HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
MINUTES
COTTAGE GROVE CITY COUNCIL July 20, 2016
COUNCIL CHAMBER
12800 RAVINE PARKWAY SOUTH
REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M.
1. CALL TO ORDER
The City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota, held a
regular meeting on July 20, 2016 at Cottage Grove City Hall, 12800 Ravine Parkway.
Mayor Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The audience, staff, and Mayor and City Council Members recited the Pledge of
Allegiance.
3. ROLL CALL
The following were present: Mayor Myron Bailey, Council Member Steve Dennis,
Council Member Justin Olsen, Council Member Jen Peterson, Council Member Dave
Thiede.
Also present were: Charlene Stevens, City Administrator; Korine Land, City Attorney-
LeVander, Gillen & Miller, PA; Les Burshten, Public Works Director; Zac Dockter, Parks
and Recreation Director; Joe Fischbach, HR Manager/City Clerk; Jennifer Levitt,
Community Development Director/City Engineer; John McCool, Senior City Planner;
Rick Redenius, Fire Chief; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Craig Woolery, Public
Safety Director.
4. OPEN FORUM
Mayor Bailey asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Council on any
item that was not on the agenda. As no one wished to address the Council, Mayor
Bailey closed the Open Forum.
5. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion by Council Member Olsen, second by Council Member Thiede, to adopt the
agenda. Motion carried: 5-0.
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE 12800 Ravine Parkway Cottage Grove, Minnesota 55016
www.cottage-grove.org 651-458-2800 Fax 651-458-2897 Equal Opportunity Employer
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2016
Page 2
6. PRESENTATIONS
A. Central Fire Station – Wold Architects & Engineers
John McNamara of Wold Architects & Engineers stated they’re working through the
initial schematic design for the fire station. He stated he’d have an update on guiding
principles and goals, as well as an update on the facility solution, including where
they’re at from a size perspective, some initial programatic layouts of the facility, and
where they’re at with some of the site solutions for the project. They’re just looking for
feedback from the Council.
The guiding principles that the core planning group came up with have been refined for
the implementation of the project and are: 1) The facility should make a statement of
pride, stability, success, strength, and service to the community; 2) The facility should
be user friendly and welcoming to the community by providing potential community
space, including meeting rooms and indoor and outdoor gathering spaces; 3) The
facility should display and reflect the history of the Fire Department in the community; 4)
The facility should meet the needs of Public Safety for today and 15-to-20 years into the
future; 5) The facility should be integrated with its surrounding environment and
implement sustainable approaches, with a focus on energy savings in the long term.
The goals and objectives are: 1) Be fiscally responsible; 2) Incorporate new
technologies to enhance efficiency; 3) Provide a safe and welcoming workplace; 4)
Incorporate as many energy-efficient measures as possible; 5) Provide transparency in
order to keep the community fully informed throughout the project; 6) Encourage
functionality and flexibility of the building as a work and training facility; 7) Plan for future
growth of the City and Departmental operations.
They’ve had a number of meetings with the Fire Department and with the core planning
group to talk about space utilization. There are some minor differences in how they are
allocating space; there is certainly a desire to have some historic display in the lobby
area, so the size of the public lobby has been increased slightly. Based on
conversations with the Fire Chief, they’ve increased the number of dorm rooms and are
looking at growth potential for the station. There is some fitness equipment that has
been donated to the City so the size of the fitness room has been adjusted to
accommodate that. They’re tracking a little bit higher on the administrative spaces, but
they’re still planning on 12 apparatus bays. With support space for the gear room, EMS
storage, maintenance, hose, and a training tower, and applying some efficiency to the
building, it’s actually at about 32,750 square feet in the solution today versus the
planning solution of about 36,000 square feet. So, a lot of that is based on their
conversations with staff and how they’re laying out the building.
Mr. McNamara reviewed the diagram of the building, which included: an open,
welcoming lobby, a small conference room for somebody who might come in needing a
blood pressure check, and a couple of restrooms in that area for both public and staff.
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2016
Page 3
There’s a stairway in that area that will bring you to the second floor. The fitness room
is located in the southeast corner and there’s a training center for EMS training. Their
intention for that space is put in a flexible, folding partition in that area so it can be either
a smaller classroom space or a larger training space, again for the flexibility of how the
facility will be used. There’s an opportunity to connect the training space to the outdoor
space so there can be some outdoor training and breakout space for that training room;
its location on the plan is very purposeful in that the back of the facility can be utilized as
another training opportunity. There is also office space and administrative space for the
Fire Department.
They’re thinking of splitting the apparatus area into two areas. The first apparatus area
will house the vehicles that are out first (the ambulances and the first fire vehicle) and in
the middle are the hose and training tower, as well as all of the support spaces for that.
There are a couple of extra spaces for the future built into the program so that this can
accommodate other vehicles that are at other facilities and also to allow for growth.
Because the apparatus area is a multi-height space, they’re going to create a
mezzanine over those support spaces to create a training mezzanine on the upper
level, out on the garage area itself.
The upper level of the facility contains the living spaces. There are dorm spaces and
locker rooms, laundry facilities, and the shower facilities are all in the middle. The living,
kitchen, and dining areas are on the lower part of the building. One of the main reasons
for that is there’s quite a bit of hill in that area, so they’re hoping they can set the
building in a way that will allow access to that outdoor space and have some private
living space for those who are in the facility.
The facility is being placed just adjacent to existing Fire Station #2 on 80th Street. They
are looking at putting it adjacent to the existing parking area on that site, which would
allow them to continue to have the fire station operational during construction of the new
facility and potentially reuse that parking area once the station is completed. They are
setting the station at a location where if there’s a need to go beyond the 12 apparatus
bays that have been designed, there’s some open space adjacent to that parking area
to allow access to build some additional space. They are planning for some outdoor
training space and then some outdoor space for the living area for the facility.
The site design has been started; a survey is being completed right now, so there will
be some changes and modifications as soon as they study the topography a little bit
more. Certainly, there will be some discussions with the City Engineer related to access
on 80th Street, which needs to occur, but they’re probably at a little beyond the midpoint
of schematic design so some of that is starting to come together right now.
From a schedule standpoint, in August the schematic designs will be completed, and
they’ll be putting together the first cost estimate for the project and likely will look for
Council approval at the next Council Meeting, August 10, which will then allow design
development through the latter part of summer and into fall. They’ll look for City Council
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2016
Page 4
approval in mid-October for design development, contract documents will go through
the rest of the year, and will look for City Council approval to issue bid specifications,
probably at the last Council Meeting in December, to get that out early for the bidders to
look at so they’ll be ready to start construction as soon as the project is awarded and
road restrictions come off. So, they’re tracking on schedule right now and expect to be
back in front of the City Council shortly for approvals.
Mr. McNamara asked if Council Members had any comments or questions. Mayor
Bailey stated it’s nice to see this process moving along. Council Member Peterson
stated in recent conversations with Firefighters, she knew that one of the issues they’re
concerned about is storage of their gear in a way that’s completely ventilated and
separate from the ventilation for the rest of the facility. She wanted to know if that was
in the plan. Mr. McNamara stated that yes, it was. They really like to separate that area
from the rest of the building so they can put in a specific exhaust system for that room.
The intent for the gear room is that it’ll have access from both of the bay areas, but it will
have doors on it and its own separate exhaust system.
Mayor Bailey thanked Mr. McNamara for his presentation.
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approve the July 6, 2016 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes .
B. Authorize issuance of a single-occasion gambling permit to Zion Lutheran
Church to conduct a raffle on October 1, 2016.
C. Approve May 16, 2016 Public Services Commission Meeting Minutes.
D. Adopt Resolution 2016-120 establishing residential daily collection districts
for mixed municipal solid waste and recyclable materials.
E. Receive and place on file the approved minutes for the Arts Commission
Meeting on June 7, 2016.
F. Authorize Public Works to advertise and sell surplus property.
G. Approve the intersection Maintenance Agreement between the County of
Washington and the City of Cottage Grove for Maintenance of a
Roundabout at the Intersection of County State Aid Highway No. 22 (70th
Street South) and Jamaica Avenue South.
H. Approve the Cooperative Agreement with Washington County for design
of the East Point Douglas Road reconstruction project.
I. Open Forum Response – Road Surface Condition at 76th Street and Hyde
Avenue: Information only.
J. Cancel public hearing amending the Bylaws and enabling resolution of the
Economic Development Authority; this has been rescheduled to August
10, 2016.
K. Adopt Resolution 2016-121 approving the site plan for the redevelopment
on Lot 1, Block 1 n Grove Plaza 3rd Addition and the former Merchants
Bank property to allow Hy-Vee to construct a 4,500 square foot
convenience store with 16 motor fuel pumping stations; a 95,700 square
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2016
Page 5
foot grocery store with approximately 516 total parking spaces; two
vertical wind turbines; a seasonal outdoor garden center between April 1
to July 1; outdoor display area and food kiosk along the front of the Hy-
Vee store; restaurant and outdoor seating area where alcoholic beverages
could be served; and variances to minimum landscaping requirements and
parking/drive aisle setback requirements, subject to conditions.
Council Member Thiede wished to pull Item K, the Hy-Vee Revised Site Plan, for further
comment and/or discussion. Council Member Thiede stated the Planning Commission
had authorized changes and he wondered about the configuration for the convenience
store and the change to one of the entrances for the Hy-Vee parking lot, which wasn’t
changed in the diagram. He asked Engineer Levitt to point out those changes.
Engineer Levitt stated when the initial application by Hy-Vee was received in 2015, the
gas station convenience store would be located where the storm pond was; with this
application, they’ve moved the convenience store over to the Merchants Bank site.
