information should only be shared in a manner that complies with all legal requirements such as the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. x Communicating honestly. On occasion, bad news is both the hardest news to convey and the most vital. Not everything in your city will be a total success. While there may be a temptation to resolve a short-term dilemma by providing only partial information to fellow council members, this approach can have long-term and long-lasting negative effects. Failing to communicate honestly erodes trust and may damage the city council’s ability to make collaborative decisions. x Working collaboratively to establish visions, goals, and priorities. When priorities and policies are set collaboratively, they often have greater stakeholder buy-in. Knowing that their position was at least considered often goes a long way in satisfying council members whose positions ultimately do not prevail. V. Mayor-staff relations See Chapter 2. Not all cities are alike. Depending on the city’s form of government, staffing structures will vary. It is important for a mayor to understand the city’s form of government and its corresponding staff structure. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -39 A. City staff and their roles City staff positions and roles are created by a combination of state statute, local ordinance, and city policy. In addition, some charter cities may have provisions in their charter creating and defining staff roles. 1. City manager and city administrator The terms “city manager” and “city administrator” are sometimes used interchangeably, but they are two legally distinct concepts. City managers can only exist in Plan B cities or home rule charter cities that provide for the council-manager form of government. No form of government requires an administrator position. It is most common, however, to see an administrator in a Plan A city. City managers and city administrators have very differently defined roles. A. City administrator The position of city administrator is usually created by ordinance or resolution. Sometimes the administrator position exists in addition to a separate city clerk position, but in smaller cities the duties are often merged into a combined clerk-administrator position. Since state statutes do not specifically provide for a city administrator, or define the powers of the position, duties can vary greatly from city to city. The extent of the city administrator’s powers may be defined locally by a combination of ordinance, city policy, and job descriptions. In smaller cities, the responsibilities may essentially be an expansion of the city clerk’s duties. Other cities, typically larger cities, may give the administrator broader powers so that they essentially functions as a city manager with duties as discussed below. b. City manager The Plan B form of government is also known as the council-manager plan. It consists of the elected mayor, four or six elected council members, and an appointed city manager. There are 16 Plan B cities in Minnesota. Several home rule charter cities have also adopted the council-manager plan through their charters. An election must be held to become a Plan B city. In Plan B cities, the council retains legislative and policy-making authority, but most administrative responsibilities, such as hiring and firing, are delegated to the city manager. The council’s control over these matters is indirect, essentially through its selection and retention of a manager. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -40 Minn. Stat. § 412.611. Unlike the position of city administrator, the duties of a city manager are clearly defined by state statute for Plan B cities. Charter cities should consult their charter for a listing of the manager’s duties. In Plan B cities, state law establishes the city manager as the head of the administrative branch of government, and the person who is responsible to the council for the proper administration of all city affairs. As a result, city managers are vested with the power to appoint and remove city staff. This includes the city clerk, all department heads, and subordinate officers and employees. Neither the council nor any individual council member may dictate the appointment of any person to office or employment by the manager. Council members may not interfere with the manager’s judgment in appointing personnel. Likewise, the council may not give orders to any subordinate of the manager. Instead, the council’s control is indirect, through its selection and appointment of the manager. City managers also have defined, and expansive powers related to budgeting, finances, and enforcement of city ordinances. 2. City clerk All cities in Minnesota have the position of a city clerk. The clerk may be the city’s only administrative official or may be supervised by a city administrator or city manager (in cities that have those positions). Minnesota cities have one of three types of city clerks: elected, appointed, or home rule charter clerks. Appointed clerks are the most common type of clerk. The duties of both elected and appointed clerks are defined by state statute. Further, the council may develop other ministerial duties specific to the city’s needs. Charter cities should consult their charter for a listing of the clerk’s duties. A non-exhaustive list of the duties of clerks in statutory cities includes: Minn. Stat. § 412.151, subd. 1. x Post and publish such notices, ordinances, and resolutions as may be required, including notices of meetings required by the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. x Keep a minute book containing all city council proceedings, and an ordinance book recording all of the ordinances passed by the council. x Act as a bookkeeper of the city and keep an account book to enter all money transactions of the city, including the dates and amounts of all receipts, the person from whom the money was received as well as all orders drawn upon the treasurer with their payee and object. x Administer all city elections. B. Job direction and supervision MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -41 See Chapter 2–IV–F. In statutory cities and most charter cities, mayors have no authority to directly supervise city staff or provide direction to city staff. Likewise, there is no authority for the mayor, acting as an individual, to appoint or terminate staff, to investigate or discipline employees, or to access employee data. The authority to supervise staff is delegated to the council as a group, not to any one individual on council. Charter cities may provide some authority for direct supervision. In Plan B statutory cities and most council-manager charter cities, the city manager has all administrative authority over city employees. City councils as a whole may indirectly supervise staff through their ability to hire and fire the city manager and to set city policy. In statutory, non-Plan B cities, the city council as a whole supervises employees by: x Providing direct instruction to staff at a city council meeting. For example, making and approving a motion to “direct the city clerk to research grant opportunities for equipment in the city parks” or “direct the city clerk to work with the mayor to develop a job description for a utility billing secretary.” x Adopting policies that govern staff behavior. For example, the city’s employee handbook may instruct staff to wear uniforms, punch in on a time clock, or follow explicit purchasing procedures. The city council may also establish policies on promotions, wage increases, benefits, etc. x Establishing job descriptions listing staff duties. For example, the city clerk’s job description may require the clerk to supervise a deputy clerk, or a police sergeant’s job description may require the sergeant to act at a school liaison officer. x Entering into employment contracts with specific conditions for employment. For example, a city administrator’s contract may set provisions for severance or performance goals, or a union contract may set criteria for benefit increases. x Conducting employment reviews. In some cities, the city council directly conducts employment reviews for all staff, or merely for high level staff such as the city administrator. In the alternative, council may delegate this function to city staff such as the city administrator, or to an employee review committee. x Conducting or authorizing investigations into employee conduct. For example, the city council may hold a closed meeting to discuss alleged conduct with a city employee. In the alternative, the city council may authorize the city administer, attorney, or an outside investigator to investigate a specific issue and report back to council at a later date. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -42 x Hiring and terminating employment. For example, the city council may make the decision to lay off classes of employees or terminate employment for misconduct. Elwood v. Rice County, 423 N.W.2d 671 (Minn. 1988). Rico v. State, 472 N.W.2d 100 (Minn. 1991). In re Alexandria Accident of Feb. 8, 1994, 561 N.W.2d 543 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997) (snowplow driver). Kari v. City of Maplewood, 582 N.W.2d 921 (Minn. 1998) (emergency vehicle). Kelly v. City of Minneapolis, 598 N.W.2d 657 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999) (police officer). Minn. Stat. § 466.07. Attempts to directly supervise or direct employees, without city council consent or direction, may create unintended legal liability for a mayor. Generally, the doctrine of official immunity protects public officials from lawsuits based upon discretionary actions taken in the course of their official duties. Additionally, state statute requires cities to defend and indemnify council members for any suit arising from their official duties. However, these doctrines may not protect a mayor if they are found to be acting outside the scope of their duties. In addition, it is important to note that neither official immunity nor the statute applies when a mayor or council member acts with malice or in bad faith. Aside from legal liability, attempting to directly supervise staff may also have the effect of creating confusion for staff, who may receive conflicting direction from multiple sources. This confusion may delay important city actions, create unnecessary expense, or itself be a source of legal liability. 1. Access to employee records Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd. 1. Minn. Rule 1205.0400. Most employee data is defined as private data that is not accessible to the general public. As a result, access to employee files is limited to individuals whose job duties reasonably require access to private data. Since the mayor or individual council members do not have individual authority over city personnel, they cannot generally access this private information on their own initiative. However, the council could authorize the mayor or an individual council member to view the data for job-related reasons. For example, if the mayor is assigned to an employee review team. VI. Conclusion The Minnesota Mayors Handbook is a starting point for all you need to learn to be a successful mayor. The handbook is designed to highlight key areas of knowledge without being an exhaustive guide. Some sections pinpoint potential legal pitfalls for mayors or advise caution on common areas of liability. The purpose of this guide is to give you just enough information in these critical areas to help you recognize these situations and to know where to turn for more resources and assistance. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK Chapter 1 -43 League of Minnesota Cities Handbook for Minnesota Cities. League of Minnesota Cities HR Reference Manual. To join the mayor’s listserv, contact mhagenau@lmc.org As you seek to increase your knowledge base, remember the Minnesota Mayors Association. Your fellow mayors can be among your most important resources! The Mayors Association offers a continuing education conference each spring and maintains a listserv for mayors on the League of Minnesota Cities website. In addition, never hesitate to ask city staff—these experienced professionals can be another critical asset. Finally, the League of Minnesota Cities has in-depth materials available on all the topics (and more) discussed in this handbook. Finally, this handbook concludes with sample documents that have been referenced throughout the chapters. These are: x The Minnesota Mayors Association Sample City Council Bylaws, Agenda Request Form, and Summary Rules of Public Comment (Appendices A – C). x The Minnesota Mayors Association Sample Rules of Order with a Summary of Motions, Council Handouts outlining simple principles for making meetings work and problem-solving hints, and (Appendices D and E). x A sample Code of Conduct and Statement of Values (Appendices F and G) created by the League of Minnesota Cities Ethics Advisory Panel. Many city councils find that adopting formal bylaws and rules of order is the key to a successful working relationship between mayor and council. In addition, the sample rules of order contain tips for running successful meetings. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK 44 Minnesota Mayors Association Appendix A: City Council Bylaws I. AUTHORITY. City councils are authorized to adopt rules of procedure and provide for order at their meetings pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 412.191. II. PURPOSE. The purpose of this policy on city council meetings is to set the groundwork for orderly and respectful communications between and among council members, city staff, and citizens to promote the efficient working of the public’s business at city council meetings. III. THE OPEN MEETING LAW. The Minnesota Open Meeting Law, Minn. Stat. ch. 13D, generally requires that all meetings of public bodies be open to the public. A. This presumption of openness serves three basic purposes: 1. To prohibit actions from being taken at a secret meeting, where it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed concerning decisions of public bodies, or to detect improper influences. 2. To ensure the public’s right to be informed. 3. To afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the public body. B. The city council views providing and encouraging citizen access to city meetings as one of its most important duties. As a result, all council and council committee meetings, including special and adjourned meetings, with the exception of closed meetings, as provided by Minn. Stat. ch. 13D, shall be open to the public. C. In calculating the number of days for providing notice under the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, the first day that the notice is given is not counted, but the last day is counted. If the last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, that day is omitted from the calculation and the following day is considered the last day (unless, it happens to be a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday). D. In keeping with the intent of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, city council members shall not use any form of electronic communications technology, such as text messaging or e-mail, to communicate with one another or third parties during a public meeting in a manner that is hidden or shielded from the public view. E. