HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-27-2025
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
May 27, 2025 - 6:00 PM
Lakeville City Hall, Marion Conference Room
Members of the public can participate in person at Lakeville City Hall, Marion Conference Room. Members of the public may join
the meeting via Teams Meeting, Meeting ID: 271 518 804 899 or by calling Toll Number 1-323-433-2142; Conference ID: 317
513 434#. The mayor will allow for public comments and questions at the appropriate time.
The City Council is provided background information for agenda items in advance by staff and appointed commissions,
committees, and boards. Decisions are based on this information, as well as City policy, practices, input from constituents, and a
council member’s personal judgment.
1. Call to order, moment of silence and flag pledge
2. Citizen Comments
3. Discussion Items
30 min a. Recreation and Heritage Center Strategic Plan Overview Joseph Masiarchin
30 min b. Discuss potential amendments to Tree Preservation
Ordinance
Tina Goodroad
10 min c. 1st Quarter 2025 Financial Report Julie Stahl
4. Items for Future Discussion
5. Committee/ City Administrator Updates
6. Adjourn
Page 1 of 26
Date: 5/27/2025
Recreation and Heritage Center Strategic Plan Overview
Proposed Action
No formal action.
Overview
In December, the Mayor and City Council approved an agreement with Aurora Consulting to
facilitate a strategic planning workshop for the Recreation and Heritage Center departments. The
two-day planning workshop included members from Parks Administration, Recreation, Parks,
Heritage Center and members of the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Committee. The
group worked through defining the current state of the departments and what future goals would
look like. After developing the strategic plan, implementation plans were developed to provide
specific timelines for meeting the goals and future outcomes that were identified during the
planning process.
Recreation Manager Susan Johnson presented the Strategic Plan and Implementation Plans to
the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Committee (PRNRC) at their April 16 meeting and
provided feedback and recommended approval. Staff will also be bringing status updates to the
PRNRC at various points throughout the process. Staff will provide an overview of the process
and answer any questions that the Council has.
Supporting Information
None
Financial Impact: $ Budgeted: No Source: NA
Envision Lakeville Community Values: Access to a Multitude of Natural Amenities and
Recreational Opportunities
Report Completed by: Joe Masiarchin, Parks and Recreation Director
Page 2 of 26
Date: 5/27/2025
Discuss potential amendments to Tree Preservation Ordinance
Proposed Action
No official action is required. Staff are requesting City Council direction on potential
amendments to the Tree Preservation Ordinance.
Overview
Since last fall, City Forestry and Community Development staff have been evaluating the Tree
Preservation Ordinance (Title 11, Chapter 21, Section 11) with the goal of proposing
amendments to enhance the protection of valuable and significant trees. As future development
is expected to occur increasingly on wooded properties rather than agricultural land, the
importance of tree preservation and reforestation is becoming more pressing.
Currently, the ordinance requires a tree inventory but does not mandate specific actions for tree
preservation or reforestation. To address this gap, staff met with the City Council during the
October 28th work session to present an overview of the current ordinance, outline key
objectives, and discuss the potential benefits of an amended ordinance. Based on the feedback
received, staff developed a preliminary outline for a revised Tree Preservation Ordinance.
This outline was subsequently reviewed at a joint work session with the Planning and Parks,
Recreation, and Natural Resources Committee on February 6th. The session aimed to gather
further input and refine the proposal. In addition, the outline was shared with several developers
and builders, who responded positively and provided constructive questions, which staff have
since addressed.
Following these discussions, staff have finalized the ordinance outline. Key components include
tree removal thresholds, removal calculations, replacement requirements, incentives, and
enforcement mechanisms. During the upcoming meeting, we will review this outline in greater
detail and present a summary of potential implementation costs, using case studies of recent
developments. We will also provide comparisons with similar ordinances in neighboring
communities.
Supporting Information
1. TP Ordinance 10-4-11 - WORKING DOCUMENT - Bullet Point Version - 05192025
2. Developer Feedback -TP ordinance
3. 02-06 joint ws
Page 3 of 26
Financial Impact: $0 Budgeted: No Source:
Envision Lakeville Community Values: Design that Connects the Community
Report Completed by: Tina Goodroad, Community Development Director
Page 4 of 26
1
TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
1. INTENT AND PURPOSE
a. Intention statement: Importance of tree preservation and replacement, recognizing that
some level of tree removal is inevitable with development. Recognizes the benefits trees
provide to the community.
2. DEFINITIONS:
a. The following words and terms, whenever they occur in this section, are defined as follows:
i. See draft list in Appendix A, additional terms will be added
3. SCOPE OF APPLICATION:
a. The following types of development within the City of Lakeville shall require a tree
preservation plan, regardless of zoning district:
i. New development at time of subdivision review
ii. New building construction including:
1. New Construction on a vacant lot
2. New Construction on a metes and bound lot (infill)
b. Residential tear down and re-build that expands the footprint of original structure will
require a tree preservation plan for heritage trees located on the lot.
c. Protection from tree clearing prior to development:
i. Lookback provision
1. A total tree removal greater than 2 acres occurring within 2 years of an
application for development will require replacement tree planting.
2. Replacement tree quantities will be based on the amount of canopy area
removed: for example, for every 300ft2 removed, 1 replacement tree will be
required.
d. Requirements apply to private and public development projects.
4. TREE PRESERVATION PLAN
a. Indicates when a tree preservation plan is required.
b. Identifies who must prepare and submit the tree preservation plan.
c. Identifies the information that is to appear on the tree preservation plan.
d. Identifies trees as Common, Conifer, Hardwood Deciduous, or Heritage trees.
5. REMOVAL THRESHOLDS AND REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS
a. Establishes removal thresholds based on zoning districts as shown on adopted zoning map.