There was some dialogue at the Planning Commission about the actual entrance from
East Point Douglas Road into the site. Currently, Hy-Vee has made modifications to
one of the driveway entrances, but Council Member Thiede is referring to the need to
see revisions on moving the driveway access down, so it aligns directly across from the
access point into the rest of the site. That will also provide the additional stacking that’s
necessary for cars in another area to be able to make the necessary movements and be
efficient with traffic movement in there. Obviously, they want to get shoppers into the
center and reduce any frustration that they would have in shopping there. So, we’ll see
the final revisions in a stack report for that. The Hy-Vee building got larger than
originally planned and the grocery drop off is now on the side, adjacent to East Point
Douglas Road, across from the McDonald's site. As they refine their site plan, they’re
starting to see a little bit of change so they now have a better parking field out in front of
the building and it’s not segregated by the convenience store. Obviously, parking is a
critical element for them, and this has provided them the opportunity to have enhanced
parking. They’ve still been able to maintain the screening that was necessary for the
resident. Demolition is going well; they’re making final connections from a utility
standpoint to segregate the buildings from each other so Hy-Vee can start the footings
of their building. Soon, the exterior wall of Great Clips will start to take on a new shape
and look. The interior of Hy-Vee now has more detail and design layout as they moved
from an approximately 92,000 square foot building to over 95,000 square feet; they’re
refining that as they’re into building permit application and starting construction.
Motion by Council Member Thiede to approve the Consent Agenda, second by Council
Member Dennis. Motion carried: 5-0.
8. APPROVE DISBURSEMENTS
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2016
Page 6
A. Approve payment of check numbers 196998 to 197174 in the amount of
$1,277.397.30 and EFT Payment of $230,359.98.
Motion to approve disbursements by Council Member Olsen, second by Council
Member Peterson. Motion carried: 5-0.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Vacation & Discontinuance of Utility & Drainage Easements at 7007 East
Point Douglas Road and Termination & Release of Subdivision
Agreement
Engineer Levitt stated there are many things that have to happen as redevelopment
occurs and this is the case with the Dominium project. As they incorporated 7007 East
Point Douglas Road into their plat, there are some drainage and utility easements that
are on the property. Those easements need to be vacated because they’re not in the
right position for where the utilities will be. Also, the building will come right across that
area, so those serve no purpose for the future development. So, at this point in time,
they’re asking the City Council to hold the public hearing and vacate the easements.
The second motion is there’s a subdivision related to the 7007 East Point Douglas Road
parcel, and for Dominium to go to closing, they also need to terminate that. All of those
conditions have been reviewed, and they have been satisfied in the previous
subdivision. With Dominium having a new developer’s agreement with the City of
Cottage Grove and the Economic Development Authority, all those conditions have
been satisfied. They’re recommending that the Council also terminate and release that
subdivision agreement.
Mayor Bailey opened the public hearing. As no one wished to speak, Mayor Bailey
closed the public hearing.
Motion by Council Member Thiede to adopt Resolution 2016-122 approving the vacation
and discontinuance of all drainage and utility easements located upon property at 7007
East Point Douglas Road, as described in Document No. 437987, November 17, 1982,
and in Document No. 3661810, and authorize the City Clerk to prepare a notice to be
presented to the Washington County Auditor regarding the completion of the
proceedings herein, second by Council Member Olsen. Motion carried: 5-0.
Motion by Council Member Dennis to adopt the “Termination and Release of
Subdivision Agreement” previously approved with Hugh D. Gibson in January 1999,
second by Council Member Peterson. Motion carried: 5-0.
10. BID AWARDS – None.
11. REGULAR AGENDA
A. Community Solar Garden at 10990 Manning Avenue South
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2016
Page 7
Planner John Burbank stated SEVMN 1, which is a subsidiary of Sunrise Energy
Ventures, has made an application for 10990 Manning Avenue South. Previously, they
had an application on an attached property. They’re proposing a community solar
garden on 31 acres of a 42-acre site on Manning Avenue, the Myers’ property. One of
the problems with the last application from this Applicant was that it wasn’t in the solar
compliance area, as per the City Ordinance allowing for solar gardens within the
community. This particular application is located within the solar collection system area,
where they’re permitted on parcels greater than 5 acres in size.
There are five solar arrays in the proposed site. The Applicant had initially proposed to
come in off of an existing farm road, off of Manning Avenue, but the Minnesota
Department of Transportation (MnDOT) denied that Application request, and they are
currently still working with MnDOT to get some temporary access as the site is
constructed. Planner Burbank reviewed the neighboring properties, their vegetation,
and stated neighbors had expressed concerns about glare and setback changes. In the
application they had proposed some additional screening along the property and around
those sites. Initially, it was 6’ to 8’ coniferous trees, balsam, firs, and white spruce, and
the Applicant will speak about an additional proposal. Given the concerns of screening
and visual impacts by the residential properties, staff looked at the addition of berms, to
get the plantings up off the current grade to try to provide for additional screen height for
those properties. The Applicant has some concerns about that, and wished to address
the City Council.
The Applicant, Dean Leischow, President and CEO of Sunrise Energy, 601 Carlson
Parkway, Minnetonka, Minnesota, addressed the Council and introduced other people
present with him, including William Weber; Joe Tierney, Director of Development;
Dennis Egan, who works with zoning; and Bruce Malkerson, a zoning attorney. They
wished to answer any questions that the Council had. Mr. Leischow asked William
Weber to speak.
Mr. Weber stated they agree that all the conditions requested by staff are appropriate
except #11, which has to do with screening. They’d like to show an alternative design
that they think will meet both the objectives of the staff and the neighbors and also be
workable for Sunrise Energy. They thought their proposal would be more esthetically
pleasing than what the staff had suggested. He said they were a bit surprised to see
the staff’s recommendation regarding additional screening, as there had been no
discussion of 2,700 square feet of a lineal berm prior to, during, or even immediately
after the Planning Commission meeting, as at that time the Planning Commission had
recommended approval of their Application. The City staff agreed that there’s no
empirical evidence that the presence of a solar garden has adverse effects on nearby
residential property values; in fact, the opposite might be true. An esteemed appraiser,
Robert Strachota, who’s worked in this region for 45 years and had done a lot of public
and private sector appraisals and estimates of impact from all kinds of large-scale
facilities, provided a letter that stated there would be no negative impact on nearby
property values; in fact, it might actually be positive.
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2016
Page 8
All around the perimeter of the property there is a substantial windrow. There’s a few
thin spots and a few open areas, and they will address those. In summary, their
alternative planting proposal will add supplemental trees and berms in two locations.
There are a total of ten 12’ conifers, fir or spruce, 45 10’ conifers, and 17 6’ conifers, in
addition to two berms. Those are in all the locations where it might be a little thin or the
house is a little close or the field is rising up. Their typical berms are a little bit more
naturalistic; they look like something that you might see around some commercial
developments. The trees are located at different positions on a slope and on the top, so
there’s a softer, more naturalistic feel, which they felt would be much better than just a
continuous tall berm. Their berm would reach up to 6’ tall, and then there would be 10’
or 12’ trees on top of that. So, immediately at the first year of installation, there’d be
quite a bit of screening; the trees grow at about a foot a year so it wouldn’t take long
before there was really good screening. The photos indicate the kinds of trees they
were thinking of planting, at the size of 10’ or 12’ tall. They’d put the trees in
mechanically, and they could be relocated. Their landscape architects assured SEV
that they can be successfully relocated and placed on the berms. They’d guarantee if
the trees died within a couple years, they would replace them, which is their standard
procedure.
Mr. Weber reviewed each property affected and what they’d plant along each. He felt
that each property would be screened from the solar collectors. He stated they’d have
substantially less berms, but significantly more trees to make up for the reduced berms.
He stated they’d tried to do the right thing and be a good neighbor and try to fit into the
community. He hoped they’d approve the application with their suggested screening
plan; if not, he asked that the Council vote to approve the resolution as presented in the
staff report.
Mayor Bailey stated this was not an open hearing, but he asked if anyone wanted to
speak on this item; if so, they were welcome to do so, and he asked for them to just
state their name and address for the record.
The following Cottage Grove residents addressed the Council: Dave Hagen, 10753
Lehigh Road South; Gene Smallidge, 10992 Point Douglas Drive; David Steinberg,
10820 Manning Avenue; Mike Mingo, 10940 Manning Avenue; Elaine Kuechle-Mingo,
10940 Manning Avenue South.
Mr. Hagen had some questions and major concerns. He stated he was a fan of solar
energy but didn’t think it belonged in this particular spot and stated he felt the first site
would have been a lot better than the currently-proposed site. Mr. Hagen asked
questions regarding access on the farm field to the north, if MnDOT had not given
permanent access, if there was still a proposal for possible temporary access, and if
that had to be approved by MnDOT; he was informed that’s correct and temporary
access would be for construction. Mr. Hagen stated when another Applicant built a pole
barn out there a few years ago, he used that same access, and he wanted to know if
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2016
Page 9
MnDOT gave him a permit for that. He was told they had. He asked why they would
not, then, give permission to Sunrise. Planner Burbank stated it was because of the
heavy equipment needed; Mr. Hagen stated the Applicant for the pole barn also had
used heavy equipment.
Mr. Hagen stated the property was zoned R1, and Planner McCool had said it was
zoned rural, and Engineer Levitt stated it was not being rezoned for commercial and the
use was allowed in the ordinance as a conditional use. Mr. Hagen wondered about any
tax implications if this went through, if the tax classification would have to be changed to
residential commercial, which is taxed at a higher rate. He also wondered how it could
be zoned rural but be taxed at a commercial rate.
