--- ## author: Sue Barry date: D:20260820103609-05'00' --- ## AGENDA ## City Council ## Workshop Meeting August 25, 2026 ## Discovery Center, 4444 Hadley Ave N ## 5:00 PM ## Amended ## 5:00 PM Tanners Lake Park Concept ## 5:25 PM E-Mobility Devices – Analysis and Policy Options ## 6:05 PM 2027 Proposed Budget Updates ## 6:35 PM Space Lease with New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC ## 6:40 PM Administrator Update ## 6:45 PM Council Topics ## 6:55 PM Adjourn ## COUNCIL MEMORANDUM ## To: Honorable Mayor and City Council ## From: Hannah Dunn, Sr. Community Development Specialist Date: August 25, 2026 ## Subject: Tanners Lake Park Concept ## BACKGROUND At the August 12, 2026 Workshop, Council Members reviewed the community engagement results to date for Tanners Lake Park and discussed design options and associated costs. The Council decided that further discussion was warranted to determine what level of improvements at Tanners Lake Park can be pursued given the estimated budget. Feedback from the Council during the August 12, 2026 Workshop discussion included: • The project team should revisit the parking lot design to determine whether additional spaces can be incorporated. • Council would like the project team to explore alternate ADA trail connections to the playground area. • The picnic shelter and fishing pier relocation alternates should not be included in this round of improvements and can be implemented in the future. • Fully rebuilding, instead of repairing, the southern courts is necessary due to their poor condition. • Council was supportive of finding ways to add lighting with trail reconstruction as safety within the park is a priority. The detailed breakdown of costs associated with base cost and the different potential Tanners Lake Park improvements will be sent under separate cover. ## COUNCIL DIRECTION REQUESTED It is requested that the City Council provide input and direction on the desired improvements to be included in the Tanners Lake Park Improvement Project, improvements that could be deferred to a later phase, and if any adjustments to the Tanners Lake Park Improvement Project budget should be made. ## Attachment ## Plan Sheets – Tanners Lake Park Concept Options 25' 50' 100' Scale: 1'=50' ## REMOVALS PLAN 1 ## REMOVALS PLAN ## KAT ## NLS ## C101 ## File Path: ## ..\250707\500 Drawings\LA\250707.TL L101 Landscape Plan.dwg 701 Washington Ave. N, Ste 200 | Minneapolis, MN 55401 | 612.338.2029 THIS SQUARE APPEARS 1/2" x 1/2" ## ON FULL SIZE SHEETS ## 7/28/2026 8:09 AM ## Plot Date: ## CLIENT: ## CITY OF OAKDALE ## 4444 HADLEY AVE N ## OAKDALE, MN 55128 ## NO ## DATE ## REVISION ## NO ## DATE ## ISSUED FOR ## COPYRIGHT 2026 ## BY LHB, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ## PRELIMINARY ## NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 07/27/2026 ## PROJECT NAME: ## TANNERS LAKE PARK ## IMPROVEMENTS ## 400 GLENBROOK AVE N ## OAKDALE, MN 55128 ## DRAWING TITLE:DRAWN BY: ## CHECKED BY: ## PROJ. NO:DRAWING NO: 250707 1 07/27/2026 ## CONCEPT/SD PRICING SET 1 ## C401 1 ## C401 ## ALTERNATE 8: RELOCATE FISHING PIER ## INCLUDES CLEARING & GRUBBING AND ## ALL WORK ASSOCIATED WITH FISHING ## PIER REMOVAL AND RELOCATION ## ALTERNATE 1B: REPAVE SHORELINE TRAIL ## INCLUDES REMOVAL OF EXISTING ## BITUMINOUS TRAIL AND ALL WORK ## ASSOCIATED WITH INSTALLING NEW ## SHORELINE TRAIL 1 ## C401 ## ALTERNATE 7: NORTH COURT AREA ## INCLUDES REMOVAL OF EXISTING ## PAVEMENTS, TREES, AND EQUIPMENT ## AND ALL WORK ASSOCIATED WITH NEW ## COURT DESIGN. ## BASE BID: NO WORK. 1 ## C401 ## ALTERNATE 6: NORTH COURT AREA ## INCLUDES REMOVAL OF EXISTING ## PAVEMENTS, TENNIS AND BASKETBALLEQUIPMENT AND ALL WORK ## ASSOCIATED WITH NEW ## COURT DESIGN. BASE BID: NO ## REMOVALS. REPAIR AND REPAINT, SEE ## NARRATIVE. ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## S ## S ## S ## S >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## EM ## EM ## GAS ## GAS ## GAS ## GAS ## GAS ## GAS ## GAS ## GM ## GM >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > ## ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ## WM ## H ## Y ## D ## W ## E-OH ## E-OH ## E-OH ## E-OH > > > > 964 965 967 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 974 975 976 977 980 980 975 974 973 972 972 971 970 981 982 983 983 982 981 980 979 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 983 984 985 986 988 990 992 993 994 995 996 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 ## REMOVE EXISTING ## PARKING LOT BITUMINOUS ## PAVEMENT ## REMOVE TREE, ## COURTS ALTERNATECONDITION ONLY ## REMOVE TREE, ## COURTS ALTERNATECONDITION ONLY ## REMOVE TREE, ## COURTS ALTERNATECONDITION ONLY ## REMOVE SAND ## SURFACING AND CURB ## IN PLAYGROUND AREA, ## EQUIP. REMOVAL BY ## OWNER ## REMOVE AND REPLACE ## BITUMINOUS TRAIL IN ## ACCORDANCE WITH ## PLANS ## 1A: REMOVE AND ## REPLACE ## BITUMINOUS TRAIL ## IN ACCORDANCE ## WITH PLANS ## PAVEMENT ## SAWCUT ## PAVEMENT SAWCUT ## PAVEMENT SAWCUT ## REMOVEBENCH AND ## CONC PAD ## REMOVE CONC PAD ## REMOVE SWING SET ## REMOVE ## SAND ## VOLLEYBALL ## COURT AND ## NET ## REMOVE SIGN, TYP. ## REMOVE CONCRETE ## CURB AND GUTTER ## REMOVE LIGHTPOLE ## REMOVE ## BASKETBALL ## COURT, ## PAVEMENT, HOOP ## AND FOOTING ## PAVEMENT SAWCUT ## REMOVE ## CONCRETE ## CURB ## TREE ## PROTECTION, ## TYP. ## TREE PROTECTION,TYP. ## TREE PROTECTION,TYP. ## CLEAR AND GRUB TREES ## AND VEGETATION ## FOR FISHING PIE ## RELOCATION ## REMOVE TREE, ## TYP. ## PROVDE TREE PROTECTION ## FENCING ALONG EXISTING ## WOODS ## REMOVE ALL PARKING ## SIGNS ## PAVEMENT SAWCUT ## 1A: REMOVE AND ## REPLACE ## BITUMINOUS TRAIL ## IN ACCORDANCE ## WITH PLANS ## 1A: REMOVE AND ## REPLACE ## BITUMINOUS TRAIL ## IN ACCORDANCE ## WITH PLANS ## EXISTING ## BASKETBALL ## COURT ## EXISTING TENNIS ## AND PICKLEBALL ## COURTS ## GENERAL NOTES ## EROSION CONTROL NOTES ## LEGEND 10' 30' 60' ## Scale: 1"=30'LAYOUT AND SURFACING PLAN - NORTH 1 ## LAYOUT ANDSURFACING PLANNORTH ## KAT ## NLS ## LEGEND ## C401 ## File Path: ## ..