c\TY o/> ## CITY OF SAINT PETER, MINNESOTA ## AGENDA AND NOTICE OF MEETING City Council Workshop Session of Monday, June 15, 2026 - 5:30 p.m. ## Community Center - Governor's Room (600 South Fifth Street) ## I. CALL TO ORDER ## II. DISCUSSION a. Comprehensive Plan Update - p. 2-53 b. Department Presentation: Police - p. 54 c. Public Works Optimization - p. 55-64 d. Presidents Corner Update - p. 65-67 ## II. ADJOURNMENT ## Todd Prafke ## City Administrator ## Memorandum ## TO: Todd Prafke DATE: 6/12/2026 ## City Administrator ## FROM: Benjamin Baker ## Community Development Director RE: Comprehensive Plan Update – Joint Meeting with City Council & Planning Commission ## ACTION/RECOMMENDATION Review and provide input on a Comprehensive Plan Update, including results from the recent community survey. ## BACKGROUND Members should be aware that Planning and Zoning members have been invited to attend this meeting to receive this information at the same time as the City Council. This was done for two reasons: • Efficiency, based on the number of meetings our consultant is contracted to participate in. • We believed that bringing the groups together would provide for a rich and thoughtful discussion. Comp Plan Consultant Sarah Swedburg, from BMI, will be at the meeting to provide an update on the Comprehensive Plan and go over “what we heard” from the community survey. ## Comp Plan Timeline: ## April ##  Community Survey  13 th ## - Pop-Up Event @ Hy-Vee  16 th ## – Pop-Up Event @ Bike Rodeo  29 th ## - Steering Committee Workshop ## May  Community Survey (continued) ## June o 15 th ## – Meeting with City Leadership Group o 15 th ## – Joint Meeting with City Council & Planning Commission o 16 th ## – Steering Committee o 18 th ## – Sustainability Task Force Workshop ## o Start Drafting Chapters 2 ## July ## o Continue Drafting Chapters / Review Chapters ## August ## o TBD - Local Agency Meeting o 26 th ## – Steering Committee Workshop o Begin Preparing to Publicly Share Draft Chapters Our goal for the meeting is to give both the Council and Planning and Zoning members opportunity to see, hear and discuss this work and share thoughts and ideas about the information provided and work going forward. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions or concerns on this agenda item. ## BB 3 ## COMMUNITY PROFILE ## SAINT PETER, MINNESOTA ## POPULATION KEY FACTS: 12,198 ## Total Population 2.25 ## Average ## Household Size 35.6 ## Median Age 19% Residents who have a Disability ## COMMUNITY KEY FACTS: 419 ## Total Businesses 64.9% ## Home Ownership $961 ## Median ## Rental Cost 34.5% ## Bachelor’s Degree or Higher 80.4% ## White/Caucasian ## Alone ## EMPLOYMENT & INCOME KEY FACTS: 15.4 ## Average Commute ## Time (In Minutes) 50.6% ## White Collar ## Jobs 62.2% ## Workforce Participation ## Rate ## MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD ## INCOME $ : 65,122 ## INFLOW 4,823 ## Employees work in Saint Peter but live elsewhere 1,638 Employees live and work ## within Saint Peter ## OUTFLOW 3,433 County residents employed ## outside Saint Peter The data shown was gathered from the U.S. Census Bureau, Esri ArcGIS Business Analyst, and the Minnesota State Demographic Center. 4 ## Saint Peter 2050 Comprehensive Plan ## Public Survey Results There were over 660 participants in the public survey. Responses show strong community pride and a clear desire to protect what makes Saint Peter distinctive while addressing key livability challenges. Residents consistently value the small-town feel, historic downtown, local businesses, parks, walkability, and sense of community. The most common concerns focused on housing affordability, property taxes and utility costs, Highway 169 traffic and pedestrian safety, business retention, and growth that remains consistent with community character. ## Key Areas of Consensus • Small-town character is a major strength — Saint Peter is seen as friendly, safe, welcoming, and easy to navigate. • Historic downtown and local businesses matter — respondents want to preserve the city’s unique identity and support local-serving businesses. • Parks, trails, and walkability are highly valued — these were repeatedly identified as major quality-of-life assets. • Community pride is strong — many responses emphasized Saint Peter as a good place for families, neighbors, and future generations. ## Common Areas of Concern • Housing affordability and availability — especially for first-time buyers, seniors, families, and moderate- income households. • High property taxes and utility costs — a recurring concern tied to overall cost of living. • Highway 169 traffic and safety — concerns about speed, noise, trucks, and difficulty crossing for pedestrians. • Business retention and variety — residents want more retail, dining, entertainment, and fewer empty storefronts. • Infrastructure and amenities — continued need for road, sidewalk, and facility maintenance, along with more youth and family activities. ## Mixed Views • Growth is supported, but only if thoughtful and fiscally responsible. • More housing is needed, but there is no clear consensus on type (single-family, townhomes, senior housing, apartments, mixed-density). • Residents want business growth, but generally prefer local, community-scaled development over large corporate or industrial growth. • Transportation priorities are mixed — some emphasize walkability and safer crossings, while others prioritize parking and traffic flow. ## Areas of Disagreement • Strong opposition to data center development due to concerns about water use, energy demand, environmental impacts, and fit with Saint Peter’s identity. • Debate over the city’s future identity — some favor preserving the city’s current form, while others support modernization and sustainability measures if done carefully. • Affordability and inclusivity are shared values, but residents differ on how those goals should be addressed. 5 ## Saint Peter 2050 Comprehensive Plan ## Local Agency Survey Results Agency feedback centered on housing, workforce, and economic development as the most important long-range issues. Respondents also highlighted industrial park development, downtown vitality, transportation coordination, and future land use planning as important opportunities and discussion points. Overall, the responses reflect support for measured growth, strengthening the community’s regional role, and ensuring the city remains attractive to residents, workers, and employers. ## Areas of Consensus • Housing is both a challenge and an opportunity. Multiple respondents identified affordable housing, housing inventory, and broader housing development—including apartments, townhomes, and single-family homes—as key priorities. • Workforce and job growth are important. Several responses emphasized workforce attraction and retention, expanding the employer base, and creating moderate- to high-paying jobs. • The community has strong assets to build on. Respondents pointed to assets such as schools, downtown, public services, the hospital, and the city’s role as county seat. • Future planning should support business and industrial growth. Comments referenced industrial park occupancy, preserving industrial land, and planning for future business expansion. ## Areas of Concern • Housing availability and affordability remain pressing concerns. Respondents noted limited housing inventory and the difficulty of maintaining enough supply to attract and retain residents. • Workforce attraction is a challenge. Agencies identified limited workers and the need to remain competitive in attracting and retaining labor. • Industrial and employment growth need attention. Concerns were raised about industrial park occupancy and the need to grow the employer base. • Infrastructure and transportation issues should be addressed. Specific comments referenced stormwater retention, the 169 bypass settlement, and street design that could better support bike and pedestrian safety. ## Areas of Mixed View • Housing diversity vs. affordability. While respondents agreed more housing is needed, they pointed to both affordable housing and moderate- to upper-end housing as priorities. • Downtown investment vs. industrial expansion. Some responses emphasized mixed-use downtown growth and better river connections, while others focused on preserving industrial land for future job growth. • Regional coordination vs. local focus. One response stressed alignment with broader regional plans and workforce strategies, while others focused more directly on city-level land use and growth needs. ## Areas of Disagreement • No major direct disagreements emerged. Responses were generally aligned around housing, workforce, and economic development, with differences showing up more in emphasis than outright opposition. • The main variation was in how growth should be prioritized—for example, whether emphasis should be placed more on downtown mixed-use development, industrial growth, housing mix, or transportation improvements. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 ## Memorandum ## TO: Honorable Mayor Nowell DATE: 6/12/26 ## Members of the City Council ## FROM: Todd Prafke ## City Administrator ## RE: Department Presentation: Police ## ACTION/RECOMMENDATION None needed. For Council information and discussion only. ## BACKGROUND Each year, each City Department provides a presentation to the City Council at a Workshop. The tentative schedule for Department Presentations is as follows: ## March Community Development (completed) July City Attorney ## April Public Works (completed) August Fire & Rescue ## May Hospital November Rec & Leisure Services ## June Finance & Police The workshop on Monday evening will feature a presentation from Chief Grochow where he will provide the Annual Police Report as well as other items related to the department. Please know that once presented the Annual Report will be placed on the website within a few days. