Lake Elmo City Council — Transcript
Tuesday, October 21, 2025
2026 Street and Utility Public Improvement Project
2025 Street and Utility Improvements Final Assessment Role
Stillwater Area School District Utility Improvements Final Assessment Role
Landfill Solar Farm Feasibility Study
High Point Crossing Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Development Alternatives
Limmerch Village Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
Votes (11)
Consent Agenda Approval
Dissent: None
Moved by Unknown [0:04:13] · Seconded by Unknown [0:04:16]
The Consent Agenda, which included payments, tort limits, development agreements, security releases, various pay requests for utility and street projects, benefit renewals, and a Minnesota paid leave implementation plan, was approved without discussion.
Public Hearing: 2026 Street and Utility Public Improvement Hearing
Dissent: None
Moved by Unknown [0:07:01] · Seconded by Unknown [0:07:02]
The city engineer presented the feasibility report for the 2026 street and utility improvements in Lake Elmo Heights and Eagle Creek Point Estates. Public comments included Jim Greenguard asking about long-range sewer development plans (none planned for this area) and the cost-benefit of concrete curb versus asphalt (city standard for longevity against snow plows). Steve Meyer inquired about choosing complete removal over mill and overlay; the engineer clarified that existing asphalt deterioration required reclamation. The hearing was then closed.
Resolution 2025-070: Ordering Improvements for 2026 Street and Utility Improvements
Dissent: None
Moved by Unknown [0:09:07] · Seconded by Unknown [0:09:30]
Council member Holtz thanked public speakers for their participation. The council discussed the necessity of the improvements due to poor road conditions and reiterated that the decision to use concrete curb was based on previous research supporting its longevity. No specific concerns were raised about the resolution itself.
Authorization for City Administrator to Contract with Bolton Mink, Inc.
Dissent: None
Moved by Unknown [0:10:55] · Seconded by Unknown [0:11:21]
This action authorized the city administrator to enter into a contract with Bolton Mink, Inc. for final design and bidding phase services for the 2026 street and utility improvements. The 'not to exceed' amount was set at $138,600, which includes both staff and project team time, unlike previous segmented contracts.
Public Hearing: Adopt Final Assessment Role for 2025 Street Utility Improvements
Dissent: None
Moved by Unknown [0:16:30] · Seconded by Unknown [0:16:31]
The city engineer presented the final assessment tabulations for the 2025 project, noting overall assessment reductions of 22% due to good bids. A specific property at 9696 55th Street North was removed from the assessment roll due to an error from a 2017 project where improvements were done but not assessed. Katherine Todd, a resident, delivered an impassioned public comment outlining significant financial burdens, property damage (trees, sprinkler system, dog fence), lack of city services despite high taxes, and environmental concerns related to drainage pollution on her property. She requested abatement or reduction of her assessment, or compensation for damages. The council discussed investigating Ms. Todd's claims about property damage outside the right-of-way and the general policy for private property within easements. A letter from Mr. John Bourbon requesting assessment reduction for 57th Street was also noted.
Resolution 2025-071: Adopting Final Assessment Role for 2025 Street Utility Project (as amended)
Dissent: Council Member Dragitch
Moved by Unknown [0:29:21] · Seconded by Unknown [0:29:39]
Council Member Dragitch argued for a reduction in assessment for residents on 57th Street, citing the previous 2010 project where a less durable bituminous curb was chosen and suggesting the city shared responsibility for the project's shorter lifespan. Other council members, including Holtz, countered that residents chose the bituminous curb at the time, and the current concrete curb significantly extends lifespan. They emphasized the legal requirement for consistency and uniformity in assessment policies, limiting discretion for individual exceptions. The discussion also clarified that property taxes do not support city utilities, which are funded by user fees. The resolution, as amended to remove the specific property, was ultimately approved.
