--- ## author: Sue Barry date: D:20260522082653-05'00' --- ## AGENDA ## City Council ## Workshop Meeting May 26, 2026 ## Discovery Center, 4444 Hadley Ave N ## 5:00 PM ## 5:00 PM Utility Rate Study 5:40 PM Wetland Outlots and City Ownership ## 6:00 PM Review Long Range Financial Model ## 6:30 PM Golfview and Tower Parks Playground Selection ## 6:50 PM Recess ## Continue after Recess ## 2026 Eco Fair Recap ## Administrator Update ## Council Topics 1 ## COUNCIL MEMORANDUM ## To: Honorable Mayor and City Council ## From: Jake Foster, Assistant City Administrator Date: May 26, 2026 ## Subject: Utility Rate Study ## BACKGROUND In fall of 2025, the City entered into an agreement with Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services (AE2S) to complete a comprehensive utility rate study for the City’s water, sanitary sewer, stormwater, and streetlight utilities. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the financial condition of each utility, assess whether existing rate structures equitably allocate costs among users/user groups, and develop recommendations to support long-term financial sustainability in each fund. ## T he scope of the work included three primary components: 1.Cost of Service Analysis (COSA) – Evaluation of how different customer classes drive utility costs, with the most detailed analysis focused on the water utility. 2.Rate Structure Evaluation – Review of existing rate structures and development of recommendations to better align rates with industry best practices and policy goals. 3.Financial Modeling – Development of long-term financial models to project operating, capital, and reserve needs and to assist with future annual rate setting. ## Overall Utility Recommendations: •Phase out the Utility System Replacement Fund (USRF) and allow each utility to directly fund its own capital improvements. •Establish utility-specific operating reserve and capital funding targets. •Implement the recommended 2027 rate adjustments. •Utilize the financial models developed by AE2S to guide future annual rate setting. ## Water Utility: •Establish meter-size-based fixed charges for commercial and irrigation accounts. •Simplify and adjust tiered usage rates to better encourage water conservation. ## Sewer Utility: •Establish meter-size-based fixed charges. •Maintain a uniform volumetric charge. ## Stormwater Utility: •Maintain the existing rate structure. •Consider an impervious-surface-based billing methodology in the future. ## Streetlight Utility: •Maintain the current rate structure. 2 ## Proposed 2027 Rate Adjustments: •Water: Structural changes with revised tiering and increased fixed charges. Proposed is a minimal volumetric charge and a 12% base charge increase, commercial base charge increases vary by meter size. •Sewer: 2% volumetric increase and 4% base charge increase for residential and apartments, commercial base charge increases vary by meter size •Stormwater: 3% increase. No changes to existing rate structure. •Streetlights: 4% increase. No changes to existing rate structure. AE2S has completed the study and will present its findings and recommendations to the City Council during the Workshop. ## COUNCIL DIRECTION REQUESTED ## Staff requests that the City Council review and provide feedback on the findings and recommendations presented in the Utility Rate Study presentation. Based on the Council’s direction, staff will finalize the rate study to present at a future City Council meeting with proposed updates to utility rates, fixed charges, and rate structures for the Council’s consideration and approval. ## Attachment ## Utility Rate ## Study Presentation Slides ## Utility Rate Study ## City of Oakdale, MN ## Council Workshop May 26, 2026 2 ## Rate Study Objectives ## Rate Study Process ## Key Findings ## Recommendations ## Questions ## Agenda ## Utilities ## Studied •Water •Sewer •Stormwater •Streetlights 1 2 3 4 5 3 ## Perform Water Utility Cost of Service Analysis (COSA) to understand how different user classes drive costs Evaluate the existing rate structures and revenue recovery approaches Develop rate structure recommendations to improve long-term revenue stability and alignment with system costs Evaluate long-term rate projections to support ongoing operations, capital reinvestment, and long-term financial sustainability Hand off financial models for ongoing City use ## Rate Study Objectives 4 •Follow industry standard methodologies ## •AWWA M1 Manual ## •WEF MOP 27 ## •WEF Stormwater Publication •A cost of service analysis (COSA) is performed to ensure those that are causing the costs are paying for the costs. ## Rate Study Process ## Deliverables ## Revenue Adequacy and Rate Forecasting ## Rate Design ## Water COSA ## Revenue Requirements ## Data Collection and Review 5 ## Key Findings ## Overall •Utility System Replacement Fund (USRF) creates transparency challenges •Utility reserving strategy could be improved ## Water •Tier pricing not conducive for conservation •Fixed charges inconsistent with industry standards •Commercial users slightly overpay (COSA results) ## Sewer •Fixed charges not adequately meeting industry recommendations •Transfers to the USRF not inline with Sewer capital spending ## Stormwater •Follows a simplified industry standard approach •Future rate structure improvements could be explored ## Streetlights •Follows industry standard approach •No changes to rate structure recommend 6 ## Recommendations Overall•Phase out use of the Utility System Replacement Fund (USRF) •Implement 180 day operating reserves target •Establish capital funding/reserve targets ≥ depreciation •Implement 2027 rate increase and continue to use financial models for annual rate setting Water•Establish a meter sized based fixed charge •Adjust and simplify tier structure and adjust pricing to promote conservation Sewer•Establish a meter sized based fixed charge •Maintain uniform volumetric rate Stormwater•Maintain current rate structure •Consider exploring an impervious surface based rate structure in the future Streetlights•Maintain current rate structure More detail provided on subsequent slides for items in blue. 7 ## Current Approach •Funds are transferred from each utility into the USRF on a fixed annual basis (not directly tied to needs of each utility) •USRF is used to fund utility capital improvements ## Recommended Approach •Phase out use of the USRF •Develop more detailed improvements plans for each utility •Directly pay for capital from each respective utility ## Utility System Replacement Fund (USRF) ## Recommendations Why do this? •Better transparency •Get each utility to “stand on their own” 8 ## Water Rate Structure ## Base Charge Recommendations ## Base Charge Structure – Current ## Residential(Quarterly) ## Per Quarter$15.84 ## Apartment ## Per Unit per Month$5.27 ## Commercial Per Increment of 10,000 gallons$5.26 ## Irrigation Per Increment of 10,000 gallons$5.26 ## Base Charge Structure – Recommended ## Residential(Quarterly) ## Per Quarter$17.74 ## Apartment ## Per Unit per Month$5.91 ## Commercial & Irrigation (Per Meter per month) ## Τ 5 8 ” – ## Τ 3 4 ”$5.91 1”$8.28 1 ## Τ 1 2 ”$10.64 2”$17.15 3”$65.03 4”$82.78 6”$124.16 9 ## Water Rate Structure ## Usage Charge Recommendations ## Usage Rate Structure - Current Per 1,000 ## Gallons ## Residential(Quarterly) Tier 1 (0-25,000 gallons)$2.60 Tier 2 (25,001-50,000 gallons)$2.89 Tier 3 (>50,000)$3.10 Apartment (Monthly) Tier 1 (0-12,000 gallons)$2.60 Tier 2 (12,001-17,000 gallons)$2.84 Tier 3 (>17,000 gallons)$3.08 Commercial & Irrigation (Monthly) Tier 1 (0-12,000 gallons)$2.60 Tier 2 (12,001-17,000 gallons)$2.84 Tier 3 (17,001-22,000 gallons)$3.08 Tier 4 (>22,000 gallons)$3.51 ## Usage Rate Structure – Recommended Per 1,000 ## Gallons ## Residential(Quarterly) Tier 1 (0-10,000 gallons)$2.30 Tier 2 (10,001-21,000 gallons)$2.76 Tier 3 (>21,000)$3.59 Apartment (Monthly) ## All Water$2.76 Commercial (Monthly) ## All Water$2.76 ## Irrigation(Monthly) ## All Water$3.59 Alternatively, Apartments could be billed like Residential on a per unit basis which could further incentivize conservation. 