The removal threshold is the maximum percentage of diameter inches of significant trees
that can be removed without requiring the planting of replacement trees. Tree removal
beyond the removal threshold will require the planting of replacement trees.
i. Residential Zoning District Removal Threshold – 50%
ii. Commercial and Industrial Zoning District Removal Threshold – 70%
b. Removal Calculations
Page 5 of 26
2
i. Development may remove up to 50% of trees in Residential Zoning Districts and
70% in Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts. Removal beyond these
thresholds will require replacement tree planting.
ii. The following calculations must be used to determine replacement requirements:
1. Residential – 50% Removal Threshold
a. Determine the total number of diameter inches of significant trees
on a site.
b. Calculate 50% of the total diameter inches of significant trees on the
site, this is the allowable tree removal limit.
c. Subtract the total diameter inches of common trees from the
allowable,
d. If any inches remain, subtract the total diameter inches of conifer
trees from the remaining allowable,
e. If any inches remain, subtract the total diameter inches of
deciduous hardwood trees from the remaining allowable.
f. All inches above the 50% threshold will require replacement.
2. Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts – 70% Removal Threshold
a. Determine the total number of diameter inches of significant trees
on a site.
b. Calculate 70% of the total diameter inches of significant trees on the
site, this is the allowable tree removal limit.
c. Subtract the total diameter inches of common trees from the
allowable,
d. If any inches remain, subtract the total diameter inches of conifer
trees from the remaining allowable,
e. If any inches remain, subtract the total diameter inches of
deciduous hardwood trees from the remaining allowable.
f. All inches above the 70% threshold will require replacement.
iii. Heritage Trees have a 0% removal threshold. All reasonable measures are to be
taken to preserve Heritage Trees.
6. REQUIRED TREE PROTECTION MEASURES:
a. Identifies the tree protection measures required to protect significant trees and woodlands.
b. Identifies the City document where all tree protection standards and alternate best
practices are listed.
c. Identifies how the protection measures are to be shown on the plan and implemented in
the field.
7. TREE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS
a. The following replacement requirements apply to tree removal above the threshold as
defined in section 5.
b. Replacement policy: Replacement trees are required for tree removal above the removal
threshold, adjusted for tree type as follows:
i. Common trees: 1/8 the diameter inches removed must be replaced
Page 6 of 26
3
ii. Conifer trees: ¼ the diameter inches removed must be replaced
iii. Hardwood deciduous trees: ½ the diameter inches removed must be replaced
iv. Heritage trees: one hundred percent (100%) of diameter inches lost must be
replaced
c. Replacement tree requirements:
i. Define nursery stock and sizing requirements
d. Tree species diversity requirements and list of approved trees
i. No tree genus shall represent more than 20% of the new trees planted.
e. Planting locations:
i. Identifies where required trees are to be planted and where they are not to be
planted.
f. Landscape Plan Requirements
i. Required replacement trees are to be shown on the landscape plan.
ii. Landscape plans must meet the landscape requirements found in 11-21-9. Trees
planted as part of the landscape requirements count toward the tree replacement
requirements.
iii. Trees planted on individual lots to meet the 2 trees per lot requirement do not
count toward the tree preservation plan replacement requirements.
g. Fee in lieu
i. A fee in lieu is to be collected for trees not able to be planted onsite.
ii. Fees collected may be used for tree planting, tree maintenance, or acquisition of
quality woodlands.
h. Warranty Requirements
8. INCENTIVES
a. The preservation of heritage trees may offset the number of replacement trees required.
i. For every 1 inch of diameter saved, 2 inches of required replacement planting may
be offset.
b. The preservation of contiguous classified woodlands a minimum of 2 acres in size may offset
the number of replacement trees required.
i. For every 1 inch of diameter saved, 2 inches of required replacement planting may
be offset.
c. The tree replacement offset will not apply to trees located within 15 feet of a building pad.
9. EXCEPTIONS
a. Significant trees removed under the following circumstances are exempt from removal
threshold calculation:
i. Diseased as managed under the shade tree pest and disease ordinance; trees listed
as invasive by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture; trees that are dead; trees
planted as part of a commercial operation including a tree farm or orchard; or as
approved by the city.
ii. Trees located within the right of way boundaries of major collector and arterial
roads.
Page 7 of 26
4
10. REVIEW, GUARANTEES, INSPECTION, ENFORCEMENT
a. Review
b. Amendments to the tree preservation/reforestation plan
c. Financial guarantee
i. Guarantees/securities
ii. Identify the release of funds
d. Implementation, inspection, and enforcement of the tree preservation plan
e. Final certifications and inspections
f. Removal of tree protection measures
Appendix A: Definitions (WORKING LIST, FURTHER TERMS AND EDITS NEEDED)
CALIPER INCHES: Stem diameter of nursery stock as identified by American Nursery Standards.
COMMON TREE: A deciduous overstory tree including cottonwood, poplars/aspen, box elder, willow,
silver maple, elm, and any other tree species not defined as hardwood deciduous tree or a
coniferous/evergreen tree or considered non-native to Minnesota.
CONIFER TREE: A tree that bears cones and evergreen needle-like or scale-like leaves year-round which
reaches a height of at least 15 feet at maturity.
CRITICAL ROOT ZONE: The root protection area around a tree defined as a circle with a radius of 1 foot
for every 1 inch of trunk diameter.
DESTROYED OR DAMAGED: A tree shall be considered destroyed or damaged for the purpose of
required replacement if more than 30% of the root system or 30% of the trunk circumference is
damaged.
DIAMETER (DBH): The measurement of a tree's trunk measured four and one-half feet (4.5') above the
ground.
