HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-14-25 City Council Workshop PacketCity Council Workshop
3880 Laverne Avenue North
Tuesday October 14, 2025
6:30 p.m.
AGENDA
Call To Order
Paid Family Medical Leave (PFML)
Administrative Svcs Coordinator Doyle presenting
MN PAID LEAVE COVER MEMO.PDF
MN PAID LEAVE PRESENTATION.PDF
Old City Hall Facility Review
Community Development Director Stopa presenting
OLD CITY HALL MEMO AND ATTACHMENTS.PDF
SPACE NEEDS STUDY - 12 -2017 (7).PDF
PRESENTATION OLD CITY HALL.PDF
Open Burning Permits Review
Chief Kalis and Assistant Chief Svoboda presenting
OPEN BURNING PERMIT DISCUSSION.PDF
Future Agenda Items
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS.PDF
Adjourn
In accordance with the requirements of Minn. Stat. Section 13D.02, members may participate
remotely via interactive technology.
Our Mission is to Provide Quality Public Services in a Fiscally Responsible Manner in Partnership
with our Community
I.
II.
Documents:
III.
Documents:
IV.
Documents:
V.
Documents:
VI.
City Council Workshop3880 Laverne Avenue NorthTuesday October 14, 20256:30 p.m.AGENDACall To OrderPaid Family Medical Leave (PFML)Administrative Svcs Coordinator Doyle presentingMN PAID LEAVE COVER MEMO.PDFMN PAID LEAVE PRESENTATION.PDFOld City Hall Facility ReviewCommunity Development Director Stopa presentingOLD CITY HALL MEMO AND ATTACHMENTS.PDFSPACE NEEDS STUDY - 12 -2017 (7).PDFPRESENTATION OLD CITY HALL.PDFOpen Burning Permits ReviewChief Kalis and Assistant Chief Svoboda presentingOPEN BURNING PERMIT DISCUSSION.PDFFuture Agenda Items
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS.PDF
Adjourn
In accordance with the requirements of Minn. Stat. Section 13D.02, members may participate
remotely via interactive technology.
Our Mission is to Provide Quality Public Services in a Fiscally Responsible Manner in Partnership
with our Community
I.II.Documents:III.Documents:IV.Documents:V.Documents:
VI.
STAFF REPORT
DATE:10/14/2025
Workshop
TO: Lake Elmo City Council
FROM:Jennifer Doyle, Administrative Services Coordinator
AGENDA ITEM: Minnesota Paid Leave
REVIEWED BY: Nicole Miller, City Administrator
CORE STRATEGIES:
☐ Vibrant, inclusive, connected community ☒ Efficient, reliable, innovative services
☒ Responsive, transparent, adaptive governance ☐ Balanced Finances now and future
☐ Managed Growth ☐ Resilient Infrastructure
BACKGROUND:
In 2023 the Minnesota Legislature approved Minnesota Paid Leave requiring all MN employers to
participate in a state paid medical or family leave program for its employees. There is an option to have a
private plan option as long as it meets the minimum of the state’s coverage. I will be presenting
information on the program and what the City needs to do to prepare for the January 1, 2026,
implementation.
ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL:
Mostly informational but will need council’s support in proceeding with the recommended plan.
Will we allow employees to use supplemental pay during a leave?
Do we use the state’s plan or a private party?
What percentage of the premium will be paid by employees?
FISCAL IMPACT:
The cost of the state plan is .88% of the total employee yearly wages. The City is allowed to have employees
pay up to .44% via a payroll tax. The current budget has the City splitting the cost 50/50 with the City
paying .44% and anticipating employees will pay .44%. A private plan option decreases the cost to .76% of
payroll but will require a $500 opt out to the state.
OPTIONS:
Allow employees to use supplemental pay or do not allow them to use supplemental pay.
Move forward with the state plan or use a private provider.
If moving forward with a private provider, split the premium cost or still place .44% as a payroll tax on
employees.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending allowing employees to use supplemental pay, moving forward with a private plan
option and splitting any premium costs 50/50. (.38% of payroll)
ATTACHMENTS:
Presentation
Minnesota Paid Leave
City Council Workshop| October 14, 2025
Content
•What is Minnesota Paid Leave?
•Private Plan versus State Plan
•Employer Considerations
Background
•Originally passed in May of 2023
•Sets up job protections for paid time to care for self or family,
allow for new family bonding, or safety leave related to
domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking
•Program begins January 1, 2026
•Legislature set aside $670 million for program start-up and it
will continue to be funded through employer premiums
•Option to have private party rather than the state plan
•Need to notify employees and have signed acknowledgement
by Dec 1, 2025
Elected Officials
Seasonal
Interns
Full -Time and
Part -Time
Covered Employees
For Lake Elmo
•If they make at least 5.3% of
state’s average annual wage
($3,900 for 2025)
•WI residents that work at least
50% of their hours in MN
Leave Time
*Those with a newborn in 2025 will qualify for the leave up until the child’s 1st birthday.