Public Hearing: Adopt Final Assessment Role for Stillwater Area School District Utility Improvements
Dissent: None
Moved by Unknown [0:39:07] · Seconded by Unknown [0:39:08]
The city engineer detailed the project to provide sanitary sewer and water service to Lake Elmo Elementary and Oakland Middle School, involving new gravity lines and upsizing force mains. The school district had previously submitted a waiver of assessments. Final assessments came in lower than estimated for both schools and a residential property. No public comments were made during the hearing.
Resolution: Adopting Final Assessment Role for Stillwater Area School District Utility Improvement Project
Dissent: None
Moved by Unknown [0:39:53] · Seconded by Unknown [0:39:54]
This resolution formally adopted the final assessment roles for the Stillwater Area School District utility improvements. Council Member Holtz commended staff for the fast-tracked nature of the project and the innovative solutions required, recognizing the significant benefit to the community's 2,000 students and staff.
Landfill Solar Farm Project Discussion
Dissent: N/A
Moved by N/A · Seconded by N/A
Commissioner Tony Manzura presented the idea of developing a solar farm on the old landfill site, highlighting its history of environmental issues and potential for public benefit. The main legal and financial hurdle discussed was whether General Obligation (GO) bonds, issued in 2014 for landfill closure, must be paid off before commercial use. Manzura indicated conflicting expert opinions and requested city staff and attorney research. Council members agreed to have staff obtain an estimate for legal review costs and bring the item back for a workshop to discuss its priority and feasibility as a land use strategy.
High Point Crossing Comprehensive Plan Amendment Advisory Discussion
Dissent: N/A
Moved by N/A · Seconded by N/A
City Staff Mr. First updated the council on the High Point Crossing project, explaining the need for a comprehensive plan amendment due to issues with the community septic system and ongoing Met Council sewer capacity analysis, which currently indicates a bottleneck. The developer, facing timeline pressures, presented two rural development alternatives (30-lot and 11-lot plans) that would not rely on city sewer. Council members provided advisory feedback, largely favoring the 11-lot rural plan due to its simpler private infrastructure, larger lot sizes, and alignment with green space preservation, despite potential needs for exceptions to city standards (e.g., private wells, private roads, ponding in lots). They expressed willingness to explore flexibility in city standards to make such a unique project work.
Limmerch Village Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Decision
Dissent: None
Moved by Unknown [1:12:35] · Seconded by Unknown [1:12:39]
City Staff Mr. First presented the EAW for Limmerch Village, explaining that its unit count required an EAW but not a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Three comments were received during the public comment period: two from agencies (MPCA, Met Council) and one from the public. Staff recommended a 'negative declaration,' determining the EAW provided sufficient information and that no EIS was required, as all comments had been adequately addressed in the findings of fact document. The Met Council indicated the EAW was sufficient from a regional standpoint.
Notable Quotes (21)
My name is Jim Greenguard. I live at 2677 Imperial Avenue. And I guess one question I have or concern is when do we plan on what's a long range plan for sewer development in that proposed area because if you're going to put in a new street and two years later you're going to put in the sewer, there isn't much sense to do it.
These streets are actually not eligible for a mill. They're not good candidates for a mill in overlay treatment. Um the deterioration of the asphalt is such that any sort of mill and overlay will just throw the totally tear the streets apart. Um once they've kind of cracked full depth like they have full depth asphalt failure the they have to be either reclaimed or torn out and completely reconstructed.
I was going to say thank you to Jim and Steve for coming to the hearing first and asking your questions. I I hope the concerns were addressed, but thank you for coming and doing that. We with public hearing at this stage, usually we we don't often, so thank you for coming and doing that.
This I just want to stress that this is a not to exceed. Sure. And this does include both staff time and you know and and the project's team time. So last year those two numbers were separated if you may recall.
Overall, the assessments were reduced by a little over 22,000 or 22% for everybody.
I'm here to talk about this $17,200 assessment plus 5 and a half% interest over 15 years for street utility improvements that will not only severely financially burden me, but also are fundamentally unjust, I believe, given what I've already contributed to Lake Elmo.