DRIP LINE: The farthest distance away from the trunk of a tree that rain or dew will fall directly to the
ground from the leaves or branches of the tree or one foot (1') per one inch (1") of diameter, whichever
is greater.
HARDWOOD DECIDUOUS: A woody tree which has a defined crown, and which loses leaves annually
including oaks, etc. (identify list or reference current city list)
HERITAGE TREE: A hardwood deciduous tree with a trunk equal to or greater than 30” inches in
diameter at 4.5’ or a conifer greater than 40 feet in height.
SIGNIFICANT WOODLAND: An area of forested land that has contiguous tree canopy greater than 2 acres
that includes significant trees.
Page 8 of 26
5
HAZARD/NUISANCE TREE: A tree is dead, diseased, or defective as determined by the city. Refer to
shade tree ordinance.
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: (see exceptions section)
SIGNIFICANT TREE: A healthy tree measuring six inches (6") in diameter or greater.
SIGNIFICANT DIAMETER INCHES: The total diameter inches of all significant trees inventoried in each
category (common, conifer, hardwood deciduous, heritage).
TREE CERTIFICATION: A certified inventory of trees on the site after work is complete listing all trees and
their final disposition, which is signed by a licensed forester or landscape architect.
TREE PRESERVATION PLAN: A plan and inventory certified by a licensed or registered forester or
landscape architect indicating all of the significant trees and their locations in the proposed
development or on the lot. The tree preservation plan shall include the size, species, tag numbers, and
location of all significant trees proposed to be saved and removed on the area of development, and the
measures proposed to protect the significant trees to be saved.
TREE PROTECTION: Orange polyethylene laminar safety netting or chain link fencing placed at the drip
line of the significant trees to be preserved. The tree protection measures shall be shown on tree
preservation plan drawings and remain in place until all grading and construction activity is terminated.
(Ord. 673, sec. 1, 7-17-2000; amd. Ord. 866, sec. 39, 5-17-2010)
Cover/summary memo (share with council)
Outline, this document (share with council)
Planning and Park commission minutes (share with council)
Share developer comments summary
Summary of costs
*Forestry goes through outline and cost information
Time for questions
End with summary
Page 9 of 26
Developer feedback and responses:
Is there a timeframe for the look back?
Yes, one year before the start of the development process is the timeframe that would be looked at for
tree removal greater than 2 acres.
Does the exemption for stormwater management systems count for private development or only city
projects?
Ordinance will apply to city projects and private development, storm water management systems will
not be exempt from tree removal thresholds.
Where does the tree preservation fit in order of importance with other city ordinances?
They are all applied equally, staff is working to ensure the language used works well with all other
ordinances.
Tree species diversity requirements
We require no more than 20% of any one tree species planted as part of mitigation to avoid
overplanting of any one tree species, which could lead to massive tree loss to future insect and disease
epidemics.
Landscaping requirements count towards tree replacement requirements
Only the trees required by landscaping requirements in the buffer and screening areas and other
planting in development common areas will count towards tree preservation requirements, they must
follow the tree diversity requirements. Trees planted on private property will not count towards the
replanting requirement because continuing maintenance and survival of private trees cannot be
guaranteed.
Wooded parcel exemptions – will there be a cap for mitigation required on heavily wooded parcels?
This is under consideration.
Will there be a heritage tree credit?
Yes, there will likely be a credit for preserving exceptional trees/woodland. We are still testing different
methods.
Are heritage trees counted in the calculation to find the removal threshold?
Yes, but they have a 100% replacement requirement so are not counted in the tree replacement
calculation.
Heritage tree diameter inch size class
This could be a hardwood deciduous tree anywhere from 24 to 30 diameter inches, and also potentially
include conifers. We are still working on the exact cut off where a tree becomes a heritage class.
If approved, will projects currently in development or in the process of plat approval be subject to the
new language? No, will not apply to applications that have been submitted.
Page 10 of 26
1 | P a g e
CITY OF LAKEVILLE
PLANNING COMMISSION &
PARKS, RECREATION, AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
JOINT WORK SESSION MINUTES
February 6, 2025
PRNRC Chair Holly Weberg called the work session to order at 7:15 pm.
Planning Commissioners Present: Vice Chair Christine Zimmer, Scott Einck, Pat Kaluza, Jason
Swenson, Alternate Mark Traffas
Members Absent: Chair Jenna Majorowicz, Amanda Tinsley, Patty Zuzek
Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Committee Members Present: Chair Holly Weberg,
Vice Chair Steven Henneberry, Lindsay Haneman, Monica Joubert, Erin Young
Members Absent: Shahid Nadeem, Daniel Volkosh
Staff Present: Community Development Director Tina Goodroad, Parks & Recreation Director Joe
Masiarchin, Planning Manager Kris Jenson, Environmental Resources Manager Mac Cafferty,
Senior Planner Heather Botten, City Forester Zach Jorgenson, Forestry Technician Grace Benson,
Senior Administrative Assistant Stella Eskelson
Tree Preservation Ordinance Amendment Discussion
e two committees came together to review a propose d Tree Preservation Ordinance. Forestry
Staff presented the dra ordinance and provided a brief overview of tree preservation ordinance
from other metro area cities. In speaking with the City Council, commission, community members
and staff, it has been determined that improvements/adjustments to the current ordinance would
be appropriate.
Staff explained the current ordinance provides less guidance and can be interpreted as being
developer driven. Changes to the ordinance would provide more clarification and stricter standards
as to what acceptable tree preservation is. e comm ittees were in agreeance that the ordinance
should be reviewed. Forestry presented the ordinance line by line for comments/recommendations.
is included:
· Scope of Application
· Removal reshold
· Removal Calculations
· Tree Replacement Requirements
Page 11 of 26
2 | P a g e
Discussion:
Is the proposed ordinance outside of what other communities’ standards are?