*
Application Process
•Employees will be required to notify the employer before
applying
•They will apply directly with the State or private provider
•All necessary claim paperwork will be handled with the
State or private provider
Premiums
•State plan premium for 2026 is .88% of payroll wages
•Approximately $35,500
•Employers cannot charge employees more than 50% of
the state’s premium cost. (.44%)
•Employer/ employee split is approximately $17,750.
•Anything over the 50/50 split is a taxable benefit to
employees
•Private Plans
Payment Benefit
•Based on current wages
•55-90% of wages up to a max of state’s average weekly wage of
$1,423 per week ($73,996)
•90% for those earning less or equal to 50% of average
weekly wage ($35,000=$605 week)
•66% for those earning at least 50% up to 100% ($55,000=$869)
•55% for those exceeding 100% ($90,000=$1,279)
•Taxable earning
*Calculations are approximate
Payment Benefit and PERA
•MN Paid Leave dollars are not considered PERA
eligible earnings
•Employees may purchase salary and service credits
lost during the leave (Employer and employee
contribution + interest)
State Plan vs. Private Plan
Advantages of Private Plan
•Carrier experienced with leaves
•Payment process most likely faster for employees
•Premium rate is locked for up to 2 years
•Some pay the required FICA tax for employer portion
•Cheaper premiums
Disadvantages of Private Plan
•Yearly $500 fee to state for requesting an Equivalent
Plan Substitution
•Have to have ancillary benefits with provider
Short Term Disability
•Payout is dependent on other earnings, up to 60% of income
and the max of $1,400 per week
•If MNPL is exhausted and have an additional qualifying event.
•Union Contract (through 2026) states the City will provide
Short-Term Disability (STD)
Supplemental Income through use of Accrued time
•Do we allow employees to use accrued time to
supplement difference of income while on leave?
•Keeps employees’ income consistent
•Encourages use of accrued time
•Current policy states if they have it they have to
use it.
NOTE: We can not require use of supplemental income during MNPL.
What does Lake Elmo need to decide?
•Will we allow use of supplemental income from their
ESST/Vacation/Comp Time accruals?
•Will we use a private third-party plan or use the State plan?
•What percent of the premium will we put on the
employees?
Questions?
STAFF REPORT
DATE: 10/14/2025
Workshop
TO: Lake Elmo City Council
FROM: Jason Stopa, Community Development Director
AGENDA ITEM: Old City Hall
REVIEWED BY: Nicole Miller, City Administrator
CORE STRATEGIES:
☒ Vibrant, inclusive, connected community ☐ Efficient, reliable, innovative services
☒ Responsive, transparent, adaptive governance ☒ Balanced Finances now and future
☒ Managed Growth ☐ Resilient Infrastructure
BACKGROUND:
The Old City Hall was built in 1986 and is 2,806 square feet building on a 1.5-acre site. It is a single-story
wood framed building with a shingle roof. The city moved into a new City Hall adjacent to the old
building. Since moving, the building has been leased but is currently vacant. The building needs
considerable repair, which is outlined in the Space Needs Study from 2017. This report will provide
different scenarios to consider. The EDA plans to review all surplus, publicly owned property in 2026.
ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL:
Staff would like input on how to move forward with the Old City Hall. A few options are listed below.
• Demolish the building for green space and retain or eliminate the existing parking lot
• Demolish the building and expand parking
• Sell the building for a business use (Let people know that it may be available to determine
interest). Parking could be located in the back or a new parking lot in the front
• Lease the building to a business
• Keep the building and revisit the issue next year
• Monitor the school site and partner with future developers
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
Condition of the Building
The Space Needs Study from 2017 covers the condition of the building. Since the review is from 2017, a
new assessment should be completed before considering reuse of the building. Below is section from the
study. The entire study is attached which contains an architectural report of the building and site.
City Hall was built in 1986 and is 2,806 square feet. It is a single-story wood framed building with a shingle
roof. The exterior cedar lap siding is failing and needs to be replaced. The vinyl windows are cracked and
need to be replaced. The roofing is at the end of its service life and needs to be replaced. The restrooms are
not accessible. There is very little in the way of security. There is insufficient office space and conference
room space. The space allocated to the sheriff’s department is too small and improperly equipped.
Capital Improvement Estimates
Based upon findings during the facility assessments, BKV Group estimated the costs to rectify the
maintenance, repair, and safety issues at each facility. Each issue was categorized as urgent, short-term (1
to 5 years), medium-term (5 to 10 years), or long term (10+ years). These estimates do not include major
building additions to address current functional concerns – those costs are addressed as part of the master
planning process later in this report. The City Hall has $1,000 of urgent issues, $862,000 of short-term
issues, $80,200 of medium-term issues, and $38,700 of long-term issues. Approximately $420,000 of the
short-term issues are related to the exterior envelope, which is in poor condition after 30 years. This
$420,000 of repair work would need to be completed if the building is renovated, while many of the other
issues would be rectified in the normal scope of the renovations. This $420,000 will be a significant factor
when deciding whether to renovate or demolish the building.