10 ## Sewer Rate Structure ## Recommendations ## Base Charge Structure - Current ## Residential(Quarterly) ## Per Quarter$26.17 ## Apartment ## Per Unit per Month$8.73 ## Commercial Per Increment of 10,000 gallons$8.73 ## Base Charge Structure – Recommended* ## Residential(Quarterly) ## Per Quarter$27.21 ## Apartment ## Per Unit per Month$9.07 ## Commercial (Per Meter per month) ## Τ 5 8 ” – ## Τ 3 4 ”$9.07 1”$12.69 1 ## Τ 1 2 ”$16.32 2”$26.29 3”$99.73 4”$126.92 6”$190.37 * Includes a 4% revenue increase from current rates ## Usage Charge Structure - Current ## All Users Per 1,000 gallons$4.72 ## Usage Charge Structure – Recommended* ## All Users Per 1,000 gallons$4.81 * Includes a 2% rate increase from current rates 11 ## Water & Sewer Rate Structure ## Recommendations ## Water •Minimal volumetric charge __increase with updated tiering •12.0% base charge increase for __Residential and Apartments •Commercial base charge increases __vary by meter size ## Sewer •2.0% volumetric charge increase •4.0% base charge increase for __Residential and Apartments •Commercial base charge __increases vary by meter size 12 ## Stormwater & Streetlights Rate Structure ## Recommendations ## Stormwater 3.0% rate increase No changes to existing structure ## Streetlight 4.0% rate increase No changes to existing structure 13 2025 Compares Oakdale’s residential water ## rate to Minneapolis/St. Paul Metro utilities using 6,000 gallons per month ## Water Rate ## Comparison ## Rate Survey ## Rate Recommendation ## Typical Residential Bill $20.93 Monthly $62.79 Quarterly 14 2025 ## Rate Survey Compares Oakdale’s residential sewer ## rate to Minneapolis/St. Paul Metro utilities using 6,000 gallons per month ## Wastewater Rate ## Comparison ## Rate Survey ## Rate Recommendation ## Typical Residential Bill $37.96 Monthly $113.88 Quarterly 15 2025 ## Rate Survey Compares Oakdale’s residential stormwater rate to Minneapolis/St. Paul Metro utilities using 6,000 gallons per month ## Stormwater Rate ## Comparison ## Rate Survey ## Rate Recommendation ## Typical Residential Bill $3.91 Monthly $11.73 Quarterly 16 ## Streetlight Rate Comparison ## Peer Communities ## CommunityPer MonthPer Quarter ## Woodbury Lighted Residential$4.00$12.00 ## StillwaterAll Residential$4.42$13.25 ## Oakdale Residential - Current$5.83$17.48 ## Residential - Recommended$6.06$18.18 ## Cottage GroveResidential - City Area$6.83$20.49 ## Residential - Xcel Area$8.22$24.66 Rosevilleno charge ## White Bear Lakeno charge 17 The results of the study support equitable and defendable utility rates. The financial tools developed will help support on-going rate setting and financial sustainability for the utilities. ## Conclusions 18 ## Questions/Discussion ## COUNCIL MEMORANDUM 1 ## To: Honorable Mayor and City Council ## From: Luke McClanahan, Planning Manager ## Mark Statz, City Engineer Date: May 26, 2026 ## Subject: Wetland Outlots and City Ownership ## BACKGROUND Recent development proposals containing significant amounts of wetland have raised questions about the City’s long-standing ordinance provision that requires wetland to be platted as outlots and deeded to the City. As Oakdale continues to build out, it is expected that future development and redevelopment sites will contain wetland areas, resulting in the City acquiring additional land to maintain. As such, the City Council directed staff to conduct research on this topic and hold a discussion at a future Workshop. Guidance from the City Council is being sought to determine if any changes to the ordinance are desired. On November 9, 1994, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 421 in response to the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act. The amendment introduced a new requirement for wetland areas that are 1) located within a proposed subdivision/plat, and 2) identified within the Oakdale Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP), to be platted as outlots and deeded to the City for ownership and maintenance (Minnesota Statutes 444.075 and 462.358 grants municipalities the authority to acquire land and easements for wetlands and stormwater ponds/holding areas, but does not require it). The ordinance requirement remains in effect currently under the City of Oakdale Code of Ordinances, Chapter 21, Article 21-04, Section 21-04-602. As mentioned, the City’s Subdivision Ordinance requires wetlands and storm water ponding areas that are reflected in the SWMP to be platted as outlots and deeded to the City. Prior to the Wetland Conservation Act, wetland areas were often utilized for stormwater management for development. Nowadays, wetland areas are typically not used for direct stormwater treatment. Rather, modern developments generally treat stormwater runoff via manmade ponds or special infrastructure (e.g., underground chambers) prior to any discharge into a wetland. It is important to note that manmade storm ponds and other Best Management Practices (BMPs) are governed by a different set of laws (the Clean Water Act) and are regulated under the City’s Municipal Separate Stormwater System (MS4) permit. The City’s current policy also requires those facilities to be on platted outlots. There are no changes proposed to this policy in regards to storm water ponds/holding areas. ## Benefits of City Owned Wetland Outlots Below are important advantages of City ownership of wetland area. • City ownership ensures long-term preservation of open space by preventing development from occurring – particularly through wetland banking (i.e., authorized wetland impacts through mitigation credits). o Privately owned wetland outlots on separate parcels can also create problems if they go into tax forfeiture, and enforcement can be problematic. • Having defined wetland outlots can be helpful as people tend to better understand the difference between property lines, rather than easement lines. 2 • In some instances, wetlands support and enhance recreational infrastructure (e.g., wetland surrounded by trails at Willowbrooke Commons). • Maintenance performed by the City is conducted in accordance with applicable laws and best practices, whereas many private property owners do not have the technical knowledge or resources to do so or undertake work that causes more harm than good. • There are certain circumstances in which platting wetland as outlots and deeding them to the City generally works well, such as when a wetland area supports drainage for a new city street or park. ## Disadvantages of City Owned Wetland Outlots Below are some of the disadvantages of City ownership of wetland areas. • There is often a false expectation from the public for consistent and timely maintenance of City owned wetland areas, which is difficult to fulfill given the sheer amount of such areas throughout Oakdale. In addition, the City’s Ordinance also contains language about preserving open space in a natural state (City of Oakdale, Code of Ordinances, Chapter 15, Article 2). o Oftentimes City or other utility vehicles have difficulty accessing wetland areas due to inadequate easements or lack of frontage onto public roads. o The City’s current Subdivision Ordinance requires extension of wetland outlots to the public right-of-way with a minimum width of 15 feet. However, a 15-foot pathway may not always be sufficient for proper access.  Staff prefer to require a wider pathway than 15 feet to accommodate modern utility vehicles. o Excessive maintenance of wetland areas can negatively impact the natural features of wetland and can conflict with best management practices.  For example, retaining natural growth around wetland areas serves an important function by filtering harmful sediments from entering the water. • Separating wetlands onto their own outlots creates an additional lot line, which can create challenges for new structures trying to comply with setback requirements. o Regardless of the presence of lot lines, the watershed districts maintain specific buffer distance requirements from wetland areas. o From a regulatory perspective, the watershed districts are indifferent toward ownership of wetland areas as their regulations apply regardless of ownership. • City ownership of outlots results in loss of property tax revenue, albeit the amount is generally miniscule. o Of the few privately owned wetland outlots throughout Oakdale, staff observed that property tax revenue from these sites typically generate less than $16 per acre per year. ## Peer City Research City staff researched a number of municipalities within Minnesota to gain a better understanding of their approaches to managing wetland areas. ## MUNICIPALITY DESCRIPTION OF REGULATIONS Roseville Wetland are protected via wetland protection overlay district White Bear Lake Wetland are platted as easements Stillwater Wetland are protected via wetland overlay district Cottage Grove Wetland