Mr. Hagen stated a lot of his concerns were on the ordinance requirements for
conditional use permit; the ones he was questioning were: #2, which says the use shall
be located, designed, maintained, and operated compatible with the existing or intended
character of that zoning district in which it’s located; #3, the use shall not depreciate
values of the surrounding property (he didn’t have a question on that but stated some
others did); #4, the use shall not be hazardous, detrimental, or disturbing to present and
potential surrounding land use issues. (The main sticking point with him was general
unsightliness and other nuisance); #8, the use shall preserve and incorporate the site’s
important and natural scenic features into the development stage, which he stated he
didn’t understand. He didn’t see how a solar farm can pass mustard on #8. So, a lot of
the neighbors have had concerns about some of those issues. Even in the Planning
Commission meeting, Commissioner Graff was a no vote on this and she said the
criteria for #2, 3, and 4, in her opinion, was not met. Mr. Hagen reviewed the Planning
Commission minutes, and a neighbor said he believed 6’ tall trees were not an option
and not enough to screen a 6’ fence with barbed wire strands. He said the trees would
only slightly obscure his property and, in his opinion, that violated #2, #4, and #8. Mr.
Hagen said his neighbor had expressed concern that a proposed 6’ fence with three
strands of barbed wire on top would make it look like a commercial site and the
neighbors were trying to maintain rural. Mr. Hagen stated another neighbor said the
Commission denied it due to the impact the panels would have on a future frontage
road and commercial property. A month later there was an application for an industrial
site right in the middle of the rural residential property.
One of Mr. Hagen’s biggest personal concerns was if you looked at the new proposal
for the screening, his land sits about 17’ or so, according to their proposal, higher than
what the property line is, and his house went above that. So, when he looked out his
master bedroom window on the second floor, with all the screening that is shown in the
photos, he could still see through that, and 6-to-7 months out of the year there would be
no leaves on the trees. He just didn’t like that, which again went to unsightliness.
Mr. Hagen stated another neighbor said he didn’t want commercial use on agricultural
property and asked if the property was zoned agricultural and asked if a commercial
project be located in that zoning district. In the minutes, Commissioner Rasmussen
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2016
Page 10
stated that he did not feel it was appropriate to impose a utility scale solar project in a
rural residential area without the full support of the neighbors, and he did not agree with
any of the approved solar gardens and questioned if the ordinance was thought out
properly. He also did not agree with a 6’ fence with barbed wire on top; he said it gave
a very industrial feel, and he asked what dangerous thing that fence was guarding.
Commissioner Haagsman said that it met all of the codes and he favored the project. In
Mr. Hagen’s opinion, it doesn’t meet all of the codes. Commissioner Rostad said that
he agreed that it met most of the requirements, and Mr. Hagen thought it had to meet all
of the requirements. Commissioner Fox said the application met the criteria, the
proposal met the ordinance criteria, and Mr. Hagen again doesn’t think it does.
Commissioner Graff stated that she voted against it because of #2, #3, and #4 on the
ordinance. In Mr. Hagen’s opinion, Commissioner Graff is the one who understood the
most of what the neighbors were going through out there.
Sunrise Energy Ventures, who responded to the ordinance criteria, said the site was not
productive for agriculture because of the small size and the odd configuration of the
fields. Mr. Hagen said he bought his land in 1970; he built in 1982 and out in front of
him, for every single year, there was a crop of beans or a crop of corn and there was
never a crop failure there. Mr. Hagen used to have 16 acres of land and he rented 10
acres out to the neighbors for crops, and this is a bigger size agricultural plot than what
Mr. Hagen rented out. In his opinion, if this went through, the City was trying to pound a
square peg into a round hole and it just doesn’t work on this particular site. On the old
Jerry Reische property, Mr. Hagen would have fully supported that, or if it’s farther up
Highway 95, where there’s agricultural land and hardly any neighbors, it should be
there. If people buy a house and they live near an airport, they know what they’re
dealing with. If they move in where it’s more vacant land with hardly any neighbors, and
there’s a solar farm put in there, and if people come in after that and purchase land
around that, then they know what they’re dealing with. Most of the neighbors out there
have been out there for years, and they don’t want to have this placed on top of them.
In addition, in a letter to the City Council from Mr. Malkerson, he said these materials
demonstrate that the application complies with all of the requirements set forth by the
City zoning ordinance for granting a conditional use permit. Mr. Hagen doesn’t think it
meets that. Community opposition is not a legally sufficient basis for denying a
conditional use application, with which Mr. Hagen agreed, but in his opinion it does not
meet all of the conditions of the ordinance.
Mr. Hagen said he’s dead set against this, and he’s thinking it’s probably going to go
through, so if that happens, he has some concerns. He’s Property #2, and he does not
want a berm out in front of his house. If you look at the proposal on Property #2, they’re
talking about planting 16 8’ trees. Well, the new proposal doesn’t indicate any 8’ trees;
they’re either 6’ or 10’ or 12’ feet. If this goes through, he requests to have 12’ trees
and no berm. He would prefer no fence; if there is a fence, he’d prefer there be no
barbed wire on top. Mayor Bailey indicated there’d be no barbed wire.
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2016
Page 11
Mr. Hagen also inquired about the free subscription to the solar farm for adjacent
properties.
Mr. Hagen stated trees are to be replaced if they’re dead or dying for the tenure of the
occupancy of the solar garden on the property. Later on, it says the City will retain 30%
of the financial guarantee for a period of one year from the date of notice to ensure the
survival of the plantings. After that one year, if there are trees that die out there, he
asked how hard it would be for him to get those replaced. He asked if it was an iron-
clad requirement and how much of a hassle would it be for him to get that taken care of.
Mr. Smallidge stated he and his wife have probably been there longer than any of the
other adjoining property owners. His family has been in Cottage Grove for 100 years,
and they’ve been on this particular site since 1969. They have no objection to this, they
had no objection to the previous proposal; they thought the previous site was better but
they understood that it wasn’t in the proper zone and it had been suggested that the
Applicant come back with property within the zone. Again, he stated they supported the
Applicant and the proposal.
However, Mr. Smallidge had a few comments about the berm. He felt the City should
be a little embarrassed to come in with a new requirement after it once passed through
the Planning Commission as it was. Regarding a berm, he might not have the length of
the berm exactly correct, but he did some calculations and for a 6’ wide berm by 42’,
covering three sides of that property, it would require 41,400 cubic yards of material.
He stated Engineer Levitt could check his calculation. If they were able to scalp all the
soil needed for those berms from the actual site, the cost would be about $80,000 just
to form the berm. In doing so, you would totally destroy the property, and
environmentally that would be a crime. In addition to just building the berm, if you
required planting, grass seeding, and trees throughout the berm, they were looking at a
cost of approximately $150,000, which were the estimates he got. Mr. Smallidge stated
it looked like this was an afterthought to throw in an extra hoop to make the project
financially unfeasible. He didn’t think that was fair to the developer after what he’s
planned out and tried to provide as screening for the neighbors. Mr. Smallidge didn’t
believe in berms in most cases; if you want a tree to grow and grow successfully, plant it
in the lowest spot on the property. Plant it in native soil. Don’t build a manmade sand
hill and expect the tree to grow on the top of that hill. Drought is going to take its toll
and it’s not going to be successful, so he would concur with Mr. Hagen that berms aren’t
always the best answer. He stated they would continue to support this project and felt
the property owner should have the right to make the best use of his property.
Mr. Steinberg stated his house was the closest to the field, as he’s Property #7, within
45 feet of these solar panels. The developer addressed a lot of the issues that they had
concerns about, but some of the same facts still remain. This is still a large power plant
project, and he moved out to the country to live in the country, not next to a big power
facility. They are suggesting putting berms in and putting trees in, but he has 16’ pine
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2016
Page 12
trees and they hardly conceal the cornfields; these panels are going to go much farther
than the season that the corn is in or the road or anything.
He also has additional issues as there’s a lot of wildlife down in that area, and putting up
fences, berms, and trees could obscure their paths through the area and cause them to
be pushed out onto the highways and cause more accidents; even the area by his
property is prone to many accidents. The Police Department and Fire Department are
out there quite regularly because of accidents right at 110th Street.
Mr. Steinberg addressed the fact that solar arrays may not reduce the market value of
the property, but it reduces the marketability of the property. You have to want to live
near to a solar field to buy next to a solar field. He felt that he was being forced into
having to live next to one, not being given any choice, and now he’s suffered the
consequences of being able to sell it to somebody else. To relocate himself, he needs
to find somebody who would like to live there. Just from the people whom he deals with
there are not people he knows who would do that or who would live next to it.
Mr. Steinberg also found it interesting that the next agenda item that will be addressed
in tonight’s meeting is temporary suspension of accepting new applications for
construction of community solar gardens, which tells him that City staff also thinks
there’s an issue. The Council either needs to readjust the ordinance or are seeing a
problem that we have denied so many applications because of certain issues. Why are
we forcing forward this problem under the same contexts when they might be
readjusting and changing them to better suit the community that they are, indeed,
affecting? Mr. Steinberg asked the Council Members if they’d want to live next to this.
He stated this was his living, and if he had to look out and see this giant solar array, he
didn’t really want to have a family next to it, and he realized they’re reducing the fence
and putting it on the other side of the berm, but there’s just that restriction of basically
having a power plant next to your house. He agreed that solar energy and green
energy is a great thing, but it’s still not the best understood thing out there yet. Although
these may be sealed systems and the hazardous waste that they produce is in there, it
still hasn’t been proven. A lot of this watershed comes from these panels that are going
to wash off onto it and are going to come right onto his property because of the grade.
It’s going to affect his well, his holding pond, and stream. It’s not necessarily pouring
contaminants from the panels themselves to begin with, but it’s the cause of them being
dirty, it’s the other stuff that’s going to collect on them, the other use and tears out on
the field that concern him for the future.
Mr. Mingo stated he’s the property that sits in the middle of this solar array. It’s up on a
hill and will look out over it very nicely. The question he had was the ordinance states it
shall be operated and located and designated and maintained and operated compatible
with intended characteristics of the zoning district, and that’s farm fields and rural
residential. He didn’t see where a solar industry fit in there.