Staff Comments
• Demolish the building for green space and retain or eliminate the existing parking lot is a
good option as it accommodates parking for certain events. The green space could be used
for events or stormwater ponding if our current ponds are failing.
• Demolish the building and expand parking allows for parking although it is relatively far
from where village events would be held. Could be useful for City Hall events. Could
require additional ponding requirements.
• I would strongly support option #2 (Demolish the building and expand parking). An
additional 30 plus parking stalls would improve city hall’s ability to host meetings,
conferences, elections, alternative parking locations during snow removal, public parking
during events in the area- Kokoro, national night out, tree lighting, 4th of July parade, 101
anniversary celebration, etc. The existing asphalt on the old city hall parking lot is failing,
needs significant patching every spring or full replacement in the near future.
• I would advocate for option #2 (Demolish the building and expand parking) for the same
reasons stated above but with a single access into the lot across from the current lot
entrance. I would like to get back to the original site plan without the access and cutout to
that current parking lot. The amount of upcoming maintenance to that building and systems
will be a large dollar amount.
• Option #2 allows parking although it is relatively far from where village events would be
held but could be useful for City Hall events. I think there are ponding requirements for a
larger parking lot vs what we could do in option 1.
• A sale option may be problematic once you begin to look at potential layouts, current or
future. The city has several important encroachments onto the property that would need to
be addressed in detail and preserved as part of any sale. These encroachments may also
place restrictions on the full use of the property. See attached exhibit. City Hall driveway
encroachments along the north property line. Watermain and sanitary sewer easements
along the southeast property line. Stormwater management for the commercial area
(including city hall) along the west property line.
• Selling the building for a business use could conflict with fire/police access if the parking
lot is not relocated and there is high traffic. It is zoned PF/Institutional, so the uses are very
limited unless we change zoning and FLU. But based on how the last RFP went this could
be a great option.
• A new access from Laverne does not appear to meet access spacing requirements, so
developing the site independently, together with all the site restrictions above may not be
feasible. However, if the school and Fury motors redevelop, the site could potentially fit
into and be useful as part of the larger redevelopment project, accessing the larger site
redevelopment internally.
Options with Pros and Cons
Option #1 Demolish the building for green space and retain or eliminate the existing parking lot
Pros: Provides more green space, one-time cost to demolish, allows the city to wait while incurring minor
costs, could be used for stormwater ponding if current ponds fail
Cons: Doesn’t provide additional parking, cost to demolish and reduces the site value, no additional taxes
Option #2 Demolish the building and expand parking
Pros: One-time cost to demolish, provides more parking, allows access away from the restricted emergency
vehicle entrance
Cons: Cost to demolish and to construct a parking lot, wouldn’t increase the site value, no additional taxes,
could have stormwater requirements
Option #3 Sell the building to a business
Pros: No cost to demolish, would increase site value, would generate taxes
Cons: Reduces potential for more parking, business parking would have to be located between Laverne and
the building, access would most likely be through City Hall’s entrance off Laverne, increased traffic
adjacent to emergency vehicle access, utility easements could restrict use, could have stormwater
requirements
Option #4 Lease the building to a business
Pros: No cost to demolish, would increase site value, could generate sales taxes, retaining ownership could
provide site flexibility in the future
Cons: Reduces potential for more parking, business parking would have to be located between Laverne and
the building, access would most likely be through City Hall’s entrance off Laverne, increased traffic
adjacent to emergency vehicle access, utility easements could restrict use, business investment may make
it difficult to change use in the future, could have stormwater requirements
Option #5 Keep the building and revisit the issue.
Pros: No cost to demolish, retaining ownership could provide site flexibility in the future
Cons: Reduces potential for more parking, cost to maintain related to uncertain timing
Option #6 Monitor the school site and partner with future developers.
Pros: Retain ownership or sell, the development could receive more housing density, could provide site
flexibility in the future (a parking lot or other use), the site could be accessed through the abutting parcel,
the city would receive funds to develop the site, the adjacent parcel value should increase because of
increased density
Cons: Uncertain timing and use, the new owner may not want to partner, may not need a housing density
increase
FISCAL IMPACT:
No impact.
OPTIONS:
• Demolish the building for green space and retain or eliminate the existing parking lot
• Demolish the building and expand parking
• Sell the building for a business use (Let people know that it may be available to determine
interest). Parking could be located in the back or a new parking lot in the front
• Lease the building to a business
• Keep the building and revisit the issue next year.