must be platted as outlots and deeded to the city Woodbury Wetlands are platted as outlots by default. However, the city allows an easement to be dedicated if it is sufficient to protect the wetland. Maplewood Wetland are platted as easements Lake Elmo Can be dedicated as an outlot to the city or protected via easement North St. Paul Wetlands must be platted as outlots 3 Eagan Wetlands are platted easements New Hope Wetland are protected via wetland overlay district Lakeville Wetlands must be platted as outlots Coon Rapids Wetland are platted as easements Rochester No easement or outlot requirement, rather property owners must enter into an agreement allowing the city to access areas for inspections/enforcement Eden Prairie Wetland are platted as easements ## STAFF RECOMMENDATION Given that there are advantages and disadvantages of City ownership of wetland outlots, Council may wish to consider amending the Subdivision Ordinance to an approach similar to Woodbury’s regulations. By default, wetlands would continue to be platted as outlots. But the City would maintain, as an option, the authority to require wetlands to be platted as easements if the areas are sufficiently protected. If the Ordinance is amended to allow wetlands to be protected solely through easements, specific standards (e.g., no clear public benefit, not required under the MS4 permit or in the SWMP, not accessible via public right-of-way) should be codified to ensure that the City is making this determination, and not developers. ## COUNCIL DIRECTION REQUESTED It is requested that the City Council provide guidance on amending the City’s Subdivision Ordinance as it relates to wetlands. If it is the City Council’s intent to amend the Subdivision Ordinance, there is a short-term solution to prevent delays in processing land use applications. The City Attorney confirmed that the City Council can waive certain subdivision provisions, including the requirement of the platting of wetland as outlots and conveying them to the City. ## Attachments ## Presentation Slides ## Excerpt of Ordinance No. 421 1 ## City Council ## Meeting ## Wetland Outlots May 26, 2026 2 ## COUNCIL MEMORANDUM 1 ## To: Honorable Mayor and City Council ## From: Andrew Gitzlaff, Community Development Director ## Mikaela Huot, Finance Director Date: May 26, 2026 ## Subject: Review Long Range Financial Model The purpose of the long-range financial model is to provide the City Council and City staff with a better understanding of the financial impacts of both near-term and long-term budget decisions. The model was originally developed by Baker Tilly in 2023, the City’s municipal advisor, in collaboration with City staff and has been annually updated based on current information. ## BACKGROUND The characteristics of the City dictate the need, scope, and frequency of long-range financial planning. Examples of those characteristics include: • The size of the city, including land area and population • Future growth expectations • The type of services provided • Variability of General Fund operating expenditures • The amount of outstanding debt obligations • Future capital improvement needs The following characteristics of Oakdale have the largest impact on the long-range financial model: • Rapidly growing tax base. Oakdale’s population was approximately 28,000 starting in 2023 and is experiencing significant growth that is expected to continue over the next three years as remaining underdeveloped and undeveloped areas develop, reaching a total population estimate of approximately 36,000. Future market value growth in the City will rely on both future developments as well as annual appreciation and potential redevelopment of existing properties. The nature and timing of the tax base growth has an impact on the City’s future levy, tax rate, and tax impact on the various types of properties within the City. • Operational Needs. As the City continues to grow and add new residents, business staffing needs and operational costs are expected to increase in order to maintain high quality service. State mandates, healthcare costs, and additional regulations will apply additional upward pressure. • Appreciation of existing residential and commercial properties. Market values are expected to increase at a steady pace as a result of continued residential and commercial new development. • Need for new public buildings. The City has received sales tax legislation to finance the recently completed Public Works building and the Police Expansion and City Hall Remodel that is now underway. In addition to sales tax legislation, bonding has also been required. • Outstanding and future debt obligations. The City’s outstanding debt has been structured consistently, keeping in mind the annual maturities of debt for future improvements. 2 Long range financial models are highly dependent on assumptions. Assumptions are by nature inexact and become more inexact in later years. It is important that assumptions are clearly identified and defined, with focus placed on those that may have the largest financial impact. Assumptions should be continuously evaluated and updated based on the most recent information. Below is a sample of assumptions utilized in the long-range financial model and their relative impact: ## Assumption Category Market value changes from new development Policy Market value changes from existing properties Policy Changing service levels, e.g. additional FTEs Policy ## One-time projects Policy Repayment period of debt obligations Operating Borrowing interest rates Operating ## Operating Revenue and Expense Policy/Operating ## COUNCIL DIRECTION REQUESTED At the Workshop, City staff will give a presentation to walk through the long-range financial model inputs and results. Staff are requesting feedback on the model key findings. ## Attachment ## Long Range Financial Model Presentation Slides ## Long Range Financial ## Model ## City of Oakdale City Council Workshop May 26, 2026 ## Background •Model is intended to provide City Council and City management staff •guidance for future budgeting decisions •financial implications of both near-term and long-term budget decisions •Capital outlay •Operations •Staffing •Based on 5-year CIP and 2026/2027 budgets •Recommended to be annually updated 1 ## Background •City characteristics dictate need, scope and frequency of long range financial planning. •Examples of those characteristics include : •The size of the city, including land area and population •Future growth expectations •The type of services provided •Variability of General Fund operating expenditures •The amount of outstanding debt obligations •Future capital improvement needs ## Background The following characteristics of Oakdale have greater impact on the financial model: •Rapidly growing tax base and population •Appreciation of existing residential and commercial properties •Need for new public buildings •Outstanding and future debt obligations 2 ## General Assumptions ## CategoryAssumption ## PolicyMarket Value Changes from New Development ## PolicyMarket Value Changes from Existing Properties ## PolicyChanging Service Levels, e.g. additional FTEs ## PolicyOne-time Projects ## OperatingRepayment Period of Debt Obligations ## OperatingBorrowing Interest Rates ## Policy/OperatingOperating Revenue and Expense ## Growth Assumptions ## Residential Growth Assumptions •Years 2026-2030 •101 single family homes •147 townhomes (Owner-occupied) •1,874 apartments (Market Rate) •420 apartments (4d Low-Income) •Starting values based on 2026 estimates •2% annual inflationary increases on new residential ## Commercial Growth Assumptions •Years 2026-2034 •591,953 square feet new construction •Warehouse/flex, office, retail •2027 Value ranges of $169/SF - $253/SF 3 ## Growth Assumptions ## Population Growth Assumptions •28,169 starting from Met Council in 2023 •Estimated just under 36,000 estimated at full buildout in 2033 •Based on population growth from new residential units ## Projected Growth in City of Oakdale ## Residential Growth (1) 20232024 2025 2026202720282029203020312032203320342035 New single-family homes built55 96 58 61 20 20 New townhome units built89 - 59 49 49 49 - New apartment (market rate) units built829 - 349 288 313 263 202 202 202 202 202 New apartment (4d) units built168 - 105 105 105 105 Taxable value of new single family homes440,000 448,800 457,776 466,932 476,270 485,796 495,511 505,422 515,530 525,841 536,358 547,085 Taxable value of new