Chisago City council reviews police facility options; no vote taken

Mayor Jeremy Dresel called a special Chisago City Council work session to order at 5:30 p.m. on Feb. 10, 2026, to review the Police Commission’s 3–1 recommendation to renovate Lindstrom City Hall as a consolidated police facility. City Administrator John Pechman and council members discussed the Commission’s multi-year review and narrowed options.

Administrator John Pechman summarized the process, saying the facility discussion has been ongoing for more than 10 years and that the Police Commission met 12 times between July and December 2025 before forwarding its recommendation. The Commission recommended renovation by a 3–1 vote, according to the council briefing.

Cost estimates presented to the council included: a remodel of Lindstrom City Hall (about 12,000 square feet) at approximately $6 million, plus a proposed building purchase price of about $350,000 to be split between the cities; a Phase 1 new-construction option (about 7,000 square feet) estimated at roughly $6 million that would meet minimum operational needs but restrict future growth; and a full new-construction option (about 12,000 square feet) estimated at about $10.5 million.

Council members expressed concerns about renovation risks, including potential unforeseen structural deficiencies, construction cost overruns and the operational challenge of renovating while the building remains occupied. They also questioned whether the Lindstrom site would allow long-term expansion.

Discussion turned to potential alternatives should the council decline to approve construction costs. Members raised whether Chisago City should re-evaluate its long-term public safety service model, including its participation in the existing joint powers agreement and the feasibility of creating an independent police department. Supporters of a broader review noted potential benefits such as increased local input and oversight and greater flexibility in planning, while others warned of higher administrative and operational costs and the loss of shared-service efficiencies.

The council identified several remaining financial checkpoints, including agreement on the building purchase price, contract amendments and final construction bids, and noted that each city would likely pursue bonding separately if construction moves forward. No formal motion or vote was taken at the work session; council members agreed that further financial and operational analysis is needed before any formal decision.

Next steps: the council will seek more detailed financial information and analysis to inform any future action; no timeline for a formal vote was set at the session.