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2016
Page 13
The ordinance states you shall not deplete the value of surrounding properties. He
didn’t have to tell the Council about property values. All you have to do is think about
what happens when moving a school district boundary, as was the case when
Woodbury moved their boundaries; he stated those houses depreciated in value. That’s
just a school boundary; it’s not a commercial development going in the middle of
somebody’s back yard. As far as the value of property, he knew Sunrise came up with
the McGrath property sale, and they were using that. He knows McGrath sold that
property, and he sold it to get out of Cottage Grove. He didn’t know what McGrath got
for it, but he would like to see a comparison in Washington County or Dakota County for
his property, and see what the difference is there. As far as property values go, we both
know that they will go down, as the last gentleman said. Somebody’s going to have to
want to buy a house next to a solar garden. There’s a willing seller and a willing buyer,
and the price is going to have to be reflected in the solar garden being there.
Mr. Mingo stated with the unsightliness and nuisance of it, they’re talking about moving
trees in and building berms, etc., so obviously there’s an issue that this doesn’t quite fit
there or the residential property doesn’t fit there, because you don’t go through all of this
where it’s not supposed to create a problem of unsightliness and then go through and
move in trees and everything else. So, he just didn’t see where this fits in.
Now, what he saw was the City came up with their solar compatible property, and they
painted it with a big broad brush. He thought the City staff would all agree that maybe
we didn’t look at this hard enough to where we have this issue today. The problem he’s
looking at is the City created this problem, and he thought it should be up to the Council
to correct the problem where solar gardens don’t go into residential areas. There are
two on 70th Street that went in, there was pushback on that, but they’re out in the
middle of a cornfield, and you still have pushback. To put them into somebody’s back
yard in a rural residential area, that’s rural, agricultural, and then say this commercial
property fits that, he didn’t think so. Mr. Mingo just didn’t think it fit. He thinks the City
has to take a hard look, as next on the agenda is a moratorium like every other City and
County around here is going with a moratorium on solar gardens because they don’t
have a handle on it. He just didn’t see how they could pass something like this. The
other part is the State Highway. There’s not any input from the State on what they want
or what their setback is, what their right of way will be. In 25 years, Manning Avenue
isn’t going to look like it does today. So, they have no input into it, where their right of
way line will be.
Mr. Mingo stated there’s nothing from Xcel Energy or where they’re going to put their
power poles. Then, they’re going to go across the street into Denmark Township, and
Xcel wants to know where the future right of ways are, then they’ll get with property
owners, and they’ll try to place them, even though the State hasn’t bought that right of
way yet. They try to place them back on the future right of way so they don’t have to
move poles, which brings in Denmark Township and the people who live over there.
There are a lot of issues here that haven’t been addressed; he felt the City had to take a
good hard look at what they said was solar property and get a handle on it. There are
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2016
Page 14
places where you can put them, but he didn’t believe in the middle of a residential area
was the right spot.
Ms. Kuechle-Mingo stated she would like to talk about the berms and the trees. They
bought their land 27 years ago and there were no trees. The trees that are there have
all grown up. The view that they have is a $1,000,000 view. Now they want to put trees
on two sides of her property and put her in a cage. When they go to sell the property,
what is the next potential owner going to say? We’ll have no breeze; we’ll be in a pit.
She just thought it’s wrong. She stated that’s her personal opinion about her property
and what the value will be when they go to sell it if they’re surrounded by trees and
there is no air.
Mayor Bailey asked the Applicant to answer some of the questions that were asked.
Mr. Leischow of Sunrise Energy stated he took some notes and his staff would help him
if there’s something he missed. He would try to answer the majority of the questions.
He felt the biggest issue was maintaining the character of the property. At first glance,
everyone thinks that it’s industrial, commercial, and it’s not exactly a field of corn, but it
has more similarities with corn than a commercial development. They’ve been doing
this since 2009 and have built a number of properties in North Carolina, Indiana, and
New Mexico, in and around rural areas, right next to houses, right next to larger
subdivisions than this, and they’ve got a lot of experience on what the initial perceived
issues are and what the actual perception is years from now. Initially, everyone had the
same comments as people here.
After the solar garden is built, they make pretty good neighbors compared to what a lot
of things could be that are permitted uses in these areas. They tend to be fairly low to
the ground. What they’ve tried to do here with the extensive screening, which is the
most extensive screening they’ve ever put anywhere or even offered to put anywhere,
there were meetings early on, even with their first choice site, to try to determine what
the impact would be to the neighbors and try to listen and then accommodate those
concerns with their landscape plan. Their alternate really took into account trying to not
make a half-mile long levee that you have a really hard time disguising and using some
intermittent berms where they can obscure the home’s sight lines, some larger trees,
and really make it look a lot more natural than just a levee that they would put in. So,
the undulating type berms are designed, and the size of the trees that they’re putting in
will do everything that can be done to maintain the character of the surrounding
community. They’ve listened to the concerns of staff, of neighbors, and are really trying
to do everything that can be done to mitigate those concerns by putting in the right type
of foliage, berms, and designer berms were appropriate.
Mr. Leischow stated their first site was a site that they thought was better for everybody,
and he still believes that. The recommendations from planning and zoning, from City
staff, said move it into the zone, it’s allowed in the zone, you’ll have conditions you’ll
have to meet, but if it’s in the zone, it’s allowable. That’s what we did, and that’s why
we’re here today with a system in the zone.
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2016
Page 15
Fence: There were many questions that had to do with the fence being 6’ high. A
national electric code requires a fence; their insurance companies require a fence. It’s a
$10,000,000 asset so they really don’t want people or animals to freely move in and out
of these solar zones. They were able to get their insurance company to concede to not
have the barbed wire, and he didn’t like it either, although in many cases they were
forced to do that. The black fence looks nice and the fence (black or whatever color you
want) will be largely obscured by existing foliage, the new foliage, or the partial berms
that we’re proposing.
Commercial Use: Most of these systems are placed on what is currently agricultural
land, maybe agricultural land that is slotted for future use or development, and maybe it
will go back to agricultural land. They don’t want to scrape all the topsoil to build this
levee of a berm, as they think that just ruins the character and ruins the marketability of
the property later if it’s going to be agricultural use later. They can pull this situation out
25 years from now, pull out the posts, reconfigure it to the way it was, and it will actually
be better agricultural land then because it will not have had any kind of pesticides on it
for 25 years, so it would actually qualify to be organic farmland. So, their plan
preserves the land better than the existing staff recommendation.
Widespread Berm: Many people stated they don’t want to see a widespread berm, and
Sunrise agrees. He didn’t know that they could do anything about wildlife paths, as
there is a fence, which is required. The deer, etc. will just have to walk around it.
“Power Plant”: Yes, it is a power plant, there’s no question, as it produces electricity.
However, this is a fixed system, there are no moving parts. It doesn’t make any noise.
If you’re standing right next to an inverter and it was at that wall, you could barely hear
it. Certainly none of the houses are going to be able to hear a thing next to the inverter,
so it’s a silent partner. Once the construction is done, a maintenance vehicle once a
week, but otherwise there’s very little traffic.
Trees: If the trees die, part of the conditional use is that we agree to a maintenance
plan. If we don’t agree to that, the City can pull our permit, which is the last thing they
want when they have a 25-year contract to produce power for Xcel Energy. We have
subscribers who get a benefit from it, so it’s up to us to keep that property the way it’s
required, and if not, the City has the power to shut us down if we don’t conform. So, if
the trees or the property were not maintained, that’s what would happen.
Subscribers: These are community solar programs. What differentiates a community
solar from a standard commercial or industrial size solar farm is the fact that the power
is virtually attributed to subscribers. What makes it community is that residential,
business, anyone who is an Xcel customer, has the ability to subscribe to one of these
solar farms. There are many plans available, but there is no cost to a subscriber. If you
take your power consumption, historically we provide you with up to 120% of your
annual power consumption, and you will then receive a credit from Xcel for an amount
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2016
Page 16
you really pay for that power. You will end up with a resulting 10% reduction in your
power cost for being a subscriber. You don’t own any of the system. There’s no
liability, no risk, etc. They will make first access available to Cottage Grove customers.
They’re one of the few companies in Minnesota who allow residential subscribers. They
also offer it to cities or schools.
Unsightliness: The initial fear of unsightliness quickly dissipates once it’s built, the
grasses are planted, the trees are in, etc. You won’t really notice it’s there. The same
concerns had been raised about power lines and cell towers, and no one really notices
them anymore.
Property Values: There have been widespread studies done by us. We built a larger
system than this right next to a 300-unit residential subdivision in the suburbs of
Indianapolis, and they had the same concerns. We went back and did a survey after it
had been up and running for 2.5 years, and all of their initial concerns were gone. The
housing prices didn’t go down, some of the people surveyed said they thought they
went up, and they didn’t have any problems selling. Millennials expect the community
they’re in to have a commitment to renewable energy so that’s why people are willing to
buy a home that’s near solar energy.
He felt they were really trying to make every accommodation they could, within reason.
He felt their landscaping plan would look better than just a monolithic berm, and it would
accomplish everything that berm set out to accomplish in a much better, esthetically-
pleasing way to the community. They want this to look good because they’d love to
come back and see how nice it looks after it’s up and running and really change a lot of
the hearts and minds of the people who have some legitimate concerns.
