On August 13, 2026, the City Council opened the public hearing on the proposed 2026–2030 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and preliminary authorization for up to $40 million in General Obligation Capital Improvement Plan Bonds for the proposed Civic Campus. Council referred the CIP to the Planning Commission for the Comprehensive Plan consistency review required by Minnesota Statutes Section 462.356, subdivision 2, and continued the hearing without taking final action.

The Planning Commission completed that review on September 3, 2026, and approved written findings concluding that the proposed Civic Campus capital improvement and location are compliant with the City’s adopted 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The updated CIP and revised Resolution No. 2026-58 now return to Council following completion of that review.

The facility-planning record extends from expansion and remodeling of the existing facility through the 2018 Wold study, 2020 renovation, and comprehensive 2025 BKV Group/Kraus-Anderson assessment. The existing building is rated in Fair condition and remains physically usable; the record separately identifies space limitations and specialized operational deficiencies affecting City Hall and Public Safety.

The proposed Civic Campus uses an integrated municipal operating model in which appropriate support spaces and infrastructure are shared across Administration, Finance, Community Development, Public Works, and Public Safety while specialized Police functions remain separate and secure.

The project record includes Council proceedings, six public open houses held over approximately six months, mailed and digital public information, a community survey, schematic-design presentations, Night to Unite outreach, public comments, consultant analyses, and financial information. Public input has included both support for addressing documented facility needs and concerns regarding project size, cost, timing, financing, property-tax impacts, alternatives, and the appropriate level of municipal investment.

Council’s September 24 consideration concerns the five-year CIP and preliminary bond authorization. Final bond issuance, project design, project cost, bidding, and any construction contract would require subsequent Council action.

The completed September 10 schematic design is 77,969 gross square feet, within Council's 78,000-square-foot maximum. The most recent preliminary project estimate presented September 10 was approximately $47.65 million and was based on an earlier pricing basis. Because the completed schematic design was finalized at the time of that work session, Kraus-Anderson advised that approximately three weeks would be required to complete an updated cost assessment. The completed design therefore has not yet been evaluated against Council's $46 million total project budget parameter using an updated cost estimate.

Administrative Record Purpose

This report consolidates the historical record, consultant findings, Council and Planning Commission proceedings, public input, financial information, alternatives, and supporting source materials relevant to Council's consideration of the proposed Capital Improvement Plan.

Public Process and Community Engagement

The Civic Campus planning process has included in-person, mailed, digital, and public-meeting opportunities for residents to review information, ask questions, express concerns, and provide comments to elected officials, staff, and the City’s professional project team.

The City conducted six public open houses over approximately six months on different days and at different times. The Mayor, Council Member Vehrenkamp, department heads, supporting staff, and representatives of BKV Group and Kraus-Anderson participated. The draft schematic design was presented to Council on July 23 and subsequently displayed during Night to Unite, providing an additional opportunity for residents to review the evolving design and discuss the project with City representatives.

Written and digital communication included a mailed open-house postcard and schedule; Corcoran Horizons and Corcoran Compass updates; the mailed community survey; a project information document and August 13 public-hearing notice; a dedicated Civic Campus webpage; Council agenda materials; and five Civic Campus-related videos, including four produced within the BKV Group/Kraus-Anderson scope of work and a City-produced Mayor’s Minute. The January open-house postcard identified the scheduled engagement series, and subsequent publications continued to identify open houses, schematic-design consideration, the public hearing, financing process, and statutory petition process.

The project remained in planning and schematic design throughout this engagement. Final construction design, final project cost, construction contracts, and bond issuance remain subject to subsequent Council action and applicable project and financing processes.

Following the July 23 Council discussion, additional information was requested concerning project scope, reduced-size alternatives, 10-year versus 20-year programming, Police and Utility garage space, tax impacts, petition requirements, public-information terminology, and construction-cost escalation. Staff’s written responses are included in the packet so Council and the public have access to the same information.

