OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Waconia, Minnesota/City Council
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Waconia City Council Regular Meeting on March 2, 2026

City Council — Monday, March 2, 2026
BodyWaconia, Minnesota
SessionCity Council
DateMonday, March 2, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
Meeting Thumbnail
⇩ GET FROM SOURCE

STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE

Original source
Transcript — Verbatim

Speaker numbers apply only to this recording. Names come from transcript evidence. “Possibly” marks uncertain attribution.

Speaker 1

8:44

Welcome everyone.

8:46

I'll call the meeting to order.

8:49

March second, twenty twenty-six as the Mayor Pro Tem with Mayor Lidfin and Council Member Siddons absent.

8:56

If you'll all rise and join in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Speaker 2

10:05

Once this catches up with me, you see it highlighted in red here on the screen.

10:11

Uh property is you see County Road 10 kind of on the west side here.

10:16

We'll zoom into this.

10:17

County Road 10 on the west side, country ponds here on the east side, community drive, and then the high school to the south.

10:26

So everything in red is what's being proposed for annexation.

10:30

Um comp plan guides the property as medium density residential.

10:36

So think about you know, there's a couple of concepts that were included in your packet, but it's usually around four to twelve units per acre.

10:43

Uh generally, when people say what does that mean?

10:45

Usually I tell them townhomes, you know, just to give them a ballpark idea.

10:50

The one property that isn't included in the application, which has kind of been the the crux of the conversation I've had with the property owners, uh, both this property owner and the surrounding property owners about annexation is 1705 Wilconia Parkway cell.

11:04

So that wasn't included in this application uh petition for annexation.

11:09

So process for annexation, right?

11:11

Um you can petition for annexation if you're directly adjacent and utilities are are close, right?

11:16

You could be served by those utilities.

11:18

Then it goes into review and consideration by the township,

Unassigned speaker

11:21

and

Speaker 2

11:21

then we hold a public hearing, which is what we're doing this evening at the council level.

Unassigned speaker

11:26

And

Speaker 2

11:26

then if the annexation is approved, then we would submit that to the state to formalize or actually bring that property into the city limits.

11:33

So in the conversations I've had with the uh property owners and the developers as part of this property,

Unassigned speaker

11:39

I

Speaker 2

11:39

told them it was a little premature to bring forward this application until we figured out that central piece.

11:44

When you look at it from a comp plan standpoint and you think about it as part of efficient and compact growth, this really isn't reflecting that.

11:53

Really kind of annexing a donut and leaving that central parcel.

11:57

It just it causes conflicts not only from code enforcement standpoint from a city standpoint, but also from a county standpoint.

12:04

I had some conversation with my counterpart in Carver County.

12:07

He had some similar concerns.

12:09

If it's an ag zoning and you guys are packing in four, you know, 12, four to twelve units per acre directly adjacent, and it could be a farm use and never comes into the city limits, we would run into ongoing complaints.

12:22

So you know, in working with them, you know, even at that direction, they decided to come forward this evening with this annexation request.

12:30

So it has gone to

Unassigned speaker

12:32

the

Speaker 2

12:32

township.

12:32

The township has reviewed the information and they were okay with it.

12:36

They said, Yeah, you can go ahead and annex that property if you like.

12:39

They did that on January 29th, and then in working with the Summergate team, they indicated that this was the best date for them, would be March 2nd.

12:46

So we're bringing it here on public hearing.

12:49

We noticed it in the paper.

12:50

We sent out some notices.

12:52

We only received one comment, which was included in your packet.

12:56

Um, and so tonight, really, there's you hold the public hearing, and then there's two options would be

Unassigned speaker

13:01

a

Speaker 2

13:01

recommendation of denial of the application based

Unassigned speaker

13:04

on kind

Speaker 2

13:04

of what I was talking about.

13:06

Otherwise, there is the joint resolution, right?

13:08

That's in the packet that was considered by the township on the 29th of January.

Unassigned speaker

13:13

If you

Speaker 2

13:13

have any questions for me, I'd be happy to answer

Unassigned speaker

13:15

those.

Speaker 1

13:21

Any questions?

Speaker 3

13:23

Oh one question I had on it is I know as we've talked about water usage here in the city that were coming up nearly at capacity, and that's with the plan developments down to the southeast.

13:37

Is that correct?

Unassigned speaker

13:38

Yeah,

Speaker 2

13:39

council member Coleman, that's correct.

13:40

So as part of this application, and since we just did work through a sewer study and a water study, I sent the annexation over to John Hawkis and um Jake Salisbury to take a look at his comments.