Mayor Bailey asked Engineer Levitt about solar gardens and where they’re located. He
asked what solar was defined as, from a zoning standpoint. He wanted to know if it was
considered agriculture and why it’s allowed in the areas that were more in the rural
areas, at least in this particular case. Engineer Levitt stated the ordinance defined the
areas in which solar collection systems could occur. All of the red areas in the display
presented were permitted to have solar array systems, or solar farms, in them, and so
that is the defining allowance for them. Mayor Bailey asked if other communities were
doing the same thing, considering it more of a farm than different zoning, other than on
buildings. Engineer Levitt stated each community and each County is probably taking a
different approach. She believed the Applicant had testified that a lot of them were
putting moratoriums on as we continue to look at this in more depth, as more research
and information becomes available. They’re seeing that stance across the metropolitan
area, so they’re still evaluating all of those items. Mayor Bailey asked as this was more
of an R1, residential, with the current designation, how many houses could possibly be
built per acre in that particular area. Planner Burbank stated the R1 zoning district has
one dwelling unit per three-acre minimum zoning density classification. Mayor Bailey
stated there’d have to be an access issue with the highway there, but if the landowner
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2016
Page 17
were to decide I don’t want to do solar, I want to put housing in there, so to speak, they
could do that using the rural designation.
Planner Burbank stated one of the discussions regarding the siting of that map was that
it was outside of the MUSA (Metropolitan Urban Service Area) where there are
investments in public utilities or future investments, so that was one of the reasons that
steered it outside of the MUSA. Those were the only areas that would accommodate
that. It wasn’t just specifically the agricultural use; it was location as well, based on
existing systems in the City.
Council Member Olsen stated he had heard some conversation about the City created
this issue and the moratorium, etc. It was his understanding that the primary reason for
the moratorium was because the City was in the middle of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan, which needs to be updated every 10 years, has to sync with
the Metropolitan Council’s vision as well as the vision of neighboring communities,
Counties, etc. While it seems convenient that the moratorium is on the agenda for this
evening, next to this application, it really has nothing to do with this application. The
City has to create a Comprehensive Plan that fits like a puzzle piece with all of the other
surrounding municipalities, townships, etc. and that’s hard to do. It deals with
everything from water, park land, agricultural, zoning, and others.
Council Member Olsen stated the State will have something to say about the roads
during the Comprehensive Plan, which is why it is done. Every governmental agency
you can think of, and some that you don’t even know exist, get to participate in that
Comprehensive Plan process. Solar gardens being what they are and being somewhat
new can be some glue in the wheels of progress around how the Comprehensive Plan
works. The idea is to take what was done, which was about a five-or-six month
process, use benchmarks from other municipalities, other states, etc. and tried to come
up with an ordinance that would be as unobtrusive as possible while still being as
welcoming as possible for renewable energy sources, such as solar, while meeting the
needs of those who actually operate in that industry, such as the Applicant, in such a
way that it wouldn’t interfere with the development of the community. Right now, solar
farms are not allowed in the MUSA. However, the MUSA could be changing when the
Comprehensive Plan is done; hence, the moratorium.
Council Member Olsen said they saw an application for a site that was not within the
allowable area, now we’ve seen an application for a site that is within the allowable
area. The previous site was adjacent to the allowable area but it wasn’t in the allowable
area. The Applicant feels the first site was a better site and there was a little less
concern on behalf of the neighbors for the first site, although it was not in the allowable
area. He asked someone to tell the Council what the options were, relative to either
reconsidering, if necessary or possible, the first site, or if that’s completely off the table
because it’s not in the allowable area and we just need to deal with whatever the
intricacies of this site might be.
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2016
Page 18
Attorney Land stated the previous application is no longer viable, as it was not in the
right zoning area. This is a new application that’s before the Council. If, following the
moratorium, the result is that we revisit the boundary lines and the previous application
then becomes an area that would be allowed, then that application could be renewed
and they could apply for it again at that time. At this point, the new application is the
one that’s before you.
There were questions raised by some residents about if the conditional use permit
application legally met all of the criteria for approval. There were some valid points
raised; certainly, people have their own perceptions and one of the challenges is we
have a legal obligation to represent the community properly regarding our zoning
ordinances and all of the things that go along with that. When we get applications that
meet all of those criteria, we put ourselves in a strong position legally. Council Member
Olsen asked Attorney Land what she thought about the application.
Attorney Land stated staff had indicated that the Applicant met all of the criteria
contained in the requirements for a conditional use permit. Conditional use permits are
generally allowed in the zoning district in which they apply, but they require a little extra
attention, care, concern; attention to the neighbors and attention to the comments made
at the public hearing. Why the berm requirement came out after the Planning
Commission is because due process actually worked; the neighbors were heard and so
staff came up with an option that would consider their concerns. Some of them like it,
some of them don’t. That is certainly something that you could consider. Generally
speaking, a conditional use permit is appropriate for the zoning district which you have
chosen for it, these are the criteria that you can look at to make sure that it meets all of
those requirements. Staff has indicated and she agreed with them that it does meet all
of those requirements; therefore, it is appropriate with reasonable conditions for you to
consider for approval.
Mayor Bailey stated he didn’t know if a berm was necessarily the right thing to do, but if
the intent is to move forward with this project and it meets the criteria, he’d like to make
sure that any of the concerns that some homeowners had related to screening were
addressed. If they’re able to do that, that’s what he’d like to see, if they could get to that
point. He wasn’t sure how they’d do it in this particular case, perhaps City staff and
Attorney Land could assist with that. It appears that the Applicant is willing to work with
the project and willing to work with some berms, but there were concerns about the full
length berm and if it made sense. Mayor Bailey wanted there to be an opportunity for
the homeowners to feel, if it’s going to be there, how we could make it work and how
could we fix it for the homeowners who have concerns about visibility. He said he’s
looking for some feedback on that.
Attorney Land stated she felt the screening issue should be addressed on an individual
basis, as it sounded like there were differing opinions on what would work for each
property, which is appropriate. She would suggest that the screening issue could be
modified to state that the Applicant will work with staff and each property owner for
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2016
Page 19
appropriate screening for each individual property and then it would be approved by City
staff. It could be addressed on an individual basis to meet their needs; not everybody is
going to be completely happy, but they can maybe be a little bit happier. Council
Member Olsen asked if that could be made a condition in lieu of the berm and asked if
the Applicant was open to that.
Motion by Council Member Olsen to approve a conditional use permit for the
construction of a five megawatt community solar garden at 10990 Manning Avenue
South, with that condition added in lieu of the berming option, second by Council
Member Peterson.
Council Member Thiede, Council Member Dennis, and Council Member Peterson
commented and Council Member Thiede stated it almost is like trying to fit a round peg
into a square hole, and he took the residents’ comments very seriously. He just felt
there’s so many potential places where a solar array could go in and it wouldn’t really
affect a lot of the neighbors; perhaps this isn’t the right place. He said it’s a really tough
decision. Council Member Dennis also felt it’s a very hard decision, as they care about
the people in the community and don’t want to cause any harm. It’s tough because the
Applicant met the criteria, and as long as they could work on the back side to try to
mitigate as many of the concerns as they could, he thought it was the right thing to do.
Council Member Peterson stated she felt the same way, it’s not an easy decision, and
they appreciate all the feedback they’ve received from the neighbors and the
surrounding community. Their opinions matter and they take that into account, but
eventually something is going to develop there someday. She felt whether that’s the
number of houses that could potentially develop there versus the solar array for the next
many years, she felt they’d end up seeing less traffic, less construction dust,
construction noise, construction traffic in their community with this versus a housing
development. She stated she knew that didn’t soothe their frustrations with this, but
that’s where she was coming from.
Motion carried: 4-1 (Nay by Council Member Thiede).
B. Moratorium on Community Solar Gardens and/or Solar Farms (Solar
Collection Systems)
Engineer Levitt stated as they look at solar arrays and solar farms on these very large
acres, in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan, they want to ensure that they’re not
prohibiting or limiting ourselves as we go through the Comprehensive Plan efforts.
They’ve looked at solar in the Cottage Grove community, and the ordinance was
formally adopted by the City Council in October, 2015. There have been five conditional
use permits issued for solar and two collector solar text amendments. The ordinance
looked at prohibiting them on accessory structures, freestanding solar systems on
property with less than five acres, it prohibits solar collections on the face of residential
dwellings, and it requires that they be outside the MUSA area. Staff’s recommendation
is that we enter into a one-year moratorium on the large community solar gardens or
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2016
Page 20
solar farm collection systems, allowed in Exhibit “A” in Ordinance No. 948. The
moratorium can be repealed at an earlier time if studies are completed and necessary
ordinance changes have been adopted. The Planning Commission has inquired about
conditional use versus interim conditional use and have inquired more about looking at
those boundaries in more detail and also looking at setbacks. As already discussed,
looking at how it aligns with our Comprehensive Plan. At this point in time, staff is
recommending a moratorium to be placed.
Mayor Bailey stated he was very interested in looking at setbacks from property lines,
whether it’s rural residential, rural, or where it will be in the future.
Council Member Thiede stated as they go through the process, they need to maybe
take a little bit closer look at what’s around certain areas and maybe selectively make
sure we don’t run into this issue again. Mayor Bailey agreed. Council Member Thiede
stated that there will always be some issues. Mayor Bailey stated they should look at
what also makes sense; as feeder stations, etc. are also needed, it might make sense
to look at the ordinance and determine if there are certain areas of the City that would
be more conducive to have a solar array, both for the property owners and also for the
City.
Motion to approve and adopt Ordinance No. 965 approving a one-year interim
ordinance prohibiting acceptance or consideration of applications for community solar
garden and solar farm systems and the designated areas where large utility-scaled
solar facilities are allowed in Exhibit “A” in Ordinance No. 948 by Council Member
Olsen, second by Council Member Thiede. Motion carried: 5-0.