The engagement record reflects a range of perspectives. Public input has included support for addressing documented facility needs and concerns regarding project size, cost, timing, financing, property-tax impacts, alternatives, and the appropriate level of municipal investment. These perspectives are part of the record together with the professional, financial, operational, and planning information relevant to Council’s consideration.

Community Survey

The community survey was one component of the broader engagement record. The survey was mailed community-wide and administered by Community Perceptions, an independent research firm. Final results presented to Council on May 28, 2026 reported 727 respondents, a 19.6 percent response rate, and a reported +/-3.71 percentage-point margin of error. On the direct question whether respondents would support the City building a new City Hall and Police Department facility, 56 percent answered yes, 24 percent no, and 20 percent were not sure. The report also provided demographic and precinct cross-tabulations so Council could evaluate variation within the response set.

The survey provides a quantitative measure of respondent opinion at the time it was administered, while comments received at meetings, open houses, through correspondence, and during the public hearing provide qualitative information regarding individual concerns, priorities, and perspectives.

These are different forms of public input within the broader record available to Council.

Council and Consultant Design Review

The schematic-design process also included direct observation and benchmarking of comparable public facilities. On June 12, 2026, a special Council work session included tours of Chanhassen City Hall and the New Hope Police Department by Mayor McKee, Council Members Nichols and Vehrenkamp, the City Administrator, department heads, and representatives of BKV Group and Kraus-Anderson, followed by discussion of observed strengths and areas for improvement. The purpose was to inform development of Corcoran's schematic design through review of operating facilities rather than design from plans alone. Chanhassen and New Hope were selected for the Council-level visits because they reflected aspects of Corcoran's developing project goals and scope. Those visits built upon earlier comparative facility tours by Mayor McKee, staff, and consultants of those two facilities as well as Crystal City Hall and Police Department, Shakopee City Hall and Police Department, Fridley City Hall and Police Department, and Minnetonka City Hall and Police Department. Staff and consultants also toured the Rosemount Police Department and Hennepin County Sheriff's facility as part of the broader benchmarking effort.

Statutory Background

Minnesota Statutes Section 475.521 authorizes cities to finance qualifying capital improvements through General Obligation Capital Improvement Plan bonds following adoption of a five-year Capital Improvement Plan and completion of the required public-hearing process. The proposed 2026–2030 CIP identifies the Civic Campus, including City Hall and public safety facilities, as the capital improvement proposed for financing and establishes a maximum bond authorization of $40 million. Following the public hearing, a 30-day statutory petition period applies. If no qualifying petition is filed within that period, the City may proceed with subsequent bond-issuance steps, subject to further Council action. If a petition requesting a vote on issuance of the bonds, signed by voters equal to five percent of the votes cast in the municipality in the last municipal general election, is filed with the City Clerk within 30 days after the public hearing, voter approval is required before the bonds may be issued.

Existing Facility: History of Investment and Adaptation

The existing City Hall/Public Safety facility was constructed in 1994 and has been repeatedly evaluated, expanded, remodeled, and adapted as operational needs changed.

By late 2001, approximately seven years after construction, the City had formed a Facility Committee to evaluate City Hall and Police Department needs. The committee identified concerns involving Police entrance security and safety, inefficient layout, insufficient office and training space, privacy and security, limited expansion capacity, HVAC deficiencies, and temporary accommodations for ambulance personnel.

The committee also specifically considered how population and commercial growth would affect Police service demand. It anticipated increasing calls for service and a gradual increase in Police coverage as the community grew.

The City responded through renovation and expansion. The 2004 project included approximately 1,855 square feet of new construction and 1,754 square feet of remodeling, including a four-stall garage, Police operational and office modifications, storage, ambulance and Sheriff's Office space, storm-shelter functions, and mechanical improvements.

The 2004 facility study specifically described the expansion as providing Police staffing capacity for approximately ten years or longer, depending on the rate of growth.

2018 Wold Study and 2020 Renovation

In 2018, when Corcoran's population was approximately 6,026 and City staffing was approximately 25 employees, the City retained Wold Architects and Engineers to again evaluate City Hall and Police Department needs.