• Monitor the school site and partner with future developers.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff would like input on the different options
ATTACHMENTS:
• 2017 Space Needs Study
• Site Utility Easements
• Site Access Layout
L
a
v
e
r
n
e
A
v
e
N
L a k e E l m o C i t y
H a l l
3825
3819
11343
3800
11055
11200
11200
11200
11200
11200
3880
11144
WH927
WH636
WH634
WH384
WV699
WV543
WV540
WV542
WV547
WV700
WV544
WV697
WV698
WV541
SC110062
SI1552
SI1311
SI1551
SI1312
SI1310
SI1313
SI1309
SI1550
SI1308
SMH379
SO430
SO1306
SO1221 SO1231
SO1308
SO1307
WWMH72WWMH95
WWMH539
WWMH93
WWMH94
WWMH92
WWMH85
Lake Elmo GIS
Maxar, Microsoft, Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, (c)
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Sewer Manhole
Sewer Pipe
Storm Outfall
Storm Manhole
Storm Inlet
Storm Pipe
Storm Catchment
Water Valve
Water Hydrant
Water Curb Stop
Water Pipe
Water Lateral
City Limits
Parcels
9/19/2025, 12:19:45 PM
0 75 15037.5 ft
0 20 4010 m
1:1,165
3 9 t h S t N
3 8 t h C t N
L
a
k
e
E
l
m
o
A
v
e
N
3 9 t h S t N
3 9 t h S t N 3 9 t h S t N
L
a
v
e
r
n
e
A
v
e
N
L a k e E l m o C i t y
H a l l
L
a
k
e
E
l
m
o
A
v
e
N
L
a
v
e
r
n
e
A
v
e
N
La k e E lm o
Elem entar y
Sc h o ol
T w i n P o i n t
T a v e r n
3 9 t h S t N
L
a
y
t
o
n
A
v
e
N
S till w a t e r B l v d N
L a k e E l m o
E v e n t C e n te r
11465
11240
11337
3825
3819
11343
3800
11055
11020 11070
11200
11200
11200
11200
11200
11200
11200
11200
11065
3880
11180
11144
11227
369911199
3712
10960 10970
10980
10999
10991
1098110971
3945
3939
3931
3468
SC110062
110040 P-13-01
110014
Lake Elmo GIS
Maxar, Microsoft, Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, (c)
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Sewer Manhole
Sewer Cleanout
Sewer Pipe
Storm Outfall
Storm Manhole
Storm Inlet
Storm Pipe
Storm Catchment
Water Valve
Water Misc
Water Hydrant
Water Curb Stop
Water Pipe
Water Lateral
City Limits
Parcels
9/19/2025, 12:39:14 PM
0 210 420105 ft
0 60 12030 m
1:3,235
Old City Hall
Council Workshop | October 14, 2025
Background
•The Old City Hall was built in 1986 and is 2,806 square feet building
on a 1.5-acre site. It is a single-story wood framed building with a
shingle roof.
•The city moved into a new City Hall adjacent to the old building.
Since moving, the building has been leased but is currently vacant.
•The building needs considerable repair, which is outlined in the
Space Needs Study from 2017.
•The EDA plans to review all surplus, publicly owned property in
2026.
Issue Before the Council
OPTIONS:
•Demolish the building for green space and retain or eliminate the
existing parking lot
•Demolish the building and expand parking
•Sell the building for a business use (Let people know that it may be
available to determine interest). Parking could be located in the
back or a new parking lot in the front
•Lease the building to a business
•Keep the building and revisit the issue next year
•Monitor the school site and partner with future developers
2017 Space Needs Study
Based upon findings during the facility assessments, BKV Group estimated
the costs to rectify the maintenance, repair, and safety issues at each
facility. Each issue was categorized as urgent, short -term (1 to 5 years),
medium-term (5 to 10 years), or long term (10+ years).
The City Hall has $1,000 of urgent issues, $862,000 of short-term issues,
$80,200 of medium-term issues, and $38,700 of long-term issues.
Approximately $420,000 of the short-term issues are related to the exterior
envelope, which is in poor condition after 30 years.
Staff Comments
Demolish the building for green space and retain or eliminate the existing
parking lot is a good option as it accommodates parking for certain
events. The green space could be used for events or stormwater ponding if
our current ponds are failing.
I would strongly support option #2 (Demolish the building and expand
parking). An additional 30 plus parking stalls would improve city hall’s
ability to host meetings, conferences, elections, alternative parking
locations during snow removal, public parking during events in the area-
Kokoro, national night out, tree lighting, 4th of July parade, 101
anniversary celebration, etc. The existing asphalt on the old city hall
parking lot is failing, needs significant patching every spring
or full replacement in the near future.
Staff Comments
I would advocate for option #2 (Demolish the building and expand
parking) for the same reasons stated above but with a single access into
the lot across from the current lot entrance. I would like to get back to the
original site plan without the access and cutout to that current parking lot.
The amount of upcoming maintenance to that building and internal
systems will be costly.
Option #2 allows parking although it is relatively far from where village
events would be held but could be useful for City Hall events. I think there
are ponding requirements for a larger parking lot vs what we could do in
option 1.