townhome units300,000 306,000 312,120 318,362 324,730 331,224 337,849 344,606 351,498 358,528 365,698 373,012 380,473 Taxable value of new apartment (market rate) units220,000 224,400 228,888 233,466 238,135 242,898 247,756 252,711 257,765 262,920 268,179 273,542 279,013 Taxable value of new apartment (4d) units220,000 224,400 228,888 233,466 238,135 242,898 247,756 252,711 257,765 262,920 268,179 273,542 279,013 ## Population Growth (2) 2023202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035 ## Starting population (2020 Met Council)28,169 30,902 31,142 31,929 32,612 33,388 34,089 34,550 35,011 35,314 35,617 35,920 35,920 Population from new single-family homes138 240 145 153 50 50 - - - - - - - Population from new townhome units178 - 118 98 98 98 - - - - - - - Population from new apartment (market rate) units1,244 - 524 432 470 395 303 303 303 303 303 - - Population from new apartment (4d) units252 - - - 158 158 158 158 - - - - - Other population adjustments New population (end of year)29,980 31,142 31,929 32,612 33,388 34,089 34,550 35,011 35,314 35,617 35,920 35,920 35,920 Population growth %6.43%0.78%2.53%2.14%2.38%2.10%1.35%1.33%0.87%0.86%0.85%0.00%0.00% ## Commercial/Industrial Growth2023202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035 New commercial square footage added warehouse/flex - - 19,316 31,818 31,818 31,818 31,818 31,818 31,818 31,818 31,818 31,818 31,818 New commercial square footage added office7,000 - - 1,389 1,389 1,389 1,389 1,389 1,389 1,389 1,389 1,389 New commercial square footage added retail6,800 20,000 4,231 26,127 26,127 26,127 26,127 26,127 26,127 26,127 26,127 26,127 26,127 3%3%3%3%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%2% Taxable value of new warehouse/flex space (per sq.ft.)$150$155$159$164$167$171$174$177$181$185$188$192$196 Taxable value of new office space (per sq.ft.)$175$180$186$191$195$199$203$207$211$215$220$224$229 Taxable value of new retail space (per sq.ft.)$225$232$239$246$251$256$261$266$271$277$282$288$294 (1) based on annual building permit estimates and construction start year (2) based on annual population growth assumptions for each residential building type 4 ## Projected Growth in City of Oakdale ## Taxable Market Value Growth (3) 2023202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035 Taxable value of new single-family homes12,100,000 33,642,400 34,817,904 27,516,915 19,004,113 9,620,657 4,857,956 - - - - - - Taxable value of new townhome units13,350,000 13,350,000 9,207,540 17,007,419 15,755,755 16,070,870 8,114,994 - - - - - - Taxable value of new apartment (market rate) units91,190,000 91,190,000 39,940,956 73,560,025 70,887,209 69,209,197 56,964,387 51,047,591 52,068,543 53,109,914 54,172,112 - - Taxable value of new apartment (4d) units18,480,000 18,480,000 - - 12,502,091 25,254,225 25,759,309 26,534,639 - - - - - Taxable value of new warehouse/flex space (per sq.ft.)- - 1,536,926 4,144,588 5,267,477 5,372,826 5,480,283 5,589,889 5,758,139 5,873,302 5,990,768 6,110,583 6,232,795 Taxable value of new office space (per sq.ft.)612,500 612,500 - 132,797 268,249 273,614 279,087 284,668 293,237 299,101 305,083 311,185 - Taxable value of new retail space (per sq.ft.)765,000 3,082,500 2,822,475 3,716,802 6,487,890 6,617,647 6,750,000 6,885,000 7,092,232 7,234,077 7,378,758 7,526,333 7,676,860 Total taxable value added:136,497,500 160,357,400 88,325,801 126,078,546 130,172,784 132,419,037 108,206,015 90,341,787 65,212,150 66,516,393 67,846,721 13,948,101 13,909,655 ## Tax Capacity Growth2023202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035 Tax capacity of new single-family homes242,000 430,848 265,510 284,828 95,254 108,949 - - - - - - - Tax capacity of new townhome units267,000 - 184,151 155,998 159,118 172,250 - - - - - - - Tax capacity of new apartment (market rate) units1,139,875 1,139,875 499,262 919,500 886,090 865,115 712,055 638,095 650,857 663,874 677,151 - - Tax capacity of new apartment (4d) units46,200 46,200 - - 31,255 63,136 64,398 66,337 - - - - - Tax capacity of new warehouse/office space- - 29,989 82,142 104,600 106,707 108,856 111,048 114,413 116,716 119,065 121,462 123,906 Tax capacity of new office space11,500 11,500 - 1,992 4,615 4,722 4,832 4,943 5,115 5,232 5,352 5,474 - Tax capacity of new retail space14,550 60,900 55,700 73,586 129,008 131,603 134,250 136,950 141,095 143,932 146,825 149,777 152,787 Total tax capacity added1,721,125 1,689,323 1,034,611 1,518,046 1,409,939 1,452,481 1,024,391 957,373 911,479 929,754 948,394 276,712 276,693 ## Future FTEs by Department ## UtilitiesStreets ## Building Inspect. ## FirePolice ## Community ## Development ## Administration 0113311 ## Total New ## Positions 10 ## Grand Total 5 ## Future FTEs by Year ## Total New Positions by Year 22027 32028 22029 22030 12031 ## Capital and Debt Financing Assumptions •Future capital needs •5-year CIP (2026-2030) •Park improvements •Utility improvements •Street improvements •Technology improvements •Buildings •One time versus annual projects •Future debt versus cash financing •Annual debt service based on future project financing 6 ## Operating Revenue Assumptions ## General Fund Revenues •Property Taxes •Other Taxes •Licenses •Permits •Intergovernmental •Charges for Services •Investment Income •Other/Misc. ## Operating Budget Expenditure Assumptions ## General Fund Expenditures •General Government •Public Safety •Public Works •Recreation 7 ## General Fund Summary 202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035 ActualActualBudgetEst.Est.Est.Est.Est.Est.Est.Est.Est. ## Revenues Ad Valorem Taxes (on tax capacity)14,044,848 15,011,416 16,727,247 18,630,315 21,238,559 24,211,957 28,085,871 32,017,892 35,860,040 37,653,041 38,406,102 38,406,102 Other Taxes1,040,011 657,490 629,900 627,500 627,500 627,500 627,500 627,500 627,500 627,500 627,500 627,500 Special Assessments- - - - - - - - - - - - Licenses431,442 520,142 452,500 515,700 537,058 555,207 573,868 590,411 607,386 624,804 637,300 650,047 Permits995,652 1,693,675 1,201,000 1,206,300 844,410 872,946 902,285 928,296 954,986 982,373 1,002,020 1,022,061 Total Intergovernmental1,873,812 2,105,076 2,038,997 2,171,070 2,298,742 2,420,308 2,548,346 2,671,259 2,800,431 2,936,195 3,053,146 3,175,348 Total Charges for Services1,442,299 1,849,198 1,558,967 1,699,348 1,695,407 1,752,702 1,811,610 1,863,834 1,917,423 1,972,409 2,011,857 2,052,095 Fines and Forfeits137,956 126,503 120,000 129,000 144,879 161,522 180,045 199,764 221,626 245,862 270,448 297,493 Investment Income722,103 659,648 265,000 400,000 416,566 430,644 445,117 457,949 471,116 484,626 494,319 504,205 Contributions1,100 - - - - - - - - - - - Miscellaneous Revenues408,461 431,121 382,500 425,400 397,953 405,912 414,030 422,311 430,757 439,372 448,160 457,123 New Revenue Sources- - - - - - - - - - - - Total Revenues21,097,684 23,054,270 23,376,111 25,804,633 28,201,075 31,438,699 35,588,673 39,779,217 43,891,265 45,966,183 46,950,854 47,191,973 ## Expenditures General Government5,618,438 5,922,376 6,208,956 7,148,968 8,038,258 8,456,342 8,897,848 9,360,758 9,849,765 10,366,394 10,905,384 9,221,226 Public Safety11,808,068 13,027,683 13,821,516 16,636,330 17,813,753 19,287,877 20,875,497 22,332,944 23,622,325 24,987,490 26,418,201 26,150,684 Public Works3,521,493 3,623,417 4,369,689 5,080,576 5,470,008 5,763,517 6,073,212 6,393,511 6,731,645 7,088,649 7,452,365 6,234,366 Recreation 465,230 519,891 503,450 642,910 679,400 717,104 756,944 798,470 842,367 888,772 936,664 845,968 New Hires- - - - - - - - - - - - Total Expenditures21,413,229 23,093,367 24,903,611 29,508,783 32,001,419 34,224,839 36,603,500 38,885,683 41,046,102 43,331,306 45,712,613 42,452,245 Surplus/(Deficit) of Revenue over Expend.