\250707\500 Drawings\LA\250707.TL L101 Landscape Plan.dwg 701 Washington Ave. N, Ste 200 | Minneapolis, MN 55401 | 612.338.2029 THIS SQUARE APPEARS 1/2" x 1/2" ## ON FULL SIZE SHEETS ## 7/28/2026 8:09 AM ## Plot Date: ## CLIENT: ## CITY OF OAKDALE ## 4444 HADLEY AVE N ## OAKDALE, MN 55128 ## NO ## DATE ## REVISION ## NO ## DATE ## ISSUED FOR ## COPYRIGHT 2026 ## BY LHB, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ## PRELIMINARY ## NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 07/27/2026 ## PROJECT NAME: ## TANNERS LAKE PARK ## IMPROVEMENTS ## 400 GLENBROOK AVE N ## OAKDALE, MN 55128 ## DRAWING TITLE:DRAWN BY: ## CHECKED BY: ## PROJ. NO:DRAWING NO: 250707 1 07/27/2026 ## CONCEPT/SD PRICING SET 1 ## L101 ## ALTERNATE 8: RELOCATE FISHING PIER 1 ## L102 ## ALTERNATE 1B: REPAVE SHORELINE TRAIL 1 ## L101 ## ALTERNATE:7: NORTHERN COURT AREA 1 ## L101 ## ALTERNATE:6: SOUTHERN COURT AREA 1 ## C402 ## ALTERNATE:1B: REPAVE SHORELINE TRAIL ## SEE SHEET C402 FOR FURTHER EXTENTS 1 ## L101 ## ALTERNATE 5: PICNIC SHELTER AREA ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X >> >> ## S >> >> ## S >> >> ## S >> >> ## S >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## E-BUR ## EM ## GAS ## GAS ## GAS ## GAS ## GAS ## GAS ## GAS ## GAS ## GAS ## GAS ## GAS ## GAS ## GM ## GM >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ## H ## Y ## D ## E-OH ## E-OH ## E-OH ## E-OH ## E-OH ## E-OH ## E-OH ## 9'-0", TYP. 17'-2" 17'-2" 25'-4" 5'-0" 5'-0" 8'-0" 6'-0" ## 4" WIDE SOLID WHITE STRIPING, TYP. ## ARTIFICIAL TURF VOLLEYBALL COURT ## 2" WIDE SOLID WHITE STRIPING, TYP. ## COURT STRIPING TO MEET ## DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR TYP. ## VOLLEYBALL COURTS. ## NEW BASKETBALL COURT, ## 2" WIDE SOLID WHITE ## STRIPING, TYP. COURTSTRIPING TO MEET ## DIMENSIONALREQUIREMENTS FOR TYP. ## BASKETBALL COURTS. ## RELOCATE FISHING PIER ## CONCRETE ## PLAYGROUND CURB, ## SEE X/LXXX ## ALTERNATE 3: TRAIL ## LIGHTING, TYP. ## ALTERNATE 2: PROVIDE ## CONDUIT ALONG TRAIL ## FOR FUTURE LIGHTING. ## SEE NARRATIVE. ## PROVIDE PARKING LOT ## LIGHTING, SEE ELECTRICAL ## PROVIDE ELECTRICAL ## OUTLETS AT LARGE PICNIC ## SHELTER (4), SEE ## ELECTRICAL ## PROVIDE BOLLARDS ALONG ## PARKING LOT SIDEWALK, TYP. ## ACCESSIBLE TRAIL ## CONNECTION. ## CONCRETE PATIO SEATING AREA. ## BASKETBALL COURT, ## SEE NARRATIVE ## PICKLEBALL COURT COMPLEX ## (8 COURTS), SEE NARRATIVE ## PLAYGROUND AREA ## SEE L101 ## CONCRETE WALK, TYP. ## CONCRETE PLAZA/PATIO ## CONCRETE PATIO SEATING AREA. ## CONCRETE STAIRS ## AND RAILING, TYP. ## RESTORE SHORELINE ## VEGETATION WITH ## NATIVE PLANTINGS AND ## SEED MIX ## REPAVE BITUMINOUS TRAIL ## TO PARKING LOT ## SIDEWALK ## BITUMINOUS TRAIL ## CONNECTION ## PICNIC SHELTER, ## SEE NARRATIVE ## EXISTING POLE MOUNTED ## TRANSFORMER. ## ALTERNATE 4: UPSIZE ## TRANSFORMER, SEE ## ELECTRICAL NARRATIVE. 15' 30' 60' ## Scale: 1"=30'SURFACING AND LAYOUT PLAN - SOUTH 1 ## SURFACING AND LAYOUT PLANSOUTH ## KAT ## NLS ## C402 ## File Path: ## ..\250707\500 Drawings\LA\250707.TL L101 Landscape Plan.dwg 701 Washington Ave. N, Ste 200 | Minneapolis, MN 55401 | 612.338.2029 THIS SQUARE APPEARS 1/2" x 1/2" ## ON FULL SIZE SHEETS ## 7/28/2026 8:09 AM ## Plot Date: ## CLIENT: ## CITY OF OAKDALE ## 4444 HADLEY AVE N ## OAKDALE, MN 55128 ## NO ## DATE ## REVISION ## NO ## DATE ## ISSUED FOR ## COPYRIGHT 2026 ## BY LHB, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ## PRELIMINARY ## NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 07/27/2026 ## PROJECT NAME: ## TANNERS LAKE PARK ## IMPROVEMENTS ## 400 GLENBROOK AVE N ## OAKDALE, MN 55128 ## DRAWING TITLE:DRAWN BY: ## CHECKED BY: ## PROJ. NO:DRAWING NO: 250707 1 07/27/2026 ## CONCEPT/SD PRICING SET 1 ## L102 ## ALTERNATE 1B: REPAVE SHORELINE TRAIL 1 ## L102 ## ALTERNATE: RELOCATE FISHING PIER ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X >> >> ## S >> >> ## S >> >> ## S ## EM ## EM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ## ST > > ## ST > > > > > > > > > > > > ## 5'-0", TYP. ## 5'-0", TYP. ## 5'-0", TYP. ## 5'-0", TYP. ## RELOCATE FISHING PIER ## BASKETBALL COURT, ## SEE NARRATIVE ## RESTORE SHORELINE ## VEGETATION WITH ## NATIVE PLANTINGS AND ## SEED MIX ## ALTERNATE 3: TRAIL ## LIGHTING, TYP. ## SEE ELECTRICAL ## NARRATIVE ## ALTERNATE 1B: REPAVE ## SHORELINE TRAIL ## REPAVE BITUMINOUS TRAIL ## TO PARKING LOT ## SIDEWALK ## BITUMINOUS TRAIL ## CONNECTION ## ALTERNATE 1B: RESTORE ## SHORELINE VEGETATION ## WITH NATIVE PLANTINGS ## AND SEED MIX IMPACTED ## BY TRAIL ## RECONSTRUCTION ## BASKETBALL COURTS ## COURT FENCING ## GATE ## SHORELINE TRAIL. SEE C402 FOR FULL ## EXTENTS. RESTORE VEGETATION ## ADJACENT TO TRAIL, IF IMPACTED BY ## TRAIL RECONSTRUCTION. 15' 30' 60' ## Scale: 1"=30'LANDSCAPE PLAN 1 ## LANDSCAPE PLAN ## KAT ## NLS ## LANDSCAPE NOTES ## PLANT SCHEDULE ## GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES: 1. ## THIS DRAWING DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN OFFICIAL SURVEY OF THE SITE. CONFIRM ## ALL LOCATIONS OF SURFACE AND SUB-SURFACE FEATURES BEFORE BEGINNING ## INSTALLATION. ADVISE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. 2. ## THE PLAN TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER THE PLANT SCHEDULE IF DISCREPANCIES EXIST. ## ADVISE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. 3. ## CONFIRM ALL QUANTITIES, SHAPES, AND LOCATIONS OF LANDSCAPE AREAS, AND ## ADJUST TO CONFORM TO THE SITE CONDITIONS. CONFIRM ANY ADJUSTMENTS WITH ## THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 4. ## VERIFY LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO DIGGING. NOTIFY THE ## LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY CONFLICTS WITH PLANT INSTALLATION. 5. ## THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL MULCHES AND SOIL QUANTITIES TO ## COMPLETE THE WORK SHOWN IN THE DRAWINGS. VERIFY ALL QUANTITIES SHOWN ON ## THE PLANT SCHEDULE. 5.1. REFER TO SPECIFICATION SECTION 31 2323 FILL FOR SOIL TYPES ANDREQUIREMENTS. DO NOT BEGIN PLANTING OPERATIONS IF SOIL CONDITIONS ## ARE NOT AS SPECIFIED. 5.2. ## REFER TO SPECIFICATION SECTION 32 9300 FOR MULCH TYPES ANDREQUIREMENTS. 6. ## STAKE TREE LAYOUT IN-FIELD FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT APPROVAL PRIOR TO ## PLANTING OPERATIONS ## PROTECTIONS 7. PROTECT EXISTING TREES. DO NOT STORE OR DRIVE HEAVY MATERIALS OVER TREEROOTS. DO NOT DAMAGE TREE BARK OR BRANCHES. REFER TO SHEET L500 FOR TREEPROTECTION REQUIREMENTS. 8. ## KEEP PAVEMENTS, FIXTURES AND BUILDINGS CLEAN AND UNSTAINED. ANY DAMAGE TO ## EXISTING FACILITIES WILL BE REPAIRED AT THE CONTRACTOR’S EXPENSE. KEEP THE ## PROJECT SITE CLEAR OF CONSTRUCTION WASTES AND DEBRIS. 9. ## PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN INLET AND PERIMETER EROSION CONTROL BMPS AS SPECIFIED ## ON CIVIL SHEETS. 10. ## ALL AREAS OF THE SITE DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION WILL BE RESTORED WITH SEED ## OR SOD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR TURF RESTORATION ## REQUIREMENTS. ## PLANT MATERIAL 11. ## PLANT TREE ROOT BALLS FLUSH WITH FINAL GRADE AND THE TOP OF ROOT FLARE ## EXPOSED, PER PLANTING DETAILS. 12. ## NO SUBSTITUTIONS OF PLANT MATERIAL WILL BE ACCEPTED UNLESS APPROVED IN ## WRITING BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 13. ## THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT ANY PLANTS WHICH ## ARE DEEMED UNSATISFACTORY. 14. ## ALL PLANTING STOCK SHALL CONFORM TO THE "AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY ## STOCK", ANSI-Z60. LATEST EDITION, OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN, ## INC. 15. HEEL IN AND WATER ANY PLANT STOCK NOT PLANTED WITHIN 24 HOURS OF DELIVERYUNTIL INSTALLATION. PLANTS NOT MAINTAINED IN THIS MANNER WILL BE REJECTED. 16. ## REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS FOR WARRANTY REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER PLANTING ## ACCESSORIES. ## MAINTENANCE AND CARE 17. ## BEGIN PLANT MAINTENANCE IMMEDIATELY AFTER EACH PORTION OF THE WORK IS INPLACE. 18. MAINTENANCE INCLUDES WATERING, WEEDING, MULCHING, REMOVAL OF DEADMATERIAL PRIOR TO GROWING SEASON, RE-SETTING PLANTS AND PROPER GRADE, ## AND KEEPING PLANTS IN A PLUMB POSITION. 19. ## REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS FOR FULL INSPECTION, MAINTENANCE, AND WARRANTYREQUIREMENTS. ## SITE FURNISHINGS 20. ## PICNIC TABLE AND BENCHES TO BE PROVIDED BY OWNER, PLAYGROUND VENDOR ## INSTALLED. COORDINATE WITH PLAYGROUND VENDOR. 21. ## OWNER TO PROVIDE AND INSTALL TRASH AND RECYCLING BINS. COORDINATE WITHOWNER. ## L101 ## File Path: ## ..\250707\500 Drawings\LA\250707.TL L101 Landscape Plan.dwg 701 Washington Ave. N, Ste 200 | Minneapolis, MN 55401 | 612.338.2029 THIS SQUARE APPEARS 1/2" x 1/2" ## ON FULL SIZE SHEETS ## 7/28/2026 8:09 AM ## Plot Date: ## CLIENT: ## CITY OF OAKDALE ## 4444 HADLEY AVE N ## OAKDALE, MN 55128 ## NO ## DATE ## REVISION ## NO ## DATE ## ISSUED FOR ## COPYRIGHT 2026 ## BY LHB, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ## PRELIMINARY ## NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 07/27/2026 ## PROJECT NAME: ## TANNERS LAKE PARK ## IMPROVEMENTS ## 400 GLENBROOK AVE N ## OAKDALE, MN 55128 ## DRAWING TITLE:DRAWN BY: ## CHECKED BY: ## PROJ. NO:DRAWING NO: 250707 1 07/27/2026 ## CONCEPT/SD PRICING SET ## KEYNOTES ## REFER TO C401 FOR ALTERNATE AREAS, ## L101 SHOWS FULL ALTERNATE CONDITION ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X ## X >> >> ## S >> >> ## S >> >> ## S >> >> ## S ## EM ## GAS ## GAS ## GAS ## GAS ## GAS ## GAS ## GAS ## GAS ## GAS ## GAS ## GAS ## GAS ## GM ## GM > > > > > > > > ## WM ## H ## Y ## D ## W ## E-OH ## E-OH ## E-OH ## E-OH ## E-OH ## E-OH ## E-OH ## 5'-0", TYP. ## 5'-0", TYP. 10'-0" ## PICKLEBALL COURTS ## BASKETBALL COURTS ## COURT FENCING ## GATE ## NEW GATE, NORTHERN ## COURTS ALTERNATE ONLY ## PEDESTRIAN TRAILLIGHTING, TYP. ## SHORELINE TRAIL. SEE C402 FOR FULL ## EXTENTS. RESTORE VEGETATION ## ADJACENT TO TRAIL, IF IMPACTED BY ## TRAIL RECONSTRUCTION. ## SYMBOL ## QTY ## BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME ## DECIDUOUS CANOPY TREE 18 ## Deciduous Tree ## GROUND COVERS 3,013 sf ## Landscape Plantings 3,594 sf ## PIP Resilient Playground Surfacing / By Playground Vendor 3,302 sf Shoreline Seed Mix with Perennial Plugs at 18" O.C. 34,185 sf Turf Seed / See 32 9219 ## POURED IN PLACE RESILIENT PLAYGROUND SURFACING ## WITH DRAIN TILE, PROVIDED BY VENDOR. ## STAIRS WITH RAILINGS ON BOTH SIDES.SEE NARRATIVE. ## VOLLEYBALL COURT WITH ARTIFICIAL TURF SURFACING. ## CAFE TABLE AND CHAIRS BY OWNER. ## VOLLEYBALL NET. ## BASKETBALL HOOP. ## SINGLE POST SHADE STRUCTURE BY OWNER. ## LARGE PICNIC SHELTER WITH FOOTINGS. ## PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, PROVIDED BY VENDOR. ## LANDSCAPE BOULDER RETAINING WALL. ## RELOCATED FISHING PIER. ## COUNCIL MEMORANDUM ## To: Honorable Mayor and City Council ## From: Max Lohse, Planner Date: August 25, 2026 ## Subject: E-Mobility Devices – Analysis and Policy Options ## BACKGROUND In recent years, the use of e-mobility devices, including e-bikes, e-motos, motorized foot scooters, and self-balancing scooters, has increased in popularity for both active transportation and recreational purposes. As these devices have become more common, the City has received a growing number of resident complaints, especially with youth operating devices at high speeds and unsafe riding behavior. According to data from the Oakdale Police Department, e-mobility device complaints have increased approximately 117% from 2023 to 2025 (18 in 2023; 39 in 2025), making up 0.24% of calls for service in 2025. The majority of complaints are classified as general driving behavior or juvenile problems and are generally not concentrated in specific geographic areas. It should be noted that e-mobility devices make up a relatively small share of collisions or accidents. Since 2023, e-bike crashes/collisions have represented 0.6% of all accidents Citywide. The following memo provides background information on e-mobility devices, summarizes peer city practices, evaluates the advantages and disadvantages of various policy options, and seeks City Council input on a desired policy direction. ## DEFINITIONS E-mobility devices generally refer to small electric-powered transportation devices. These devices are defined individually in Minnesota Statutes and often have differing regulations. The following section defines each term and outlines how they are regulated under State statutes. ## Electric-Assisted Bicycle (E-Bike) Minnesota Statutes 169.011 Subd. 27 defines an electric-assisted bicycle (e-bike) as a bicycle with two or three wheels, a saddle, fully operable pedals, and an electric motor with a power output of not more than 750 watts that meets applicable equipment and safety requirements. E-bikes must also fall within one of the State’s three e-bike classes. E -bike classes include the following: • Class 1 – an electric motor provides pedal assistance only and ceases assistance after reaching 20 miles per hour. • Class 2 – an electric motor provides pedal assistance and may also propel without the rider pedaling (i.e., has throttle capabilities). Assistance ceases after reaching 20 miles per hour. • Class 3 – an electric motor provides pedal assistance only and ceases assistance after reaching 28 miles per hour. E-bikes must have a permanent label that identifies the bike’s class, motor wattage, and top speed. If an e-bike is modified to exceed these specifications, it is no longer considered an e-bike under Minnesota Statutes. E-bikes are treated the same as bicycles under Minnesota Statutes 169.222 Subd. 6a and may be ridden in the same areas where bicycles are permitted unless specified otherwise. E-bike riders must be at least 15 years old. Additionally, e-bikes do not require a driver’s license or title, and a helmet is not required. ## Motorized Bicycle or Off-Highway Motorcycles (E-Motos) E-moto is not currently defined in Minnesota Statutes but generally refers to devices that are similar in appearance to an e-bike, but do not meet the statutory definition for e-bikes. For example, an e-moto may have non-functional pedals, exceed wattage limits, or be capable of speeds above those permitted for e- bikes. In most cases, these devices are treated as motorized bicycles (mopeds) or off-highway motorcycles under statute and are prohibited from being operated on trails and sidewalks. Many cities have interpreted that these devices require registration and insurance, but the lack of clarity in State statutes makes enforcement difficult. Many complaints received from residents pertain to youth on e- motos. Minnesota statutes require sellers to disclose whether a device is considered an e-bike and what class it falls under. However, in practice, many e-motos are purchased online from major online retailers or direct- to-consumer companies, allowing manufacturers to sell devices marketed as e-bikes that do not meet State regulations 1 . In 2026, the Minnesota Legislature attempted to pass legislation that would further clarify e-moto definitions, create a point-of-sale vehicle registration system for e-motos, and improve enforcement mechanisms 2 . The legislation did not pass. It is expected that the legislation will be re-introduced in 2027. ## Motorized Foot Scooters Motorized foot scooters are defined under Minnesota State Statutes 169.011 Subd. 46 as “...a device with handlebars... powered by an internal combustion engine or electric motor that is capable of propelling the device with or without human propulsion... and has an engine or motor that is capable of a maximum speed of 15 miles per hour...”