No, staff looked at a number of ordinances and developed an ordinance that is similar to what was
reviewed. Most communities have some type of replacement requirements. Staff shared some
insight into what they saw as common themes in other ordinances including native species
requirements, providing education on species diversity.
What would the impact be to cost increases for developers and buyers?
Staff will be reaching out to developers for their feedback on the dra ordinance, this is
undetermined at this time but staff reiterated that most other cities have a tree preservation
ordinance.
What is the scope of application?
Staff preference is that it would be city wide and applied primarily to new development. Monitoring
private removal of trees isn’t feasible for staff as it would require significant monitoring and is of
lesser concern at this time. Committee members was in support of offering cash in lieu of
replacement of contributing trees/shrubs being provided in other locations as a means to satisfy
the required tree replacement. Staff also clarified that property that is designated for stormwater,
utilizes, streets and/or other easements would not be held to the tree replacement ordinance.
When would the ordinance changes be implemented?
is is in very early discussions, the ordinance wou ld be shared with developers, City Council and
staff for input. It would be implemented once finalized, more details to come.
Next Steps:
A final dra will be prepared based on committee feedback and staff will gather feedback from
developers as well. at dra would then come back t o City Council and both committees for
review and approval.
Adjourn Work Session 8:26 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Stella Eskelson, Senior Administrative Assistant
Page 12 of 26
Date: 5/27/2025
1st Quarter 2025 Financial Report
Proposed Action
No formal action required. For discussion only.
Overview
The attached financial report and analysis offers readers a narrative overview of the financial
activities of the City for the first quarter of 2025.
Supporting Information
1. 1Q 2025 Financial Report
Financial Impact: $0 Budgeted: Yes Source: General, Communications, Liquor, Utility
funds
Envision Lakeville Community Values: Good Value for Public Service
Report Completed by: Julie Stahl, Finance Director
Page 13 of 26
i
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS:
The following financial report and analysis offers readers a narrative overview of the financial activities
of the City for the three-month period ended March 31, 2025. This report includes the General Fund,
Communications Fund, Liquor Fund and Utility Operating Funds. The readers are encouraged to
consider the information presented here in conjunction with the unaudited financial statements attached
to this report, the adopted budget, and the five-year Capital Improvement Plan.
General Fund - Revenues
Property tax revenues.
• Tax payments from Dakota County are received in two installments in June and December.
The General fund property tax revenues are anticipated to be $33.3 million for 2025.
Licenses and Permits.
• Building permit revenues are within budget estimates through the first quarter. The
following chart shows how the number of permits issued in the first quarter compared to the
same period in 2024 and the 2025 adopted budget:
• Year-to-date permits issued through May 21, 2025 are as follows:
• Single Family – 93
• Townhome – 78
YTD 1st 2025 YTD 1st
Quarter Adopted Quarter
Permit Type 2024 Budget 2025
Single Family 83 300 58
Townhome 24 150 59
Apartments (Units)0 1 (182 units) 0
C ommercial 1 2 0
Industrial 0 2 0
Page 14 of 26
ii
Historical Building Permits
• As shown in the chart below building permits for single family had record breaking years in
2019, 2020 and 2021. Permits are trending to a steady growth as seen in years past. The
mix of permit types is changing to include a mix of townhomes and apartment complexes.
Intergovernmental.
• Revenues comprised of police and fire aid and various grants are typically received in the
third and fourth quarters.
Charges for Services
• General government services are in line with the budget and slightly higher than the previous
year. $45,600 has been received for fiscal agent fees from Dakota 911 and Lakeville Arenas
which is up $1,000 over the previous year.
• Public Safety revenues are in line with the budget. Security services are down slightly
compared to the same time in 2024. SRO contributions are up from 2024 due to changes in
staffing of the SRO Officers. The current fire contract with Eureka Township expires at the
end of 2027. The 2025 fee of $64,478 will be billed out in June of the current year.
• Public works revenues are based on summer construction projects and therefore, year-to-
date revenues are below the annual estimates. Engineering developer contract
administration is recognized as revenue when collected with the development contract.
Revenues are down about $47,000 from the same period a year ago due to the Cordelia 2nd
addition development in 2024.
• Parks and Recreation revenues are up $16,000 from the prior year and under budget
estimates as most programs are held in the summer.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 1Q-2025
Residential Permits Issued
Apartments SF TH Detached TH Attached Total
Page 15 of 26
iii
Court Fines.
• Revenues from court fines ($62,000) represent 26 percent of the budget estimates and are
nearly identical to 2024. Court fine revenues and the membership fees paid to the Dakota
911 are both impacted by the number of CAD calls. Moderate increases are anticipated.
General Fund - Expenditures
Total expenditures are about $61,000 greater than 1Q 2024 and are 21 percent of the 2025 budget.
Personnel. Expenditures for the first quarter for personnel are at 20 percent of the 2025 budget.
Employee vacancies and transitions have resulted in lower cost than expected.
Motor Fuels. Motor fuels through March 31 are at 20 percent of the 2025 Budget. Fuel expense
is $7,000 less than the same period in 2024 as fuel costs continue to fluctuate. The City does
have a contract for fuel prices in place to mitigate some of the price increases.
Street Chemicals. 2025 salt purchases are $36,000 lower than the same period in 2024 and are
at 82 percent of the annual budget. Purchases at the end of the 2025-2026 winter season will be
stored at the central maintenance facility and will be utilized in the late fall if needed.
Utilities. Electric costs are $74,000 higher than for the same period in 2024. Rate increases
passed on by the electric and natural gas companies are contributing to the increase. Combined
electric and natural gas costs are at 25 percent of budget.