Wold concluded that the existing facility was undersized and lacked essential resources for Police operations. The study identified specialized needs including secure detainee intake and holding, interview space, an armory, appropriately sized locker facilities, expanded fleet capacity, training space, and fitness facilities.

Wold recommended a phased approach: renovation and reallocation of the existing facility to address immediate and mid-term needs, followed by a larger long-term facility solution as the City continued to grow.

Council chose the near-term renovation strategy. The City evaluated renovation alternatives during 2018 and 2019, advanced a specific remodel in May 2019, and completed the City Hall/Police renovation in 2020, with security, access-control, furniture, and closeout work continuing through year-end.

The 2020 project addressed near-term needs, extended the facility’s useful life, and deferred a substantially larger capital investment.

At completion in 2020, Corcoran had approximately 6,185 residents and 25 City employees. The renovation extended the facility’s useful life but did not eliminate the operational and space limitations identified by Wold.

Council Direction and Current Planning Process

The administrative record shows that the facility-planning work developed through recurring Council priorities and Council-authorized steps. Long-range Facility/Land Planning was identified as the City's highest-priority goal in 2022, remained part of the 2023 and 2024 strategic-planning cycles, and was expressed in 2024 as direction to plan intentionally for future City facility needs. The City's long-range financial plans likewise carried a future municipal facility as a planning placeholder before schematic design began.

On February 13, 2025, Council conducted a noticed Capital Improvement Plan public hearing involving municipal facilities, including potential Civic Campus land acquisition. The financing discussion expressly distinguished preliminary CIP authority from a later decision to issue bonds or commit to a particular facility solution. In March 2025, Council reviewed the municipal facilities and land blueprint, which called for a staged sequence: assess current and future space needs; inventory and evaluate existing assets; determine how existing assets could be better used or adapted; develop a Civic Campus vision; and then develop a plan. That sequence is consistent with the work subsequently performed.

The City then conducted a competitive procurement for the Space Needs Analysis. Twelve proposals were received, four firms were shortlisted and interviewed, and the finalists were evaluated using the established selection criteria. On July 24, 2025, Council authorized staff to engage BKV Group to conduct the City facilities Space Needs Assessment. BKV's proposal was reported as the lowest cost among the four interviewed firms and the second-lowest among all proposals, and staff identified the engagement-intensive work plan, municipal experience, proposed team, and long-range deliverables as reasons for the recommendation.

Phase I produced the 2025 Facility Needs Assessment, Facility Condition Assessment, space programming, and master-planning analysis. On November 13, 2025, Council authorized Phase II, moving the work from needs identification into programming, site/design development, cost refinement, financing analysis, and public engagement.

On April 9, 2026, Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-31 authorizing professional services through schematic design. Staff and consultants have therefore been carrying out Council-authorized work within a continuing Council review process; advancement beyond schematic design, final project cost, bond issuance, and construction authorization remain separate Council decisions.

Growth Since the 2020 Renovation

Since the 2020 renovation, population increased from approximately 6,185 to 7,430 in 2022, 8,631 in 2024, 9,577 in 2025, and approximately 10,515 in 2026. City staffing increased from 25 employees in 2020 to 32 in 2022 and 43 in 2025 and 2026. Current planning assumptions project approximately 11,521 residents and 47 City employees by 2028.

Viewed from the 2018 Wold study to the anticipated 2028 Civic Campus service point, population is projected to increase from approximately 6,026 to 11,521 and City staffing from approximately 25 to 47 employees. Growth also affects development review, permitting and inspections, Utilities and infrastructure, financial and records activity, public interaction, emergency management, Police calls and investigations, evidence and equipment requirements, fleet needs, and supporting administrative and technology functions.

2025 Facility Condition, Operational and Space Needs Assessments

The 2025 BKV Group/Kraus-Anderson Facility Needs Assessment evaluates three related but distinct issues: physical condition, operational adequacy, and space capacity. These findings should be considered together.

Physical Condition

The existing City Hall/Public Safety building is rated in Fair condition and remains physically usable. Kraus-Anderson identifies approximately $1.74 million in deferred maintenance, including HVAC work, heat pumps approaching or reaching the end of useful life, zoning and ventilation concerns, exterior-building work, accessibility-related improvements, replacement of the existing fire panel, and recommended fire suppression.