12. COUNCIL COMMENTS AND REQUESTS
Council Member Olsen wanted to remind the public that on the evening of Tuesday,
August 2, Night to Unite will take place in the City of Cottage Grove. It’s an opportunity
to get together with your neighbors and work toward safer communities by getting to
know the neighbors, getting to know their kids, and interacting with your Cottage Grove
Public Safety professionals. You can request Public Safety professionals from the Fire
Department, Police Department, along with Council Members, elected officials, and staff
members to come to your Night to Unite gathering if you reach out to Officer Gail
Griffith; her phone number is 651-458-6040. She does a tremendous job, along with
her partners in Public Safety, with organizing these parties, and she puts together a
schedule for all of us to be able to attend various parties. It’s a great opportunity to
interact with the public, to answer questions, and to really just help the community come
together.
In his opinion, this year’s Night to Unite needs to be a very special one because over
the course of the last number of months, probably going back maybe a year or more,
there has been a lot of unrest in our country. That unrest often results in discredit and
disrespect toward people in the Public Safety sector who wear uniforms. Whether
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2016
Page 21
you’re in a fire truck or a police car, you are the most visible branch of government,
you’re in a vehicle with your lights and sirens on, you’re wearing a uniform with a big
shiny badge, so everybody sort of takes it out, so to speak, on the Public Safety folks
because they’re easy to see and they’re easy to find. Today he wanted to talk a little bit
about the Cottage Grove Police Department and Police Departments across the
country. He wanted to do that because there has been a rash, especially lately, of
attacks on police officers, unmitigated violence in communities, and police officers
who’ve lost their lives because somebody got something stuck in their mind that the
police did this or didn’t do that. There’s this phrase when it comes to police, they call it
the Thin Blue Line. And the reason they do that is because if you look at our community
as a microcosm of the Thin Blue Line, we have 41 sworn Officers here in the City of
Cottage Grove, in a community of about 38,000 to 40,000 people. You’ve got 41 people
who go out there and protect you. They go out there and they put their lives on the line,
voluntarily, to protect you. 41, that’s a pretty damn Thin Blue Line, if you ask me.
Police officers are generally the best amongst us. The gentleman to my right wore the
badge for 11 years. The gentleman to my left has a son who is a police officer. When
they leave their house every day, their families don’t know if they’re going to come back,
41 of them. They’re scared, just like you’re scared, but they’re brave, and they go out
there and they do it. They just do it. They do it with pride. They do it with dignity. They
do it with honor. When I look at the City of Cottage Grove and our mission statement, it
says, “Cottage Grove Public Safety collectively serves our community compassionately,
providing protection of life and property. We do this with honor, integrity, pride, and
professionalism.” You’re damn right they do. And so the County Sheriffs and their
deputies. Law enforcement officers everywhere do that, voluntarily, because they’re the
Thin Blue Line. The Thin Blue Line is a symbol, it’s a symbol that we all need to
respect. Perpetuating violence to get your point across has never been advocated by
anybody in political circles or otherwise. Martin Luther King did not advocate violence;
Mahatma Gandi did not advocate violence. There are ways to get your point across.
Our State Representative for District 54A is a cop! You think he doesn’t get it? Make a
call, send an e-mail, and reach out. I’ve never known him to turn down an opportunity
to sit down with a resident over coffee, ever. Our Police Chief is out in the community
all the time. Talk to anybody, anytime, about whatever’s on your mind. We’ll respect
your opinion, we’ll listen to what you have to say, we might help you understand
something you don’t necessarily understand, and we’ll do it professionally, in a dignified
manner, with respect. Because police officers are the best amongst us; they put on that
uniform, they walk out that door, and in many cases the only thing that stands between
you and the people who do you harm is that, that’s the Thin Blue Line. Firefighters run
into buildings when they’re burning down. I know I’d be running away! Okay? You
have a family member who’s ill, and you pick up that phone, 9-1-1, and you’ve got
somebody there in an ambulance in a very short period of time, and who’s not
concerned about their safety, or think, “Oh, that’s gross,” or care about what you’re
wearing. They see us at our worst, but they take care of it because they are the best
amongst us.
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2016
Page 22
This year, for Night to Unite, I hope we have 100 parties, 200, 500, in this City. We
normally have about 40, so I realize I’m asking for a lot. I think there’s 48 scheduled
right now. I want to see us double that. And the reason I do is because I want
everybody in this community to come together and show support for the men and
women who wear that uniform, they walk out their door every day, they kiss their wife
and kids, or their husband and kids, goodbye, and they do the job that none of the rest
of us want to do so that we can go about our business in comfort and safety. If that
doesn’t deserve a thank you and a pat on the back, if that doesn’t deserve a piece of
cake at your Night to Unite party, I don't know what the hell does. So, folks, I’m asking
you to join me this year on August 2nd for Night to Unite, and let’s truly unite behind the
badge. Thank you.
Council Member Peterson wanted to highlight an upcoming day, the Stone Soup Thrift
Shop fashion show fundraiser, which is going to take place at the John P. Furber farm in
old Cottage Grove, on the afternoon of Sunday, August 7. That’s the recently restored
wedding and event venue center, which is beautiful, so if you want to get out there and
see it without having an invitation to a wedding, this is your invitation. You can go to
www.stonesoupthriftshop.org and purchase your tickets through the web site. Ticket
prices are really reasonable. If you actually stop in at Stone Soup Thrift Shop in St.
Paul Park, by Oltman Middle School, you can get your tickets for a little bit less than you
can buy them online. She encouraged people to do that, as it includes dinner, a fashion
show, and there will be a pop-up store, so some of the things that are being worn for the
fashion show will be available for purchase, plus some other items, handbags, jewelry,
and accessories. There will also be a bucket raffle, so she hoped to see a lot of people
there.
Mayor Bailey stated Council Member Olsen had already spoken about Night to Unite,
but he knew there were a lot of people within Cottage Grove who are supportive of our
Police Department. As a matter of fact, there have been people showing up with food,
vigils, and different things. It’s nice to see the amount of participation within the
community, which is very supportive of the Public Safety Department. There are 48
parties scheduled, so it would be cool to see 100. Chief Woolery and Chief Redenius
were looking like they didn’t have enough fire trucks or squads to make it to 100, but it
would be cool to at least make an attempt.
Mayor Bailey stated one of the cool things you get to do as Mayor is sometimes you get
nasty-grams or maybe phone calls at 1:00 a.m., but sometimes you also get the little
kids who will send you things in an envelope. Today he received two flags in the mail,
one is from Riley, age 4, and the other was from Hudson, age 2, and the reason they
were sent, ironically, is that the parents had made a note just thanking us for what we
do for the City. He thought that was pretty cool, and “Thank you,” and “Good job,” was
what Hudson’s mother said. He said those were the kinds of things, as Council Member
Olsen was talking about, that really makes this community great. It’s not the fact that
they necessarily sent those to him, though it’s touching and impressive, it’s just that they
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2016
Page 23
took time out of their day, and mom and/or dad took time out of their day to put them in
the mail and send them to the City. He thought that was pretty neat.
Mayor Bailey segued into the next thing he wanted to bring up. The City of Cottage
Grove is working hard for an All-Inclusive playground. There have been a variety of
fundraising efforts, they’re looking for grant opportunities, and are really trying to move
forward to hopefully get the park built next year. One of the things he’d been doing
personally was there’s a new group that’s forming on the east side of the metro,
Thrivent Community Action Team, and it’s really going to be focused around Cottage
Grove and Woodbury. He’s been working with them as part of this program to bring an
event that will give donations to, from Thrivent, and run an event at Woodridge Park on
the afternoon of Sunday, September 18. There will be more to come on this, but he
wanted everyone to write it down on their calendars. There will be a rock and roll
fundraiser for the All-Inclusive Playground. There will be games, walking, and
donations will be accepted. Mayor Bailey would really like to see September 18 be the
day that kind of pushes us over the top, financially. There’s a substantial amount that
Thrivent will be donating to this cause, but he’d love to see additional community
members donate and work groups donate some money to this cause. Mayor Bailey
stated the total amount they’re trying to raise is approximately $850,000, and the City of
Cottage Grove has put aside about $375,000, so they’re trying to raise the rest to make
it a really community-involved facility. It will be the largest one in the State of
Minnesota, which will be so impressive. He wanted everyone to come out and support
this cause, and the Council Members will be working together, maybe with some
challenges, and they hope to engage the neighboring communities also, as it will be a
South Washington County facility that can be used by everybody.
13. WORKSHOPS – OPEN TO PUBLIC – CONFERENCE ROOM
A. River Oaks Golf Course Operations
Mayor Bailey stated this workshop would take place in the Conference Room.
Administrator Charlene Stevens stated there was a lot of paperwork Council Members
had been given, with a lot of information. The questions were how to fully implement
the business plan for the River Oaks Golf Course and The Eagles Bar & Grill, and the
question is regarding the additional level of investment that the Council wants to make
in the facility. We believe that the investment is necessary and also need to know what
the timing of that investment should be, if it should be in 2016 or if there’s a desire to
spread out that investment.
Parks and Recreation Director Zac Dockter has taken the business plan and the model
that Council Member Dennis brought forward and is trying to put some numbers to it.
There are three options: A) A full scale, year-round restaurant option; B) A supper club
option, Wednesday through Friday, 4:00 to 10:00 p.m., and weekends; C) A supper club
model that operates seven days a week. They’ve estimated the projected income and
explained how they got to some of those numbers and what they think the level of
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2016
Page 24
investment is. They think that some capital investment and also additional staffing is
necessary under any of those three scenarios.
Director Dockter stated restaurants that are thinking about being located in Cottage
Grove always stress the need for a lunch crowd, which could be challenging, so they
wanted to lay out all the options and go from there.
They set up a revenue chart and they plugged the revenues in to try to achieve a
surplus in income with the expenses that are associated with this. If it’s a full-service
restaurant, there are four full-time staff persons, a plethora of part-time staff, and the
cost of goods sold and operating overhead were based on pure percentage of income.