Staff Comments
A sale option may be problematic once you begin to look at potential
layouts, current or future. The city has several important encroachments
onto the property that would need to be addressed in detail and preserved
as part of any sale. These encroachments may also place restrictions on
the full use of the property. See attached exhibit. City Hall driveway
encroachments along the north property line. Watermain and sanitary
sewer easements along the southeast property line. Stormwater
management for the commercial area (including city hall) along the west
property line.
Staff Comments
Selling the building for a business use could conflict with fire/police access
if the parking lot is not relocated and there is high traffic. It is zoned
PF/Institutional, so the uses are very limited unless we change zoning and
FLU. But based on how the last RFP went this could be a great option.
A new access from Laverne does not appear to meet access spacing
requirements, so developing the site independently, together with all the
site restrictions above may not be feasible. However, if the school and Fury
motors redevelop, the site could potentially fit into and be useful as part
of the larger redevelopment project, accessing the larger site
redevelopment internally.
Options
Option #1 Demolish the building for green space and retain or eliminate the existing
parking lot
Pros: Provides more green space, one-time cost to demolish, allows the city to wait while
incurring minor costs, could be used for stormwater ponding if current ponds fail
Cons: Doesn’t provide additional parking, cost to demolish and reduces the site value, no
additional taxes
Option #2 Demolish the building and expand parking
Pros: One-time cost to demolish, provides more parking, allows access away from the
restricted emergency vehicle entrance
Cons: Cost to demolish and to construct a parking lot, wouldn’t increase the site value, no
additional taxes, could have stormwater requirements
Options
Option #3 Sell the building to a business
Pros: No cost to demolish, would increase site value, would generate taxes
Cons: Reduces potential for more parking, business parking would have to be located
between Laverne and the building, access would most likely be through City Hall’s entrance
off Laverne, increased traffic adjacent to emergency vehicle access, utility easements could
restrict use, could have stormwater requirements
Option #4 Lease the building to a business
Pros: No cost to demolish, would increase site value, could generate sales taxes, retaining
ownership could provide site flexibility in the future
Cons: Reduces potential for more parking, business parking would have to be located
between Laverne and the building, access would most likely be through City Hall’s entrance
off Laverne, increased traffic adjacent to emergency vehicle access, utility easements could
restrict use, business investment may make it difficult to change use in the future, could
have stormwater requirements
Options
Option #5 Keep the building and revisit the issue
Pros: No cost to demolish, retaining ownership could provide site flexibility in the future
Cons: Reduces potential for more parking, cost to maintain related to uncertain timing
Option #6 Monitor the school site and partner with future developers
Pros: Retain ownership or sell, the development could receive more housing density, could
provide site flexibility in the future (a parking lot or other use), the site could be accessed
through the abutting parcel, the city would receive funds to develop the site, the adjacent
parcel value should increase because of increased density
Cons: Uncertain timing and use, the new owner may not want to partner, may not need a
housing density increase
Recommendation
Staff would like input on the different options
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 14, 2025
WORKSHOP
TO: City Council
FROM: Dustin Kalis, Fire Chief, Anthony Svoboda, Assistant Fire Chief / Fire Marshal
ITEM: Consider Changes to the Open Burning Ordinance
REVIEWED BY: Nicole Miller, City Administrator
CORE STRATEGIES: ☐ Vibrant, inclusive, connected community ☒ Efficient, reliable, innovative services ☒ Responsive, transparent, adaptive governance ☐ Balanced Finances now and future ☒ Managed Growth ☐ Resilient Infrastructure
BACKGROUND:
The current open burning ordinance was adopted in April 2022. Since that time, staff have
evaluated the current program and have identified several issues that come from open burning
that would be addressed with an updated ordinance. This has no impact on recreational fires
currently allowed by ordinance.
ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL:
Should the City Council consider adopting a more restrictive ordinance change to 5.12-IV Open
Burning?
PROGRAM DATA:
Date Collection Timeframe: 01/01/2022 – 08/31/2025
• Residential Applications (a private person conducting a burn): 76
• Commercial Applications (a licensed contractor conducting a burn): 28
• Number of Site visits: 82
• Number of Complaints Generated (that fire responded to, excluding Law calls): 25
PROCESS:
The process for processing an open burning application and payment is collected in person or
online. There are two subtypes on the permit application: Piles of Material or Prairie Restoration.
Prairie restorations can only be completed by a licensed contractor. The permit application is
entered into Cloud Permit and ImageTrend. A site visit is scheduled for all residential burns prior
to issuing the permit. A site visit prior to issuance is not scheduled for commercial applications
(prairie restoration only). A site visit usually occurs during the burn for commercial applications.
At the site visit, staff will review the application with the applicant and discuss the safety
requirements, make sure they have a means of extinguishment on site, numbers to call, etc. Once
confirmed that the applicant is prepared to follow the safety rules, the permit is issued.
CONCERNS / IMPACTS:
A growing concern over the last few years is the number of applicants that are completely
unaware of the safety requirements or unwillingness to follow the information provided. Staff
spend more time “planning burns” rather than reviewing them. Increasingly, staff will receive
applications for burns in dense residential areas of the city. For example, in the old village.
