Want to see more stories on South St. Paul? Support local news.
After years of work, South St. Paul approved a new $28 million public works facility to replace aging infrastructure that’s half the size it needs to be.
Where: The new facility will be at Venderosa Avenue and Marley Danner Drive, just south of I-494 and the DNR boat launch. The site was a former sewage treatment plant from the 1930s to 1980s, creating problematic soil conditions that hampered development.
Why: A 2023 study determined that the old public works facility was deteriorating and failing to meet the current needs. Modernizing that facility would cost more than the land’s appraised value, plus that site is still half the size that’s needed.
What: A new 73,800-square-foot building that will house offices, shop space, vehicle maintenance area, wash bay, mezzanine storage, and indoor vehicle storage. It will also include a small exterior storage yard, salt/sand storage canopy, police department storage building, and fuel and water fill stations.
When: Construction is expected to begin in the summer of 2027 and be completed in early 2028.
Additional land: Only about half of the 15-acre site will be used for the public works facility. A skinny, 1.75-acre section north of the facility will become a community garden and a 7.37-acre plot to the west of the facility will be sold for potential redevelopment.
Landscaping: Code requires at least 13 trees and 30 are proposed. The landscaping is slanted to the Verderosa Avenue side, adjacent to the community garden site, giving the property more of a “green” image when viewed from the Mississippi River Greenway.
Old facility: The original public works facility was built in 1970 and is a 33,000 square-foot building on 4.66 acres off Richmond Street East. The property will be sold to AVR, LLC for a concrete batch plant, bringing in revenue to help offset the cost and restoring the property to the tax rolls.
Cost: The project is estimated to cost a total of $28 million. The city will pay for it with a combination of cash reserves, selling city property, and municipal bonds.
- Support: The state contributed $2.25 million for the project and $3 million came from the federal government for street improvements and infrastructure.
- Savings: The city acquired the property for the facility at no cost, saving over $1 million.
- Options: The size of the police department storage building and an optional covered open storage enclosure are alternative options that will be determined based on cost.
Approvals: The project did require multiple conditional user permits (CUPs). City facilities generally don’t have the same requirements as other industrial uses, so they can deviate from normal standards with a CUP. Those CUPs covered fencing and accessory buildings. They were needed to reduce costs.
- Planning Commission did review the project and held a public hearing (no one spoke), ultimately approving the project unanimously.
- Council also held a public hearing and no one from the public spoke.
Vote: The Council ultimately approved both measures for the project on 5-1 votes with Council Member Lori Hansen voting no both times, citing the high cost. Here’s what some of the Council members had to say about the project:
- Desperate need: “‘Dark ages’—that’s exactly what our public works people have been living and working in for a very long time,” said Council Member Pam Bakken. “This decision probably should have been made 20 years ago on this facility.” Bakken went on to note that the former facility didn’t have a women’s restroom until 10 years ago, forcing an employee to go home on their lunch break to use the restroom.
- Flipped: “When I first got on Council four years ago, I was absolutely against building a new public works building,” said Council Member Matthew Thompson. “I thought that was too large of a price tag for anyone to put on the residents. But, in my time, I’ve come to learn that we’ve been committing costs to maintaining a facility that’s far lived beyond its use, we’re using far beyond its capacity, and it’s simply something we need to do.”
- Only gets more expensive: “It goes up in price every year that we delay—$1.5 million for our taxpayers to add every year,” said Council Member Todd Podgorski. “So the sooner that we do it, the better, in many ways, to get that price more affordable. It’s not going to be pleasant when we have to look at getting those bonds, but I think it is necessary for the long term viability of the city. And I hope history and future Councils and residents will look back at this Council saying, ‘You know what? They made a tough decision for the betterment of the community.'”
- No vote: “I’ve made a lot of tough decisions for this city that incorporate issues with money and buildings and property and all that, but right now, I firmly believe that our citizens are feeling a crunch from high taxes and to possibly increase their taxes in ’28 of another 20%—it drives me crazy to think that that could happen,” said Council Member Hansen. “I’m not saying we don’t need a new public works building. I’m not saying that it wouldn’t be a great addition to our community. What I am saying is that we need to absolutely get funding from other sources.”
More: Get more details on the project from the city.
We’re a member-supported news side. We rely on neighbors like you to support our work. Join now to keep your community informed.