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 6, at least one copy of the written materials made available to council at or before the meeting shall also be made available for inspection by the public, excluding any non-public data, attorney-client privileged data, or materials related to agenda items of closed meetings. IV. QUORUM. A simple majority (______) of the council shall constitute a quorum for the valid transaction of any scheduled business to come before the council. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK 45 V. COUNCIL MEETINGS. A. Location. All meetings, including special, recessed, and continued meetings, shall be held in the city council chambers, unless otherwise designated, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13D.04, subd. 2. B. Regular meetings. A schedule of regular meetings shall be kept on file with the city clerk. C. Special meetings. A special meeting is a meeting that is held at a time or location different from that of a regular meeting. A special meeting may be called by the mayor or any two city council members by filing a request for the meeting at least three days before the meeting. Days shall be counted as provided in III-C. Notice to the public of special meetings must be given pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13D.04, subd. 2. D. Emergency meetings. An emergency meeting may be called by the mayor or any two city council members. An emergency meeting is a special meeting called because of circumstances that, in the judgment of the public body, require immediate consideration by the public body. Posted or published notice of an emergency meeting is not required. However, the city will make a good faith effort to notify each news outlet that has filed a written request for notice. Notice must be given by telephone or any other method to notify members of the public body. The notice must include the subject of the meeting. E. Closed meetings. The Minnesota Open Meeting Law allows some meetings to be closed to the public for defined purposes. When a meeting is closed, the presiding officer at the council meeting will state the reason for closing the meeting on the record and cite the state statute that permits closure. F. Recessed or continued meetings. When a meeting is recessed or continued, the presiding officer shall state the time and place for the next meeting to occur pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13D.04, subd 4. The time and place shall be noted in the minutes. If the time and place is stated and noted in the minutes, no additional notice of the meeting is required. However, if the time and place is not stated, the notice procedures for special meeting shall be required. G. Organizational meetings. The council will conduct its organizational meeting concurrent with the first regular council meeting in January of each year to: 1. Appoint an acting mayor pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 412.121. 2. Select an official newspaper pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 412.831. 3. Select an official depository for city funds. This must be done within 30 days of the start of the city’s fiscal year pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 427.01-.02; 118A.02, subd 1; 427.09. 4. Review council’s bylaws and make any needed changes. 5. Assign committee duties to members. 6. Approve official bonds that have been filed with the clerk. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK 46 VI. PRESIDING OFFICER. The mayor shall preside at all meetings of the city council. A. Role of the presiding officer. The presiding officer shall preserve order, enforce the City Council Rules of Order as adopted in VII, and determine, without debate, all questions of procedure and order, subject to the final decision of the council on appeal as provided in VI-D. The presiding officer shall determine which member has the right to speak and may move matters to a vote once the officer has determined that all members have spoken. The presiding officer may determine whether a motion or proposed amendment is in order and may call members to order. B. Adjourning meetings. If considered necessary, because of grave disorder, the presiding officer may adjourn or continue the meeting to another time or suspend the meeting for a specified time. C. Designation of a sergeant-at-arms. The presiding officer may request that local law enforcement designate a member to serve as a sergeant-at-arms at city council meetings. The sergeant-at-arms shall carry out all orders or instructions given by the presiding officer for the purpose of maintaining order and decorum at meetings. D. Motions and voting. The presiding officer may make motions, second motions, speak on any questions, and vote on any matter properly before the council. E. Absences of the presiding officer. In the absence of the mayor, the acting mayor shall preside. In the absence of both the mayor and the acting mayor, the city clerk/administrator shall call the meeting to order. The first order of business shall be to select a presiding officer for the meeting from the members present. The city clerk/administrator shall preside until the council members present choose a member to act as presiding officer. F. Appeals of rulings of the presiding officer. Any member of the council may appeal to the full council a ruling on order or procedure made by the presiding officer. 1. Procedure for appeals. An appeal is made by motion. No second is need for the motion. The member making the motion may speak once solely on the question involved, and the presiding officer may speak once solely to explain his or her ruling, but no other council member may participate in the discussion. 2. Once both the maker of the motion and the presiding officer have spoken, the matter must be voted upon by the council as a whole. 3. The appeal shall be sustained if it is approved by a majority of the members present, exclusive of the presiding officer. G. Temporary designation of a presiding officer. The presiding officer may choose to designate a temporary presiding officer before participating in debate on a given matter. In the alternative, the council may by majority vote designate a temporary presiding officer to preside over the debate on a given matter. The presiding officer shall resume presiding as soon as action on the matter is concluded. VII. RULES OF ORDER. The proceedings of the city council shall be conducted in accordance with the Minnesota Mayors Association Rules of Order for City Councils. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK 47 VIII. DECORUM OF COUNCIL MEMBERS. A. Aspirational statement: All council members shall assist the presiding officer in preserving order and decorum and in providing for the efficient operation of the meeting. B. Aspirational statement: No council member shall engage in conduct which delays or interrupts the proceedings, or which hinders honest, respectful discussion and debate. C. Aspirational statement: City council meetings shall be conducted in a courteous manner that recognizes the validity of differing points of view and promotes the ideal of democratic discussion and debate free of insult, slander, and personal attacks and threats. D. To effectuate these aspirational goals, city council members shall conduct themselves at council meetings in a manner consistent with the following: 1. No council member shall engage in private conversation or pass private messages while in the chamber in a manner so as to interrupt the proceedings of the council. 2. No council member shall leave his or her seat or make any noise of disturbance while a vote is being taken and until the result of the vote is announced. 3. No council member shall use profane or obscene words or use language that threatens harm or violence toward another person during a council meeting. 4. No council member shall speak on any subject other than the subject in debate. 5. No council member shall speak without being recognized by the chair; nor shall any council member interrupt the speech of another council member. 6. No council member shall disobey the City Council Rules of Order adopted in VII or a decision of the presiding officer on questions of order or practice or upon the interpretation of the rules of council. 7. No council member shall engage in disorderly conduct that disturbs or disrupts the orderly conduct of any meeting. IX. VOTING. A. The votes of the city council will be taken by voice vote. The presiding officer shall announce the results of all votes of the council. B. A clear statement of the matter being voted upon and the names of those voting for and against the matter shall be recorded in the official minutes. C. Council members may ask for a roll call of the vote by the clerk/administrator on any motion or resolution. D. The clerk/administrator may ask for a verification roll call if the vote of a council member is not clear on the voice vote. E. A majority vote of the quorum present shall be sufficient for all matters before the council, unless otherwise provided by state law. F. Whenever a matter is put forward for a vote, every council member shall vote, unless a bona fide conflict of interest, as defined by state law, exists. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK 48 X. MEETING SCHEDULE. A. Each meeting of the council shall convene at the time and place appointed. All public hearings shall commence at the advertised time. B. Council business shall be conducted in the order of the prepared agenda, unless an alteration is approved by a majority of the council. The prepared agenda may also be altered by the presiding officer to accommodate the advertised time of a public hearing. C. The last item on the agenda will be commenced no later than _______ p.m. D. If all business has not been completed, the meeting may be continued to another date and time following the notice provisions in V-F. XI. ORDER OF BUSINESS. The order of business for all council meetings shall be: A. Call to order. B. Call of roll. C. Approval of minutes. D. Public forum and correspondence. E. Consent agenda. F. Public hearings (when scheduled). G. Acknowledgement of receipt of board/commission minutes (if any). H. Board/commission/committee reports (if any). I. Staff reports (if any). J. New business. K. Unfinished business. L. Consideration of bills. M. Adjournment. XII. AGENDA. An agenda will be prepared for all regular council meetings by the city clerk/administrator. Agenda items may be placed by city council members and city staff. Members of the public wishing to place items on the agenda shall be directed to the public comment forum provided at the council meeting. When a special meeting is called, the agenda must be included in the request for the meeting and in the publication of the notice of the meeting pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13D.04, subd. 2. A. All requests to place an item on the agenda must be received by the city clerk/administrator by _______ a.m. ________ days prior to the next council meeting. B. All requests to place an item on the agenda must be on the form prescribed by the city. The form should be completed with the goal of clearly describing the subject matter to be considered by council and any action requested or required. Supporting information may be attached to the form as necessary. C. All requests to place an item on the agenda by city staff must be reviewed by the city administrator/clerk. D. The agenda, along with information materials, will be mailed or delivered to all city council members and the city attorney at least _____ days prior to the next council meeting. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK 49 XIII. CONSENT AGENDA. A consent agenda may be used to improve the efficiency of meetings. The consent agenda allows council to consider several items at one time. Only one motion is necessary to approve all items on the consent agenda. A. Items that require findings of fact or an explanation of council actions, such as land use matters and the consideration of license requests, should generally not be placed on the consent agenda. B. An item on the consent agenda may be removed from consideration by the request of any one council member. Items removed from the consent agenda will be placed on the regular agenda for discussion and consideration. XIV. MINUTES. Minutes constitute a vital record of the city and are the best means of preserving city council intent, findings of fact, and action. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 412.151, the city clerk must keep a minute book. A. The minutes shall contain at minimum: 1. The city council members who are present. 2. Type of meeting (regular, special, continued, emergency). 3. Date and place the meeting was held. 4. Time the meeting was called to order. 5. Approval of minutes of the previous meeting, with any corrections. 6. The members who make or second motions. 7. Roll call vote on motions. 8. Subject matter of proposed resolutions or ordinances. 9. Whether the resolutions or ordinances are defeated or adopted. 10. The votes of each member, including the mayor. 11. A statement of findings of facts and an explanation of council action, including specific reasons for approval and disapproval, on all land use and licensing matters. 12. Listing of all bills allowed or approved for payment, noting the recipient, purpose, and amount. 13. Approval of hourly rates paid for services provided, mileage rates, meal- reimbursement amounts, and per diem amounts. 14. List of all transfers of funds. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK 50 15. Authorizations and directions to invest excess funds, and information on investment redemptions and maturities. 16. Approval of minutes of the previous meeting, with any corrections. 17. Identity of parties to whom contracts were awarded. 18. Abstentions from voting due to a conflict, and the member’s name and reason for abstention. 19. Appointments of representatives to committees or outside organizations. 20. Name and brief summary of subject matter of citizens appearing before council during public comment period. B. The minutes of each meeting shall be typed and signed by the clerk/administrator. Copies of the minutes shall be included in the agenda for the next council meeting. C. At the next regular meeting, approval of the previous meeting’s minutes shall be considered by council. 1. The meeting minutes do not need to be read aloud. 2. The presiding officer shall call for any additions or corrections. 3. If there is no objection to an addition or correction, it will be made without a vote of the council. 