. Regulations on foot scooters include the following: • The rider must be at least 12 years old. • Riders under 18 years old must wear a helmet. • Only one person can ride at a time. • Sidewalk riding is prohibited. Motorized foot scooters are generally permitted on bike trails and roads. Local governments may prohibit scooters on specific paths as well. ## Electric Personal Assistive Mobility Device (Self-Balancing Scooters) Electric Personal Assistive Mobility Device, more commonly called self-balancing scooters, are defined in Minnesota Statutes 169.011 Subd. 26 as “...a self-balancing device with two nontandem wheels, designed to transport not more than one person, and operated by an electric propulsion system that limits the maximum speed of the device to 15 miles per hour.” This category includes segways, mobility scooters, many “hoverboards,” and other small two-wheel devices. Regulations on self-balancing scooters include the following: Self-balancing scooters are permitted on sidewalks, trails, bicycle paths, and roadways under 35 miles per hour. State statutes preempt cities from restricting the use of self-balancing scooters, unless located on a road with a speed limit over 35 miles per hour. Additional details on e-mobility devices can be found from Minnesota Toward Zero Deaths. 1 Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota, Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Minnesota Safety Council, Minnesota Sheriff’s Association, and Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association. “E-Moto Consumer Alert.” Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota, November 20, 2025. https://www.bikemn.org/e-moto-consumer-alert/. 2 H.F. 3785, 94th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Minn. 2026) (companion to S.F. 4186). ## CURRENT CITY ORDINANCES The City of Oakdale primarily relies on State statutes for regulating e-mobility devices, but has limited regulations pertaining generally to bicycles and motorcycles. The following summarizes existing regulations in the City Code: • Chapter 15 (Parks and Recreation), Article 3, Sec. 15-18 – In City-owned parks and trails: o Cyclists must ride as close as possible to the right side of the path. o Not more than two bicycles can be operated abreast. o Bicycles in City parks cannot be operated “faster than is reasonable and safe, with regard to the safety of the operator and other persons in the immediate area.” • Chapter 12 (Motor Vehicles), Article 5 (Motorcycles): o Motorcycles are defined as “every self-propelled motor vehicle having a saddle for use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three (3) wheels in contact with the ground. The term includes motor scooters, bicycles with motors attached, motorcycles, and mini-bikes, but does not include tractors or motorized foot scooters as defined in ## Minnesota Statutes 169.011, Subd. 46.” o Motorcycles and motorized foot scooters are prohibited from operating on sidewalks. o Motorized foot scooters are permitted on trails; motorcycles are not permitted on trails. o Motorcycles cannot “unreasonably annoy or disturb [the public]...,” and stunts / tricks are prohibited. ## PEER CITY PRACTICES A table comparing e-mobility policy actions in different municipalities around the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area has been prepared for this report as an attachment. Below is a general summary of e-mobility policy trends; additional details are available in the peer city practices attachment. • Most communities that have adopted ordinances focus on clarifying where devices may be operated (e.g., specifically allowed on trails, prohibited on sidewalks, etc.). None of the surveyed communities have adopted trail bans for e-bikes; some have adopted location-specific prohibitions (Maplewood Nature Center, Southwood Nature Preserve, etc.) or sidewalk bans (White Bear Lake). • In April 2026, Cottage Grove adopted a comprehensive local e-mobility ordinance, which added definitions for e-mobility devices, prohibited e-scooters on sidewalks, established behavioral expectations (yielding to pedestrians, reasonable speeds, due care), instated a youth helmet requirement, and banned e-motos from trails and sidewalks. The ordinance has been accompanied by a public education campaign. • Several peer cities have created educational campaigns designed to share safe riding practices as well as communicate existing ordinances and State statutes (e.g., Cottage Grove, White Bear Lake, Eagan, Woodbury, etc.). • Many peer cities have not taken action on e-mobility devices and defer to State statutes. ## POLICY OPTIONS The following section describes potential policy options that may address concerns associated with e- mobility devices. For each policy option, a brief description, advantages, disadvantages, and examples from other communities are provided. The policy options are arranged in order of magnitude. ## No Action / Utilize Existing Ordinances and Statutes Under this option, the City would not adopt any new policy changes related to e-mobility devices or traditional bicycles. Instead, the City would continue to comply with existing State statutes and current ordinance language. ## Advantages: • The Minnesota Legislature is expected to reintroduce restrictions on e-motos / illegal e-bikes in next year’s legislative session. If the State adopts new restrictions, City action may be unnecessary. Additionally, any ordinance changes adopted this year could require revisions after the adoption of new State statutes. • The City has existing ordinances pertaining to bicycles, though the language is limited compared to other municipalities. ## Disadvantages: • This option does not create any new policy tools. Cities Utilizing This Approach: Arden Hills, Fridley, Lake Elmo, Minnetonka, New Hope, Richfield, Roseville, ## Saint Louis Park, Shoreview, Stillwater ## Education / Outreach Under this option, the City could communicate existing State statutes