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns on this agenda item. ## TP/ks 54 ## Memorandum ## TO: Todd Prafke DATE: 6/12/26 ## City Administrator ## FROM: Pete Moulton ## Public Works Director ## RE: Public Works Facilities Optimization Consulting Services ## ACTION/RECOMMENDATION For your information, discussion and review. ## BACKGROUND In March, the Public Works Department posted on the City’s website a Request for Qualifications to provide services for Public Works Facilities Optimization Consulting Service. On March 12, 2026, an “Industry Day” was held to give the consulting services a chance to come to Public Works and ask questions or take a tour of the facility. City staff collected and reviewed four proposals. Public Works staff reviewed the four Requests for Qualifications and scored them based on the following: ## 1. Firm and Team Experience • Demonstrated experience performing logistics and facilities optimization studies for public- sector agencies, particularly Public Works departments • Experience with facility condition assessments, operational analysis, and capital planning • Experience with similar size, scope, and complex projects • Experience working collaboratively with municipal stakeholders and partner agencies ## 2. Project Team and Key Personnel • Qualifications, expertise, and availability of proposed project manager and key staff • Demonstrated experience of assigned personnel with logistics, facilities planning, and optimization • Clarity of roles, responsibilities, and level of participation • Demonstrated history of effective collaboration among team members 3. Understanding of the Project and Technical Approach • Demonstrated understanding of the City’s objectives, challenges, and operational context • Quality, clarity, and feasibility of the proposed approach to completing the PWFO Study • Use of appropriate analysis tools (e.g., scenario planning, benchmarking, etc.) • Approach to stakeholder engagement, communication, and consensus-building 55 ## 4. Past Performance and References • Quality and relevance of representative projects • Demonstrated success in delivering projects on schedule and within scope • Client satisfaction and references ## 5. Project Management and Schedule • Proposed project schedule and ability to meet City timelines • Project management approach, reporting, and coordination methods • Ability to manage risks, challenges, and stakeholder complexity Staff reviewed and evaluated the proposals and held interviews with the top three consulting services on June 3, 2026. City staff will bring forward the recommendation that ISG of Mankato, Minnesota be authorized to completed the study beginning this month and completed by the end of the year 2026. The anticipated cost for this study is $75,000. This expense was not budgeted in any fund, but it would be paid using the City’s standard cost-share allocation, which is generally based on the building’s space usage. You do have the cash to complete this work. As an alternative, we could work to ensure payment of this comes primarily in 2027. Our goal for your meeting is to provide the information about selection and criteria and provide the members with opportunity to provide thoughts and ask questions. We also hope to put you in a position to take action in the near term at a regular City Council meeting. I will be available to answer any questions or concerns on this agenda item. ## PM 56 ## SAINT PETER PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES ## OPTIMIZATION CONSULTING SERVICES June 3, 2026 57 Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning | ISGInc.com 2 ## TIARA MARCUS ## Project Executive + Strategic Planning Facilitator ## INTRODUCTIONS ## TANYA M. PIERCE ## Business Unit Leader, Government + Cultural 58 ## PHASE 1: LEADERSHIP + KEY STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION ## PROCESS EVALUATION + PRIORITIZATION • Evaluate and map key steps within the organization’s workflow • Identify strengths, challenges, and opportunities for improvement • ## F acilitate a nine-vote prioritization exercise to determine the highest-impact initiatives ## TECHNICAL EXPERTS ## Tiara Marcus ## Project Executive + Strategic ## Planning Facilitator ## Eric Eigenberg ## Project Manager ## Jay Lotthammer ## Public Works ## Operations Strategist Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning | ISGInc.com 3 59 ## PHASE 2: FLOW + PROCESS MAPS ## SAFETY • Reduce traffic and storage congestion • Improve ergonomics by minimizing unnecessary movement ## QUALITY • Streamline training and process understanding • Strengthen visual management ## COST/EFFICIENCY • Optimize material and personnel flow • Reduce transportation time, product searching, and process confusion ## TECHNICAL EXPERTS ## Tiara Marcus ## Project Executive + Strategic ## Planning Facilitator ## Charley ## Hatterman Data + ## Systems Engineer ## Josh Gross, ## AIA, NCARB, LEED AP ## BD+C, MPA ## Architect ## Bryan Petzel, PE ## Civil Site Engineer Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning | ISGInc.com 4 60 ## PHASE 2 + 3: FACILITY EVALUATION + PRIORITIZATION ## Thad Dahling ## Facilities ## Assessment Lead ## Charley ## Hatterman Data + ## Systems Engineer ## Luis Swanson ## GIS Specialist Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning | ISGInc.com 5 ## Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning ISGInc.com ## DASHBOARD EXAMPLES ## City of Savage, MN ## TECHNICAL EXPERTS 