4. If there is an objection, the council shall vote upon the addition or correction by roll call vote. 5. Council shall take formal action by vote to approve the minutes as distributed or as amended. D. Minutes shall be published as required by Minn. Stat. §§ 412.191, 331A.08, subd. 3, 331A.01, subd 10. XV. PUBLIC COMMENT AT COUNCIL MEETINGS AND AT PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public participation and comment at council meetings. City council meetings are the forum for the city council to conduct the city’s business. While city council meetings are open to the public pursuant to the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, they are not a forum for public expression. As such, members of the public are not allowed to participate in council discussion and debate without a specific invitation and/or formal recognition by the presiding officer. Members of the public shall not applaud, engage in conversation, or engage in other behavior through words or action that may disrupt the proceedings of council. B. Members of the public shall follow the direction of the presiding officer. Members of the public who do not follow the direction of the presiding officer will be warned that further disruptive conduct will result in removal from the meeting. After warning, if the conduct continues, the presiding officer may ask the member of the public to leave the meeting room. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK 51 If the member of the public refuses to follow the direction of the presiding officer, the presiding officer may direct the sergeant-at-arms to remove the person through any lawful means. In emergency situations, or where conduct is an egregious threat to the safety of the public or the council, a warning is not necessary before the sergeant-at-arms is directed to remove the person. C. Public comment period. A limited forum for members of the public to speak with the council is provided on the agenda. Public comments during the public comment period are subject to these limitations: 1. Speakers must be recognized by the presiding officer before speaking and are limited to three minutes for comment. 2. When multiple speakers appear to speak on the same topic, comments should not be repetitive. The presiding officer may request speakers to appoint a spokesperson. 3. The presiding officer may place a time limit on the public comment period if necessary to allow for the conduct of city business. If there is not sufficient time at the meeting to hear all public comments, the comment period may be deferred to the next regular council meeting or at a continued meeting. 4. Speakers must sign up prior to speaking and provide a name, address, and brief summary of the subject matter they wish to address. The sign- up sheet will be available at the start of the city council meeting. 5. Speakers must direct their remarks toward the presiding officer. 6. Speakers shall not use obscene, profane or threatening language, nor conduct themselves in a threatening, loud, or boisterous manner that disrupts the conduct of the meeting or the security of the public. 7. Speakers are required to follow the direction of the presiding officer. 8. Speakers who do not follow the direction of the presiding officer will be warned that further disruptive conduct will result in removal from the meeting. After warning, if the conduct continues the presiding officer may ask the speaker to leave. If the speaker refuses to follow the direction of the presiding officer, the presiding officer may direct the sergeant-at-arms to remove the speaker through any lawful means. In emergency situations, or when conduct is an egregious threat to the safety of the public or the council, a warning is not necessary before the sergeant-at-arms is directed to remove the speaker. 9. Council will generally not respond at the same meeting where an issue is initially raised by a member of the public. Matters raised for the first MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK 52 time by members of the public will generally be referred to staff for further research and possible report or action at a future council meeting. D. A summary of these rules for public comment may be provided in the council meeting room. XVI. PUBLIC HEARINGS. Public hearings are sometimes required by law to allow the public to offer input on city council decisions. When public hearings are required by law, notice shall be provided as required by state statute. Public hearings shall be commenced at the time advertised in any notice required by law. A. General procedure for public hearings. The order of business for all public hearings conducted by council shall be: 1. Opening comments by presiding officer announcing the purpose of the public hearing. 2. Presiding officer opens the public hearing portion of the meeting. 3. Staff presentation (including clerk/administrator, attorney, engineering reports if any). 4. Developer/other presentation (if any). 5. Public comments. 6. Reading of written comments. 7. Presiding officer formally closes the public hearing portion of the meeting. B. Speakers who wish to address the city council at a public hearing must follow the same rules in XV. However, the presiding officer may allow additional time for speakers, as required, to comply with applicable state law. C. Speakers may also provide written comments to the city council before or at the meeting. Written comments shall be read aloud by the presiding officer or his or her designee as provided in XVI-A-6. Anonymous, unsigned communications will not be read. D. The presiding officer may continue the hearing, if necessary, following the procedures in V-F. XVII. PROCEDURE FOR RESOLUTION AND ORDINANCE ADOPTION. All resolutions and ordinances shall be in writing. Unless otherwise provided by law, all ordinances shall be adopted by resolution by a majority vote of council members present at the council meeting. Unless otherwise provided by law, ordinances do not require multiple readings, and may be adopted as presented at the first available meeting. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK 53 XVIII. BOARD, COMMISSION, AND COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS. All assignments of council members to serve on city boards, commissions, and committees shall be by a majority vote of council members present at the meeting, unless otherwise provided by law. XIX. MAYORAL AND CITY PROCLAMATIONS. Except as otherwise provided by law, all mayoral and city proclamations recognizing events, persons, and official observances shall be adopted by a majority of council members present at the meeting where such proclamation is presented for adoption. XX. SEATING ASSIGNMENTS. Council members shall occupy the chairs assigned to them by the presiding officer, but two council members may exchange seats by joining in a formal request to the presiding officer. XXI. SUSPENSION OR AMENDMENT OF THESE RULES. Any or all of these rules may be temporarily suspended by a majority vote of the council members present at the meeting, except as otherwise required by Minnesota law. These rules shall not be repealed or amended except by a majority vote of the whole council after notice has been given at a preceding council meeting. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK 54 Appendix B: Agenda Request Form Sample for use with Minnesota Mayors Association City Council Bylaws Agenda Request Form DATE SUBMITTED: SUBMITTED BY: DEPARTMENT: ISSUE: ATTACHMENTS: JUSTIFICATION: FINANCIAL IMPACT: ACTION REQUESTED: REVIEWED BY: ___City Clerk/Admin. ____City Attorney ___Bldg. Insp. ____DNR _ __Finance Director ____Public Works ___County ____Architect ____City Engineer CITY CLERK/ADMINISTRATOR’S RECOMMENDATION LANGUAGE FOR PROPOSED FORMAL MOTION TO BE CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK 55 Appendix C: Summary Rules for Public Comment Sample for Use with Minnesota Mayors Association City Council Bylaws City Council Members Mayor: __________________ Council: ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ City Staff: Clerk/Administrator: __________________ City Attorney: __________________ Public Works Director: __________________ Police Chief: __________________ Fire Chief: __________________ Zoning Administrator: __________________ Meeting Dates & Times:____________ __________________ WELCOME to this meeting of your City Council. Please take a moment to read our guidelines for public participation in council meetings. Agenda: An agenda packet is available for public inspection at the entrance to the meeting room. Ordinarily the council will address items as they appear on the agenda. Council procedure: The council has adopted rules of procedure for all meetings. The rules are available for public inspection at the entrance to the meeting room. In order to take official action on items, the council will pass a motion by voice vote. Generally, a simple majority vote of the members present is needed to pass most motions. Public participation in meetings: Comments from the public are restricted to the public forum period. City Council meetings are the forum for the City Council to conduct the city’s business. While City Council meetings are open to the public pursuant to the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, they are not a forum for public expression. Members of the public are not allowed to participate in council discussion and debate without a specific invitation by the presiding officer. Members of the public shall not applaud, engage in conversation, or engage in other behavior through words or actions that may disrupt the proceedings of council. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK 56 During the public forum period, citizens must: x Sign up prior to speaking and provide a name, address, and brief summary of the subject matter they wish to address. The sign-up sheet is available at the meeting entrance. x Be recognized by the presiding officer before speaking. Comments are limited to three minutes. x Direct their remarks to the presiding officer. x Follow the direction of the presiding officer. During forum period, the public is prohibited from: The use of obscene, profane, or threatening language. Threatening, loud, or boisterous conduct that disrupts the meeting or the security of the public. Members of the public who do not follow the direction of the presiding officer will be warned that further disruptive conduct will result in removal from the meeting. If the conduct continues, the presiding officer may ask the speaker to leave. If the speaker refuses to follow the direction of the presiding officer, the presiding officer may direct the sergeant-at-arms to remove the speaker through any lawful means. The presiding officer may: x Request the public to appoint a spokesperson when multiple speakers appear to speak on the same topic. x Place a time limit on or defer the public comment period. x Alter rules to meet legal requirements for public hearings required by la Council agenda/order of business: 1. Call to order. 2. Call of roll. 3. Approval of minutes. 4. Public forum & correspondence. 5. Consent agenda. 6. Public hearings (when scheduled) 7. Board, commission, & committee minutes 8. Board, commission, & committee reports 9. Staff reports 10. New business 11. Unfinished business 12. Consideration of bills 13. Adjournment Contact information for City Hall:_____ __________________ __________________ Hours of operation: __________________ ________________ MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK 57 Minnesota Mayors Association Appendix D: Rules of Order for City Councils Preamble. a. Purpose. The purpose of these rules is to foster debate and discussion in an orderly manner, not to suppress honest discussion with excessive formality. Without rules, confusion and disorderly proceedings would hamper all city action, no matter how well intended. Rules allow city business to be conducted as efficiently as possible, protect minority groups by giving every person a chance to be heard, prevent discussion of multiple topics at once, and allow decisions to be made by majority rule. b. Rights of council members. All council members are equal and have the same rights to make motions; object to motions in a timely manner; participate in debate; have their votes counted; and speak, when recognized, free of interruption. c. Obligations of council members. The rights of individual council members cannot be realized unless all council members also recognize their obligations as members of the political body. Council members are obligated to receive the recognition of the chair before speaking, except as otherwise provided by these rules. No one has the right to speak at whim. Council members are obligated to speak directly on the subject being considered and observe time limits for comment. Finally, council members are obligated to address all remarks to the presiding officer, avoid personal attacks, and refrain from using any insulting or demeaning language or indecent or threatening behavior. Rule 1. Motions. All formal actions of council must be by motion. A council member may make only one motion at a time. Rule 2. Language for making a motion. The appropriate language for making a motion shall be substantially similar to, “ I move to ____________.” Rule 3. Procedure for consideration of a motion. A motion does not need to be seconded. Once a motion has been made, the presiding officer shall restate the motion and (if applicable) open the motion up for debate, provided that the mayor determines that the motion is in order and no objections to the motion have been made pursuant to Rule 4. A motion is in order if it is made at a proper time in the proper format and does not violate any applicable rules of law, ordinance, or city policy, including city policies on MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK 58 decorum and civility, and is not made for the purpose of unduly delaying the proceedings. Debate shall follow the procedures in Rule 5. Once debate has concluded, the presiding officer shall restate the motion and call for a vote on the issue. A motion shall be considered passed if it receives a majority vote of those present at the meeting, unless otherwise required by law. Rule 4. Objections to a motion. a. Any member of the council may make an objection to a motion if he or she believes the motion is not in order. A motion is in order if it is made at a proper time in the proper format and does not violate any applicable rules of law, ordinance, or city policy, including city policies on decorum and civility, and is not made for the purpose of unduly delaying the proceedings. b. An objection to a motion must be made immediately following the motion and at no other time. The objector does not need to be recognized by the presiding officer in order to voice their objection. The appropriate language for making an objection shall be substantially similar to, “I object to the motion as being out of order, and call for a ruling by the presiding officer.” c. A motion may be objected to as not being made at a proper time if the motion was made by a person not called upon by the presiding officer to speak, or if it does not follow the agreed upon agenda for the meeting. d. The presiding officer shall determine whether the motion is in order. e. In determining whether the motion is in order, the presiding officer shall let the objector to the motion speak once explaining his or her position. Next, the presiding officer shall let the maker of the motion speak once to answer the concerns of the objector. Then the presiding officer shall make a formal ruling as to whether the motion was in order. f. If the motion is ruled out of order, the motion shall not be considered. If the motion is ruled in order, the presiding officer shall open the motion for debate (if applicable). g. The presiding officer’s ruling may be appealed as provided in Rule 7. Rule 5. Debate. Generally, only one motion may be considered at a time in debate. Once a motion has been made, the presiding officer shall restate the motion and open the motion for debate, if the motion is debatable. The presiding officer shall conduct the debate in accordance with the following: a. For initial comments, all comments shall be limited to five minutes. For subsequent comments, all comments shall be limited to two minutes. b. The maker of the motion shall be permitted to speak first on the issue. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK 59 c. To the extent possible, the debate shall alternate between proponents and opponents of the measure. d. Everyone who wishes to speak on the issue must be permitted to speak once, before council members who have already spoken are permitted to speak again. e. Council members shall avoid repeating points already made in the debate or other duplicative conduct that may delay the proceedings. Where a point has already been made, council members may affirm agreement or disagreement. f. Generally, only one motion may be considered at a time in debate. Debate may only be interrupted by a motion to amend the original motion, a motion to take a brief recess, a motion to withdraw the motion by the motion’s maker, a motion to divide a complex question, a motion to defer consideration to a later date, a motion to refer an issue to committee, motion for the previous question, a motion to limit debate, or a motion for a call to order. When debate is interrupted by any of these motions, the interrupting motion shall be resolved prior to resuming debate. Rule 6. Definitions of motions that may interrupt debate (secondary motions). As explained in Rule 5, only certain motions may interrupt debate on a motion. These are called secondary motions. When a secondary motion is made, the presiding officer must follow the same procedures in Rule 3 to consider the secondary motion. A secondary motion must be resolved, either by being ruled out of order by the presiding officer or debated and voted upon by the council, before debate on the main motion can resume. Secondary motions may also be made outside of debate, where appropriate. For example, a motion to take a brief recess can be made before, during, or after a debate. a. Motion to amend the original motion. The maker of the motion does not need to consent to a motion to amend. However, he or she may vote against the amendment or withdraw their motion via a motion to withdraw prior to any amendment being approved. Only two amendments may be made to an original motion to avoid confusion. The amendments should be voted on in reverse order, with the last amendment being voted upon first. To avoid confusion, complex language should be put in writing. A motion may not be amended so substantially as to essentially reject the original motion, though different language may be proposed so as to entirely substitute for the original language. The appropriate language for making a motion to amend shall be substantially similar to “I move to amend the motion by inserting between . . . . and . . . .” or “I move to amend the motion by adding after . . .” or “I move to amend the motion by striking out . . .” or “I move to amend the motion by striking out . . . and inserting . . .” or “I move to amend by striking out the motion . . . and substituting the following.” MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK 60 b. Motion to take a brief recess is not a motion to adjourn or continue the meeting to another time or place. Instead, it is a motion to take a brief respite no greater than 20 minutes. If a motion to take a brief recess is granted, the presiding officer may set a time for the meeting to resume. In addition, the presiding officer is authorized to call for a brief recess on his or her own initiative, without a vote, to maintain order in the meeting. The appropriate language for making a motion to recess shall be substantially similar to, “I move to take a brief recess for _____ minutes.” c. Motion to withdraw a motion is not subject to debate, and it can only be made by the motion’s maker before a motion is amended. The appropriate language for making a motion to withdraw shall be substantially similar to, “I move to withdraw my motion.” d. Motion to divide a complex question may be used for complex items of business. It allows the council to break larger questions into smaller parts, which are considered separately. The appropriate language for making a motion to divide a complex question shall be substantially similar to, “I move to divide the question into ________ parts. Part 1 shall be _____________________. Part 2 shall be __________________. e. Motion to table or defer consideration to a later date is not subject to debate. It may be used to defer or delay consideration of a matter. The appropriate language for making a motion to defer consideration shall be substantially similar to, “I move to defer consideration of the main motion/this item until _____________________.” f. Motion to refer an issue to committee is not subject to debate. It may be used to refer an issue to a city committee, such as the park board or planning commission, for their report. The motion should contain an expected receipt day for the report. The appropriate language for making a motion to refer an issue shall be substantially similar to, “I move to refer the main motion/this issue to the _______________ committee for its consideration and recommendation. The committee should report back to the council in ___ days/weeks.” g. Motion for call of the previous question is not subject to debate. It may be used only after at least 20 minutes of debate on a single motion or when all members of the council MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK 61 have been permitted to speak at least once on the motion. If approved by the majority, a vote must be taken on the motion under debate immediately. The appropriate language for making a motion to call the previous question shall be substantially similar to, “I move to call the previous question” or “I move for an immediate vote on this issue.” h. Motion to limit debate is not subject to debate. It may be used to establish time limits for debate. The appropriate language for making a motion to limit debate shall be substantially similar to, “I move to limit debate on this issue to __ minutes per person” or “I move to limit council debate on this issue to no more than ___ minutes total.” i. Motion for a call to order is not subject to debate. It may be used to signal to the presiding officer that the council member feels the proceedings have gotten disorderly. The appropriate language for making a motion for a call to order shall be substantially similar to, “I move for a call to order by the presiding officer.” NOTE: Most secondary motions should not literally interrupt debate. They may not be made in the midst of the comments of a speaker duly recognized by the presiding officer, or silence the speaker’s speech. To make a secondary motion, the maker must be called upon and recognized by the presiding officer. There are two exceptions to this rule—a motion for a call of the previous question and a motion for a call to order. These motions may be made at any time—even in a manner that interrupts a speaker. However, these motions should be made only in the rare instance where a meeting has become out of control, strayed from the agenda, or become disorderly. Rule 7. Appealing procedural decisions of the presiding officer. a. Any member of the council may appeal to the full council a ruling on order or procedure made by the presiding officer. b. Procedure for appeals. An appeal is made by motion. No second is needed for the motion. The member making the motion may speak once solely on the question involved, and the presiding officer may speak once solely to explain his or her ruling, but no other council member may participate in the discussion. c. Once both the maker of the motion and the presiding officer have spoken, the matter must be voted upon by the council as a whole. d. The appeal shall be sustained if it is approved by a majority of the members present, exclusive of the presiding officer. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK 62 Rule 8. Other special motions explained. a. Motion to adjourn is not subject to debate. It may be used to suggest a conclusion to the meeting. The presiding officer may adjourn a meeting on his or her own initiative, without a vote, if necessary to maintain order. The appropriate language for making a motion to adjourn shall be substantially similar to, “I move to adjourn the meeting.” b. Motion to go into closed session may be used to close the meeting pursuant to the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. When the motion is made, the basis for closing the meeting and the applicable law must be stated into the record. The presiding officer may also close the meeting on his or her own initiative, without a council vote, if closing the meeting is mandatory under the law or if directed by the city attorney. The appropriate language for making a motion to go into closed session shall be substantially similar to, “I move to close the meeting in order to consider ____________ pursuant to ______ of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law.” c. Motion to leave a closed session may be used to conclude a closed session and return to an open meeting. The appropriate language for making a motion to leave a closed session shall be substantially similar to, “I move to open the meeting.” d. Motion to revive consideration of an issue may be used to request consideration of an issue previously tabled, deferred, or referred to committee at any prior meeting. The appropriate language for making a motion to revive shall be substantially similar to, “I move to revive consideration of __________ previously tabled/deferred/referred to committee.” e. Motion to reconsider may be made only at the same meeting where the issue was originally considered and voted upon. It may be made only by a person on the prevailing side of an issue. In the event of a tie vote, those voting against the issue shall be considered the prevailing side. The appropriate language for making a motion to reconsider shall be substantially similar to, “I move to reconsider _______________.” f. Motion to rescind or repeal may be made at any meeting following the meeting where the issue was originally considered and voted upon. It may be made by any council member, whether or not he or she was on the prevailing side. It may not be made when MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK 63 prevented by law or where substantial reliance on the council’s previous decision has occurred (for example, in the area of contracts or hiring/termination of employees). The appropriate language for making a motion to reconsider shall be substantially similar to, “I move to rescind/repeal the council’s previous action related to ____________ as stated in resolution number ________________.” g. Motion to prevent reintroduction of an issue for ____ months is not subject to debate. It may be used to limit discussion of an issue that has been raised and/or moved for reconsideration several previous times. The appropriate language for making a motion to prevent reintroduction shall be substantially similar to, “I move to prevent reintroduction of this issue for ____ months.” h. Motion to suspend the rules or to consider a motion informally should be used sparingly on issues likely to be uncontroversial. Complex motions and resolutions should still be put in writing. This motion may permit informal discussion of an issue (such as a roundtable discussion, brainstorming session, visioning session, etc.) where appropriate. The appropriate language for making a motion to proceed informally shall be substantially similar to, “I move that we suspend the rules and proceed informally in discussing the issue of _________________.” Rule 9. Resolutions and ordinances. Simple motions shall be used only for procedural and meeting matters. Substantive issues, such as the approval or disapproval of contracts, licenses, or permits; the censure of council members; the hiring, termination, or promotion of employees; the appointment of board, commission, and committee members; and the adoption of city policies, rules, and ordinances shall be by resolution. An exception to this general rule may be made in instances where significant documentation of the council’s decision exists, rendering an additional resolution repetitive (for example, where a written contract spells out all the terms that would be listed in the resolution). All resolutions shall be written and numbered in a manner consistent with the city’s record keeping policies. The appropriate language for a motion for the adoption of a resolution shall be substantially similar to, “I move to adopt the resolution numbered ____.” Rule 10. Robert’s Rules not applicable. These rules are designed specifically for Minnesota city councils. Further, these rules were drafted to be an appropriate level of regulation and formality for smaller governing bodies typically seen in Minnesota cities. Robert’s Rules of Order is not assumed to apply or to supplement these regulations. Where a situation arises that is not addressed by these rules, the intent of these rules, as expressed in the preamble, should be effectuated by the presiding officer, in consultation with the city attorney. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK 64 Summary of Motions For use with Minnesota Mayors Association Rules of Order for City Councils Means a motion is not subject to debate. Means that motion may be made during active debate on a main motion. Means a motion can be made without recognition from the presiding officer or that it can interrupt other speakers. 