Mayor and Council. Expenditures are $50,000 above the same period in 2024 and is attributed
to the timing of when membership dues for the organization are paid. The League of Minnesota
Cities membership is now aligned with the City's fiscal year-end, resulting in an earlier payment
cycle compared to last year.
City Administration. Expenditures are $15,000 higher than prior year - $6400 of this increase is
the new membership to the National League of Cities - and slightly exceed the f irst-quarter
benchmark.
City Clerk. Expenditures are much lower compared to the prior year due to the election in 2024.
Legal. Legal fees are 34 percent of the budget. Expenditures are slightly higher than the same
period in 2024.
Community and Economic Development. Expenditures are 17 percent of budget and much lower
than the previous year due to the retirement of the Planning Director in the first quarter of 2024
and related severance payout. The departments Community and Economic Development and
Planning have consolidated starting in 2024.
Inspections. First quarter salaries are at 19% of budget and departmental expenditures are
$99,000 less than the previous year. Contractual electrical inspections are lower by $43,000 over
the prior year.
Page 16 of 26
iv
General Government Facilities. Salaries are higher over the same period in 2024 resulting from
employee transitions and vacancies in 2024. Commodities and other charges and services are
under budget but are expected to be within the adopted 2025 budget.
Finance Department. Personnel costs are in line with budget and slighter higher than the same
period in 2024 due to step increases. Commodities are under the prior year and budget. Other
charges and services are lower than 2024 due to the change in software providers.
Information Technology. Timing of annual maintenance agreements can impact the expense
comparison each year.
Human Resources. First quarter is within line with the prior year and slightly higher than budget
estimates due to the timing of the software subscriptions payments but is expected to be within
2025 adopted budget.
Police. Personnel services are under budget and lower than the same period last year, due to
staffing transitions and the phased onboarding of new positions approved in the 2025 budget.
Current savings are largely attributed to vacancies during staff turnover. With several upcoming
retirements and the scheduled onboarding of new cadets, expenditures are expected to remain
within the adopted budget.
Fire. Personnel services are currently under budget but higher than the same period last year,
primarily due to the addition of 15 full-time firefighters at the end of the first quarter. Firefighter
pay is variable and depends on the volume of fire calls throughout the year, which is expected
to fluctuate as the department continues transitioning to a hybrid model that includes both paid-
on-call and full-time staff. Commodities are up from last year, driven by onboarding new full-
time firefighters. To reduce costs, staff are rent ing turnout gear sets instead of buying,
recognizing the gear undergoes heavy wear during intensive training activities.
Engineering/GIS. Personnel services are within budget estimates and higher than the same
period last year, reflecting the department’s return to full staffing. Filling prior vacancies and
completing staff transitions has contributed to the increase.
Forestry. Personnel services are within budget estimates and prior year.
Construction Services. Personnel services are below budget due to employee vacancies.
Streets. Personnel services are within budget and lower than the prior year due to decreases in
overtime cost related to snow events. Commodities are under the prior year due to less chemicals
being purchased at the end of the 2025/2026 winter season. All unused chemicals are stored for
use in the fall. City staff complete a mid-year inventory calculation.
Parks. Personnel services are within budget in the first quarter.
Recreation and Arts Center. Expenses are within budget for the first quarter and $52K lower
than the same period last year. The decrease is primarily due to staffing transitions following
the promotion of the Arts Center Manger to Parks and Recreation Director in late 2024.
Page 17 of 26
v
Communications Fund
Revenues from Franchise fees are received on a quarterly basis. They are typically received by
the end of the month following the quarter. Revenues continue to be lower than historical and
have trended down $17,000 from the prior year as there are other options for residents to utilize
for their entertainment.
Expenditures are within budget estimates and are down $23,000 over the same period in 2024.
Liquor Fund
Sales through the first quarter amounted to $4.5 million which is a 5.6 percent decrease over the
same period in 2024. Decrease in customer count and average sales per customer account for
the decrease. Gross profit is at 29.1% in 2025 versus 29.7% in 2024. Trends are consistent
with the alcohol retail sector.
Total expenditures are at 18% of budget appropriations and are significantly lower ($340K) than
the same period in 2024.
2025 Transfers include a $900,000 transfer to the Equipment Fund; $400,000 to the Debt Service
Fund for the police station bonds (final maturity - February 2032); $346,800 to the Debt Service
Fund for the Keokuk Liquor Store; $30,000 for the 2025 fireworks; and $67,000 to the
Technology Fund.
Water Fund
Water revenues are typically low in the first quarter, but this year they are $85K higher than the
same period in 2024. There was an increase in customer base and an increase of 65,000 gallons
billed compared to the same period in 2024. A water rate increase of 6% went into effect
February 1, 2025.
Expenditures are under budget at 20% of the annual benchmark.
Sewer Fund
Sewer revenues exceed budget expectations and are up over the same period in 2024. Like water
revenues, sewer revenues increased because of the increased customer base. A sewer rate
increase of 4% went into effect February 1, 2025.
Disposal charges paid to Metropolitan Council of Environmental Services increased 4.5 percent
over the 2024 rates and are projected to be $5.6 million for 2025.
Expenditures are slightly under budget at 22% of the annual benchmark.
Page 18 of 26
vi
Street Lighting Fund
Revenues match the annual budget benchmark and are slightly above last year, driven by the
growing customer base.
Streetlight rates did not increase in 2025.
Environmental Resources Fund
Revenues align with the annual budget benchmark and exceed last year’s, partly due to a larger
customer base and a 4% rate increase in Environmental Resources in 2025.
Intergovernmental grant revenues are budgeted at $535,000 for the following restorations:
o Aquatic invasive species – Dakota County funding $35,000
o CP 24-44 Greenridge Park Water quality improvements - $500,000
The request for funding will be made once the final contract payments are made.