Regarding the banquet event side of the facility, if you’re a full-service restaurant, your
focus becomes more on the restaurant and less on the events and banquets, so they’ve
actually dropped that out of the equation a little bit just so they could show the
difference. With options B & C, they added those back in because the focus is then
probably on the supper club idea and the banquet and event center.
The projected net income can be broken down, with approximately 50% of sales on the
weekend and 50% of the sales on the weekdays. To break that down further, they
calculated how many tables they need to turn during the prime hours. He did an
average of a $40 tab and a $60 tab; a table of eight will be well over that, a table of two
will probably be on the bottom end of that. Those are the numbers that they need to
turn during weekend primetime hours; if the average tab is $40, you need to turn 17
tables an hour. If the average tab is $60, you need to turn 11 tables an hour. That’s
simply comparing your revenue projections with the model versus what the revenue
projections are today, to show where we need to be to achieve these targets.
Option B is a Wednesday through Sunday supper club and/or brunch on Sunday, and
Option C is a hybrid of both of those.
They’ve been playing with the numbers, but the hourly expenses takes into account
FICA, Medicare, taxes, etc. So, that’s not what the employees are being paid per hour,
that’s the entire package, so if the numbers look a little bit high that’s because they
include those expenses as well.
Administrator Stevens stated they wanted to talk about a couple of the capital items.
She stated there were some small capital items, but there were two larger capital
expenditures in terms of the clubhouse that were necessary. One was a bar
reconfiguration, and that’s been talked about quite a bit but it’s never really been totally
designed. They have an architect working on that, so there’s an estimate right now of
about $30,000. They’ll know more once the plans are fully developed, but Council
Member Dennis had described adding a bar into the banquet facility or wrapping that
bar into the banquet facility, so the banquet facility would have its own bar. You’d then
have the ability to close the door between the restaurant and the bar and still be able to
serve more patrons at the banquet facility, which she thought was necessary under any
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2016
Page 25
scenario and probably just necessary to make the banquet business more successful.
Right now, trying to serve out of that very small window isn’t working very well.
Administrator Stevens stated another large expenditure will be the tables and the
booths in the grill area, which kind of ties back to some of the earlier numbers on the
tables they were estimating, what seating they have today versus what they think they’d
need to capture. Director Dockter stated that went back to how many tables they
needed to turn per hour, and that number is very difficult to estimate. Some people rush
in and rush out, and might be done within a half hour; others might be there for 1.5
hours or more. It comes to a point if you need to turn 15 tables, and you only have 12
tables, that’s a problem. They wanted to know how they could take the space they have
and do more with it; they’ve talked about a couple small booths, perhaps some smaller
square tables that could be moved together or kept separate for a party of two.
Administrator Stevens stated when you look at the bar configuration, chairs, tables, and
the booths, they’re estimating approximately $60,000 to do those two projects. Again,
they see those as necessary in any of the three options. A portable food cart, etc. is
important and valuable, but they could be deferred into a future budget or part of the
2017 or 2018 budget process.
The potential investment for a full scale, every day lunch and dinner, restaurant will be
approximately $270,000, some of that in capital and much of it in labor. Alternatives to
a lesser implementation would make the labor come down because if they could get by
on more of a supper club, they might be able to use more part-time labor, which would
reduce the labor costs and bring that investment amount down to approximately
$150,000.
Director Dockter stated staffing is a big part of this. Option A, the full-service restaurant,
would be the existing two fulltime employees, plus two fulltime cooks, plus two fulltime
bartenders. Option B, which is the lower end of the version, with a Wednesday through
Sunday supper club, they’d try to get by with the two fulltime people and support those
with part-time staff. Option C, the hybrid model, would be one fulltime bartender and
one fulltime chef, in addition to the two staff we currently have there.
Mayor Bailey asked if at this time we were only using part-time bartenders; he was told
that was correct. Mayor Bailey asked if there were any fulltime line cooks, and he was
told there were not. He confirmed that all staff is part time except for two people.
Director Dockter stated there are fulltime seasonal employees, which means that after
six months, they either get laid off or they’d be paid benefits. If they work over 30 hours
for more than six months, then the City needs to pay benefits. So, right now, all of the
employees, even though some are working fulltime, 40 hours, are seasonal because
they’d have to be laid off at some point. Administrator Stevens stated that some of
them will have to bring those hours back down, below that level. Mayor Bailey asked if
that was by design.
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2016
Page 26
Human Resources Manager Joe Fischbach stated that’s part of the Affordable Care Act
where you have to average less than 29 hours per week, otherwise you have to offer
benefits to 95% of your employees. The City offers benefits to all fulltime employees,
so there are just a few people that we cannot offer insurance to without paying a
penalty. Mayor Bailey stated he was thinking seasonal was the college kid who works
the summer and then goes back to school and asked if that’s what they were talking
about. He was told they have a combination of both, and there are also staff members
who just work 20 hours a week because they have other jobs.
Council Member Olsen stated labor was always your number one controllable expense
in any business. Clearly, that has to be front and center, especially if they’re looking at
what the return on the investment is going to be. He stated Minnesota also has about
3% unemployment, so finding good help is difficult. He stated he knew some people
really liked the flexibility of a part-time job, particularly in the service industry, where you
can make tips, because financially it can still be rewarding. He asked if supplementing
what we already have with fulltime staff will be a challenge, based on the current labor
market, or if a fulltime position with benefits would actually be something that we should
be able to accommodate and accomplish, if we decide to go that route. His concern
was if you don’t have the human resources available to execute the plans, those plans
are not going to work well, which would damage the City’s reputation.
Manager Fischbach stated the main concern they have right now is the daytime staffing.
They can get part-time employees who are supplementing their income so they’re
working a fulltime job already, and they come to work 5:00 to 9:00 p.m. with us. That’s
not an issue; it’s finding staff to work, especially once the summer is over. There’s still a
lot of the season left, September through hopefully the end of November, but they don’t
have anybody to help cook and/or serve. That’s the issue they’re looking at.
Manager Fischbach said if you look at the different options, as just a supper club, he
didn’t think they’d have as hard a time staffing it, but if it’s a full restaurant, he thought
they had to look at fulltime staffing.
Director Dockter stated he agreed, but he stated they’d advertised for cooks at a pretty
good wage, but they haven’t offered fulltime with benefits. He stated he’s not in the
restaurant industry, so he can’t give a good answer because he honestly doesn’t know
what’s out there and how people would respond to that. Council Member Olsen stated
the labor market today is such that employees have a significant amount of leverage,
which means the old adage, “good help is hard to find,” really comes home to roost and
you need to be very competitive with your pay, your culture, your benefits, etc. He felt
River Oaks Golf Course was an awesome facility, the staff is pretty awesome, but that
would be his primary concern is if they’re going to be able to execute whatever plans
are laid out. For that reason, in his opinion, at least initially, the supper club option on a
more limited basis appears to be the wisest choice.
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2016
Page 27
Council Member Thiede asked Director Dockter what the City would have to do to just
enhance what we’ve got. Director Dockter stated for six months out of the year, it’s
going to look the exact same as it does, from April through October, the restaurant
would be run all day because they’ve got the golfers, who bring in the huge lunch
crowd. From November through March, under Option B, we’d be shut down on Monday
and Tuesday, and then Wednesday through Sunday you’d target certain events; maybe
Friday would be seafood night, Wednesday would be taco night, Sunday is a brunch, so
you’d set up special events so people start to recognize River Oaks as a full-service
restaurant with a menu, but there are also these specials that people would become
acquainted with so they’d have a reason to go to River Oaks and it would become a
destination. So, that’s the thought behind the supper club.
Council Member Thiede asked if the City wanted to be in the restaurant business. We
may want to have a restaurant at River Oaks, but do they want to be in the restaurant
business. They’ve previously talked about providing the brick and mortar, but allowing
somebody else the opportunity to run the restaurant, which would be Option D.
Mayor Bailey stated in the discussions they’d had previously, what they had wanted to
do was see if the City could first do this on our own. If we believed that after a period of
time we could not generate the revenue, then we’d entertain that idea. What’s
interesting is he and Council Member Dennis had the opportunity to visit Carmine’s in
Woodbury and meet with the actual owner. He owns multiple restaurants and was very
knowledgeable. They spoke with him about what he’d think about managing and
running the restaurant, but his comment was that it’s not yet established. So, what he
could see happening was if we moved forward with one of our plans, and then at some
point possibly have it managed by somebody else. In his opinion, he felt it had to be
established because there’s a little problem with access, etc. so he had concerns.
There have been different avenues that have been taken, but with the amount of work
that Council Member Dennis and the staff have put into creating this menu and this
plan, he’d like to give it a shot.
Council Member Olsen stated this conversation has been going on for about 12 years.
A former Council Member, Fred Luden, was actually an advocate of an expansion of the
restaurant and he had talked with Axel, the owner of Axel’s Bonfire, about
subcontracting and coming to run the restaurant. So, he felt the ultimate outcome of
those years of dialogue has sort of congealed around the fact that we probably need to
do this ourselves. Once it’s up and running and doing well, and if it gets to be a little
more than what we want to do or can effectively do, then we hand it off. He felt Council
Member Dennis had a lot more experience and wanted his opinion.
Council Member Dennis stated we’re going into uncharted territory and we don’t know
what the true viability of a restaurant at River Oaks Golf Course is. He thought if they
took an opportunity to try to structure something in such a way that we could at least
give it a shot to see what’s there, that it would be important to do. He thought
everybody present found very high value in maintaining the golf course operation here,
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2016
Page 28
as part of a community amenity, something from an economic development standpoint
that could bring business to our City. It’s something we could create and that the
residents could be proud of. He felt it was important to give this a try. We were very
clear that what we were looking for was to have an honest question answered; that is, is
River Oaks Golf Course viable or not? So, this has been about taking a look at what we
have to work with, looking at what possibilities might exist to make improvements, how
we can put a business plan together to fit the needs of the community as we go forward,
and hopefully we’d get good support from the people who live here. Council Member
Dennis felt we should make this something that’s sustainable, and it’s a tough thing
because not everybody plays golf. They need to put their best foot forward, coming up
with a solution, and being willing to run it up the flagpole to see what happens.