(315,546) (39,097) (1,527,500) (3,704,150) (3,800,344) (2,786,140) (1,014,827) 893,534 2,845,163 2,634,878 1,238,241 4,739,728 ## Other Sources/(Uses) Transfers In - Enterprise Funds1,200,000 1,200,000 1,257,500 1,317,875 1,381,269 1,447,832 1,517,724 1,591,110 1,668,165 1,749,074 - - Transfers In - Other6,500 50,000 20,000 ## Transfers Out- Proceeds from Short-Term Debt Issued- - - - - - - - - - - - ## Miscellaneous Total Other Sources/(Uses)1,206,500 1,250,000 1,277,500 1,317,875 1,381,269 1,447,832 1,517,724 1,591,110 1,668,165 1,749,074 - - Net Change in Fund Balance890,954 1,210,903 (250,000) (2,386,275) (2,419,075) (1,338,308) 502,896 2,484,644 4,513,328 4,383,952 1,238,241 4,739,728 Beginning Balance15,061,686 15,952,641 17,163,544 16,913,544 14,527,269 12,108,194 10,769,886 11,272,782 13,757,426 18,270,754 22,654,705 23,892,946 Ending Balance15,952,641 17,163,544 16,913,544 14,527,269 12,108,194 10,769,886 11,272,782 13,757,426 18,270,754 22,654,705 23,892,946 28,632,675 Restricted Fund Balance1,423,275 1,100,000 850,000 600,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 Unrestricted Fund Balance14,529,366 16,063,544 16,063,544 13,927,269 11,658,194 10,319,886 10,822,782 13,307,426 17,820,754 22,204,705 23,442,946 28,182,675 ## Fund Balance Percent 63%65%54%44%34%28%28%32%41%51%51%66% ## Changes in Property Tax Base 202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035 ## Tax Capacity - Total and Net * ## Apprecia- tion % Assess 2023 / Payable 2024 Assess 2024 / Payable 2025 Assess 2025 / Payable 2026 Assess 2026 / Payable 2027 Assess 2027 / Payable 2028 Assess 2028 / Payable 2029 Assess 2029 / Payable 2030 Assess 2030 / Payable 2031 Assess 2031 / Payable 2032 Assess 2032 / Payable 2033 Assess 2033 / Payable 2034 Assess 2034 / Payable 2035 ## Beginning Tax Capacity 41,695,960 47,497,879 47,029,380 48,577,008 50,082,224 52,351,503 54,546,715 56,817,397 58,694,048 60,531,832 62,351,288 64,216,311 Appreciation of existing base 1.50%5,801,919 (468,499) 1,547,628 470,605 751,233 785,273 818,201 852,261 880,411 907,977 935,269 963,245 Added from residential development- - - 948,923 1,360,326 1,171,717 1,209,449 776,453 704,431 650,857 663,874 677,151 Added from comm/ind development- - 85,688 157,720 238,222 243,032 247,937 252,941 260,622 265,880 271,242 Added from annexation/other adjustments- - - - - - - - - - - ## Projected Total Tax Capacity 47,497,879 47,029,380 48,577,008 50,082,224 52,351,503 54,546,715 56,817,397 58,694,048 60,531,832 62,351,288 64,216,311 66,127,949 ## Deductions for TIF 2.00%(1,237,963) (1,215,101) (1,090,449) (1,111,022) (1,133,242) (1,155,907) (1,179,025) (1,202,606) (1,226,658) (1,251,191) (1,276,215) (1,301,739) ## Power Line Credit 2.00%- - - - - - - - - - - - ## Fiscal Disparities Contribution (existing) 2.00%(4,492,096) (5,089,712) (5,282,178) (5,237,207) (5,341,951) (5,448,790) (5,557,766) (5,668,921) (5,782,300) (5,897,946) (6,015,905) (6,136,223) Fiscal Disparities Contribution (new development)- - - - (63,088) (95,289) (97,213) (99,175) (101,176) (104,249) (106,352) (108,497) Projected Net Tax Capacity41,767,820 40,724,567 42,204,381 43,733,995 45,813,222 47,846,729 49,983,393 51,723,346 53,421,697 55,097,902 56,817,839 58,581,490 ## Taxes Levied on Tax Capacity202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035 ## Fiscal Disparities Distribution 3.00%5,596,165 5,950,014 5,984,430 6,163,963 6,348,882 6,539,348 6,735,529 6,937,595 7,145,722 7,360,094 7,580,897 7,808,324 . ## Taxes Levied on Tax Capacity General Fund14,044,848 15,011,416 16,727,247 18,630,315 21,238,559 24,211,957 28,085,871 32,017,892 35,860,040 37,653,041 38,406,102 38,406,102 Capital Fund1,690,000 1,970,474 1,610,000 2,595,000 2,745,000 3,035,000 3,325,000 3,590,000 3,855,000 4,120,000 4,385,000 4,650,000 Debt Service Fund2,022,665 2,013,864 2,001,981 2,042,021 2,082,861 2,124,518 2,167,009 2,210,349 2,254,556 2,299,647 - - ## Total Taxes Levied on Tax Capacity (Collected) 17,757,513 18,995,754 20,339,228 23,267,336 26,066,420 29,371,476 33,577,879 37,818,241 41,969,595 44,072,688 42,791,102 43,056,102 Less Fiscal Disparities Distribution Amount(2,138,712) (2,268,858) (2,477,304) (2,608,740) (2,999,017) (3,292,626) (3,671,199) (4,150,987) (4,651,224) (5,141,483) (5,356,528) (5,144,533) ## Net Taxes Levied on Tax Capacity 15,618,801 16,726,896 17,861,924 20,658,596 23,067,403 26,078,850 29,906,681 33,667,254 37,318,372 38,931,206 37,434,574 37,911,569 Projected Net Tax Capacity Rate37.39%41.07%42.32%47.24%50.35%54.50%59.83%65.09%69.86%70.66%65.89%64.72% ## Percent Annual Levy Change 12.45%5.90%7.07%14.40%12.03%12.68%14.32%12.63%10.98%5.01%-2.91%0.62% * based on building permit/construction starts 2 years prior 8 ## Summary •Model is intended to be tool for staff and Council •Incorporates City’s 5-year CIP •10-year financial projections •2024 actual, 2025 actual, 2026 budget, 2027-2035 projections ## Discussion Staff is requesting feedback on the model assumptions and the key findings 9 ## COUNCIL MEMORANDUM ## To: Honorable Mayor and City Council ## From: Hannah Dunn, Sr. Community Development Specialist Date: May 26, 2026 ## Subject: Golfview and Tower Parks Playground Selection ## BACKGROUND The project team, consisting of City and LHB staff, is returning to a Council Workshop to seek direction on playground selection for Golfview Park (P2026-05) and Tower Park (P2026-02). At the March 24, 2026 Council Workshop, the Council received an overview of the preliminary schedule, scope of work for each park, work done to date, and the engagement plan. In April, the City conducted community engagement for the playgrounds at Golfview and Tower Parks. Feedback from the public focused primarily on play equipment preferences and selection. An online survey was available from April 6 through April 21. During the survey period, the City hosted one in-person engagement event at Golfview Park on April 9 and one in-person engagement event at Tower Park on April 15. The survey and in-person engagement events received strong responses. For Golfview Park, 31 people a nd two Parks and Recreation Commissioners attended the event and 44 participants engaged in the online survey. For Tower Park, six people and three Parks and Recreation Commissioners attended the event and 64 participants engaged in the online survey. Detailed engagement results will be provided to Council under separate cover. ## P layground proposals for both parks were solicited from four vendors: Flagship Recreation, Midwest Playscapes, Northland Recreation, and Webber Recreational Design. The results of the community engagement process were shared with each vendor to help inform their proposals. Submitted proposals were reviewed by the project team, which included City and LHB staff. Two playground designs for each park were selected as finalists and are being presented to the City Council for direction. The finalists for Golfview Park were proposals from Flagship Recreation and Midwest Playscapes. The finalists for Tower Park were proposals from Flagship Recreation and Northland Recreation. Please see the attached presentation slides for renderings of the finalist concepts. It is important to note that color palettes shown in the concepts are not final and are subject to change. Additionally, the playground renderings submitted by the vendors feature rock boulders and tree plantings for aesthetic enhancement, and incorporation and placement of such features will be determined through the final design process for the overall parks. The estimated costs for the two finalist playground concepts at both Golfview Park and Tower Park are comparable and align with the budget allocated for the playground portion of the parks. Minor, cost-neutral modifications can be made to the final playground designs, such as replacing a spinner with a swing. The City has previously worked with Flagship Recreation on playgrounds at Willowbrooke Commons and Helmo Station Park. The play equipment has proven to be high quality, and Flagship has been flexible and collaborative throughout the projects. Proposals from other vendors were solicited to better understand play equipment options and associated costs. If a vendor other than Flagship Recreation is 1 2 ultimately recommended or selected, additional evaluation of materials and long-term maintenance considerations will be necessary. ## T he finalists for Golfview and Tower Parks were presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) at their May 19, 2026 meeting. After discussion, the PRC came to a consensus and recommended selection of Concept B from Midwest Playscapes for Golfview Park because of the layout, accessibility components including strategic poured-in-place surfacing, and the versatility of the main structure. The PRC also recommended Concept B from Northland Recreation for Tower Park because the main structure offers a wide variety of play elements, including climbing features, overhead play, and multiple slides. They also felt that, because the Tower Park site cannot accommodate a separate pre-K structure, the Northland Recreation design better supports play opportunities for younger children. ## A detailed preliminary cost estimate will be provided to Council under separate cover. Due to the high