The condition assessment addresses maintenance and renewal of the existing structure. Space adequacy and operational functionality are separate issues in the facility-planning record and require measures beyond maintenance or replacement of building systems.

Space Capacity

The original 2025 assessment identified approximately 64,808 gross square feet of current City Hall and Police operational need compared with approximately 12,600 gross square feet in the existing building—a difference of approximately 52,200 gross square feet. Subsequent programming refined the City Hall/Police program downward, but the existing building remains substantially undersized relative to the identified operational program.

Maintenance expenditures address physical building components; the additional operational capacity and space identified through the space-needs analysis would require measures beyond maintenance and system replacement within the existing approximately 12,600-square-foot facility.

Public Safety Operational Deficiencies

The 2025 operational assessment separately identifies operational, configuration, safety, and capacity deficiencies in addition to the physical maintenance items identified in the Facility Condition Assessment.

Police has no room for additional staff or support functions. Locker rooms are at capacity and inadequately ventilated. Existing restroom arrangements require staff and detainees to share facilities. Booking and intake areas are described as drastically undersized, creating safety concerns during detainee processing.  The reception and records area is also substantially undersized and raises CJIS, ballistic-protection, and staff-safety concerns.

Evidence processing lacks appropriate sinks, eyewash facilities, and pass-through lockers. Weapons cleaning lacks appropriate ventilation. Equipment, supplies, and evidence compete for limited storage. The facility lacks adequate dedicated space for training, defensive tactics, simulation, fitness, wellness, and related Public Safety functions.

The Police Department's existing garage was constructed with four vehicle stalls; however, operational demands have reduced the space currently available for vehicle parking to approximately two stalls. The remaining garage capacity is used for equipment and supply storage and other operational activities because adequate dedicated space is not available elsewhere in the facility. These competing uses affect indoor fleet capacity and constrain space available for Police operations and training.

The Department also lacks an adequate dedicated training room. A relatively small room must simultaneously serve as the Emergency Operations Center, briefing room, training room, and employee break space.

Integrated Municipal Operating Model

The current Civic Campus proposal combines general municipal functions with specialized Public Safety functions while maintaining the separations required for secure Police operations. Certain Public Safety functions remain dedicated, including evidence, detainee processing, patrol operations, investigations, secure circulation, armory, locker, and fleet functions.

Other functions can be shared where operationally appropriate, including public reception and customer service, meeting functions, selected staff-support spaces, training and wellness functions, circulation, technology, building infrastructure, and other support areas. Public Works participation is also broader than garage space: Engineering and Utility functions are connected through development review, infrastructure planning, Water and Sewer operations, permitting, construction activity, and resident/customer service, while Utility vehicles, equipment, and field-support functions remain accommodated in operational areas.

In a separated-facility model, some support functions and infrastructure would need to be provided at more than one location, potentially including public reception, meeting and staff-support areas, technology systems, mechanical and electrical infrastructure, parking, site circulation, utilities, and other site improvements. Co-location therefore provides an opportunity to reduce duplication of space, building systems, infrastructure, and related capital and operating costs while maintaining specialized Police functions and security separations. The current consultant record identifies these shared-space opportunities without assigning a fixed dollar or square-foot savings solely to integration.

Police-Only Facility Alternative - Scope and Remaining Municipal Needs

A standalone Police facility would address a significant portion of the City’s documented Public Safety deficiencies and represent a smaller immediate project scope than the integrated Civic Campus proposal. It would leave City Hall staffing and operational limitations; Community Development and public-service needs; Public Works/Utility office and operational needs; existing-building capital requirements; and future decisions regarding continued use and investment in the existing City Hall for later consideration.

A Police-only alternative could also require support spaces and site/building infrastructure at more than one location. A long-term comparison therefore would need to account for both the needs addressed by the Police facility and remaining municipal needs, including future facilities, expansions, or duplicated support infrastructure.