and City ordinances regarding bicycles and e-mobility devices to the general public, utilizing live events, social media, videos, printed materials, signage, or other options. Recent examples in other communities include bike rodeos, community safety workshops, pledges for youth to engage in safe biking behavior, and targeted talks at middle and high schools. Additionally, other communities have posted signage along trails that state behavioral expectations (e.g., yield to pedestrian signs, passing courtesy, etc.). ## Advantages: • If tailored to target specific demographics, education can reduce unwanted behavior without ordinance changes or direct enforcement. ## Disadvantages: • Educational approaches cannot eliminate unwanted behavior entirely and may not address repeat offenders. Cities Utilizing This Approach: Coon Rapids (safety pledges and bike rodeo), Cottage Grove (videos), White ## Bear Lake (videos), Woodbury (webpage) ## Behavioral Regulations Many cities regulate how bicycles and e-mobility devices must be operated, rather than regulating specific device types. Common examples include requirements to yield to pedestrians, provide an audible signal before passing, exercise due care, and travel at a reasonable and prudent speed for existing conditions. ## Advantages: • These regulations are preferred by the Oakdale Police Department, as they are enforceable but allow for police officer discretion, and do not require the use of specific equipment. • These regulations can apply to both e-mobility devices and traditional (non-electric) bicycles, ensuring that behavior is consistent regardless of device choice. • Action 1.3 of the City of Oakdale Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan (2024) recommends that “...Oakdale’s City Code be updated to match the chosen sign/s and codify expected trail user behavior.” ## Disadvantages: • More general behavioral language (e.g., following a “reasonable and prudent speed”) can result in conflicting expectations for residents and device users. Cities Utilizing This Approach: Coon Rapids, Cottage Grove, Edina, Maplewood, New Hope, Woodbury ## Helmet Requirements According to the Police Department, the majority of complaints for e-bikes and e-motos relate to youth riders, and many do not wear helmets, creating a potential personal safety risk. State statute currently only requires that youth wear helmets for motorized foot scooters and mopeds / e-motos. Cities may adopt youth helmet regulations. ## Advantages: • The requirement of helmets for youth on e-mobility devices can dramatically reduce chances of serious rider injury. ## Disadvantages: • Helmet requirements protect riders but do not impact the safety of other trail / sidewalk users. Cities Utilizing This Approach: Cottage Grove (required for e-bikes, e-motos, foot scooters, recreational vehicles) ## Speed Limits Many riders of traditional bicycles are capable of reaching speeds comparable to legal (classes 1-3) e- bikes. As a result, several communities have adopted speed limits that pertain to all trail users, allowing for more uniform expectations regardless of mobility device choice. ## Advantages: • Speed limits create uniform expectations for trail behavior that pertain to all mobility devices. As a result, e-bikes and other e-mobility devices can be held to the same standard as traditional bicycles. ## Disadvantages: • The Oakdale Police Department has concerns about trail speed limit enforcement due to logistical challenges, including the need to find safe out of squad locations within the trail system for use of a LiDAR speed measurement device. At this time, call for service data does not indicate a speed issue in the Oakdale Nature Preserve, and speed enforcement efforts on the trails could create additional community concerns. Cities Utilizing This Approach: Lakeville (15 mph), Dakota County-Owned Trails (15 mph) ## Location-Specific Prohibitions While incident data does not appear to show strong geographic concentrations, some residents and visitors have reported concerns regarding excessive speeds and trail behavior within the Oakdale Nature Preserve. This issue has been reported in similar park / nature center settings in other cities, and some cities have in turn adopted e-bike bans for specific parks / locations. ## Advantages: • This option may address behavioral issues in the Oakdale Nature Preserve, which often has a higher number of pedestrians compared to other trails in the City. Additionally, this option does not impact trails that run along public streets, ensuring that the majority of active transportation routes remain open to e-mobility device users. ## Disadvantages: • This option would remove e-mobility access completely to the City’s premier recreational destination. Additionally, the trails of the Oakdale Nature Preserve serve as a useful active transportation corridor, with east-west and north-south connections between neighborhoods. In particular, the north-south trail on the western portion of the Nature Preserve serves as an important connection between two discontinuous portions of Granada Ave N. • As noted above, traditional bicycles may still be operated at comparable speeds to e-bikes; as a result, an e-bike ban may not resolve all bicycle-related concerns. • Most cities that have implemented these bans have nature centers with natural surface trails. In contrast, the Oakdale Nature Preserve contains many 8 ft asphalt trails. • The Police Department has concerns about enforcement logistics, as police officers would need to drive on preserve trails, and locating e-bikes moving through the trail system presents additional challenges. Cities Utilizing This Approach: Maplewood (Maplewood Nature Center), North Saint Paul (Southwood ## Nature Preserve, Urban Ecology Center) ## Ban E-Motos From Trails Many of the e-mobility complaints received by the Oakdale Police Department pertain to e-motos rather than e-bikes. State statutes currently treat e-motos as motor bicycles (mopeds) or off-highway motorcycles, meaning they are prohibited from being operated on sidewalks and trails. However, the statutes governing e-motos are relatively vague and challenging to enforce. As a result, cities may choose to ban e-motos specifically. ## Advantages: • This option directly addresses devices associated with excessive speeds and reckless behavior. ## Disadvantages: • Some devices intentionally blur the line between e-bike and e-moto, making enforcement challenging. Additionally, some e-bikes are sold in a way where their specifications meet Minnesota e-bike guidelines but contain software that can illegally override speed limitations. As a result, enforcement can be challenging. • Few cities have instituted formal bans on e-moto trail riding. Cities Utilizing This Approach: Cottage Grove (defines e-moto as a recreational vehicle) ## Ban E-Mobility Devices from Trails Under this