61 ## Table Of Contents Executive Summary .................................... ## Facility Recommendations ...................... ## Overall Goals + Priorities .......................... ## S takeholder Themes .................................. Business Case .............................................. ## Implementation Schedule ## + Cost Estimates ......................................... ## PHASE 3 + 4: THEME IDENTIFICATION + IMPROVEMENT AREAS ## Thad Dahling ## Facilities ## Assessment Lead Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning | ISGInc.com 6 ## Tiara Marcus ## Project Executive + Strategic ## Planning Facilitator ## Josh Gross, ## AIA, NCARB, LEED AP ## BD+C, MPA ## Architect ## Eric Eigenberg ## Project Manager ## TECHNICAL EXPERTS 62 Architecture + Engineering + Environmental + Planning | ISGInc.com 7 ## STAFF + ## HOURLY RATE ## ANTICIPATED ## HOURS ## FEE ## PHASE 1: ORIENTATION + EXISTING CONDITIONS ## Architect $180 ## Civil Site Engineer $200 Data + ## Systems Engineer $140 ## GIS Specialist $220 ## Facilities ## Assessment Lead $195 ## Project Manager $195 ## Public Works ## Operations Facilitator $205 ## Project Executive + Strategic ## Planning Facilitator $240 120–135$23,250–$26,460 1.1 Project kickoff and stakeholder facilitation 1.2 Facility condition assessment and verification 1.3 Spatial scan and GIS mapping 1.4 Operations trends and benchmarking 1.5 Obtain and review existing data 1.6 Phase 1 summary report ## PHASE 2: INTERPRETATION + ANALYSIS 100–124$19,600–$24,304 2.1 Existing facilities and operations process mapping 2.2 GIS spatial optimization and site suitability analysis 2.3 Operational inefficiency analysis 2.4 Fleet movement analysis 2.5 Scenario planning and phasing options 2.6 StoryMaps generation 2.7 Identify renovation or relocation opportunities 2.8 Phase 2 analysis package ## PHASE 3: ALTERNATIVES + SHARED VISION 110–122$21,560–$23,912 3.1 Optimized workflows and design criteria 3.2 Stakeholder workshops and consensus 3.3 Facility and organization alternatives 3.4 Business case for total cost of ownership (TCO) 3.5 Preferred alternative and shared vision ## PHASE 4: FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS + IMPLEMENTATION 97–108$19,012–$21,168 4.1 Facility recommendations and site analysis 4.2 Implementation schedule and cost estimates 4.3 Programming and adaptive reuse strategies 4.4 Finalize report and StoryMaps 4.5 Final PWFO report ## TOTAL$83,422–$95,844 ## FEE 63 ## THANK YOU! 64 ## Memorandum ## TO: Todd Prafke DATE: 6/12/2026 ## City Administrator ## FROM: Benjamin Baker ## Community Development Director ## RE: 1225 S Washington Ave Development Update ## ACTION/RECOMMENDATION Update on the 1225 S Washington Ave (Presidents Corner) housing development project. ## BACKGROUND In 1854, the Original Plat of St. Peter was filed which dedicated three (3) public squares to the public use including Minnesota Square, Washington Square (Community Center), and Jefferson Square. An Amended Plat of Saint Peter was filed in 1859 since the Original Plat failed to establish section line or corner posts. The Amended Plat also established the same three (3) public squares. In the 1800s, a railroad was built which ran through the eastern portion of Jefferson Square. When the railroad terminated its service in the 1900s, the railroad sold its abandoned line/land, which once included a train depot, to H.W. Komatz. In 1965 H.W. Komatz sought a Quiet Title Action in District Court to declare H.W. Komatz to be the owner of all of Jefferson Square except for the westerly 122 ft. The westerly 122 ft. of the square was used as a municipal well/water filtration plant. After 1965, the easterly 208 ft. of Jefferson Square was developed into multiple residential structures, including two (2) single-family homes, a duplex/apartment, and four (4) townhome units. In 2010, the City of Saint Peter replaced the Jefferson Avenue Water Filtration Plant, at 1225 S Washington Avenue, with a new state-of-the-art reverse-osmosis water treatment plant, constructed just north of Gustavus Adolphus College at 1801 Broadway Avenue. Therefore, in 2011, the old water filtration plant was demolished, and the on-site wells were sealed. For the past 15 years, the land has been left vacant (maintained grass) and turned into a seldom used public property. In May 2024, Adam Huiras, ALH Land Company, submitted an offer on the subject property, proposing: 1) duplexes/townhomes up to eleven (11) units, or 2) multi-family residential up to fourteen (14) units. Due to construction timing issues, the project was put on hold by Huiras. In March 2025, Huiras submitted a revised offer for the subject property. That offer showed the site developing into four (4) residential twin-homes (8-units) with walk-out basement/garages, taking advantage of the sloping hillside. On May 12, 2025, the City Council approved a Purchase Agreement. On December 8, 2025, the City Council reviewed an alternative design, submitted 65 by Huiras, showing two (2) townhome buildings, that would hold up to eleven (11) units. Although the City Council was favorable moving forward with