costs of non-playground elements, both projects are estimated slightly over the budget in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). City staff would like to discuss whether potential site plan modifications or alternative bidding strategies should be explored to align the project with the CIP budget. c An update regarding the next steps for engagement for Tanners Lake Park will also be provided to the City Council. The refined engagement plan incorporated feedback from the March 24, 2026 Council Workshop. ## COMMISSION INPUT REQUESTED It is requested that the City Council provide direction on the playground design and vendor selection for Golfview and Tower Parks so that equipment purchasing can take place to allow enough time for manufacturing and install this year. As noted above, Council should also provide feedback on potential site plan modifications or if alternative bidding strategies should be explored to align the project with the CIP budget. ## Attachment ## Oakdale 2026 Park Improvements Presentation Slides ## OAKDALE 2026 PARK ## IMPROVEMENTS- ## TANNERS LAKE, TOWER & ## GOLFVIEW PARKS ## 05.26.2026 CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP ## January • ## City Council Approval • ## Contracting Begins ## January-February • Contractor procurement paperwork, permitting requirements • Secure equipment purchasing for ## Tanners Lake ## September-October • Tanners Lake warranty walks ## March-April • ## Start construction for Tanners Lake ## May-August • Continue construction for ## Tanners Lake ## November-December • Complete & close-out construction ## for Tanners Lake ## September-October • Tower & Golfview warranty walks ## February • Kick-off meeting • Geotech & survey begin • ## Site Visits • Engagement planning/overall scheduling begins • ## Park & Rec Commission: ## Project Overview ## March • Finish survey and geotech • ## Develop Tower & Golfview to SD level • SD level cost estimate • Engage playground vendors about options/costs • ## City Council: Project Overview, Tower ## & Golfview Update ## April • Engage neighbors to review Tower & Golfview playground options • ## Park & Rec Commission: Staff Update • ## Updated Tower and Golfview drawings to align with budget ## May • ## Park & Rec Commission: Present Tower & Golfview options & costs • ## City Council: Tower & Golfview ## Review, Tanners Lake Update • Engage stakeholders to discuss ## Tanners Lake Park ## June • ## Finalize Construction Documents for Tower & Golfview & order playground equipment • ## Prepare Tanners Lake preliminary concepts • Engagement event with updates on all parks, including Parks Commission participation ## July • Approx. start construction for Tower & Golfview • ## Tanners Lake Engagement • Conduct wetland delineation at ## Tanners Lake Park, if needed ## August • Tanners Lake 65% design & cost estimate • Continue construction for Tower & Golfview • DRC meeting: review DD estimate & engagement for Tanners Lake • ## Park & Rec Commission: Engagement ## Update, Tanners Lake Review ## September • ## City Council: Engagement Update, ## Tanners Lake Review • ## Start Tanners Lake ## Construction Documents • Continue construction for Tower & Golfview ## October • Tanners Lake 95% set ready for final cost estimate & review • Finalize play equipment/ equipment options • Continue construction for Tower & Golfview ## November • Construction substantial completion for Tower & Golfview • ## Finalize Tanners Lake bid documents • ## City Council: Project Update ## December • Wrap up close-out requirements for ## Tower & Golfview • ## Bid Tanners Lake 2026 20272028 ## Meeting ## Key: ## Engagement Event ## PROJECT SCHEDULE *Schedule subject to change / Project Team will be exploring ways to expedite construction schedules ## LHBCORP.COMPERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN | 2 ## June • ## Finalize Construction Documents, Bid f or Tower & Golfview & or der pla yground equipment • ## Prepare Tanners Lake preliminary c oncepts & costs • Engagement Event with updates on all parks, including P arks C ommission participation ## May • ## Park & Rec Commission: Present Tower & Golfvie w op tions • ## City Council: Tower & Golfview Review, ## T ## anners Lake Update • Engage stakeholders to discuss ## T ## anners Lake Park ## PROJECT SCHEDULE: WHERE ARE WE NOW? ## LHBCORP.COMPERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN | 3 •31 participants and 2 PRC members attended the outdoor pop- up event on April 9, 2026. •44 participants engaged in the online survey. •The online survey, ran from April 6th- April 21st, asked the same questions as the in-person event. •Results shown on the following pages are the combined results from all participants. •Comments that were on post- it notes, sent in emails or phone calls were also recorded. ## Golfview Pop Up Event ## GOLFVIEW PARK ENGAGEMENT ## LHBCORP.COMPERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN | 4 ## GOLFVIEW PARK: FAVORITE FEATURES ## LHBCORP.COMPERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN | 5 • Slides • Swings ## • Climbing Features • Balance ## • Monkey Bars/Overhead Play ## • Pre-K Features • Spinning ## GOLFVIEW PARK : TOP PRIORITIES ## LHBCORP.COMPERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN | 6 “ Would like a zipline! “ Shade and more benches and picnic tables “ Pebble Park - > upward climbing ropes “ Like to play pretend (like ice cream shop) “ Adult fitness stations! “ Zipline Very Interested! “ Think about teens and tweens “ Good mix of ages with lots of use “ Bigger playground container! ## GOLFVIEW PARK : WHAT DID WE HEAR? ## LHBCORP.COMPERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN | 7 ## Tower Pop Up Event ## TOWER PARK: ENGAGEMENT RESULTS •6 participants and 3 PRC members attended the outdoor pop-up event on April 15, 2026. •64 participants engaged in the online survey. •The online survey, ran from April 6th-April 21st, asked the same questions as the in-person event. •Results shown on the following pages are the combined results from all participants. •Comments that were on post-it notes, sent in emails or phone calls were also recorded. ## LHBCORP.COMPERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN | 8 ## TOWER PARK: FAVORITE FEATURES ## LHBCORP.COMPERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN | 9 • Slides • Swings ## • Climbing Features • Balance ## • Monkey Bars/Overhead Play • Balance • Spinning ## TOWER PARK : TOP PRIORITIES ## LHBCORP.COMPERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN | 10 “ Shade! (important!) “ There are no places for people to sit during the waterslide event. “ Taller playground like ## Willowbrooke Commons “ ## Hidden Ladders “ Sledders go over the retaining wall now and hit the play structure. “ ## More Swings Needed “ Rubber surfacing, not sand. ## TOWER PARK: WHAT WE HEARD “ Little kids play in the sand, almost get run over by older kids. “ Would like a zipline “ Glider swing for adults “ Big, fast straight slides - no curves so you can go fast! “ Waterslide erosion requires relocating each time in the same year. “ Should be monkey bars and lots of climbing opportunities. ## LHBCORP.COMPERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN | 11 ## N ## GOLFVIEW PARK: SITE PLAN ## LHBCORP.COMPERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN | 12 ## GOLFVIEW PARK: ## CONCEPT A ## KEY FEATURES • 5-12 Main Structure with focus on climbing, bridges, and slides • Pre-K Area with slide, imaginative play, and shade sail ## • Group Spinner • Individual spinners • 2 Bays of Swings including group swing • Shade sail over patio, if budget allows ## GOLFVIEW PARK ## PLAYGROUND ## 6144 56th St N, Oakdale, MN 55128 ## SALES ## REPRESENTATIVE: ## EMILY MALONEY ## DESIGNED BY: ## AO 5/12/26 3/16" = 1'-0" ## FLAGSHIP RECREATION ## 11123 UPPER 33RD ST N ## LAKE ELMO, MN 55082 763-550-7860 ## FLAGSHIPPLAY.COM ## THIS PLAY AREA AND PLAY EQUIPMENT ## IS DESIGNED FOR AGE RANGES AS ## NOTED ON PLAN. ## THIS DESIGN CONFORMS TO THE ADA ## ACCESSIBLITY GUIDELINES (ADAAG), ## ASSUMING THAT THE ENTIRE USE ZONE ## IS COVERED WITH AN ACCESSIBLE ## PROTECTIVE SURFACING, UNLESS ## OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE PLAN. ## SHEET ## LS101 C:\Users\AlexandraOlson\Flagship Recreation\Flagship Recreation - Documents\2026 Planning\Emily\Oakdale - Golfview Park\Design\2026.05.08 Revision\Oakdale_GolfviewPark 050826.dwg ## CONTAINER DETAILS ## TOTAL CONTAINER AREA 4545 SF ## ASTM SAFETY SURFACING TYPE ENGINEERED WOOD FIBER ## TOTAL EWF AREA4545 SF ## TOTAL PERIMETER309 LF ## EDGING TYPECONCRETE CURB BY OTHERS ## FINISH GRADETOP OF CURB ## MAX FALL HEIGHT (5-12 YR) 96" ## MAX FALL HEIGHT (2-5 YR) 40" ## *SITE PREPARATION REQUIREMENTS: ## ·OWNER TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM 6' WIDE APPROVED SITE ACCESS PATH TO CONTAINER ## AND PROTECTION OF THIS ACCESS ROUTE ## ·PLAYGROUND PLAN IS BASED ON IDEAL SOIL CONDITIONS. IF THERE ARE CONCERNS ## ABOUT THE SOILS BEING SUITABLE, IT IS RECOMMEND THAT THE OWNER PROVIDE A ## GEOTECHNICAL REPORT OF THE SITE ## ·MAXIMUM OF 1% GRADE CHANGE ACROSS CONTAINER ## ·OWNER INSTALLED DRAIN TILE TO BE WITHIN 4 FEET OF CONTAINER PERIMETER ## ·IF OWNER INSTALLED BORDER, DRAIN TILE STUB TO BE PROVIDED ## ·DRAIN TILE BY FLAGSHIP ACCOUNTS FOR WATER WITHIN THE CONTAINER AND DOES ## NOT INCLUDE RUN OFF FROM SURROUNDING FLATWORK, LANDSCAPING, BUILDINGS, ## ETC. ## ·OWNER TO PROVIDE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE TO CONTAINER ## ·MINIMUM CONTAINER SIZE NEEDED DENOTES THE INSIDE OF CURB DIMENSION ## POTENTIAL ## FURNISHING ## ADDITIONS ## POTENTIAL ## FURNISHING ## ADDITIONS ## KEY ## REQUIRED SAFETY USE ZONE ## PROPOSED STANDARD EQUIPMENT ## PROPOSED CUSTOM EQUIPMENT ## POTENTIAL PHASE 2 ADD-ON ## PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN | 13LHBCORP.COM Patio shade, if budget allows ## Playground Layout Overview ## CONCEPT A: ## LHBCORP.COMPERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN | 14 ## 5-12 Play Detail ## CONCEPT A: ## LHBCORP.COMPERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN | 15 ## CONCEPT A: Patio shade, if budget allows ## Pre-K Play Detail ## CONCEPT A ## LHBCORP.COMPERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN | 16 ## GOLFVIEW PARK: ## CONCEPT B ## KEY FEATURES • 5-12 Main Structure with focus on climbing, tunnels, and slides ## • Pre-K Playhouse Feature with slide • Group Spinner and ## Individual Hideaway/Spinner • 3 Bays of Swings including group swing • Poured-in-Place surfacing to transfer station ## TURF ## TWISTER ## COZY ## COCOON ## PLAYTOWN ## COMMUNITY ## HELPERS ## BELT ## SEAT ## TOT ## SEAT ## BASKET ## SEAT 36" 36" 72" 72" 36"/ 108" 42" 48" 42" ## SKY ## LINK ## THE ## WAVE ## HORIZONTAL ## LOOP LADDER ## BUTTON ## STEPPERS x2 ## BALANCE ## BEAM ## CLIMBING ## SQUARES ## DYNAMIC ## DESCENT ## SILO ## CLIMBER ## ADVENTURE ## BRIDGE ## DRIVER ## PANEL ## ADVENTURE ## TUBE ## ADVENTURE ## TUBE ## STEP ## AROUND ## STEP ## AROUND ## STEP ## AROUND ## STEP ## AROUND ## TOT ## SEAT ## BELT ## SEAT ## SPIRAL ## TUBE ## SLIDE ## KALEIDO ## CLIMBER ## TELESCOPE @108" ## BENCH ## W/ BACK ## BENCH ## W/ BACK ## BENCH ## W/ BACK ## Total Elevated Play Activities: ## Total Ground-Level Play Activities: ## Accessible ## Elevated ## Activities ## Accessible ## Ground-Level ## Activities ## Accessible ## Ground-Level ## Play Types ## Required ## Provided ## ADA SCHEDULE / // / / / / / / 5-12 3 2 3 4 1 4 1 3 11 6 11 8 4 8 3 7 ## B ## Paper Size ## DESIGN OPTION ## AGE GROUP: ## TOTAL AREA: ## PERIMETER: ## DATE: ## SCALE:PROJECT NO: ## FALL HEIGHT: ## *PLAYGROUND SUPERVISION REQUIRED ## DRAWN BY: ## ASTM F1487- ## CPSC #325 ## GOLF VIEW PARK ## OAKDALE, MN 05-12-26 ## GV_20260323_01_02 ## Tim Kelly 4,545 SqFt. 310 Ft. 8 Ft. 2-5 & 5-12 01 25 0'5'20'10' 7/64" = 1'-0" ## NORTH 2-5 ## SurfacingType ## Color/Blend ## Black PIP Mix ## Area 4,462 Sq.Ft. 125 Sq.Ft. ## Engineered Wood Fiber ## Poured In Place ## Natural ## Blue ## None 50/50 ## PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN | 17LHBCORP.COM ## Park Overhead ## CONCEPT B:CONCEPT B ## LHBCORP.COMPERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN | 18 ## Park Layout ## CONCEPT B: ## LHBCORP.COMPERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN | 19 ## 5-12 Play Detail ## CONCEPT B: ## LHBCORP.COMPERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN | 20 ## N ## TOWER PARK: SITE PLAN ## LHBCORP.COMPERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN | 21 ## TOWER PARK: ## CONCEPT A ## KEY FEATURES ## • Large Rope Climbing ## • Double/Side by Side Slide • Shade sail over slide area ## • Individual Spinner • Vertical climbing bars • Swings 64 ® ## TOWER PARK ## PLAYGROUND ## 868 Hadley Ln N, Oakdale, MN 55128 ## SALES ## REPRESENTATIVE: ## EMILY MALONEY ## DESIGNED BY: ## AO 5/12/26 1/4" = 1'-0" ## FLAGSHIP RECREATION ## 11123 UPPER 33RD ST N ## LAKE ELMO, MN 55082 763-550-7860 ## FLAGSHIPPLAY.COM ## THIS PLAY AREA AND PLAY EQUIPMENT ## IS DESIGNED FOR AGE RANGES AS ## NOTED ON PLAN. ## THIS DESIGN CONFORMS TO THE ADA ## ACCESSIBLITY GUIDELINES (ADAAG), ## ASSUMING THAT THE ENTIRE USE ZONE ## IS COVERED WITH AN ACCESSIBLE ## PROTECTIVE SURFACING, UNLESS ## OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE PLAN. ## SHEET ## LS101 C:\Users\AlexandraOlson\Flagship Recreation\Flagship Recreation - Documents\2026 Planning\Emily\Oakdale - Tower Park\Design\2026.05.11 Revision\Oakdale_TowerPark 051126.dwg ## SWING CONTAINER DETAILS ## TOTAL CONTAINER AREA 1156 SF ## ASTM SAFETY SURFACING TYPE ENGINEERED WOOD FIBER ## TOTAL EWF AREA840 SF ## TOTAL PERIMETER128 LF ## EDGING TYPECONCRETE CURB BY OTHERS ## FINISH GRADETOP OF CURB ## MAX FALL HEIGHT (5-12 YR) 96" ## *SITE PREPARATION REQUIREMENTS: ## ·OWNER TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM 6' WIDE APPROVED SITE ACCESS PATH TO CONTAINER AND ## PROTECTION OF THIS ACCESS ROUTE ## ·PLAYGROUND PLAN IS BASED ON IDEAL SOIL CONDITIONS. IF THERE ARE CONCERNS ## ABOUT THE SOILS BEING SUITABLE, IT IS RECOMMEND THAT THE OWNER PROVIDE A ## GEOTECHNICAL REPORT OF THE SITE ## ·MAXIMUM OF 1% GRADE CHANGE ACROSS CONTAINER ## ·OWNER INSTALLED DRAIN TILE TO BE WITHIN 4 FEET OF CONTAINER PERIMETER ## ·IF OWNER INSTALLED BORDER, DRAIN TILE STUB TO BE PROVIDED ## ·DRAIN TILE BY FLAGSHIP ACCOUNTS FOR WATER WITHIN THE CONTAINER AND DOES NOT ## INCLUDE RUN OFF FROM SURROUNDING FLATWORK, LANDSCAPING, BUILDINGS, ETC. ## ·OWNER TO PROVIDE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE TO CONTAINER ## ·MINIMUM CONTAINER SIZE NEEDED DENOTES THE INSIDE OF CURB DIMENSION ## STRUCTURE CONTAINER DETAILS ## TOTAL CONTAINER AREA 1236 SF ## ASTM SAFETY SURFACING TYPE ENGINEERED WOOD FIBER ## TOTAL EWF AREA1236 SF ## TOTAL PERIMETER130LF ## EDGING TYPECONCRETE CURB BY OTHERS ## FINISH GRADETOP OF CURB ## MAX FALL HEIGHT (5-12 YR) 96" ## KEY ## REQUIRED SAFETY USE ZONE ## PROPOSED STANDARD EQUIPMENT ## PROPOSED CUSTOM EQUIPMENT ## POTENTIAL PHASE 2 ADD-ON ## POTENTIAL FURNISHING ## ADDITIONS ## PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN | 22LHBCORP.COM ## Main Play Structure View 1 ## CONCEPT A: ## LHBCORP.COMPERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN | 23 ## Main Play Structure View 2 ## CONCEPT A: ## LHBCORP.COMPERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN | 24 ## CONCEPT A: ## Swings Detail ## LHBCORP.COMPERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN | 25 ## TOWER PARK: ## CONCEPT B ## KEY FEATURES ## • Rope Climbing ## • Rock Climbing Wall • 3 Slides ## • Overhead Monkey Bars ## • Poured-in-Place Surfacing to transfer station ## • Below Deck Seating and ## Music Elements • Swings ## PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN | 26LHBCORP.COM ## Main Play Structure View 1 ## CONCEPT B: ## LHBCORP.COMPERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN | 27 ## Main Play Structure View 2 ## CONCEPT B: ## LHBCORP.COMPERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN | 28 ## View Showing Both Play Areas ## CONCEPT B: ## LHBCORP.COMPERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN | 29 ## COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SCHEDULE - NEXT STEPS • May: ## ƜCity Council Workshop/Update, May 26th ## ƜTanners Lake Park Engagement: ## Park Walking Tour, May 27th 6-8PM • June-July: ## ƜCombined In-person Event - Summerfest (Provide update on all parks) ## ƜOnline Survey for Tanners Lake ## ƜPop-up Events at Tanners Lake Park and community events ƜWill seek to engage with stakeholder ## groups for Tanners Lake Park We are conducting a more extensive engagement process for Tanners Lake Park and a neighborhood-focused level of engagement for Tower and Golfview Parks that focuses on playground equipment options. ## LHBCORP.COMPERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN | 30 ## COUNCIL MEMORANDUM 1 ## To: Honorable Mayor and City Council ## From: Hannah Dunn, Sr. Community Development Specialist