option, cities may ban some or all e-mobility devices from trails, necessitating operation on City streets rather than trails and sidewalks. ## Advantages: • This option directly addresses complaints and is easier to enforce than an e-moto ban. ## Disadvantages: • This option may increase the risk of e-mobility device users getting into severe accidents that involve automobile collisions. Generally, automobile-bike collisions are more likely to result in severe injury or fatality than bike-pedestrian crashes. Additionally, existing crash data in the City of Oakdale shows no known e-bike-pedestrian crashes. • This option may result in significant pushback from community members that utilize e-mobility devices. Cities Utilizing This Approach: No peer cities to date have adopted an e-mobility device ban from trails. ## COUNCIL DIRECTION REQUESTED It is requested that the City Council review the background information and provides guidance on a preferred policy direction on e-mobility devices. ## Attachments ## Comparison Chart – E -Mobility Devices ## Peer City Practices ## Oakdale Police Department Data – E -Mobility Devices ## Presentation Slides ## Comparison of E-Mobility Devices Category E-Bike (Class 1) E-Bike (Class 2) E-Bike (Class 3) E-Moto* E-Scooter** Maximum Assisted Speed 20 mph 20 mph 28 mph 30 mph and above 15 mph Minimum Age 15 15 15 16 12 Motor / Engine Size < 750 watts < 750 watts < 750 watts < 1500 watts or < 49 cc 100 to 750 watts ## Pedal Assist Yes Yes Yes Varies No ## Throttle No Yes No Varies Yes ## Valid Driver’s License No No No Yes No ## Registration Required No No No Yes No Helmet Required No No No Under age 18 Under age 18 ## Generally Allowed Riding Areas (State Statute) **** ## Sidewalks, ## Trails, ## Streets, ## Private Property ## Sidewalks, ## Trails, ## Streets, ## Private Property ## Sidewalks, ## Trails, ## Streets, ## Private Property ## Streets, ## Off-highway, ## Private Property ## Trails, ## Streets, ## Private Property ## Prohibited Riding Areas (State Statute) **** ## Controlled-Access ## Freeways ## Controlled-Access ## Freeways ## Controlled-Access ## Freeways ## Trails, Sidewalks, ## Controlled-Access ## Freeways ## Sidewalks, ## Controlled-Access ## Freeways ## Nighttime Riding Equipment Headlight and rear reflector Headlight and rear reflector Headlight and rear reflector Headlight and taillight Headlight and taillight MN Statute 169.222 169.222 169.222 169.223 169.225 *E-Motos are not defined in state statute, but for the purpose of this document, staff is referring to “motorized bicycles” and “off-highway motorcycle”, which are defined under state statute. **E-scooters are classified as “motorized foot scooters” under state statute. ***Minnesota Statutes 169.011 provides definitions for the devices listed. ****Local ordinances may vary by municipality. E-Bike (Class 1) E-Bike (Class 2) E-Bike (Class 3) E-Moto E-Scooter City of Oakdale ● 1584 Hadley Avenue N, Oakdale, MN 55128 www.oakdalemn.gov ● 651-739-5086 ## PEER CITY PRACTICES: E-Mobility ## T he following section summarizes policy actions taken by peer communities to regulate or provide education on e- mobility devices. ## Municipality Action Taken Details Code Citation (if applicable) Roseville Ordinance – bicycle route prohibition Prohibition of certain powered vehicles on bicycle routes (motorcycles, dirtbikes, etc.). Sec. 603.03 ## White Bear Lake Ordinance – sidewalk prohibition ## Education Ordinance language prohibits operation of an e-bike, or any bicycle, on sidewalks. ## White Bear Lake Police Department released video in June 2026 on e-bike and e-moto safety. Sec. 604.020 Stillwater N/A No ordinances or education pertaining to the operation of e-bikes and e-scooters. ## Cottage Grove Ordinance – clarification, prohibition of e- motos on sidewalks , behavioral expectations ## Education Passed Ordinance 1112 in April 2026 that updated rules regarding the operation of e-bikes, e-motos, and e-scooters.: •E- bikes permitted on mixed-use paths, streets, and sidewalks •E- scooters (motorized foot scooters) not permitted on sidewalks, but may use mixed-use paths •E- motos defined and explicitly banned from trails / sidewalks. •Requires helmets for youth. Ordinance language prohibits operation of e-scooters (motorized foot scooters) within the City in locations identified in City Code 6- 5.2.A.2 and 3 (public parks, recreational areas, other public property, etc.) Sec. 6-5-2. 1 Ordinance language also establishes behavioral expectations for the operation of e-bikes, e-motos, and e-scooters, including: •Exercising due care •Reasonable and prudent speeds •Not posing a hazard or nuisance to others •Yielding right of way to pedestrians City of Cottage Grove posted video to Facebook in June 2026 to educate residents about updates to their e-mobility ordinance. They also have a webpage dedicated to the e-mobility ordinance. ## Woodbury Ordinance – behavioral expectations ## Education Ordinance language establishes behavioral expectations for operating a bicycle, including: •Yielding the right of way to pedestrians •Giving an audible signal when necessary before overtaking and passing pedestrians City of Woodbury has a webpage that educates people on where they are allowed to ride motorized devices, including e-scooters, e-bikes, and e-motos, subject to state laws and local rules. Sec. 14-42 ## Maplewood Ordinances – location-specific prohibition, behavioral expectations Ordinance language prohibits operation of any vehicles, including e-bikes, e-scooters, and bicycles are not permitted within the grounds of the Maplewood Nature Center except upon designated roads or parking areas. Ordinance language also establishes behavioral expectations for operating a bicycle, including: •Yielding the right of way to pedestrians •Giving an audible signal when necessary before overtaking and passing pedestrians Sec. 26.262 Lake Elmo N/A No ordinances or education pertaining to the operation of e-bikes and e-scooters. ## North St. Paul Ordinance – clarification, E-bikes and e-motos are permitted on bikeways, including bicycle paths, bicycle trails, and shared-use Sec. 92.05 2 prohibition of e- scooters on sidewalks, location- specific prohibition paths. E-scooters are not permitted on public sidewalks. Operation of e-bikes, e-motos, and e-scooters are all not permitted within natural areas, the Southwood Nature Preserve, and the Urban Ecology Center. Eagan Education City of Eagan published a webpage with a video on e- bike safety. ## New Hope Ordinance – behavioral expectations Ordinance language establishes behavioral expectations for operating a bicycle (within public parks), including: •Operating with reasonable regard to the safety of others •Signaling all turns Sec. 6-13 ## ADDITIONAL CITY PRACTICES: E-Mobility The following section summarizes policy actions taken by other communities in the Twin Cities to regulate or provide