Lake Elmo City Council — Transcript
Wednesday, November 19, 2025
Park Reservation Policy Revisions
2026 Strategic Work Plan Development
Votes (2)
Lake Elmo Park Reservation Policy Revisions
Dissent: Commissioner Pete suggested doubling court reservation fees but ultimately did not vote against the motion as presented, signaling it as a discussion point for future consideration with the City Council.
Moved by Commissioner [30:22] · Seconded by Commissioner [30:27]
Staff presented a revised park reservation policy for commissioner review before submission to the City Council. The policy included updated fees for ball fields, field lights, and shelters, introducing non-refundable elements for specific services to offset operational costs. New provisions for reservable pickleball courts (limiting to 50% capacity) were outlined. Commissioners questioned the perceived low cost of court rentals, the administrative feasibility of differential resident/non-resident pricing, and the clarification of non-refundable deposit amounts, particularly for shelters and courts to cover cleanup and maintenance.
2026 Parks Commission Work Plan Approval
Dissent: No notable dissent was recorded during the vote, although several commissioners raised concerns about their level of involvement in certain planning processes.
Moved by Commissioner [57:38] · Seconded by Commissioner [57:46]
The commission reviewed its proposed 2026 work plan, section by section. Key items included monitoring the Washington County Greenway Trail Plan, developing a new prioritization strategy for playground replacements to focus on community parks, paving the dog park parking lot, and creating a master plan for Lions Park. Discussions also covered ongoing maintenance, updates on buckthorn removal, and adding Schilkins Park to the ski grant application. Commissioners voiced concerns about feeling excluded from the decision-making processes for the multi-sport complex and trail snow removal policy, emphasizing their desire for more integrated involvement.
Notable Quotes (8)
So, kind of bringing that back and circling that back with uh the commissioners here to just again uh take a good look over it. Do we need to change anything? Do we need to adapt anything before we uh present this again to or forward this on to city council?
Yeah. I you know, I guess I was looking at it more from the perspective of courts. $20 for three hours generally seems just from a general perspective seems really inexpensive to me. And I'm wondering if I'm I'm simply wondering I I guess I don't know whether charging more for non-residents is something we should consider.
It does go to the general fund. So likely um so whether you whether you bill out a thousand or you know $3,000 that year or whatever it might be uh that'll go back on the general fund and so yeah when we do talk about CIP items and resurfacing and things like that that we're not going to get a couple hundred extra.
I think I'd like to see the court reservations increased probably doubled. I just to me $20 is is just really not in the line with what we'd expect for a three-hour rental.
City Council wants us to uh likely not put uh these playground sets in all these neighborhood parks and really prioritize what are community parks and maybe more address our new playground sets to those areas instead of every 26 every year it seems like for 26 playgrounds whenever we'd be replacing one. Can we minimize these down?
It the process to me is confusing that we wouldn't be included in that, especially since it was part of the MA parks master. I mean, you're Hank, you're not involved in that as part of a work plan or anything like that or work group rather.
So, our public works director, uh, currently the position for that is open and they're actually po they posted for that here about, uh, a week ago. So, the parks position is probably like on lower priority right now. they'd like to implement that public works director first, get a bigger scope of what they feel is needed, maybe bring in some different ideas, whatever it might be, um to actually implement where that position lies.
I guess I would go so far as not just feedback, but we should be part of the process of how they determine the process of if it's community engagement, we should know when those are. Would we want to participate in those as a commission? I think to your point, Ellen, it's just getting the the the feedback without having kind of the the path that's gotten there is extremely difficult.
Ordinances & Resolutions (7)
The local government policy governing the use and reservation of city park amenities, undergoing revision.
The annual document created by the Parks Commission outlining its projects, maintenance tasks, and objectives for the upcoming year.
A county-level trail development plan near Lake Elmo that requires periodic review by the Parks Commission.
A proposed comprehensive development plan for Lions Park, involving community engagement and consultant collaboration.
County and City capital improvement plans, referenced in discussions about park projects and funding.
An application to the Department of Natural Resources to secure funding for ski trail grooming and maintenance.
The overarching strategic plan for the city's parks system, referenced in discussions about the multi-sport complex and trail snow removal.