Based on the current ordinance and application, there are no restrictions (other than safety
violations) that will prohibit the issuance of a permit if the applicant meets the requirements.
Unfortunately, because of the density of the city in some areas, and the lower tolerance to smoke,
complaints are becoming more frequent.
Since 2022, we have denied 5 applications. We do not track phone call or walk-up inquiries. A
majority of the application denials are based on safety concerns or that the applicant is trying to
burn something that is prohibited. In one case, a permit was denied causing a significant back
and forth between the applicant, City Administrator and staff. The applicant was “so fed up with
our process” that he chose to conduct another burn without a permit, leading to an out-of-control
brush fire which burned his and others property (generating a fire response). He was fined.
Occasionally permits need to be revoked. Revoking a permit generally comes when the approved
burn becomes out of control or the smoke causes a nuisance. Revoking a permit does not
constitute a refund. In the past few occurrences, the applicants have become hostile and get
offended when we shut them down.
Another growing issue is the number of residents who conduct open burning without a permit
(with or without knowledge of a permit process). On numerous occasions we receive phone
complaints or even get dispatched to outside fires that are considered “controlled” but not
approved. In these instances, we usually extinguish the fire and try to educate the citizen about
our permitting process.
With or without the change in ordinance, we will continue to see residents burn illegally. Proper
education and information to residents will continue to be a service priority of the fire
department.
FISCAL IMPACT:
If the ordinance becomes more restrictive, there is a potential of a loss in revenue. Over the past
three years, we average $1,982 in burn permit revenue.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the following options be considered for an ordinance change:
1. Allow open burning only by a licensed contractor, the DNR, or Washington County Parks
and increase the requirements for piled material (example 750 feet from combustibles).
Removing the open burn allowance simplifies the decision-making process. Without a
license to conduct this type of work, it’s prohibited. Brush and debris will need to be
removed to a yard waste site.
2. Restrict open burning in the city to areas zoned agricultural or rural residential only.
These zones reflect a safer burning environment and are less likely to generate complaint
calls due to their remoteness. Consideration must be given for these zoning types that
border other residential zones. Prairie restorations would still be allowed within the entire
city when conducted by a licensed contractor.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance 5.12-IV Open Burning
5.12-IV OPEN BURNING
5.12.320 City May Be More Restrictive Than State Law
5.12.330 Adoption By Reference
5.12.340 Purpose
5.12.350 Definitions
5.12.360 Recreational Fires
5.12.370 Prohibited Materials
5.12.380 Open Burning Prohibited Except By Permit
5.12.390 Permitted Open Burning; Special Circumstances
5.12.400 Open Burn Permit Application Procedure
5.12.410 Denial
5.12.420 Revocation
HISTORY
Amended by Ord. 2022-01 on 4/5/2022
5.12.320 City May Be More Restrictive Than State Law
The council is authorized to impose, and has imposed in this article, additional restrictions on open
burning within its limits beyond those contained in Minn. Stat. ch. 88, as it may be amended from time
to time.
HISTORY
Adopted by Ord. 08-253 on 11/3/2021
Amended by Ord. 2022-01 on 4/5/2022
5.12.330 Adoption By Reference
The ambient air quality standards, air pollution control regulations of the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA), and the Open Burning Restrictions and Permitting Regulations of the state
department of natural resources (DNR) are adopted by reference, and have the same force and effect
as if they were reproduced in their entirety.
HISTORY
Adopted by Ord. 08-253 on 11/3/2021
Amended by Ord. 2022-01 on 4/5/2022
5.12.340 Purpose
The purpose of this article is to regulate open burning within the City of Lake Elmo, to protect the public
health, safety and welfare. Through passage of this article, the designated fire official is hereby
authorized to adopt and impose burning restrictions to aid in the prevention of wildfire and to consult
with the department of natural resources (DNR), division of forestry to develop any restrictions or other
criteria.
HISTORY
Amended by Ord. 2022-01 on 4/5/2022
5.12.350 Definitions
For purposes of this article, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or
requires a different meaning:
Fire code official means the city’s fire chief or their authorized representative.
Open burning means the burning of any matter if the resulting combustion products are emitted directly
into the atmosphere without passing through a stack, duct or chimney, except a recreational or camp
fire as defined herein. Mobile cooking devices such as charcoal grills, wood smokers, manufactured
hibachis, and propane or natural gas devices are not considered open burning devices.
Portable outdoor fireplace means a portable, outdoor, solid-fuel-burning fireplace that may be
constructed of steel, concrete, clay or other noncombustible material. A portable outdoor fireplace may
be open in design, or may be equipped with a small hearth opening and a short chimney or chimney
opening in the top.