Personnel expenditures are below budget estimates due to employee transitions.
Page 19 of 26
Unaudited
2025 2025 Variance from
Adopted Amended 3/31/2025 Amended Budget Actual 3/31/24
Budget Budget Actual Positive (Neg)Percent Actual
Revenues
General property taxes 33,300,000$ 33,300,000$ -$ (33,300,000)$ 0.0% -$ -$ 0.0%
Licenses and permits 3,259,689 3,259,689 618,208 (2,641,481) 19.0% 570,361 47,847 108.4%
Intergovernmental 3,478,938 3,478,938 40,455 (3,438,483) 1.2% 28,314 12,141 142.9%
Charges for services 3,061,144 3,061,144 524,999 (2,536,145) 17.2% 502,221 22,778 104.5%
Court fines 240,000 240,000 62,416 (177,584) 26.0% 62,310 106 100.2%
Investment income 500,000 500,000 125,000 (375,000) 25.0% 217,103 (92,103) 57.6%
Miscellaneous 166,746 166,746 16,139 (150,607) 9.7%17,217 (1,078) 93.7%
Total revenues 44,006,517 44,006,517 1,387,217 (42,619,300) 3.2%1,397,526 (10,309) 99.3%
Expenditures
Mayor and Council 126,321 126,321 94,182 32,139 74.6% 44,459 (49,723) 211.8%
Committees and Commissions 143,422 143,422 292 143,130 0.2% 3,894 3,602 7.5%
City Administration 587,089 587,089 157,260 429,829 26.8% 142,071 (15,189) 110.7%
City Clerk 225,579 225,579 37,417 188,162 16.6% 101,651 64,234 36.8%
Legal Counsel 87,000 87,000 29,393 57,607 33.8% 15,268 (14,125) 192.5%
Community and Econ. Development 1,089,649 1,089,649 191,111 898,538 17.5% 315,950 124,839 60.5%
Inspections 1,918,122 1,918,122 335,992 1,582,130 17.5% 435,168 99,176 77.2%
General Government Facilities 669,991 669,991 177,344 492,647 26.5% 128,525 (48,819) 138.0%
Finance 1,235,639 1,235,639 282,416 953,223 22.9% 278,029 (4,387) 101.6%
Information Systems 989,146 989,146 190,442 798,704 19.3% 188,078 (2,364) 101.3%
Human Resources 688,489 688,489 230,540 457,949 33.5% 230,798 258 99.9%
Insurance 250,000 250,000 62,500 187,500 25.0% 68,750 6,250 90.9%
Police 17,227,952 17,227,952 3,741,124 13,486,829 21.7% 3,875,698 134,575 96.5%
Fire 5,588,299 5,588,299 930,745 4,657,554 16.7% 603,229 (327,516) 154.3%
Engineering 946,722 946,722 250,532 696,190 26.5% 159,077 (91,455) 157.5%
Forestry 680,154 680,154 87,345 592,809 12.8% 87,964 619 99.3%
Construction Services 701,328 701,328 105,826 595,502 15.1% 127,771 21,945 82.8%
Streets 4,409,718 4,409,718 973,076 3,436,642 22.1% 959,312 (13,764) 101.4%
Parks 3,768,652 3,768,652 764,619 3,004,033 20.3% 742,117 (22,502) 103.0%
Recreation 1,126,418 1,126,418 226,325 900,093 20.1% 195,250 (31,075) 115.9%
Arts Center 1,033,734 1,033,734 269,538 764,196 26.1%352,706 83,168 76.4%
Total expenditures 43,493,424 43,493,424 9,138,019 34,355,406 21.0%9,055,765 (82,254) 100.9%
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over expenditures 513,093 513,093 (7,750,802) (8,263,895) (7,658,239) (92,563)
Other financing sources (uses)
Transfer from other funds 170,000 170,000 - (170,000) 0.0% - - 0.0%
Transfer to other funds - - - - 0.0%- - 0.0%
Total other financing sources (uses) 170,000 170,000 - (170,000) - - 0.0%
Net change in fund balance 683,093 683,093 (7,750,802) (8,433,895) (7,658,239) (92,563)
Beginning fund balance 21,747,353 21,747,353 22,437,133 689,780 22,007,407 429,726 InventoryEnding fund balance 22,430,446$ 22,430,446$ 14,686,332$ (7,744,115)$ 14,349,168$ 337,164$
Net change in fund balance % 3.1%3.1%(34.5%)(34.8%)
Ratio: Fund balance to CY expends 51.6%51.6%
Ratio: Fund balance to NY expends 49.1%49.1%
Variance from
2024 Actual
Positive (Negative)
General Fund
Summary Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances
For the Three Month Period Ended March 31, 2025
Comparative
Page 20 of 26
Unaudited
2025 Percent
Adopted 3/31/2025 of 3/31/2024
Budget Actual Variance Budget Actual
Revenues
Licenses franchise fee 624,649$ 121,059$ (503,590)$ 19.4% 136,774$ (15,715)$ 88.5%
PEG Fees 44,098 8,678 (35,420) 19.7% 10,096 (1,418) 86.0%
Other 2,000 - (2,000) - -
Investment income 6,643 - (6,643) 0.0%- - 0.0%
Total revenues 677,390 129,737 (547,653) 19.2%146,870 (17,133) 88.3%
Expenditures - General government
Personnel services 591,610 107,489 484,121 18.2% 137,019 29,530 78.4%
Commodities 13,260 4,260 9,000 32.1% 4,958 698 85.9%
Other charges and services 200,197 66,943 133,255 33.4% 60,562 (6,381) 110.5%
Capital outlay 33,000 7,207 25,793 21.8%6,155 (1,052) 117.1%
Total expenditures 838,067 185,899 652,169 22.2%208,694 22,796 89.1%
Excess (deficiency) of revenues over