Broader Capital Planning

The Civic Campus is being considered alongside other significant long-term municipal capital needs. The facility assessment identifies a substantial future need for Public Works expansion; long-term planning anticipates a future in-city fire station, estimated in the BKV assessment at approximately $15.8 million to $17.1 million under the study assumptions; and the City faces continuing maintenance and eventual improvement decisions for approximately 32 miles of gravel roads.

The roadway obligation is documented independently of the Civic Campus discussion. In May 2025, Public Works reported that the City maintained approximately 70 miles of roadway, was adding approximately two miles annually, and did not yet have a comprehensive capital program addressing the accumulated roadway-maintenance need.

These needs are not presented as projects to be funded simultaneously. They provide context for sequencing major investments and for considering how resources committed to the Civic Campus may affect the timing, financing capacity, or funding choices available for Public Works, fire protection, roads, Utilities, parks, and other infrastructure.

Site Evaluation and Cost Considerations

The City Center Drive site is City-owned and benefits from sewer and water infrastructure previously extended to the area and roadway and turn-lane improvements constructed with surrounding development. Site-comparison materials use more than $4 million as the estimated acquisition cost of a comparable alternative parcel, more than $1 million for potential Utility extensions, and more than $1 million for roadway/turn-lane costs associated with a comparable alternative site.

Under the assumptions used in that analysis, these items total more than $6 million in estimated land and infrastructure costs associated with a comparable alternative site. They are planning-level comparative estimates, not expenditures already avoided or savings available to offset the Civic Campus budget; actual costs for any site would be established through subsequent design, procurement, and construction.

The 2025 BKV master-planning work evaluated existing City facilities and multiple City-owned properties against operational, access, utility, security, site-capacity, and cost criteria, and alternative private property was appraised as part of the acquisition analysis. The City Center Drive site was advanced because it is City-owned, lies within the planned Town Center area, has access and visibility from City Center Drive, and benefits from previously constructed roadway and Utility infrastructure.

BKV’s site criteria also considered proximity to major thoroughfares, public accessibility, emergency and routine vehicle circulation, compatible neighboring uses, acquisition cost, and development impediments. The October 9, 2025 master-planning materials identified good connectivity to future City Center development, visibility, separated secure/public circulation potential, and capacity for future expansion, while identifying wetland-related site analysis as requiring further evaluation.

Comparative Municipal Facility Information

Comparable municipal projects provide context for Corcoran's facility planning. Facility programs differ by services provided, year of construction, project scope, site conditions, security requirements, parking/fleet assumptions, and local development patterns. Population and geographic area are presented together to describe both community size and municipal service territory.

.

Land area is based on U.S. Census Bureau 2020 land-area data; project figures are based on the municipal comparison materials assembled for the Civic Campus review. Geographic area is contextual only and does not independently determine appropriate facility size. Approximate cost per square foot is calculated from the listed planning budget/cost and facility size and is included for comparative context only.

Financial Comparison of Alternatives

The alternatives involve different near-term and long-term financial consequences. Continued use of the existing facility defers a larger near-term construction project but requires continued building investment and leaves documented operational and space needs unresolved. A Police-only project reduces immediate scope but leaves other municipal and existing-building needs for future consideration. The integrated Civic Campus addresses a broader set of identified needs within one project but requires the largest near-term capital commitment.

Staging identified needs into multiple projects may reduce near-term scope while shifting costs and decisions to later phases. Written information previously provided to Council identified a 10-year facility alternative at approximately $42.9 million, with approximately $8.3 million in later expansion, compared with approximately $48.5 million for the corresponding 20-year alternative. These planning estimates provide context for potential later design, mobilization, construction, escalation, and operational-disruption costs.

Operating costs are also part of the long-term comparison. A detailed comparative operating-cost analysis for the completed schematic design has not yet been incorporated into the current project record. Future costs will be affected by building size, energy performance, maintenance, staffing, technology, insurance, and the disposition or future use of existing facilities and can be incorporated into subsequent financial evaluation as project development proceeds.