Recreational fire means a fire no more than three feet in diameter contained within a recreational fire
site: using dry, clean wood, producing little detectable smoke, odor or soot beyond the property line;
conducted with an adult tending the fire at all times; for recreational, ceremonial, or social food
preparation; extinguished completely before quitting the occasion; and respecting weather conditions,
neighbors, burning bans, and air quality requirements so that nuisance, health or safety hazards will not
be created. No more than one recreational fire is allowed on any property at one time.
Recreational fire site means an area of no more than a three-foot diameter circle (as measured from
the inside of the fire ring or border); completely surrounded by non-combustible and non-smoke or odor
producing material, either natural rock, cement, brick, tile, blocks or ferrous metal. Burning barrels are
not a recreational fire site as defined herein. Recreational fire sites shall not be located closer than 25
feet to any structure or combustible material.
Running fire means an attended fire allowed to spread through surface vegetative matter under
controlled conditions for the purpose of vegetative management, forest management, game habitat
management, or agricultural improvement.
Starter fuels means dry, untreated, unpainted, kindling, branches or charcoal fire starter. Paraffin
candles are permitted as a starter fuel and an aid to ignition only. Propane gas torches or other clean
gas burning devices causing minimal pollution may be used to start an open burn.
Vegetative materials means dry leaves, dry grass clippings, twigs, branches, tree limbs, and other
similar materials. Paper and cardboard are not considered vegetative materials.
Wood means dry, clean fuels, twigs, branches, limbs, manufactured fireplace logs, charcoal, or cord
wood. "Wood" does not include wood or wood based products that is green with leaves or needles,
rotten, wet, oil soaked, treated or manufactured with paint, glue, preservatives or other chemicals.
HISTORY
Amended by Ord. 2022-01 on 4/5/2022
5.12.360 Recreational Fires
(a)Recreational fires are allowed without a permit under the following guidelines:
(1)Only clean, dry, wood can be burned.
(2)The fire shall not exceed three feet in diameter with a flame height of three feet
maximum.
(3)The fire shall take place on the owner's property and shall be a minimum of 15
feet from property lines.
(4)The fire shall not be conducted within 25 feet of a structure or combustible
material.
(5)Portable outdoor fireplaces shall be used in accordance with the manufacturer's
instructions and shall not be operated within 15 feet of a structure or
combustible material.
(6)The fire shall not be conducted if the wind speed exceeds ten miles per hour.
(7)The use of flammable or combustible liquid accelerants is not permitted.
(8)The fire must be constantly attended and supervised by an adult until the fire
has been completely extinguished.
(9)A connected garden hose or other means to extinguish the fire must be readily
available.
(10)Any person planning to have a recreational fire must be aware of local burning
bans that have been issued by the state department of natural resources. If a
burning ban is in effect, all recreational fires are prohibited.
(11)The fire must be extinguished if it becomes a nuisance to others or if not under
adult supervision
HISTORY
Amended by Ord. 2022-01 on 4/5/2022
5.12.370 Prohibited Materials
(a)No person shall conduct, cause or permit the open burning of dimensional lumber, oils,
petroleum fuels, rubber, plastic, chemically treated materials, or other materials that produce
excessive or noxious smoke such as, but not limited to: tires; railroad ties; treated, painted or
glued wood composite shingles; tar paper; insulation; composition board; sheet rock; wiring; or
paint and paint filters.
(b)No person shall conduct, cause or permit the open burning of: hazardous waste or materials
from salvage operations; solid waste generated from an industrial or manufactured process;
materials from a service or commercial establishment; or building materials generated from
construction and/or demolition of commercial or institutional structures.
(c)No person shall conduct, cause or permit the open burning of discarded materials resulting from
the handling, processing, storage, preparation, serving or consumption of food.
(d)No person shall conduct, cause or permit the open burning of any leaves or grass clippings.
(e)No person shall conduct, cause or permit the open burning of any wood or other vegetative
materials through the use of a burner, as described in Minn. Stat. § 88.16, within the city's
jurisdiction.
(f)No person shall conduct, cause or permit the open burning of any materials that have been
hauled onto the site.
(g)No person shall conduct, cause or permit the open burning on any commercial property within
the City of Lake Elmo.
HISTORY
Amended by Ord. 2022-01 on 4/5/2022
5.12.380 Open Burning Prohibited Except By Permit
No person shall start or allow any open burning on any property in the city without first having obtained
an open burning permit. A permit is not required for any fire which is a recreational/camp fire as defined
in section 5.12.350.
HISTORY
Amended by Ord. 2022-01 on 4/5/2022
5.12.390 Permitted Open Burning; Special Circumstances
(a)Under special or extraordinary circumstances, open burning permits may be issued by the city
or by a DNR forestry official for:
(1) Elimination of health hazard that cannot be abated by other practical means, as determined
by the commissioner of health or the local health authority.
(2) Ground thawing for utility repair and construction.
(3) Running fires (prairie restoration).
(4) Disposal of diseased trees generated on-site, diseased or infected nursery stock, or
diseased bee hives.
(b)Fire training permits may only be issued by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
(DNR).