1. General motion for all council action: “I move to ____________” 2. Motion to amend the original motion. The maker of the motion does not need to consent to a motion to amend. Only two amendments may be made to an original motion to avoid confusion. “I move to amend the motion by inserting between . . . . and . . . .” or “I move to amend the motion by adding after . . .” or “I move to amend the motion by striking out . . .” or “I move to amend the motion by striking out . . . and inserting . . .” or “I move to amend by striking out the motion . . . and substituting the following.” 3. Motion to take a brief recess. A motion to take a brief respite no greater than 20 minutes. “I move to take a brief recess for _____ minutes.” 4. Motion to withdraw a motion. This can only be made by the motion’s maker before a motion is amended. “I move to withdraw my motion.” 5. Motion to divide a complex question. This allows questions to be considered in smaller parts. “I move to divide the question into ________ parts. Part 1 shall be _____________________. Part 2 shall be __________________.” 6. Motion to table or defer consideration to a later date. This may be used to defer consideration. “I move to defer consideration of the main motion/this item until _____________________.” 7. Motion to refer an issue to committee. This may be used to refer an issue to a city committee. “I move to refer the main motion/this issue to the _______________ committee for its consideration and recommendation. The committee should report back to the council in ___ days/weeks.” 8. Motion for call of the previous question. This may only be used after at least 20 minutes of debate on a single motion or when all members of the council have been permitted to speak at least once on the motion. If approved by the majority, a vote must be taken on the motion under debate immediately. “I move to call the previous question” or “I move for an immediate vote on this issue.” 9. Motion to limit debate. This may be used to establish time limits for debate. “I move to limit debate on this issue to __ minutes per person” or “I move to limit council debate on this issue to no more than ___ minutes total.” MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK 65 10. Motion for a call to order. This is used to signal to the presiding officer that the meeting is disorderly. “I move for a call to order by the presiding officer.” 11. Motion to adjourn. This may be used to suggest a conclusion to the meeting. “I move to adjourn the meeting.” 12. Motion to go into closed session. This may be used to close the meeting pursuant to the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. The basis for closing the meeting and the applicable law must be stated into the record. “I move to close the meeting in order to consider ____________ pursuant to ______ of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law.” 13. Motion to leave a closed session. This may be used to conclude a closed session and return to an open meeting. “I move to open the meeting.” 14. Motion to revive consideration of an issue. This may be used to request consideration of an issue previously tabled, deferred, or referred to committee at any prior meeting. “I move to revive consideration of _____________ previously tabled/deferred/referred to committee.” 15. Motion to reconsider. This may be made only at the same meeting where the issue was originally considered and voted upon. “I move to reconsider _______________.” 16. Motion to rescind or repeal. This may be made at any meeting following the meeting where the issue was originally considered and voted upon. “I move to rescind/repeal the council’s previous action related to ____________ as stated in resolution number ________________.” 17. Motion to prevent reintroduction of an issue for ____ months. This may be used to limit discussion. “I move to prevent reintroduction of this issue for ______ months.” 18. Motion to suspend the rules or to consider a motion informally. This permits informal discussion. “I move that we suspend the rules and proceed informally in discussing the issue of _________________.” MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK 66 Appendix E: Council Handouts For use with Minnesota Mayors Association Rules of Order for City Councils A. Simple Principles for Making Meetings Work- 1. Let the presiding officer manage the meeting. 2. Wait to be recognized by the presiding officer before speaking. 3. Be courteous and civil. Limit debate to the discussion of ideas. Do not make personal attacks. 4. Maintain decorum in the chambers. Do not have side conversations or disrupt the meeting through words or conduct. B. Problem Solving Hints Problem one: Meetings are taking too long. Potential solutions: a. The presiding officer should follow the agenda and limit discussion and debate to the current agenda item. Council members who speak on topics not related to the current agenda can be called to order by the presiding officer. b. The presiding officer should not open discussion and debate on an agenda item until after an actual motion for action has been made. This clarifies the discussion and makes the process more efficient. A line can be added to the council agenda for each item with staff’s proposed motion language. c. The presiding officer should utilize the time limits established in Rule 5a. When individual council members notice that the time limits are not being observed, they can make a motion to have the presiding officer call for order. d. When debate appears to be lengthy but unproductive, council members can make a motion to limit the time for debate. Sometimes setting a deadline for making a decision can be helpful. e. When debate has continued for at least 20 minutes or everyone on council has had an opportunity to speak, a council member may make a motion to “call the question.” If approved, the main motion must be voted upon instantly. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK 67 Problem two: The minute taker and/or council members are confused about what has been approved or disapproved. Potential solutions: a. All council action should be stated in a motion and voted upon. Even when the council has agreed by motion to discuss things informally, all decisions should be ratified in a formal motion that is put to a vote. b. Complex motions and their amendments can be put in writing. Resolutions should always be numbered, in writing, and adopted by a simple motion, “I move to adopt resolution number ____.” c. The presiding officer should state the motion being considered prior to opening debate and prior to voting. Once a vote has occurred, the presiding officer should state whether the motion carried or failed. d. Only one motion for council action may be considered at a time. e. Amendments to motions are limited to two amendments. These amendments should also be stated by the presiding officer prior to opening debate and voting. f. In making amendments, the proponent of an amendment should use concise language—preferably the model language identified in the rules, including: “I move to amend the motion by inserting between . . . . and . . . .”; or “I move to amend the motion by adding after . . .”; or “I move to amend the motion by striking out . . .”; or “I move to amend the motion by striking out . . . and inserting . . .”; or “I move to amend by striking out the motion . . . and substituting the following.” Problem three: One particular member of council disrupts the proceedings, and insults and verbally attacks other council members. Potential solutions: a. No person, including a council member, has the right to disrupt the council’s proceedings through fighting, threatening physical harm, or engaging in offensive, noisy, obscene or abusive conduct. This is a crime pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.72. Aggressive, threatening conduct cannot be tolerated. The presiding officer should follow the council’s adopted bylaws to issue warnings when such conduct occurs and then order removal of the person by the sergeant-at-arms. b. The presiding officer can remind the council member that the rules require all remarks to be addressed to the presiding officer alone. If the conduct persists, the MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK 68 presiding officer can rule the person out of order and follow the council’s procedures for discipline through censure and/or temporary removal from the meeting. c. The presiding officer can remind the council member that the rules require time limits on comments. If the conduct persists, the presiding officer can rule the person out of order and follow the council’s procedures for discipline through censure and/or temporary removal from the meeting. d. Members of the council may request action by the presiding officer to curb another member’s conduct through a motion for a call to order. The motion may request a specific response to conduct by the presiding officer. For example, “I make a motion for the presiding officer to call Council member _______ to order and to desist from making personal attacks.” e. Members of the council may make a motion for adjournment or for a brief recess, if a council member’s actions are so offensive as to disrupt the orderly process of the meeting. Problem four: Council keeps revisiting the same issue over and over again. It’s a waste of time, but one member can’t help but bring up their “pet” project at every meeting—even though the council has voted the idea down several times. Potential solutions: a. The presiding officer can rule out of order motions to reconsider or rescind council actions if they are not made at the appropriate time by the appropriate person, or where reliance on the council’s previous decision has occurred (for example, in the area of contracts or hiring/termination of employees). b. A council member may make a motion to limit debate. c. A council member may make a motion to table or defer the matter. d. A council member may make a motion to refer the matter to a committee. e. A council member may make a motion to delay consideration of the matter for a specified amount of time. Six months is recommended. Problem five: The council members can’t agree on anything, or are so deeply divided over one particular controversial issue that it has affected civil discussion on all matters. Potential solutions: a. The presiding officer should insist that all members of council observe council bylaws and rules of order that speak to decorum. In particular, the presiding officer can remind council members that the rules require all remarks to be addressed to the MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK 69 presiding officer alone. Rules should be enforced in a neutral manner applicable to everyone. b. The city council may wish to consider that application of rules of procedure alone may not solve the problem. Where divisions among council are particularly fractious, a skilled facilitator may need to be brought in to help council place their divisions in an appropriate perspective against the broader needs of the city. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK 70 Appendix F: Sample Statement of Values Created by the League of Minnesota Cities Ethics Advisory Panel – October 2009; Revised December 2017 Preamble The proper operation of democratic government requires that decision-makers be independent, impartial, and accountable to the people they serve. The City of _____ has adopted this Statement of Values to promote and maintain the highest standards of personal and professional conduct in the city’s government. All (select: elected and appointed officials, city employees, and volunteers) are required to subscribe to this statement, understand how it applies to their specific responsibilities, and practice its (number) core values in their work. Because we seek public confidence in the city’s services and public trust of its decision-makers, our decisions and our work must meet the most demanding ethical standards and demonstrate the highest levels of achievement in following this statement. The values As a representative of the City of _____, 1. I serve the public interest. 2. I fulfill the duties and responsibilities of holding public office. 3. I am ethical. 4. I am professional. 5. I am fiscally responsible. 6. I am conscientious. 7. I communicate effectively. 8. I am collaborative. 9. I am forward thinking. 10. I am ____________. Value examples/expressions 1. I serve the public interest. In practice, this value means that: a. I provide courteous, equitable, and prompt service to everyone. b. I am attuned to and care about the needs and issues of citizens, public officials, and city workers. c. I am interested, engaged, and responsive in my interactions with constituents. d. I recognize and support the public’s right to know the public’s business. 2. I fulfill the duties and responsibilities of holding public office. In practice, this value means that: a. I observe the highest standards of integrity in my official acts and undertake my responsibilities for the benefit of the greater public good. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK 71 b. I faithfully discharge the duties of my office regardless of my personal considerations, recognizing that the public interest is my primary concern. c. I uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of Minnesota and carry out impartially the laws of the nation, state, and municipality and thus foster respect for all government. d. I comply with both the letter and the spirit of the laws and policies affecting operations of the city. e. I recognize my obligation to implement the adopted goals and objectives of the city in good faith, regardless of my personal views. f. I conduct myself in both my official and personal actions in a manner that is above reproach. g. I do not use my position to secure for myself or others special privileges or exemptions that are different from those available to the general public. h. I understand and abide by the respective roles and responsibilities of elected and appointed officials and city staff and will not undermine them in their work. i. I am independent, impartial, and fair in my judgment and actions. 3. I am ethical. In practice, this value means that: a. I am trustworthy, acting with the utmost integrity and moral courage. b. I am truthful, do what I say I will do, and am reliable. c. I am accountable for my actions and behavior and accept responsibility for my decisions. d. I make impartial decisions, free of influence from unlawful gifts, narrow political interests, and financial and other personal interests that impair my independence of judgment or action. e. I am fair, distributing benefits and burdens according to consistent and equitable criteria. f. I oppose all forms of harassment and unlawful discrimination. g. I extend equal opportunities and due process to all parties in matters under consideration. h. I show respect for confidences and confidential information. i. I avoid giving the appearance of impropriety and of using my position for personal gain. 4. I am professional. In practice, this value means that: a. I apply my knowledge and expertise to my assigned activities and to the interpersonal relationships that are part of my job in a consistent, confident, competent, and productive manner. b. I approach my job and work-related relationships with a positive attitude, contributing to a supportive, respectful, and non-threatening work environment. c. I keep my professional knowledge and skills current and growing. d. I am respectful of all city staff, officials, volunteers, and others who participate in the city’s government. 