Date: May 26, 2026 ## Subject: 2026 Eco Fair Recap ## BACKGROUND The City of Oakdale hosted its second-annual Eco Fair on Saturday, April 25, 2026 from 9 AM to 1 PM at Castle Elementary School. The main goal of the event was to educate the Oakdale and broader community about a variety of environmental topics. This year, a Clothing Swap was added to encourage reuse, bring the community together, reduce clothing and textile waste, and help meet local clothing needs. In 2025, the Eco Fair drew over 100 people and featured 18 vendors. The 2026 Eco Fair and Clothing Swap saw twice as many people and grew vendor participation to 25. The retention rate of vendors from 2025 to 2026 was strong, with only three 2025 vendors not returning. The 2026 Eco Fair also welcomed 10 new vendors. The full 2026 vendor list is below: ## • All Energy Solar • Center for Energy and Environment – ## Home Energy Squad ## • Citizens Utility Board (new!) • City of Oakdale / Environmental ## Management Commission ## • Community Action Partnership of ## Ramsey & Washington Counties (new!) ## • Drive Electric Minnesota (new!) ## • Food Scraps Pickup Program ## • Gateway Brown’s Creek Trail Association (new!) ## • Independent School District 622 ## • Maplewood Oakdale Lions Club ## • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency – ## Get the Lead Out Program (new!) ## • Oakdale Garden Club • Oakdale Wellness 50+ ## • Pollinator Friendly Alliance (new!) • Rainbow Treecare (new!) ## • Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed ## District ## • Resilient Cities and Communities ## • Rewild Native Gardens ## • Valley Climate Coalition (new!) ## • Washington Conservation District / East ## Metro Water Resource Education ## Program • Washington County 4-H ## • Washington County Library, Oakdale ## • Washington County Master Gardeners (Monarchs, Milkweed, and Pollinators ## Team; Tree Squad Team) ## • Washington County Parks Division (new!) ## • Wild Rivers Conservancy (new!) In addition to exhibitors, family-friendly activities were provided by the City, including seed planting, coloring, and temporary tattoos. Vendors also had engaging activities at their tables such as rock painting and an induction stove top demo. Two Cups food truck was on site, providing coffee and treats for purchase. The Clothing Swap collected approximately 2,600 pounds of clothing from the community, with over 75% of the items being taken from the event. Remaining donations were brought to several organizations, including Joseph’s Coat, Sharing & Caring Hands, and Basic Needs. Two volunteers – Katie Lasch (Environmental Management Commissioner) and Glen Bearth (Parks and Recreation Commissioner and 2 Maplewood Oakdale Lions Club member) – spent many hours ahead of and during the event sorting and organizing clothes, setting up the space, assisting attendees, and tearing down. ## T o increase attendance, communications efforts for the 2026 Eco Fair and Clothing Swap were expanded through the following outreach methods and strategies: •City webpage and News Flash announcements •So cial media posts •Yard signs throughout the community •Flyer dissemination at City-owned facilities (e.g., City Hall, Discovery Center) and community events ## (e.g., Indoor Market) •City staff newsletter promotion ## •Cross-promotion at the Arbor Day Tree Giveaway •Listings on the Drive Electric MN event calendar, the Clean Energy Resource Teams event calendar, and the JustServe website •Promotion through the Oakdale Area Chamber of Commerce Tuesday Tidbits newsletter •Outreach to families and students at four Oakdale Schools: Castle Elementary School, Eagle Point ## Elementary School, Skyview Middle School, Tartan High School •Outreach to assisted living communities in Oakdale •Invitations to Tartan Theater, Stillwater High School Sustainable Fashion Club, and Tubman •Promotion through a social worker at Tartan High School The event was made possible by numerous volunteers including Environmental Management Commissioners, Maplewood Oakdale Lions Club members, Tartan High School students, and community members. Both attendees and vendors shared many positive comments about the 2026 Eco Fair and Clothing Swap. After the event, City staff solicited feedback from vendors and a number of them shared their thoughts. The event was also discussed at the Environmental Management Commission’s May 18, 2026 meeting. A summary of vendor and Commission feedback is attached for Council’s review. ## F urther, the League of MN Cities Magazine will be doing a feature in City Spotlight on this event and the success of it. In the 2026 budget, $2,000 was identified as funding for the Eco Fair and Clothing Swap. Below is a breakdown of all City costs associated with the event. ## 2026 Eco Fair and Clothing Swap Cost Breakdown ## Rental Fee for Castle Elementary School $467.00 Signage and Promotion $342.58 ## Event Supplies $758.59 ## Volunteer Food and Beverages $95.91 ## Total Tracked Expenses $1,664.08 ## COUNCIL DIRECTION REQUESTED It is requested that the City Council provide feedback on the 2026 Eco Fair and Clothing Swap and offer input on the future of the event, particularly regarding the timing of the event and venue options given space and growth constraints at Castle Elementary School. 3 ## Attachment Environmental Management Commission and Vendor Feedback on the 2026 Eco Fair 1 Summary of 2026 Eco Fair Discussion at May 18, 2026 ## Environmental Management Commission Meeting • The Environmental Management Commission felt that the 2026 Eco Fair was very successful. • Commissioners shared that many attendees heard about the event on Facebook. • There was the suggestion to have everything, including family-friendly activities, inside when the weather is not ideal, if space allows. • If the event continues at Castle Elementary School, there was discussion about the parking lot capacity. It was suggested that vendors park in the overflow area to leave the rest of the school’s lot open for attendees. • Commissioners discussed the possibility of a larger venue where the two parts of the event could be in the same space. • It was also suggested to host the Eco Fair and Clothing Swap at the new Public Works facility. • A venue bigger than Castle Elementary School would be especially useful for the Clothing Swap portion in order to spread the clothes out more and create an easier experience for looking through the items. ## Vendor Feedback on the 2026 Eco Fair • Vendors felt that everyone who visited left happy and that there were a lot of valuable conversations with attendees. • The Clothing Swap was a good addition to the Eco Fair as the two portions can draw different crowds. One vendor felt that folks from the Clothing Swap would not have attended the info expo but since they were already there, they explored and visited the tables. • Vendors should park in the “authorized parking” area after unloading. Specific parking areas were communicated to vendors ahead of the event. • There was a good variety of organizations and vendors enjoyed connecting with others. • Vendors felt that the time of day and the date worked well, though one vendor commented that two other environmental events occurred in Washington County on the same weekend – Mahtomedi’s RITE of Spring and Valley EcoFair in Stillwater. • Some vendors felt that the event length was good while others thought it could be shortened and conclude at 12 PM since visitor traffic fell off in the last hour. There was a comment that the Clothing Swap could still go until 1 PM. One vendor suggested slightly different times for the two portions of the event. • Vendors appreciated that tables and chairs were provided. • Vendors felt that the event was well run, parking was easy, communication from the City was good, and there were lots of people on-hand to help direct for vendor setup. • Event staff and volunteers were friendly and helpful. • A vendor commented that there was a wide variety of attendees – folks that could use resources for keeping their bills down to people that had the latest in energy efficient home heating and cooling. 2 • Vendors liked the venue and felt that there was plenty of space. They did not feel like they were too close to adjacent tables and did not need to compete to have conversations. The acoustics generally were good for a gym. • One vendor offered the suggestion of hosting the event in partnership with an adjacent community or two to achieve more visitor traffic.