(c)Permits for the operation of a permanent tree and brush burning sites may only be issued by the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
HISTORY
Amended by Ord. 2022-01 on 4/5/2022
5.12.400 Open Burn Permit Application Procedure
(a)The applicant must submit a completed Open Burn Permit application and fire service fee will be
charged in accordance with the city’s fee schedule.
(b)Schedule a preliminary site inspection to locate the proposed burn site.
(c)No burning shall take place without first having obtained an open burn permit.
(d)An extended length of the burn permit shall be determined by the fire chief or designee of the
fire chief.
HISTORY
Amended by Ord. 2022-01 on 4/5/2022
5.12.410 Denial
If established criteria for the issuance of an open burning permit are not met, or during review of said
application, it is determined that a practical alternative method of disposal of the material exists, or a
pollution or nuisance condition would result, then the fire chief, or designee of the fire chief may deny
the open burning permit application.
HISTORY
Amended by Ord. 2022-01 on 4/5/2022
5.12.420 Revocation
The open burning permit is subject to revocation at the discretion of the city fire chief, or designee of
the fire chief. Reasons for revocation include, but are not limited to: a fire hazard existing or developing
during the course of the burn, any of the conditions of the permit being violated during the course of the
burn, pollution or nuisance conditions developing during the course of the burn, or a fire smoldering
with no flame present.
HISTORY
Amended by Ord. 2022-01 on 4/5/2022
Date Type Due date for
packet Order Agenda Section Agenda item
10/21/2025 CC Meeting 10/14/25 1 Regular Agenda Quarterly Goals Update
Consent Agenda LMCIT Renewal & Liability Waiver
Consent Agenda Inwood Townhomes 1st Addition Development Agreement
Consent Agenda Savona 4th Addition Security Release
Consent Agenda Health Insurance Renewal
Consent Agenda Benefits Provider Change
Consent Agenda Approve Machine Shed Liquor License Amendment
Regular Agenda 3rd Quarter Dashboards
Regular Agenda 2026 Street & Utility - Public Improvement Hearing
Regular Agenda Landfill Solar
Regular Agenda Highpointe Crossing Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Regular Agenda Limerick EAW
Regular Agenda Adopt Final Assessment Roll for 2025 Street & Utility Improvements
Regular Agenda Adopt Final Assessment Roll for Stillwater Area School District Utility Improvements
11/4/2025 CC Meeting 10/28/25 Consent Agenda Approve Light up Lake Elmo Special Event Permit
Consent Agenda Registered Land Survey (RLS) #132
Consent Agenda
Regular Agenda Tree Fund/ROW Trees
Regular Agenda
11/12/2025 CC Workshop 11/4/25 Rental Review
Levy discussion-scenarios
Discussion Sidewalk/Trail snow removal ordinance-continued from 5/6
CIP-future projects discussion
11/18/2025 CC Meeting 11/11/25 Consent Agenda Approve Liquor License Renewals
Consent Agenda Approve Massage Therapy License Renewals
Consent Agenda East Metro Training Facility Amended JPA
Regular Agenda SVF Plan Benefit Level Increase
Regular Agenda TAP Presentation?
12/2/2025 CC Meeting 11//25/2025 Consent Agenda Approve 2026 Meeting Calendar
Consent Agenda Authorize Certification of Delinquent Storm Water Bills & Utility Bills
Consent Agenda Reappoint Parks Commissioners
Consent Agenda Reappoint EDA Commissioners
Consent Agenda Reappoint Planning Commissioners
Consent Agenda Assessments for Delinquent Utilities
Future Council Agenda Items
*Please note: This list is subject to change*
12/9/2025 CC Workshop 12/2/25 Lake Elmo-No wake
Communications Plan
Social Media Training
Public hearing notice and process discussion
2026 Personnel Policies
12/16/2025 CC Meeting 12/9/25 Consent Agenda
Consent Agenda
Consent Agenda 2026 Personnel Policies
Regular 2026 Budgets & Levies
Regular 2026 - 2035 CIP
Regular 2026 Fee Schedule
1/6/2026 CC Meeting 12/30/25 Consent Agenda Designate Official Depositories of Funds
Consent Agenda Designate Official Publication Newspaper of Record
Consent Agenda Adopt Resolution Designating Data Practice Officials and Approving City’s Data Practice Policy
Consent Agenda Designate Authority for EFT Payments
Consent Agenda Appoint City Attorney (Civil and Prosecution)
Consent Agenda Appointing Deputy Clerk
Regular Agenda Appoint Acting Mayor
Regular agenda Ramsey Washington Cable Commission Appointment
Regular agenda Council School Liaison Appointment
Consent Agenda Appoint City Engineer
Regular Agenda 2026 Street & Utility - Final plans and authorize advertisement for bids
1/13/2026 CC Workshop 1/6/26 Discussion Obstructions in ROW
Discussion Joint Parks Commission and City Council Workshop
1/20/2026 CC Meeting 1/13/2026