either development proposal, the developers decided to proceed with the original idea due to construction costs. In January 2026, the City signed an updated purchase agreement with ALH Land Company and Fox Valley Property’s, extending the closing date deadline to May 31, 2026. Closing did not take place because of 2009 financing obligation with the State of Minnesota. ## Proposed Development The proposed development site will contain four (4) separate buildings/twin-homes (8 total units). Each building will host two (2) homes, including the following items: 1 front porch 1 kitchen 3 bathrooms 1 living room 3 bedrooms 1 utility/storage room 1 dining room 1 office (or bedroom) 2-stall garage (attached) Due to the site topography, tuck-under garages are proposed, which will face the rear yard. The garage and off-street parking traffic is designed to funnel to a single two-lane driveway that leads to Pine Street (reducing traffic conflicts onto Jefferson Avenue and Washington Avenue). A curb- cut was already created to serve the subject property along with the 2024 Pine Street Project. The building footprint size is: 54’ x 52’ ( 2,808 sf) including the porch, and 54’ x 46’ (2,484 sf) without the porch. The developer plans to make the units available for purchase or rent. ## Title / Land Issues Issue # 1 In the Spring of 2025, the City Attorney found that the land had to go through a legal process before being sold, since the subject property was originally platted as a public square (Jefferson Square). ## Resolution On September 29, 2025, the State of Minnesota District Court found that the Plaintiff (City of Saint Peter) has title to the Subject Property and has the authority to sell said property (Court File No. 52-CV-25-437, Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law, and Order for Judgment Document No. 355557, 10/7/25). Issue # 2 In the Spring of 2026, the City Attorney found that the City is not allowed to sell this property without the consent of the Minnesota Management & Budget Department, in this instance, for 40 years due to the City’s receipt of both loan and grant dollars from the State for a project that occurred on this site. That project was for the removal of a water treatment building and closure of the well on the property. That project was funded in 2009. At that time the City of Saint Peter was awarded $19.7 million in bond and grant funds for the Clean Water/Drinking Water Revolving Fund Program from the Minnesota Public Facilities Authority (PFA) to help finance the following: • New Broadway WTP - $16.7 million (20-year loan at 2.7%) • Old Jefferson WTP and Watermain - $2 million (principal forgiveness) • St Julien Plant - $0.9 million (principal forgiveness) 66 To be able to meet the requirements, sell the land and put in a property tax and utility paying status, the City must follow and submit applicable items listed in the General Obligation Compliance Checklist for Sale of G.O. Bond Financed Properties, including: 1) a signed Resolution stating “that the Subject Property is no longer usable or needed to carry out the governmental purpose for which it was originally acquired, constructed, or bettered”, and 2) a sale of the property at fair market value, based on an appraisal by a certified appraiser. The sale price agreed to was slightly over $64,000. That means that a grant of about $36,000 would be provided for the sale and title to be cleared for closing. Once submitted to the Capital Bonding Coordinator, it can take up to 60 days for the State to process the information for release. Along with the Compliance Checklist, the City will need to pay the State $100,000, which is the appraised value of the Subject Property. ## Timeline for Issue Resolution June 2026 o City Council approves a Resolution, declaring the property is not needed o City Council approves a modified Purchase Agreement providing for the $100,000 sale amount as set by the appraiser o Grant approval with funds from the Water Fund to the developer to provide the agreed upon resources which meet the State requirements, namely meeting the $100,000 sale appraisal threshold o Compliance Checklist and documents submitted to State of Minnesota o City sends $100,000 to the State of Minnesota August 2026 o Commissioner of Minnesota Management & Budget consents to the property sale o Closing on property ## Project Timeline June-July 2026 o Building Permit and Civil Plans Submitted to City for review August-September 2026 o Closing on property o Grading and utility work o Footing and foundation work on new homes October-November 2026 o Enclosed new homes before winter weather arrives December 2026 – April 2027 o Complete construction of new homes Our goal for the workshop is to give members opportunity to understand the challenges that are faced with the sale of the property and provide input on the solution(s) that have been identified. We hope to put you in a position to approve the proposed actions and sell the parcel. We hope to get that approval at an upcoming regular meeting cycle. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions or concerns on this agenda item. ## BB 67