Current Schematic Design Status and Council Parameters

Council's current project direction establishes a completed facility not to exceed 78,000 gross square feet and a total project budget not to exceed $46 million. Those project controls are distinct from the proposed statutory maximum of $40 million in CIP bond principal.

Financing Framework and Property-Tax Impact

Cost and potential property-tax impacts have been recurring subjects of Council discussion and public comment. Council has established two separate financial parameters: a total project budget not to exceed $46 million and proposed CIP bond authority not to exceed $40 million in principal. Neither amount represents the amount that will necessarily be borrowed or the resulting property-tax levy.

The amount ultimately financed through property-tax-supported bonds and the resulting tax impact will depend on final project cost, eligible Water and Sewer participation, outside funding received, available City resources, the amount actually borrowed, interest rates and other financing terms, tax-base growth, individual property values, timing of borrowing, final debt structure, and subsequent Council decisions.

Northland Securities’ CIP presentation addresses the statutory financing framework, debt capacity, and current tax-impact assumptions. Tax-impact scenarios can be updated as project cost, funding sources, borrowing requirements, market conditions, and tax-base information become more certain.

Planned/identified funding. Current planning includes approximately $10 million of Water and Sewer participation for eligible project costs, subject to final eligibility and Council action.

Pending outside funding. The City submitted three federal Community Project Funding requests totaling approximately $18.6 million. On July 31, 2026, the City was notified that all three requests had been included in draft House Appropriations Committee legislation at a combined amount of $2.55 million: $1.8 million for Corcoran Public Safety Facilities, $250,000 for a Multi-Agency Skills Training and Emergency Response Facility, and $500,000 for Indoor and Outdoor Facilities and Equipment. Those amounts remain subject to congressional action and enactment.

The City also submitted a separate $2 million Congressionally Directed Spending request for an Emergency Operations Center and interoperable communications systems to the Senate Appropriations Committee; that request has not yet been awarded. Earlier Council materials documented support letters from approximately a dozen neighboring cities and public agencies for the regional public-safety components of the funding requests.

Unsuccessful/not awarded request. The City pursued approximately $10 million in State funding; that request was not funded in the 2026 legislative session. Pending appropriations, grants, and other outside funding are not treated as available project revenue unless formally awarded, legally eligible, and approved.

Construction Cost Escalation

During the August 13 discussion, potential construction-cost escalation of approximately $250,000 per month was referenced. Staff subsequently clarified that the figure was an in-house planning illustration based on applying the upper end of a previously discussed 4–6 percent annual escalation range to a $50 million overall project amount. At 6 percent, $50 million equates to approximately $3 million annually, or approximately $250,000 per month.

The figure is a planning-level illustration, not a project-specific forecast. Actual escalation will depend on project scope, schedule, labor and material markets, and bidding conditions; formal financing estimates are provided through the City’s financial advisor and bond counsel as applicable.

August 13 Council Action and Continued Public Hearing

Prior to opening the scheduled public hearing on August 13, Council discussed whether the proposed CIP should first be reviewed by the Planning Commission under Minnesota Statutes Section 462.356, subdivision 2.

Council considered Resolution No. 2026-60, which would have made the findings necessary to proceed without Planning Commission review. Resolution No. 2026-60 did not receive the required 2/3 majority vote.

Staff advised that Planning Commission review could occur on August 18. Following that discussion, the Mayor opened the public hearing and Council continued it to August 27 without receiving testimony. No final action was taken on the CIP or Resolution No. 2026-58.

Planning Commission Review

The Planning Commission considered the CIP on August 18. During the meeting, Council Members Lanterman and Friedrich, speaking as residents, and other members of the public addressed the Commission regarding the proposed Civic Campus and the Commission’s Comprehensive Plan consistency review. Council Member Lanterman specifically urged the Commission to conduct its own full and independent review and noted that the Commission could request additional information before acting. Following public comment and Commission discussion, the Planning Commission determined that additional Comprehensive Plan training and further consideration were appropriate and tabled its consistency review until September 3, 2026.