education on e-mobility devices. ## Municipality Action Taken Details Code Citation (if applicable) Saint Paul N/A No ordinances or education pertaining to the operation of e-bikes and e-scooters. Fridley N/A No ordinances or education pertaining to the operation of e-bikes and e-scooters. ## Coon Rapids Ordinance – prohibition of all bikes on sidewalks, behavioral expectations ## Education Ordinance language prohibits operation of bicycles upon a sidewalk within a business district. Ordinance language also establishes behavioral expectations for operating a bicycle, including: •Reasonable and prudent speeds Maintains a trail etiquette webpage that acknowledges e-bikes and scooters. There is also a Happy Trails pledge Section 9-510 Section 9-505 3 form focused on safety while riding that people can fill out to win a prize. ## Bloomington Ordinance – prohibition of bicycle and e-bikes on pedestrian-specific pathways ## Education Ordinance language prohibits operations of bicycles, including e-bikes, on pathways posted or designated for pedestrians only. Maintains a webpage on e-bikes and e-scooters to educate people on relevant state statutes, local rules, and general information on where people can ride these devices. Section 8.13 Section 8.30 Richfield N/A No ordinances or education pertaining to the operation of e-bikes and e-scooters. Saint Louis Park N/A No ordinances or education pertaining to the operation of e-bikes and e-scooters. Edina Ordinance – e-bikes permitted on sidewalks, behavioral expectations, speed limits ## Education Passed Ordinance 2026-07 in May 2026 that amended Chapter 26 of the Edina City Code to allow operation of e-bikes on sidewalks (previously Edina had passed an ordinance that prohibited operation of e-bikes on sidewalks). Ordinance language also establishes behavioral expectations for operating a bicycle, including: •Reasonable and prudent speeds; never over 10 mph •Slow to a walking pace when pedestrians are present The City of Edina published a webpage with e-bike safety reminders from the Edina Police Department in May 2026. ## Ordinance 2026-07 Sec. 26-283. ## Minnetonka Ordinance – behavioral expectations Ordinance language establishes behavioral expectations for operating a bicycle (on public property), including: •No wearing headphones Sec. 930-050 4 • No wearing earphones to hear broadcasts or sound reproductions from sound- producing or transmitting devices Shoreview N/A No ordinances or education pertaining to the operation of e-bikes and e-scooters. ## Arden Hills N/A No ordinances or education pertaining to the operation of e-bikes and e-scooters. ## Lakeville Ordinance – clarification, speed limit, location- specific prohibition Ordinance adopted September 2, 2025, which adds 15 mph speed limit, definitions for all bikes, and regulations that mirror State statutes. E-bikes prohibited from using city-owned mountain bike trail. ## Title 7, Chapter 8 (not yet codified) ## Blaine Proposed ordinance – behavioral expectations, enforcement Proposed ordinance pertaining to the use and operation of e-bikes, e-scooters, and other mobility devices from the March 9, 2026 city council workshop meeting: • No operating in a careless manner (examples: weaving through traffic unsafely, failing to yield to pedestrians, etc.) • Authorizing Blaine PD to enforce this ordinance and allow officers to issue warnings, citations, or seize non-compliant devices • Violations of ordinance to be considered misdemeanors: 90 days in jail and/or a $1,000 fine; repeat offenses within 12 months may result in device registration revocation or mandatory safety course; devices operated in violation may be impounded at the owner’s expense until compliance is demonstrated ## Dakota County Ordinance – clarification, behavioral expectations Policy – speed limit Speed limit of 15 miles per hour for all trail users. Ordinance language permits e-bikes and e-scooters in Dakota County Parks if they are operated in a safe manner in accordance with local and state law. Ordinance 107 Sections 6.8 and 7.4 5 ## Oakdale Police Department ## E-Mobility Device Data June 26, 2026 ## E-Mobility Devices •There is no standardized definition for electric powered bikes and scooters. For this data, e-mobility devices include e-bikes, e-motos, motorized foot scooters, and self-balancing scooters. •In recent years, e-mobility devices have increased in popularity for both active transportation and recreational purposes. With increased popularity, the city has received a growing number of resident complaints. •The Police Department gathered data for years 2023, 2024, 2025, and January –June of 2026. ## E-Mobility Device Data 18 25 3939 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 2023202420252026 ## E-Mobility Device Calls for Service ## Calls for Service Experienced 117% increase in e-mobility device complaints from 2023 to 2025. E-mobility device complaints accounted for .24% of calls for service in 2025. ## Calls For Service Data ## YearTheft related ## FleeDisturbanceDrivingJuvenile problem ## AccidentFoundOther 202310045008 202420442427 2025315665112 20260141291111 E-mobility device data is categorized in 28 different titles. The above chart shows the most common calls for service related to e-mobility devices years 2023-2026. ## E-mobility Device Accidents 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 202420252026 ## E-Mobility Device Accidents ## E-Mobility Device Accidents 0 3 5 1 405 446 412 197 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 2023202420252026 E-mobility device accidents v. MV accidents ## E-Mobility DeviceMotor Vehicle Accident ## Police Enforcement •With most e-mobility device related calls for service involve juveniles, the police department focuses on education more than citations. •Incident data show the police department received 121 calls for service between 2023 and June 2026. Seven (7) incidents resulted in criminal charges or citations. ## Summary •E-mobility device complaints increased 117% from 2023 to 2025. •Complaints of driving, traffic, and juvenile problems are the most common calls for service involving e-mobility devices. •E-mobility device crashes accounted for a very small percentage of overall traffic accidents, ranging from 0% to 1.2% annually. The highest proportion occurred in 2025, when e-mobility crashed represented approximately 1.2% of all reported traffic accidents. ## E- Mobility Overview City Council Workshop –August 25, 2026 ## Electric-Assisted Bicycle (E-Bike) •Two or three wheels, fully operable pedals, and an electric motor with a power output of not more than 750 watts that meets applicable equipment and safety requirements (Minnesota Statutes 169.011 Subd. 27) •Must have permanent label identifying the bike’s class (1, 2, or 3), motor wattage, and top speed •May be ridden in the same areas where bicycles are permitted unless specified otherwise •Riders