13:52

We're included in the packet,

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Engineering And Infrastructure█████████████████████████████████████████████65%
Water And Wastewater Management███████████████21%
Technology and Innovation████6%
Community Engagement██3%
Public Engagement█2%
Procedural█2%
Personnel Matters█1%
Summary of Proceedings

Waconia City Council Regular Meeting on March 2, 2026

Mayor Tim Litfin and Council Member Derek Siddons were absent. Mayor Pro Tem Jeff Grengs called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM and adjourned it at 7:00 PM. The central focus of the evening was a public hearing on an annexation petition, which was ultimately tabled to the April 20, 2026 meeting. The Council also awarded the Downtown Phase 4 reconstruction contract, initiated the preliminary work for the 2027 Sugarbush Neighborhood Street Construction Project, and approved a 13-item consent agenda.

Consent Calendar

  • The Council approved the Consent Agenda by a single motion. The 13 routine items included: approval of the February 19, 2026 meeting minutes; approval of March 2, 2026 expenditures; adoption of the 2026 Capital Equipment list; awarding a contract for Island View Estates Park site improvements; resolutions supporting grant applications for the Pickleball Courts and Sudheimer Park projects; accepting a donation and pass-through recommendation from the Waconia Fire Relief Association; accepting cash donations for Fire Department operations; approving the Elm Creek Ridge Development Agreement; approving a 5-year copier/scanner lease; authorizing recruitment for a Park Maintenance Lead position; and issuing special event permits for the Memorial Day Parade and the Lake Waconia Band Festival.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Casey Wollschlager, Summergate Developers (representing the applicant property owners): Mr. Wollschlager stated that staff had indicated both parcels should be annexed simultaneously, but that another developer, Jason Palmby, purchased the central 5-acre parcel (1705 Waconia Parkway South) ahead of his clients. He asserted that the landowner group has had a negative experience with Mr. Palmby and feels it is unfair to require them to work with him. Mr. Wollschlager expressed his belief that the City is "falling into the trap" of Mr. Palmby and indicated that securing a "place in line" for future water capacity is the applicants' primary concern. He noted that the property owners are willing to wait for capacity but want the annexation completed to secure their position.
  • Mike Klingelhutz, Laketown Township: Speaking for the Klingelhutz family, Mr. Klingelhutz noted the property division was created by Carver County. He stated the petition represents approximately 30 of the 35 acres proposed for annexation, or roughly 85% of the total area. He cited historical examples of annexations that proceeded without 100% consensus and characterized concerns about livestock on the remaining 5 acres as speculative, requesting Council approval.
  • Bob Burandt, Waconia resident: Mr. Burandt stated he has lived in Waconia for 80 years and previously donated land for city projects (Oak Avenue Extension, Community Drive, a pathway) without compensation. He expressed concern that if the annexation is denied, the property owners may be forced to sell to Jason Palmby, which he does not believe is fair or democratic.
  • Neil Klingelhutz, Victoria: Mr. Klingelhutz encouraged the Council to approve the annexation, stating it is the right location and right time except for the five-acre parcel. He suggested that if the property owners are willing to proceed despite the complication, the city should give them the opportunity to move forward.

Discussion Items

  • Annexation Petition (Wolter and Klingelhutz): Community Development Director Lane Braaten presented staff analysis, explaining the annexation request was premature as it excluded the 1705 Waconia Parkway South parcel, creating an inefficient growth pattern and potential code enforcement conflicts. Public Services Director Jon Haukaas noted significant utility hurdles, stating the development would need to wait until additional municipal wells are operational (anticipated 2027 or 2028) and that off-site sewer improvements would be needed. Council Member Jacob Coleman identified water and sewer capacity as his primary concern. Council Member Nick Gleason agreed, stating it was inappropriate for the landowners to be pressured to sell to one specific developer. Mayor Pro Tem Jeff Grengs noted he had been leaning toward denial but is a strong proponent of landowner rights, acknowledging the process could continue for years. In response to a query, Mr. Braaten clarified that once a property is annexed, if a development application meets all standards and zoning requirements, the city has a legal obligation to approve it. This led the Council to table the item to allow staff to draft language tying development timing to the availability of utility capacity.
  • 2026 Downtown Reconstruction Phase 4: Jon Haukaas reported that five bids were opened on February 24th. The low bid from GMH Asphalt Corporation ($3.8 million) is approximately 18% below the Engineer's Estimate and 10% below the next lowest bid. The project involves total reconstruction in three stages: Stage 1 (First Street) from May 4th to July 11th, Stage 2 (Elm Street and 2nd Street) from July 6th to August 28th, and Stage 3 (Pine Street removal) after Nickle Dickle Day with completion by mid-November 2026.
  • 2027 Sugarbush Neighborhood Street Construction Project: Jon Haukaas presented the initiation of the preliminary investigation for the next planned neighborhood reconstruction, identified in the adopted Pavement Management Plan. The area includes the Sugarbush Lane loop, a segment of Dunsmore Drive, and five cul-de-sacs (Tamarack, Honeysuckle, Butternut, Hickory, and Barbary). Staff committed to significant public outreach, including project boards and a neighborhood meeting before formal public hearings.
  • Board Reports: The Land Use Summary for 2025, presented by Lane Braaten, was tabled to the March 16, 2026 City Council Meeting so the director could present imagery along with the report.
  • Announcements: City Administrator Shane Fineran recognized Jeff Hilgers, who is retiring after 23 years of service with the City, having worked from the Street Department to Utility Maintenance.