So, I must ask, why am I being taxed and assessed as though I receive full municipal services when I do not?
So, if a contractor gets into the private if a contractor gets over a line, they become liable.
I think that, you know, the point made by the residents on 57th Street about the was built in 2010. Now, we're 15 years later. I know we perhaps wasn't built to the right standards or whatever. I would contend, you know, the city had the ability to build it to the right standards. None of us were here then. Um, but it wasn't. But are we penalizing them because we made a bad decision and I think some reduction would be appropriate for that.
But tumis uh when it's confined by concrete, it can't expand and crack as well as it can if it's unconfined. So that's that's really one one, you know, one reason why it's a great partner for bumless streets like this. Another is that the number one enemy of, you know, any street is water getting into this upgrade.
One thing that we have to keep in mind on our end is the assessment has to be uniform. We can't prrate it based upon when a person moved in. We can't prrate it based upon uh one street versus the other in terms of what happened in 2010 versus what didn't. It has to be uniform and it has to be consistent.
I just think staff at both the district and the city need kudos on this because the this project was an extremely fast-tracked project and the amount of work that was required to get utilities there and the originality and figure out solutions was pretty high.
The issue is that there's it's unclear if you I've talked to a dozen people about what could be done and the issue becomes whether the general obligation bonds have to be paid off before you can do anything beneficial there.
I'm asking if the city would look in look into the legal situation and read the law carefully and and explain to us what what we have to do.
I I think this has to be something that in that workshop that we're discussing obviously just beyond what does it look like costwise uh to figure this out if you know from the GOB standpoint is this something we want to do? Is it how we want to use the land?
It was kind of news to me a month ago when we talked to staff to when there was an issue about whether or not there's enough capacity to even support the the this because if you think about 65 units in the scope of a metropolitan, you know, the municipal urban way system, it's kind of a rounding error.
I think the council could approve the MC plan amendment, send it to the Met Council, then they have 60 days to respond or they could extend it to 120 days. But then we'd know in four months what we could do.
I'm intrigued with the 11 parcel one for a couple reasons. One, that is a opportunity is not the right word, but that is a a a type of scenario that Lake Elmo has not created lately. like we have many fantastic 5 to 10 acre lots, but I can't recall a time in in recent decades where there's been an opportunity for additional people to come in and enjoy that type of property.
It is it's difficult to make it work. And maybe that is something we have to reconsider of, you know, just like we did for the OPUD in this situation. I I just again, I guess I want to be careful of what I say, but like I just I think I'd really love to see this work. Um, and I think looking at what flexibility is needed to make it work is very reasonable.
A negative declaration would be that the city finds the Limmerch Village EAW to be sufficient in the information that it provides, uh and would not require any additional information from the developer before they apply for their next step. Positive declaration would mean that uh the city finds there is a need for more information and articulates that um that would be required uh that additional information would be required in the form of an EIS.
So, given that, given the fact that we um feel like all of the different comments have been addressed through the findings of fact document, staff are very comfortable uh recommending the a negative declaration or determination on the need for an EIS.
Ordinances & Resolutions (15)
Legal process for public improvement hearings.
Report outlining findings and recommendations for 2026 street and utility improvements.
Ordering improvements for the 2026 street and utility project and authorizing design services.
Adopting the final assessment role for the 2025 street utility project, as amended.
Reference for previous assessment and choices on 57th Street.
Motion by the Economic Development Authority to research landfill solar farm restrictions.
Original approval for High Point Crossing, also a general city standard.
Developer request to bring High Point Crossing into the MUSA and create a new land use category.
Proposed new future land use category (Open Space Planned Unit Development Density Range).
State law requiring environmental review.
Mandatory environmental review document for Limmerch Village.
Publication where EAW was published.
More sophisticated environmental review document, not required for Limmerch Village.
Approving a negative declaration on the need for an EIS for Limmerch Village.
Document compiled by staff supporting the EAW decision.