must be at least 15 years old; no helmet requirement ## Types of E-Mobility Devices ## Motorized Bicycle/Off-Highway Motorcycles (E-Motos) •Similar in appearance to an e-bike, but do not meet the statutory definition for e-bikes (e-motos not currently defined in Minnesota ## Statutes) •May have non-functional pedals, exceed wattage limits, or are capable of speeds above those permitted for e-bikes •Prohibited from being operated on trails and sidewalks •Often marketed as e-bikes by major online retailors or direct-to -consumer companies ## Types of E-Mobility Devices ## Motorized Foot Scooter (E-Scooter) •Device with handlebars, powered by an internal combustion engine or electric motor that is capable of propelling the device with or without human propulsion, and has an engine or motor capable of a max speed of 15 mph (Minnesota Statutes 169.011 Subd. 46) •Riders must be at least 12 years old; wear helmet if under 18 years old •Only one rider at a time •Sidewalk riding is prohibited •Generally permitted on bike trails and roads ## Types of E-Mobility Devices ## E-Mobility Device Data 18 25 3939 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 2023202420252026 ## E-Mobility Device Calls for Service ## Calls for Service Experienced 117% increase in e-mobility device complaints from 2023 to 2025. E-mobility device complaints accounted for .24% of calls for service in 2025. ## Calls For Service Data ## YearTheft related ## FleeDisturbanceDrivingJuvenile problem ## AccidentFoundOther 202310045008 202420442427 2025315665112 20260141291111 E-mobility device data is categorized in 28 different titles. The above chart shows the most common calls for service related to e-mobility devices years 2023-2026. ## E-mobility Device Accidents 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 202420252026 ## E-Mobility Device Accidents ## E-Mobility Device Accidents 0 3 5 1 405 446 412 197 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 2023202420252026 E-mobility device accidents v. MV accidents ## E-Mobility DeviceMotor Vehicle Accident ## Police Enforcement •With most e-mobility device related calls for service involve juveniles, the police department focuses on education more than citations. •Incident data show the police department received 121 calls for service between 2023 and June 2026. Seven (7) incidents resulted in criminal charges or citations. ## Summary •E-mobility device complaints increased 117% from 2023 to 2025. •Complaints of driving, traffic, and juvenile problems are the most common calls for service involving e-mobility devices. •E-mobility device crashes accounted for a very small percentage of overall traffic accidents, ranging from 0% to 1.2% annually. The highest proportion occurred in 2025, when e-mobility crashed represented approximately 1.2% of all reported traffic accidents. ## Policy Options No action/ existing ordinances ## Education/ outreach ## Expand behavioral regulations ## Helmet requirement ## Speed limits ## Location- specific prohibitions Ban e- motos from trails Ban e- mobility devices from trails ## Least RestrictiveMost Restrictive ## COUNCIL MEMORANDUM 1 ## To: Honorable Mayor and City Council ## From: Mikaela Huot, Finance Director Date: August 25, 2026 ## Subject: 2027 Proposed Budget Updates ## BACKGROUND At the May 28, 2026 City Council Special Workshop, General Fund operating revenues and expenses were reviewed along with Special Revenue Funds. The General Fund expenses and revenues for 2027 were proposed to increase over the 2026 budgeted General Fund expenses and revenues. At the June 25, 2026 City Council Special Workshop, the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fund (VERF), Enterprise Funds, and updates from the May 28, 2026 City Council Special Workshop were reviewed. At the July 29, 2026 City Council Special Workshop, the General Fund, CIP, and Debt Levy Estimates were further reviewed. During these Workshops, follow up discussion topics and changes to the assumptions were requested to be made to the operating, enterprise, capital, and special revenue budgets. ## FOLLOW-UP ITEMS FROM WORKSHOP DISCUSSIONS ## 2027 Budget Update ## Discussion on Overall Levy Impact ## FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS This proposed budget includes the following amendments to reduce levy impact: ## • Reduce General Fund Levy o Other fund balances available for one time project expenses o Deferred new hire additions ## • Reduce Debt Service Levy o Use Closed Bond Fund balance to cancel existing bond levies o Review bond call options ## • Reduce Capital Improvement Plan Levy ## o Street Fund ## o Municipal Building Fund ## • Review Enterprise Fund transfers ## • Tanners Lake Interfund Loan payback terms ## COUNCIL DIRECTION REQUESTED Staff requests feedback and intent on the General Fund budget and the overall levy in preparation for approval of the 2027 Proposed Property Tax Levy at the September 8, 2026 City Council regular meeting. The proposed property tax levy set is a maximum which can only be decreased prior to setting the final levy scheduled for the December 8, 2026 City Council regular meeting. 2 ## Remaining Budget Calendar September 8, 2026 (Council Meeting) Council adopts preliminary levy and sets date for truth in taxation hearing on December 8, 2026. October 13, 2026 (Council Workshop) If needed, City Staff presents Council with the Department's final update on the 2027-2031 Capital Improvement Plan, 2027-2036 Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fund, and the 2027 General Fund Budget Levy. November 2026 Washington County sends proposed Property Tax (Truth in Taxation) notices to all property owners in the City mid-November. December 8, 2026 (Council Meeting) Truth in Taxation meeting for the 2027 Budget and Tax Levy. City Council adopts 2027 Budget, 2027 Tax Levy, and 2027-2031 Capital Improvement Plan, including the 2027-2036 Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fund. ## COUNCIL MEMORANDUM ## To: Honorable Mayor and City Council ## From: Cory Tietz, Public Works Director Date: August 25, 2026 ## Subject: Space Lease with New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC ## BACKGROUND The City of Oakdale maintains existing space lease agreements with multiple mobile and radio service providers within the region, facilitating the installation and operation of antenna and communication equipment on or within its water storage facilities throughout the community. Recently, City staff have been contacted by New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, d/b/a AT&T, requesting to enter into a new space lease agreement for Water Tower 4 located at 1265 Helmo Ave N. ## COUNCIL DIRECTION REQUESTED City staff are requesting feedback from the City Council on their interest in entering into a space lease agreement with New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC for Water Tower 4.