On September 3, the Planning Commission resumed its review and approved written findings addressing future land use, the Town Center vision, zoning context, the Southeast District Plan, natural resources, public infrastructure and community services, and the distinction between Comprehensive Plan consistency review and later detailed site-plan review. The Commission found that the property’s Mixed Use designation permits flexibility; that civic and public/semi-public uses are contemplated within the Town Center; that the Southeast District Plan’s conceptual Parks/Open Space depiction did not amend the official Future Land Use Map or preclude the Civic Campus; and that natural-resource and site-design issues remain subject to detailed review if the project proceeds.

The Planning Commission concluded that the proposed Civic Campus capital improvement and its proposed location are compliant with the City’s adopted 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The Commission approved the Memorandum of Findings by a vote of 4 Ayes, 0 Nays, 0 Abstain, with 1 member absent, and forwarded its written findings to the City Council. The memorandum is dated September 4, 2026.

September 24 Council Consideration

Following completion of the Planning Commission’s Comprehensive Plan consistency review and the public-hearing process, Council is being asked to consider the updated 2026–2030 Capital Improvement Plan and Resolution No. 2026-58. Approval would provide preliminary authorization for General Obligation Capital Improvement Plan Bonds in a maximum principal amount of $40 million. Following the statutory 30-day petition period, the City may proceed with subsequent bond-issuance steps if no qualifying petition is filed, subject to further Council financing action.

The September 24 action concerns the five-year CIP and preliminary bond authorization. Final project design, square footage, project cost, borrowing amount, financing terms, bidding, and any construction contract remain subject to subsequent project development and Council action.

If Resolution No. 2026-58 is adopted, the statutory 30-day petition period will follow the public hearing. If no qualifying petition is filed within that period, the City may proceed with subsequent bond-issuance steps, subject to further Council action.

If a petition requesting a vote on issuance of the bonds, signed by voters equal to five percent of the votes cast in the last municipal general election, is filed with the City Clerk within 30 days after the public hearing, the City may issue the bonds only after approval by a majority of voters voting on the question.

Adoption of the 2026–2030 Capital Improvement Plan and Resolution No. 2026-58 would provide preliminary authorization for General Obligation Capital Improvement Plan Bonds in a principal amount not to exceed $40 million.  The authorization would not require issuance of the full amount.

If no qualifying petition is filed during the statutory 30-day petition period, the City may proceed with subsequent bond-issuance steps, subject to further Council action.

If a qualifying petition is filed, voter approval would be required before the bonds could be issued.

Actual borrowing would depend upon final project scope and cost, Utility participation, outside funding, available City resources, market conditions, final debt structure, and subsequent Council actions.

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2026-58 approving the updated 2026–2030 Capital Improvement Plan and providing preliminary approval for issuance of General Obligation Capital Improvement Plan Bonds in a maximum principal amount of $40,000,000.
2. Continue the public hearing to another specified date and direct staff to return with additional information or revisions before Council consideration of the Capital Improvement Plan and Resolution No. 2026-58.
3. Take no further action on the Capital Improvement Plan and Resolution No. 2026-58.

Staff recommends that the City Council re-open the public hearing, receive public testimony, close the public hearing when Council determines the record is complete, and consider Resolution No. 2026-58 approving the updated 2026–2030 Capital Improvement Plan and providing preliminary approval for General Obligation Capital Improvement Plan Bonds in a maximum principal amount of $40 million.

The Planning Commission review required by Minnesota Statutes Section 462.356, subdivision 2 has been completed, and its written findings are part of the record for Council consideration.

Re-open the public hearing initially opened on August 13, 2026, receive public testimony, and consider the updated proposed 2026–2030 Capital Improvement Plan and Resolution No. 2026-58 following completion of the Planning Commission review required by Minnesota Statutes Section 462.356, subdivision 2.

The Planning Commission completed its Comprehensive Plan consistency review on September 3, 2026, and issued written findings concluding that the proposed Civic Campus capital improvement and its proposed location are compliant with the City’s adopted 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Council may therefore consider final action on the updated CIP and Resolution No. 2026-58 following the public hearing.