Key Outcomes

  • Annexation Petition Tabled: A motion by Council Member Coleman, seconded by Council Member Gleason, to table the Wolter and Klingelhutz Annexation Petition to the April 20, 2026 City Council Meeting carried. The Council directed staff to bring back revised language that would condition future development on the availability of adequate water and sewer capacity.
  • Downtown Phase 4 Contract Awarded: The Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-073, authorizing the award of the Downtown Phase 4 Reconstruction project contract to GMH Asphalt Corporation.
  • Sugarbush Project Initiated: The Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-074 (authorizing survey and geotechnical review) and Resolution No. 2026-075 (ordering a feasibility study and assessment benefit evaluation) for the proposed 2027 Sugarbush Neighborhood Reconstruction Project.
  • Consent Agenda Approved: The 13-item consent agenda was adopted in a single motion.
  • Land Use Summary Tabled: The 2025 Land Use Summary was tabled to the March 16, 2026 meeting.
  • Meeting adjourned at 7:00 PM.

Meeting Transcript

Welcome everyone. I'll call the meeting to order. March second, twenty twenty-six as the Mayor Pro Tem with Mayor Lidfin and Council Member Siddons absent. If you'll all rise and join in the Pledge of Allegiance. Once this catches up with me, you see it highlighted in red here on the screen. Uh property is you see County Road 10 kind of on the west side here. We'll zoom into this. County Road 10 on the west side, country ponds here on the east side, community drive, and then the high school to the south. So everything in red is what's being proposed for annexation. Um comp plan guides the property as medium density residential. So think about you know, there's a couple of concepts that were included in your packet, but it's usually around four to twelve units per acre. Uh generally, when people say what does that mean? Usually I tell them townhomes, you know, just to give them a ballpark idea. The one property that isn't included in the application, which has kind of been the the crux of the conversation I've had with the property owners, uh, both this property owner and the surrounding property owners about annexation is 1705 Wilconia Parkway cell. So that wasn't included in this application uh petition for annexation. So process for annexation, right? Um you can petition for annexation if you're directly adjacent and utilities are are close, right? You could be served by those utilities. Then it goes into review and consideration by the township, and then we hold a public hearing, which is what we're doing this evening at the council level. And then if the annexation is approved, then we would submit that to the state to formalize or actually bring that property into the city limits. So in the conversations I've had with the uh property owners and the developers as part of this property, I told them it was a little premature to bring forward this application until we figured out that central piece. When you look at it from a comp plan standpoint and you think about it as part of efficient and compact growth, this really isn't reflecting that. Really kind of annexing a donut and leaving that central parcel. It just it causes conflicts not only from code enforcement standpoint from a city standpoint, but also from a county standpoint. I had some conversation with my counterpart in Carver County. He had some similar concerns. If it's an ag zoning and you guys are packing in four, you know, 12, four to twelve units per acre directly adjacent, and it could be a farm use and never comes into the city limits, we would run into ongoing complaints. So you know, in working with them, you know, even at that direction, they decided to come forward this evening with this annexation request. So it has gone to the township. The township has reviewed the information and they were okay with it. They said, Yeah, you can go ahead and annex that property if you like. They did that on January 29th, and then in working with the Summergate team, they indicated that this was the best date for them, would be March 2nd. So we're bringing it here on public hearing. We noticed it in the paper. We sent out some notices. We only received one comment, which was included in your packet. Um, and so tonight, really, there's you hold the public hearing, and then there's two options would be a recommendation of denial of the application based on kind of what I was talking about. Otherwise, there is the joint resolution, right? That's in the packet that was considered by the township on the 29th of January.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com