5. I am fiscally responsible. In practice, this value means that: a. I make decisions after prudent consideration of their financial impact, taking into account the long-term financial needs of the city, especially its financial stability. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK 72 b. I demonstrate concern for the proper use of city assets (e.g., personnel, time, property, equipment, funds), follow established procedures, and do not use public resources for personal gain. c. I make decisions that seek to preserve the financial capacity of the city to provide programs and services for city residents. d. I provide full disclosure of any potential financial or other private conflict of interest. I abstain from participating in the discussion and vote on these matters. e. I prevent misuse of public funds by establishing, maintaining, and following strong fiscal and management controls. f. I report any misuse of public funds of which I am aware. 6. I am conscientious. In practice, this value means that: a. I act in an efficient manner, making decisions and recommendations based upon research and facts, taking into consideration short- and long-term goals. b. I follow through in a responsible way, keeping others informed, and responding in a timely fashion. c. I am respectful of established city processes and guidelines. d. I prioritize my duties so that the work of the city may move forward. e. I prepare for all meetings by reviewing any materials provided ahead of time. When I have materials to contribute, I make sure all others involved have ample time to review these materials prior to the meeting. 7. I communicative effectively. In practice, this value means that: a. I convey the city’s care for and commitment to its citizens. b. I communicate in various ways that I am approachable, open-minded, and willing to participate in dialogue. c. I engage in effective two-way communication by listening carefully, asking questions, and responding appropriately, which adds value to conversations. d. I do not interfere with the orderly conduct of meetings by interrupting others or making personal comments not germane to the business at hand. e. I follow up on inquiries in a timely manner. f. I encourage and facilitate citizen involvement in policy decision-making. g. I am respectful in disagreements and contribute constructively to discussions on the issue. 8. I am collaborative. In practice, this value means that: a. I act in a cooperative manner with groups and other individuals, working together in a spirit of tolerance and understanding to accomplish common goals. b. I share information with others in a timely manner so that, together, we can make informed decisions. c. I work toward consensus building and gain value from diverse opinions. d. I accomplish the goals and responsibilities of my individual position, while respecting my role as a member of a team. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK 73 9. I am forward thinking. In practice, this value means that: a. I promote intelligent, proactive, and thoughtful innovation in order to advance the city’s policy agenda and provide city services while considering the broader regional, statewide, national, and international implications of the city’s decisions and issues. b. I maintain consistent standards, but am also sensitive to the need for compromise, creative problem solving, and making improvements when appropriate. c. I am open to new ideas and processes, adopting them as they conserve resources and provide efficient and effective service. d. I consider the potential long-term consequences and implications of my actions and inactions. MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK 74 Appendix G: Sample Code of Conduct Created by the League of Minnesota Cities Ethics Advisory Panel – October 2009; Revised December 2017 ___.01. Purpose. The City Council of the City of _____ determines that a code of conduct for its members, as well as the members of the various boards and commissions of the City of _____, is essential for the public affairs of the city. By eliminating conflicts of interest and providing standards for conduct in city matters, the City Council hopes to promote the faith and confidence of the citizens of _____ in their government and to encourage its citizens to serve on its council and commissions. ___.02. Standards of conduct. Subd. 1. No member of the City Council or a city board or commission may knowingly: a. Violate the Open Meeting Law. b. Participate in a matter that affects the person’s financial interests or those of a business with which the person is associated, unless the effect on the person or business is no greater than on other members of the same business classification, profession, or occupation. c. Use the person’s public position to secure special privileges or exemptions for the person or for others. d. Use the person’s public position to solicit personal gifts or favors. e. Use the person’s public position for personal gain. f. Except as specifically permitted pursuant to Minn. Stat. 471.895, accept or receive any gift of substance, whether in the form of money, services, loan, travel, entertainment, hospitality, promise, or any other form, under circumstances in which it could be reasonably expected to influence the person, the person’s performance of official action, or be intended as a reward for the person’s official action. g. Disclose to the public, or use for the person’s or another person’s personal gain, information that was gained by reason of the person’s public position if the information was not public data or was discussed at a closed session of the City Council. h. Disclose information that was received, discussed, or decided in conference with the city’s legal counsel that is protected by the attorney-client privilege unless a majority of the City Council has authorized the disclosure. i. Represent private interests before the City Council or any city committee, board, commission, or agency. (optional) Subd. 2. Except as prohibited by the provisions of Minn. Stat. § 471.87, there is no violation of subdivision 1 b. of this section for a matter that comes before the council, board, or commission if the member of the council, board, or commission publicly discloses the circumstances that MINNESOTA MAYORS HANDBOOK 75 would violate these standards and refrains from participating in the discussion and vote on the matter. Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit a contract with a member of the City Council under the circumstances described under Minn. Stat. § 471.88, if proper statutory procedures are followed. ___.03. Complaint, hearing. Any person may file a written complaint with the city clerk alleging a violation of the standards of conduct in section .02. The complaint must contain supporting facts for the allegation. The City Council may hold a hearing after receiving the written complaint or upon the council’s own volition. A hearing must be held only if the City Council determines: 1) upon advice of the city attorney, designee, or other attorney appointed by the council, that the factual allegations state a sufficient claim of a violation of these standards or rise to the level of a legally recognized conflict of interest, and 2) that the complaint has been lodged in good faith and not for impermissible purposes such as delay. The City Council’s determination must be made within 30 days of the filing of the allegation with the city clerk. If the council determines that there is an adequate justification for holding a hearing, the hearing must be held within 30 days of the City Council’s determination. At the hearing, the person accused must have the opportunity to be heard. If, after the hearing, the council finds that a violation of a standard has occurred or does exist, the council may censure the person, refer the matter for criminal prosecution, request an official not to participate in a decision, or remove an appointed member of an advisory board or commission from office. City Council Code of Conduct Blaine Prepared by: City Attorney Code of Conduct Adopted January 5, 2026 1 BLAINE CITY COUNCIL – CODE OF CONDUCT Contents Introductory Pledge ................................................................................................................................................... 2 Compliance and Enforcement .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Comply with the Law ................................................................................................................................................. 2 Roles of Council, Staff and Commissions ................................................................................................................... 3 Working with Staff ............................................................................................................................................................ 4 Working with Boards/Commissions ........................................................................................................................... 5 Working with the Community .......................................................................................................................................... 5 City Staff and the Public, Council Conduct with Staff ................................................................................................ 6 Council Conduct with the Public, Internal Council Conduct ..................................................................................... 7 Intergovernmental Relations ........................................................................................................................................... 7 2 INTRODUCTORY PLEDGE Blaine residents and businesses deserve a fair, ethical and accountable local government that earns the public’s full confidence for integrity. Recognizing these goals, the code of conduct is established for all elected officials of the City of Blaine. As a member of the Blaine City Council, we agree to uphold the introductory pledge for elected officials adopted by the city council and conduct myself by the following model of behavior. We will: • Comply with the law, including o Staying within the city council’s authority o Following the open meeting, gift, and conflict of interest laws • Respect city council roles and responsibilities when working with staff, boards and commissions • Be consistent in policy and respect process • Fulfill the council’s fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of the city, and all of its residents, both financially and legally by: o keeping the common good as the highest purpose to focus on achieving constructive solutions for the public benefit o not disclosing private or confidential information of the city or using that information to advance personal interests. The mayor and councilmembers must maintain the confidentiality of all non-public information concerning property, personnel, or legal affairs of the city. They must neither disclose confidential information without proper legal authorization, nor use such information to advance their personal, financial or other private interests. Such disclosure is a violation of the Rules of Order and Procedure and the Council Code of Conduct. o protecting city interests and liability by following advice of legal counsel COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT The code of conduct expresses standards of ethical conduct expected for members of the Blaine City Council. Members themselves have the primary responsibility to assure the public that ethical standards are understood and met, and that the public can continue to have full confidence in the integrity of government. We will hold ourselves and each other accountable and when there is a suspected violation of the law, we will discuss with the city manager. COMPLY WITH THE LAW Members shall comply with the applicable federal laws, state laws, and city ordinances in the performance of their public duties. Authority The city’s legislative powers are granted to the council as a whole, and not to individual members. The council as a whole is a policy-making board and as such, it is not the duty of the council to administer the day-to-day operations of the city. Many items will come before the council as required by city ordinance, but many issues are more discretionary in nature. It is important that the council and staff work together to differentiate between administrative duties that are relevant to staff, and those decisions that are of a policy-making nature and should come before the council. All councilmembers, including those serving as presiding officer, have equal votes. No councilmember has more power than any other councilmember, and all should be treated with equal respect. Members are elected officials serving on the city council and councilmembers shall not attempt to act as, or carry out the responsibilities of, city staff or the city manager beyond what is outlined in the city charter and code. Councilmembers shall not undermine the authority of the city manager and city staff as those individuals carry out their duties as authorized by the city charter, code and the motions and resolutions adopted by majority of the city council. Including but not limited to speaking on behalf of council or city staff, media engagement, developers, property owners or residents without approval of a majority of council. Mayoral Role According to Blaine City Charter Chapter 2, Section 2.06 the mayor is a full member of the council in addition to acting as presiding officer of meetings; representing the city ceremoniously; and executing official documents. 