On Jan. 2, 2025, the North Saint Paul Planning Commission received a staff presentation on the city’s Capital Improvement Plan and discussed timing for commission review of 2026 proposed capital items and related supporting documents.

Community Development Director Ryland Grams told commissioners the CIP functions as the city’s financial planning subset of the comprehensive plan, describing it as a tool that lists the equipment and capital expenditures needed to meet long-range goals. “The CIP is again a sort of a subset of that where, more of a financial planning document,” Grams said, explaining that staff updates the CIP throughout the year and that the commission’s review is required under City Code 32.27 when a proposed capital improvement is related to the comprehensive plan.

The discussion focused on process, timing and supporting reports. Jason Orby, the city council liaison, recommended the commission schedule a review in May or early June to examine items proposed for 2026 and to provide recommendations to the City Council ahead of the formal budget cycle. Orby said the intent is to identify items that might be moved earlier or later so council has commission input before final budgeting. He noted the city operates on a calendar fiscal year and that the council’s substantive budget work typically begins in June and July.

A commissioner raised a concern about Section M of the code, saying it could allow the council to exclude the commission from review in certain cases; staff clarified the statute’s exceptions and the higher vote thresholds that apply when the council seeks to dispense with the commission’s review. Grams and other commissioners discussed the differences between a two-thirds vote and higher supermajority thresholds for bypassing review, and emphasized that the code requires a higher threshold when the council deems a proposed project unrelated to the comprehensive plan.

Commissioners asked about the Wold building assessment referenced repeatedly in the CIP materials. Grams said the assessment — a 10-year building lifecycle evaluation of city-owned properties — was received late November and staff would circulate it to commissioners. He explained the assessment ranks maintenance needs (for example, roof replacement or tuckpointing) to help budget lifecycle projects rather than relying on ad hoc estimates. Grams also clarified that road reconstructions and street projects come from a different report prepared by WSB.

No formal motion to forward changes to the council was made; commissioners and staff agreed that, absent specific recommended changes, staff will prepare a targeted packet and schedule a May review to inform the 2026 budget process.

Follow-up: staff will circulate the Wold building assessment to commissioners and schedule a focused CIP review in May so the commission can flag items for the 2026 budget cycle.