expenditures (160,677) (56,162) 104,516 35.0%(61,824) 166,340 90.8%
Other financing (uses) - Transfers
To Technology Fund (expense allocations)(4,155) - 4,155 0.0%(7,300) 7,300 0.0%
Total other financing (uses)(4,155) - 4,155 0.0%(7,300) 7,300 0.0%
Net change in fund balance (164,832) (56,162) 108,671 (69,124) 12,963
Beginning fund balance 1,384,987 1,384,987 - 1,384,987 -
Ending fund balance 1,220,155$ 1,328,826$ 108,671$ 1,315,863$ 12,963$
Variance from
2024 Actual
Positive (Negative)
Comparative
CITY OF LAKEVILLE, MINNESOTA
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances
For the Three Month Period Ended March 31, 2025
Special Revenue - Communications Fund
Page 21 of 26
Unaudited
2025 Percent
Adopted 3/31/2025 of 3/31/2024
Budget Actual Variance Budget Actual
Sales and cost of sales
Sales 23,238,382$ 4,521,210$ (18,717,172)$ 19.5% 4,786,692$ (265,482)$ 94.5%
Cost of sales 16,828,635 3,205,892 13,622,743 19.1%3,364,964 159,072 95.3%
Gross profit 6,409,747 1,315,318 (5,094,429) 20.5%1,421,728 (106,410) 92.5%
Gross profit % 27.6% 29.1% 29.7%
Operating expenses
Personnel services 3,357,512 581,520 2,775,992 17.3% 740,463 158,943 78.5%
Commodities 97,056 22,065 74,991 22.7% 241,006 218,941 9.2%
Other charges and services 1,916,183 371,227 1,544,957 19.4%333,066 (38,161) 111.5%
Total operating expenses 5,370,751 974,812 4,395,940 18.2%1,314,535 339,724 74.2%
Operating income 1,038,996 340,507 (698,490) 32.8%107,193 233,314 317.7%
Non-operating revenue (expense)
Investment income 105,000 10,426 (94,574) 9.9% 9,331 1,095 111.7%
Lease payment (265,000) 265,000 0.0% (260,000) 260,000 0.0%
Transfers in (out)
General Fund - Fireworks (30,000) - 30,000 0.0% - - 0.0%
Debt Service:
Tax Abatement - Keokuk (346,800) - 346,800 0.0% (284,650) 284,650 0.0%
CIP Bonds-Police Station (400,000) - 400,000 0.0% (400,000) 400,000 0.0%
Capital Projects:
Equipment Fund (900,000) - 900,000 0.0% (500,000) 500,000 0.0%
Technology Fund (67,605) - 67,605 0.0%(59,500) 59,500 0.0%
Total non-operating (net)(1,904,405) 10,426 1,914,831 -0.5%(1,494,819) 1,505,245 -0.7%
Net change in net position (865,409) 350,933 1,216,342 (1,387,626) 1,738,559
Beginning net position 12,734,454 13,320,656 586,202 12,869,554 451,102
Ending net position 11,869,045$ 13,671,589$ 1,802,544$ 11,481,928$ 2,189,661$
CITY OF LAKEVILLE, MINNESOTA
Enterprise - Liquor Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Working Capital
For the Three Month Period Ended March 31, 2025
Variance from
2024 Actual
Positive (Negative)
Comparative
Page 22 of 26
Unaudited
2025 Percent
Adopted 3/31/2025 of 3/31/2024
Budget Actual Variance Budget Actual
Operating revenues
User charges for services 8,150,143$ 1,336,955$ (6,813,188)$ 16.4% 1,080,955$ 256,000$ 123.7%
Other 75,000 (93,930) (168,930) -125.2%77,268 (171,198) -121.6%
Total operating revenue 8,225,143 1,243,025 (6,982,118) 15.1%1,158,223 84,802 -602.8%
Operating expenses
Personnel services 1,904,000 382,148 1,521,852 20.1% 298,052 (84,096) 128.2%
Commodities 949,549 152,701 796,848 16.1% 106,914 (45,787) 142.8%
Other charges and services 1,952,059 413,518 1,538,541 21.2% 266,629 (146,889) 155.1%
Major Maintenance 30,000 11,932 18,068 39.8%1,113 (10,819) 1072.1%
Total operating expenses 4,835,608 960,300 3,875,308 19.9%672,708 (287,592) 142.8%
Operating income (loss)3,389,535 282,725 (3,106,810) 485,515 (202,790)
Non-operating revenue (expense)
Investment income 54,327 46,073 (8,254) 84.8% 17,283 28,790 266.6%
Debt Service (232,725) 232,725 0.0% - - 0.0%
Transfers (out)(580,109) - 580,109 0.0%- - 0.0%
Total non-operating (net)(758,507) 46,073 804,580 17,283 28,790
Net change in net position 2,631,028 328,798 (2,302,230) 502,798 (174,000) 65.4%
Beginning net position 126,419,489 138,179,425 11,759,936 128,850,088 9,329,337 107.2%
Ending net position 129,050,517$ 138,508,223$ 9,457,706$ 129,352,886$ 9,155,337 107.1%
CITY OF LAKEVILLE, MINNESOTA
Comparative
For the Three Month Period Ended March 31, 2025
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Working Capital
Enterprise - Utility Fund Water Operation
Variance from
2024 Actual
Positive (Negative)
Page 23 of 26
Unaudited
2025 Percent
Adopted 3/31/2025 of 3/31/2024
Budget Actual Variance Budget Actual
Operating revenue
User charges for services 8,635,692$ 2,740,950$ (5,894,742)$ 31.7%2,340,727$ 400,223$ 117.1%
Operating expenses