3 Open Meeting Law (OML) Public deliberations and processes shall be conducted openly and in a transparent manner. The Minnesota Open Meeting Law Chapter 13D requires that meetings of governmental bodies generally be open to the public in order to: • Prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed about a public board’s decisions or to detect improper influences • Assure the public’s right to be informed and observe public meetings The Minnesota Supreme Court has noted that meetings of less than a quorum of a public body held serially to avoid a public meeting or to fashion agreement on an issue of public business may violate the open meeting law. Gift/Donations Gifts from Interested Persons: Unless as outlined in exceptions, per MN Statute 471.895 councilmembers may not receive gifts from any “interested person” in conjunction with their city council duties: • A “gift” is defined as money, real or personal property, a service, loan, a forbearance or forgiveness of debt, or a promise of future employment, that is given and received without the giver receiving something of equal or greater value in return • "Interested person" means a person or a representative of a person or association that has a direct financial interest in a decision that a local official is authorized to make o virtually every resident or person doing business in the city could have a direct financial interest in a decision Gifts to the city: councilmembers can recommend acceptance of general gifts through the city’s donation policy. All gifts to the city must be accepted by city council resolution. Logo Members shall not use the city’s name or logo for the purpose of endorsing any political candidate or business. Conflict of Interest Conflict of interest is when any member who has a “financial interest” in, or who may receive a financial benefit as a result of, any action or if there is potential for the appearance of conflict of interest. Questions about a potential conflict of interest shall be discussed with the city manager. Contractual Conflict of Interest: Per MN Statute 471.87, with exceptions in MN Statutes 123B.195 and 471.88, a public officer who is authorized to take part in any manner in making any sale, lease, or contract in official capacity shall not voluntarily have a personal financial interest in that sale, lease, or contract or personally benefit financially therefrom. Non-Contractual Conflict of Interest: Non-contractual matters may include such things as council decisions on zoning, local improvements, and the issuance of licenses. Although not generally prohibited by state law, an interested councilmember most likely should abstain from participating in council discussion and from voting on these issues. Members who have a potential conflict of interest shall: • Disclose the conflict of interest to the group, and • Abstain from the council discussion debate and vote ROLES OF COUNCIL, STAFF AND COMMISSIONS We are all part of a team committed to the residents of Blaine both today and in the future. To be effective we must come to meetings with an open mind, think strategically about city issues and delegate details of 4 implementations to staff. We will strive to maintain a culture of trust, respect and candor as a council and when working with staff and boards/commissions. Decide Strategy City Council S Staff Commissions Manage Operations, Advise Council Advise Council (technical analysis & evaluation) & Implement Policy (community needs & values) City Council City Manager and Staff Boards, Commissions, Task Forces Make policy-level decisions Hire and supervise city manager Approve budget and related work plan Ordinances and policy decisions Development proposals Variances and rezoning requests Appoint representatives to advisory boards and commissions Provide best efforts and technical advice to council Manage operations and staff Propose budget and policies Carry out council decisions Deliver services Equitably enforce codes/policies Provide community perspective Propose work plan items Advise the council through work plan “charges” Hold hearings as directed by council Assist as directed in work plan with engagement efforts Respectful Behavior Members should STRIVE TO: Treat people with courtesy, politeness, and kindness Encourage others to express their opinions and ideas Listen to what others have to say Use the ideas of others to improve decisions and outcomes Recognize and respect differences Prepare for the issues at hand Focus on the business of the body Consider only legally germane information in decisions Act as a decision maker, not an advocate Members should AVOID: • Speaking over or cutting off another individual’s comments • Insulting, disparaging, or putting down people or their ideas • Bullying other members by displaying a pattern of belittling, demeaning, judging or patronizing comments • Violence or the threat of violence will not be tolerated WORKING WITH CITY STAFF Members shall respect and adhere to the council-manager structure of Blaine city government. This means: City Council does… City Council does not… Hire, fire, and supervise city manager Set the strategic direction for the city Consider and approve budget and related work plan, and monitor performance relative to those items Consider and approve policy decisions Consider and approve development proposals Consider and approve variances and rezoning requests Appoint citizens to citizen advisory boards and commissions Approve and amend work plans and bylaws Hire and fire staff • Direct activities of staff other than city manager • Individually direct activities of boards, commissions or other resident groups • Individually approve policies, projects etc. • Individually commit resources or staff to specific causes • Individually enforce policies, city code, etc. or speak or prepare official correspondence on behalf of the city unless authorized by council 5 Councilmembers promise city staff they will: • Respect staff as valued resources and members of our team • Support the maintenance of a positive and constructive workplace environment for city employees where individual members, staff and the public are free to express their ideas and work to their full potential • Provide direction to the city manager as a body and not direct the work of individual staff • Encourage staff to focus on the big picture in reports • When possible, notify the city manager in advance of a council meeting of questions or requests to pull agenda items from the consent agenda so the appropriate staff can compile the information needed • Agree that information they ask of the city manager will be shared equally with all councilmembers • Copy the city manager on all communications with staff, including questions on topics such as agenda items WORKING WITH BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS As set forth in the Blaine City Charter Chapter 2, Section 2.02, Blaine’s boards and commissions are established by the council and serve as advisory to the council. Specific board and commission roles are: • Investigate matters within the scope of the commission or as specifically directed by the council • Advise the council by communicating the viewpoint or advice of the commission • At the direction of council, hold hearings, receive evidence, conduct investigations, and, based on such hearings, evidence and investigations, make decisions and recommendations to the council Councilmembers promise boards and commissions they will: • View boards and commissions as vitally important resources to support our decision-making • Communicate effectively with boards and commissions to ensure they have the tools to do their work • Give clear direction as a body and take adequate time to review the result of their deliberations • Because of the value of the independent advice of boards, commissions, and task forces to the public decision-making process, members of council shall refrain from using their position to influence the deliberations or outcomes of board, commission, and task force proceedings • The expectation is that councilmembers will not typically attend board, commission, committee, working group or task force meetings. However, under special circumstances, if we attend a meeting: o We will do so only as an observer and prior to attending will notify the appropriate staff liaison o Strive for good communication by reporting out to other councilmembers WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY Residents: City staff is the first call for help for residents. We will refer residents who have concerns to the city manager. If a resident has contacted the city manager but is still not satisfied, we will discuss with the city manager. We acknowledge if a resident receives conflicting information from different councilmembers or staff that is difficult for the resident and could increase liability for the city. Businesses or other interests: The purpose of a city council meeting is to discuss information needed to make an informed decision, review that information, and decide. It is not feasible to conduct all business in a public meeting. Particularly around development, business interests might ask a member to meet outside of the city council meeting to facilitate idea generation about proposals. The city council’s overarching principles for working the community are: • Never grant any special consideration, treatment, or advantage • Respect sensitivity of personal information 6 • Honor our rules regarding public testimony and clearly communicate the rules • Make ourselves available to all parties on an equal basis and not advocate for a certain point of view • Be cautious about how we participate in meetings or events and not prejudge the issue before the council has had a chance to deliberate CITY STAFF AND THE PUBLIC Public decision-making must be fair and impartial and shall not be discriminatory on the basis of those protected classes outlined in federal, state, and city laws and ordinances. City policy dictates that elected officials and advisory board members conduct business in a manner which, both internally and in relation to each other and their constituencies, is free from illegal discrimination based on race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, marital status, socio-economic status, or sexual orientation. Meetings requested by residents or businesses: 1. AFTER DECISION: If we are invited to a meeting about an issue the council has decided upon, we will explain how the council arrived at the decision. 2. DURING DECISION: If we are invited to a meeting about an issue that will be before the council in the future, we will uphold the above principles for working with the community, and: a. We will not make our decision about an issue before the city council until the process allows. b. We will be sensitive to the fact that we are not hearing everyone, and we will give equal consideration to all feedback regardless of the way it is received. 3. DURING SPECIFIED ENGAGEMENT PROCESS: If we meet with a resident during a planned engagement process, we will notify the resident that we are there to listen and encourage them to participate through the established process to engage. We will ensure that staff received the feedback provided to us. 4. OTHER ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES: Engagement opportunities outside of formal council meetings are often an effective and meaningful way to connect with residents in a less formal manner, such as meeting with one or two residents about a topic, meeting with a few business owners in an area, or holding a listening session for a small portion of a neighborhood. The goal of these smaller engagement opportunities is to provide one or two councilmembers the opportunity to engage with constituents in a smaller group setting, different than larger, staff-supported events such as an open house or broader neighborhood meeting, that may be subject to the open meeting law. These opportunities should be considered as listening sessions for feedback on a topic that the councilmember(s) then relay to the full council as part of formal consideration. Should a councilmember like to host an engagement opportunity, they should: • Inform the city manager to allow staff time if needed to notify about the opportunity, ensuring equal access for all and ensuring that all regulatory and open meeting law requirements are met. • Inform their fellow councilmembers that an engagement opportunity will be taking place. Councilmembers should use these opportunities to: • Listen to constituents' concerns and ideas. • Encourage residents to attend council meetings and participate in the public decision-making process. • Collaborate with the city manager to ensure that constituents' concerns and ideas are addressed through staff and in accordance with established policies and procedures. Councilmembers should avoid: • Making promises or commitments on behalf of the council or city. • Discussing confidential, private, or non-public sensitive information and redirect conversations to the appropriate public forum(s). • Directing staff or making specific requests outside of the established protocol (i.e., via the city manager). • Councilmembers should keep a separation between their official duties and any campaign/re-election 7 activities. 5. We will also notify the city manager in the event we wish to attend board/commission meetings as well as legislative committee meetings/hearings so staff can notify the chair(s) and/or lobbyists in order to be best prepared. By following these guidelines, councilmembers can effectively engage with the public outside of formal council meetings while maintaining transparency, upholding ethical responsibilities and encouraging active participation in the local government decision-making process. COUNCIL CONDUCT WITH CITY STAFF Direction to Staff for Projects/Agenda Items - Direction is given to city staff to pursue items that generally impact the public policy of the city by reaching consensus during a workshop or through a direct binding majority vote of the council at a special or regular business meeting. This direction can occur either through a workshop item agenda form with general consensus of the council or under other business on the regular business agenda through a motion/second and majority vote. Once direction is given, the city manager will assign the work to a staff member or advise the council that additional staffing will be needed to carry out the task. City staff, including the direct employees of the council (the city manager and city attorney), are not obligated to pursue items for only one councilmember. If a councilmember wishes to direct staff to work on a specific item, the councilmember must receive consent of the council by reaching consensus during a workshop meeting, by a majority vote of approval, or by submitting a workshop item agenda form that results in consensus of the council. Requests for Information on Non-Agenda Items - City staff carry out the day-to-day business of operating the city. The council should keep this in mind when requesting information or asking to perform these functions. Generally, all interactions with staff members should flow through the city manager. If a councilmember is asking for information from city staff that will require more than 30 minutes of staff time to collect or research a problem and prepare a response, the request will need to be approved by the council to ensure that staff resources are allocated in accordance with overall council priorities. Interaction with Staff - It is not appropriate for councilmembers to admonish city staff when disagreeing with the information brought forth for presentation to the governing body. Concerns should be taken up with the city manager, and if an issue is identified that needs to be addressed by the whole council, it will be brought forth accordingly. In any event, there shall be no personal attacks on city staff. COUNCIL CONDUCT WITH THE PUBLIC Public Meetings - Making the public feel welcome is an important part of the democratic process. Recognizing that the actions of each council member impact the public perception of the whole council, councilmembers shall strive to treat the public with respect. Connecting Residents with Staff Resources - Councilmembers serve as the link between residents and their local government. Through various channels such as mail, telephone, face-to-face interactions, and electronic means, council facilitates a crucial two-way exchange of information. On one hand, councilmembers are often the first point of contact for residents who wish to express concerns, seek assistance or provide recommendations for policy; therefore, it is essential that councilmembers handle these interactions with tact and professionalism to maintain positive relationships and foster citizen support for the government. On the other hand, councilmembers also play a key role in disseminating information about city programs and policies to the public. By educating residents about local government and the rationale behind city policies, councilmembers can help build understanding and support for city initiatives. 8 In day-to-day community interactions, councilmembers need not act as intermediaries between city staff and community members when advocating for a community issue brought directly to the councilmember. Councilmembers should connect community members to the appropriate city resources when contacted about various issues by reaching out to the city manager and appropriate department heads and requesting follow-up as needed. The city manager and appropriate department heads shall address the issue or delegate it to the appropriate staff for follow-up. Further follow-up with the councilmember by the city manager and appropriate department heads for informational purposes may occur if necessary. Councilmembers’ Behavior and Conduct: Councilmembers who violates the code of conduct are subject to admonition, reprimand, or censure. Any violations that potentially constitute criminal conduct shall be handled by the criminal justice system. Accountability/Consequences: A potential action for failing to comply with this code of conduct may include the following: 1. Admonition. An admonition shall be verbal or written statement made by the mayor to the councilmember. 2. Reprimand. A reprimand shall be administered to the councilmember by letter. The letter shall be approved by the city council and shall be signed by the mayor, or by the mayor pro tem if the mayor position is vacant or if the matter involves the mayor. 3. Censure. A censure shall be administered pursuant to a formal resolution adopted by the council. A member may receive a public admonishment for failure to conform with any provisions of these bylaws, state statute, violation of confidentiality or attorney-client privilege, or other acts considered to merit reprimand by the city council. Such censure may include other actions or punishments by city council in conformity of the law. The city council, as a body, may by motion and a supermajority, commend or censure one of its own. If the act involves two members of the council, a majority vote is required. Factors that will be considered in determining the appropriate consequence include but are not limited to the seriousness of the violation and/or the number of preceding violations. Procedures for reporting: 1. A member of the city council may report a potential code of conduct violation by a member of the council by bringing the matter to the attention of the mayor, city manager, or city attorney. 2. A city staff member may report a potential code of conduct violation by a member of the council by bringing the matter to the attention of the city manager or human resources manager. 3. If the potential violation involves the mayor, it should be brought to the attention of the mayor pro tem, city manager or city attorney. 4. If the mayor and/or mayor pro tem are unable to be involved in reviewing the code of conduct complaint for any reason, the matter will be reviewed by the next most senior member of the council not involved in the complaint. 5. Upon receipt of a complaint, the following diagram highlights the process that will be used: 9 INTERNAL COUNCIL CONDUCT The council exists to work in the interest of the public. The council should strive to work as a team in achieving the best outcome for the community. The council should conduct business in a civil, efficient, and cooperative manner with other members of the council and city staff. It is incumbent upon the members of council to listen to one another and give full opportunity for all viewpoints to be heard. All disagreements should be handled in a civil fashion. Inappropriate behavior by a councilmember such as intentionally or with malice sharing false statements during a council meeting may be addressed through a verbal correction by the mayor/mayor pro tem either during or outside of the council meeting. Further incidents may be addressed by subsequent verbal corrections accompanied by use of the gavel. Repeated incidents can give rise to the mayor/mayor pro tem not recognizing the offending councilmember to speak. A councilmember can request that any of these actions against an offending councilmember be taken if the mayor/mayor pro tem has not done so on their own. Councilmembers must act in a respectful, courteous and professional manner while acting in their roles as elected officials. Councilmembers are entitled to disagree regarding city direction and decisions relating to regulations, policies and positions, but councilmembers may not use their titles as mayor/councilmember or any city-sponsored means of communication (e.g.: city-issued email, social media posts, etc.) to disparage other members, council decisions, city staff or any city-related issues. Personal attacks against staff, other councilmembers, or members of the public by a councilmember without basis is a violation of the Rules of Order and Procedure and the Council Code of Conduct. 10 Councilmembers acknowledge they are elected to be one member of a decision-making body and at times members may disagree with the approved decisions of a majority of the council. While councilmembers may respectfully disagree with decisions made by the majority, members should not publicly disparage or undermine approved council decisions in any manner that may be detrimental to the city carrying out such decisions and acting as directed by a majority of the council. INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS Members shall represent positions approved by the council to the best of their ability when working with: • Legislative bodies • Federal or state agencies • Other local governments, such as school boards, counties, or municipalities If an individual councilmember’s opinion differs from the city position, or a matter agreed upon by the full council, members shall explicitly state they do not represent their city council or the City of Blaine, nor will they allow the inference that they do. Members will represent the official policies or positions of the city as set forth in the city charter, city ordinances, and the motions and resolutions adopted by a majority of the city council to the best of their abilities. When presenting their individual opinions and positions that differ from the official policies or positions of the city, members must explicitly state they are speaking in their personal capacity and do not represent the position of the city or the council. Blaine City Council Code of Conduct Acknowledgement I acknowledge that I have received a copy of the Blaine City Council Code of Conduct. I understand that I am responsible for familiarizing myself and complying with the Code. I understand that if I need clarification of the contents within the Code, I will contact the City Manager or City Attorney. _________________________________________________ _________________________________ Name Date (print) _________________________________________________ Signature Page 1 of 1 AGENDA ITEMS – 3D MEMORANDUM DATE: July 27, 2026 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator SUBJECT: Immigration Enforcement Discussion Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A Council Should Consider Council should discuss the topic area below and provide direction to Staff on next steps. Background At the February 9th Work Session, the City Council requested a recurring work session agenda item to allow for discussion on topics related to immigration enforcement. Subsequently at the July 13th Work Session, Staff received feedback and direction from Council on the draft ordinance language for Use of City Property. A draft ordinance will be brought forward to a future regular meeting for adoption. Below is the remaining topic that Council requested be brought back for discussion by the City Council related to immigration enforcement. • Sharing of Data and Access to City Buildings Policy o Based on City Council direction at the March 9th and May 11th Work Sessions, staff will be preparing a policy that will be brought forward to a future work session for consideration. Additionally, Council may discuss any particular topic(s) that should be brought forward under this agenda item for future discussion. Budget Impact N/A Attachment N/A Page 1 of 1 AGENDA ITEM – 3E MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: July 27, 2026 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator SUBJECT: Rice Creek Commons/TCAAP Discussion Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A For Council Consideration Council will have the opportunity to comment on any TCAAP related items they so choose. Background N/A Budget Impact N/A Attachment N/A Page 1 of 2 AGENDA ITEM – 3F MEMORANDUM DATE: July 27, 2026 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Jessica Jagoe, City Administrator SUBJECT: Agenda Planning Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A Council Should Consider Council should discuss its next Work Session agenda. Background Per Council’s adopted policy on agenda setting, please find the proposed agenda below for the upcoming meeting. August 10th Work Session • Mounds View High School On-Street Parking • 2027 CIP and Operating Budget Discussion • Zoning Code Updates • Immigration Discussion • Agenda Planning (time sensitive) • RCC/TCAAP Discussion August 24th Work Session • Arden Hills Community Event • 2027 CIP and Operating Budget Discussion • Immigration Discussion • Agenda Planning (time sensitive) • RCC/TCAAP Discussion Attachment A is the list of topics that have yet to be discussed by Council and the ranking of priority topics. Staff will begin to work on the higher priority items into upcoming Work Page 2 of 2 Sessions sooner while putting the lower priority items to later discussions. Please note, this does not reflect all items at Work Sessions as Staff will have necessary items for discussion, such as, budget discussions, concept plan reviews, or Public Works projects that need timely direction. Council may want to discuss whether any items need to be added to this list for future discussion or assign a future meeting for some of these items. This would need to be done by a majority consensus of Council. Below is a running list of things Staff brings forward to Work Session annually, in recent years, we have shifted away from bringing some items forward unless needed, such as, the Pavement Management Update from Public Works. Note, these timelines may shift year to year. Most items discussed at Work Sessions are one-off items that may require multiple meetings but are usually not recurring. • January o Legislative priorities • February o None • March o Initial guidance on current year Public Works projects • April o None • May o None • June o None • July o Capital improvement planning • August o Operating budgets • September o Operating budget and levy discussion o Committee/Commission Work Plans • October o None • November o City-wide budget and fee schedule o Follow up on next year’s Public Works projects • December o Committee and commission appointments Budget Impact N/A Attachment Attachment A: Council Priorities Attachment B: Agenda Setting Policy Topic for Consideration Likely Responsible Department Total Average Majority Next Steps Short-term Rental Ordinance CD/Admin 15 3.00 Council WS Rental Licensing Program CD/Admin 15 3.00 Council WS Funding for Lake Johanna Boulevard Trail PW/Fin 9 1.80 Council WS Climate Action Plan Admin 9 1.80 Council WS Code of Conduct Admin 8 1.60 Council WS Encroachment Discussion (2025)/Adopt A Spot PW 8 1.60 Staff Recommendation Cannabis Discussion CD/Admin 8 1.60 Council WS Energy Audit Admin 7 1.40 Staff Recommendation Temporary Goats/Buckthorn Admin 7 1.40 Staff Recommendation Buy Nothing Day/Clean Up Day Admin 6 1.20 Staff Recommendation Community Survey Admin 6 1.20 Council WS Committee/Commission Liaison Role Policy Admin 5 1.00 Council WS EV Fleet Analysis PW 5 1.00 Staff Recommendation Added Items: Data Center Moratorium Lake Johanna Cold Plunge Sponsorship Policy E-Bike Regulations Tree Removal Enforcement Perry Park CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Agenda Setting Policy The purpose of this policy is to establish a method for agenda setting that allows for Council to review and have control over its agendas and decide as a Council how it wants items for consideration to be brought forward. For regular worksession agendas: • Prior to concluding each regularly scheduled worksession, the City Council shall review its next regularly scheduled worksession agenda and direct Staff on any changes. • Should an individual Councilmember want to raise an item for discussion at the next meeting or in the future, they would do so during this review period. The item would need at least one other Councilmember to agree to having the item considered for future discussion, and then Council, by majority, would direct to have it placed on a future agenda or not. • Staff will have flexibility to add or remove items to the worksession as needed to maintain operational efficacy. For regular City Council meeting agendas: • Agendas will be largely Staff driven based on approvals needed for normal operations. • Items coming from the City Council shall first be discussed at a worksession and can direct Staff at said worksession to bring items forward for formal approval if needed. • In rare instances, if a Councilmember brings forward an item that needs approval prior to going to a worksession, they may request the City Administrator add the item to the agenda. The City Administrator shall have the discretion to determine if the issue should be added or not, but Councilmembers will make every effort to having the item first discussed at a worksession. Special meetings and emergency meetings: • Special meetings and emergency meetings may still be called at the discretion of the Mayor or any two Councilmembers, and the members calling the meeting shall set the agenda.