Personnel services 1,242,775 166,412 1,076,363 13.4% 134,685 (31,727) 123.6%
Commodities 140,372 10,507 129,865 7.5% 24,671 14,164 42.6%
Other charges and services 420,723 48,528 372,195 11.5% 492,322 443,794 9.9%
Disposal charges 5,622,468 1,405,617 4,216,851 25.0% 1,345,438 (60,179) 104.5%
Major maintenance projects 980,000 207,875 772,125 21.2%- (207,875) 0.0%
Total operating expenses 8,406,338 1,838,939 6,567,399 21.9%1,997,116 158,177 92.1%
Operating income (loss)229,354 902,011 672,657 343,611 558,400 262.5%
Non-operating revenue (expense)
Intergovernmental State aid - - - 0.0% - - 0.0%
Investment income 47,867 25,222 (22,645) 52.7% 23,342 1,879 108.1%
Debt service (71,750) - 71,750 0.0% - - 0.0%
Transfers in 33,766 - (33,766) 0.0% - - 0.0%
Transfers (out)(43,064) - 43,064 0.0%- - 0.0%
Total non-operating (net)(33,181) 25,222 58,403 -76.0%23,342 1,879 108.1%
Net change in net position 196,173 927,233 731,060 366,953 560,279 252.7%
Beginning net position 74,250,464 80,709,062 6,458,598 74,695,434 6,013,628 108.1%
Ending net position 74,446,637$ 81,636,295$ 7,189,658$ 75,062,387$ 6,573,907$ 108.8%
CITY OF LAKEVILLE, MINNESOTA
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Working Capital
For the Three Month Period Ended March 31, 2025
Enterprise - Utility Fund Sanitary Sewer Operation
Variance from
2024 Actual
Positive (Negative)
Comparative
Page 24 of 26
Unaudited
2025 Percent
Adopted 3/31/2025 of 3/31/2024
Budget Actual Variance Budget Actual
Operating revenue
User charges for services 1,246,370$ 316,851$ (929,519)$ 25.4%313,768$ 3,083$ 101.0%
Operating expenses
Personnel services 25,084 3,416 21,668 13.6% 5,891 2,475 58.0%
Commodities 103 - 103 0.0% - - 0.0%
Other charges and services 1,129,818 370,977 758,841 32.8%140,979 (229,998) 263.1%
Total operating expenses 1,155,005 374,393 780,612 32.4%146,870 (227,523) 254.9%
Operating income (loss)91,365 (57,542) (148,907) 166,898 (224,440) -34.5%
Non-operating revenue (expense)
Investment income 8,204 3,602 (4,602) 43.9% 2,940 662 122.5%
Debt service (52,762) - 52,762 0.0% - - 0.0%
Transfers in (out) - General Fund - - - 0.0%- - 0.0%
Total non-operating (net)(44,558) 3,602 48,160 -8.1%2,940 662 122.5%
Net change in net position 46,807 (53,939) (100,746) 169,838 (223,778) -31.8%
Beginning net position 1,175,893 1,152,793 (23,100) 940,928 211,865 122.5%
Ending net position 1,222,700$ 1,098,854$ (123,846)$ 1,110,766$ (11,913)$ 98.9%
CITY OF LAKEVILLE, MINNESOTA
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Working Capital
For the Three Month Period Ended March 31, 2025
Enterprise - Utility Fund Street Light Operation
Variance from
2024 Actual
Positive (Negative)
Comparative
Page 25 of 26
Unaudited
2025 Percent
Adopted 3/31/2025 of 3/31/2024
Budget Actual Variance Budget Actual
Revenues
User charges for services 2,048,300$ 518,596$ (1,529,704)$ 25.3%491,939$ 26,657$ 105.4%
Total revenues 2,048,300 518,596 (1,529,704) 25.3%491,939 26,657 -311.0%
Expenditures - Public works
Personnel services 871,649 103,142 768,507 11.8% 147,478 44,336 69.9%
Commodities 55,978 9,078 46,900 16.2% 9,871 793 92.0%
Other charges and services 1,986,896 185,648 1,801,248 9.3%25,118 (160,530) 739.1%
Total expenditures 2,914,523 297,868 2,616,655 10.2%182,467 (115,401) 163.2%
Operating income (loss)(866,223) 220,728 1,086,951 309,472 (88,744) 71.3%
Non-operating revenue (expense)
Intergovernmental 535,000 - (535,000) 0.0% - - 0.0%
Investment income 10,221 11,389 1,168 111.4% 22,395 (11,006) 50.9%
Transfers in (out)
Building Fund - - - 0.0% (220,000) 220,000 0.0%
Equipment Fund (40,500) - 40,500 0.0% - - 0.0%
Technology Fund (2,384) - 2,384 0.0% (10,792) 10,792 0.0%
Water Operating Fund 15,000 - (15,000) 0.0% - - 0.0%
Sanitary sewer operations (33,766) - 33,766 0.0%- - 0.0%
Total other financing (uses)483,571 11,389 (472,182) 2.4%(208,397) 219,786 -5.5%
Net change in net position (382,652) 232,117 614,769 101,075 131,042 229.6%
Beginning net position 2,962,282 4,533,737 1,571,455 3,663,270 870,467 123.8%
Ending net position 2,579,630$ 4,765,854$ 2,186,224$ 3,764,345$ 1,001,509$ 126.6%
CITY OF LAKEVILLE, MINNESOTA
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Working Capital
For the Three Month Period Ended March 31, 2025
Enterprise - Utility Fund Environmental Resources Operation
Variance from
2024 Actual
Positive (Negative)
Comparative
Page 26 of 26