Council Member Olsen asked Council Member Dennis which plan he liked; Council
Member Dennis said he’d probably opt for Option C, which is the hybrid, but again the
caveat that he put onto that was the Monday through Friday plan. He’d been shocked
over the years to see fellow businesses in Cottage Grove open a location, only to be
closed on certain days of the week and not be reliable. When you open your door, you
plant your flag and you turn your lights on. You have to be there and be reliable for
people; otherwise, if you don’t, you’re not going to have them come back. The
infrastructure is already there and it’s paid for. He thought we should give it a good try.
He also agreed with the point on things that could be controlled, the labor costs.
Managers will cut staff when there’s a certain drop off in business.
Council Member Thiede stated Wednesday through Friday would be a lesser burden,
and those incomes are all positive. He was concerned about Monday through Friday,
as those numbers get progressively more negative year to year, which is not a good
thing. Director Dockter stated that information was incorrect because he hadn’t updated
the quantities in years two and three. So, they’ll be about the same as you see in
Option B.
Mayor Bailey wanted to confirm the differences between Option B and Option C on the
projected net income. Director Dockter stated they’d build the expenses first, based on
the operations, and then they’d build the revenue to meet that. With Option C, which is
every day of the week, there would be two additional fulltime staff members added to
make that happen, because you can’t do that with just part-time staff. It simply gave a
target of the revenue you had to generate.
Administrator Stevens stated you went from 50 tables being turned, on an average
weekend, to tables turned in those scenarios of up to 64 per day. Because there’s no
track record of a full-scale restaurant to get estimates from, you can see the estimates
in increase, although it’s hard to compare 2015, as we weren’t really operating the same
business. So, the estimate is on the number of tables you’d have to turn. Can we turn
those? We don’t know.
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2016
Page 29
Council Member Olsen asked what the employees at River Oaks Golf Course said
about this. Director Dockter said they’re excited, the meals they’re preparing are
phenomenal, and they’re excited with the business. Their fear is just like his, what
happens when the golfers go away? They don’t know how we’re going to pull a lunch
crowd, if we can pull a lunch crowd. They love the supper club idea. One of them is
probably opting for operating seven days a week; the other one thinks Wednesday
through Sunday is probably the better option. He thinks everybody is a little bit afraid.
Although they want to get fulltime staffing, they know the numbers behind that, and that
just means if you put fulltime staff on and pay benefits, you need to sell that many more
items, which is also a challenge. They understand it, they’re up for the challenge, but
they don’t know how to project it either. They’re not from Cottage Grove, and they’re
new to this market.
Council Member Thiede asked traditionally what River Oaks has been good at, as far as
drawing people in. He stated he thought the fish fries were a big draw and asked if we
made money on those. He asked if they made money on the special events, and asked
if they could have more special events, smoked brisket or something of that nature.
Council Member Thiede stated when doing things to enhance the facility, maybe they
should take some smaller steps and maybe work our way up. As you learn, you’ll know
where you’re going to get your greatest amount of customers. Also, from a market
standpoint with American Motorsports Bar & Grill leaving, there have been a lot of
people looking for someplace to go and maybe they’ve seen some more people out
there.
Council Member Dennis said they’ve improved the quality of the food and beverage
operation that we have, but they haven’t done anything as far as marketing or trying to
draw people in. Council Member Thiede felt they should be marketing because people
feel there’s nowhere to go for lunch. Council Member Dennis said they’ve bumped up
against their budget number for labor, so that was kind of the end of the line for hiring.
Administrator Stevens stated there weren’t any other fulltime positions, so they’ve been
working with part-time staff. Also, the two current chefs just came on about a month
ago, so they haven’t been in place that long to get the full new menu up and running.
Administrator Stevens said without the extra tables she wasn’t sure how many more
people they could accommodate right now, with golf, at lunch. Council Member Olsen
stated you didn’t want to advertise until you’re ready.
Manager Fischbach stated last year they had a bartender who also cooked. Now,
they’re trying to get two servers and two cooks so we can actually meet the needs of the
customers. Obviously, they’ve been hiring, and he doesn’t think it’s been as successful
as they’ve wanted for adding staff, but we could add ten more just because they have
so many part-time staff that they have to keep under the 29 hours.
Administrator Stevens stated the seating inside will only handle approximately 40
customers in the grill area. Council Member Olsen asked with the better use of the
space, how many could they accommodate; he was told 62 was the number they could
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2016
Page 30
handle. With golf down there now, some of those 40 seats fill up, and if you’re trying to
bring another lunch crowd down there, you’re pushing out either one potential customer
or another customer doesn’t have time. So, that goes back to seating and capacity and
the capacity reduced at times.
Mayor Bailey felt they needed to move forward to get the bar situation taken care of and
the different seating with tables. He felt no matter what option they went with, he
believed they had to do that. Council Member Thiede stated in about nine months
they’re going to have Carbone’s, 70th Street Junction, and in about a year, they’ll have
Hy-Vee, which will be an upscale restaurant. He felt we needed to really kind of figure
out if they wanted to be a nighttime restaurant, in a sense, or a lunch restaurant, they
really need to have kind of a theme to draw people there. What’s going to be special
about it? Council Member Dennis stated the menu was awesome; three executive
chefs, who live in Cottage Grove, had helped with the menu. Timing is important, and
when The Point closed and when the American Motorsports Bar & Grill closed, arguably
there’s got to be about $3,500,000 more of volume in that category, which evaporated
into thin area when they closed their doors. They haven’t had anything come on line in
the community to capture that money. By doing what we’re proposing to do, it gives us
an opportunity to capture some of that money and keep that here in Cottage Grove.
The menu is tailored for the sensibilities of our area and it’s reasonable and it’s good.
He thinks they’ve got plenty of opportunities as far as what’s out there for us to be able
to capture that market. Flexibility can come into play; there are plenty of options as far
as what we can do with specials, unique things. These chefs are very creative, and in
addition to a regular menu, they can do whatever they want down there. Council
Member Dennis wanted to mention something about the portable food cart. There’s a
barbecue grill down there already, but the Health Department limited them to only being
able to use that three times a year; the reason for that is it doesn’t have a handwashing
component to it. So, the portable food cart will take care of those needs and it can be
used every day that it’s nice outside. Think about cooking a brisket out there and
having that smell waft over the greens. It would be a phenomenal thing that people
would have to come in and buy.
Council Member Dennis felt maybe they could add a few more tables and chairs outside
to increase the seating. There were times when there were luncheons scheduled and
people can use the facility.
Council Member Peterson stated she liked the supper club idea rather than the full-
service restaurant. Council Member Olsen asked if she liked the Monday through
Friday supper club or the Wednesday through Friday, and she felt seven days a week
would be better. Council Member Olsen felt they should do something seven days a
week so people could rely on you. Mayor Bailey agreed but he felt that they should
monitor that; the days of the week that restaurants are usually the slowest are Mondays
and Tuesdays. On Tuesdays, many restaurants offer that children eat free to get
people into the restaurants. They might have to look at something like that, but if it
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2016
Page 31
looks like those two days are just going to be slow, then we could go to a Wednesday
through Friday operation.
Council Member Thiede asked if they wouldn’t have to bring in fulltime people to be
open seven days a week; Mayor Bailey asked how that would work. Manager
Fischbach stated he’d have them work 3:00 to 11:00, Wednesday through Sunday,
which is 40 hours, and that covers basically the whole shift. Council Member Thiede
stated if they hired people for seven days a week and then decided that maybe
business isn’t so good, what do you do? It’s a lot more difficult to hire somebody and
then let them go. He thought it would maybe be better to get it going on the Wednesday
through Sunday, and then as things are going well, then you think about well, how do
we entice people and open up on Monday and Tuesday also. Mayor Bailey stated you
could look at that both ways; if you’re not open, and then you’re open later, you’re trying
to attract a whole new crowd versus them already knowing that they could go down
there every day of the week at a certain time.
Council Member Olsen asked Director Dockter if he had his preference what he would
choose. He stated he would choose Option B for a couple reasons. It’s got to be a
destination restaurant, people need a reason to go there because they’re not just going
to drive by and pull over. Administrator Stevens stated that during the season with
Option B if you’re supper club is open Wednesday through Sunday, during the off
season they’d still be able to during the prime golf season, May through October, say
open every day for lunch and dinner. She said she was most comfortable with Option B
to meet their projections.
Administrator Stevens stated the budget adjustments for the capital expenditures would
still need to be brought back to the Council and figure out how to phase those in. That
also doesn’t account for anything in 2017 that would be incurred. She stated they also
needed to discuss how to transition this whole operation over fully to the Parks and
Recreation Department.
Mayor Bailey thanked Director Dockter for putting all of the numbers together. He
asked them to come back with a date and a plan for marketing to get that to really pop.
As you’re looking at future grand opening dates, he wanted them to think about when
that would be, as you wouldn’t want it to be on Halloween weekend, maybe not on
Thanksgiving weekend, but possibly the week before.
Mayor Bailey stated the numbers were written down for the seating, but he wondered if
there was an option to get some of that a little cheaper and still remain within budget.
By 2017, he’d like to see that portable food cart implemented. As you’re thinking about
the budget, if you could get it in this year, great; if not, then let’s include that in some of
the budget discussions for purchase next year. He truly felt one of the draws, other
than the food and the place, would be the view. If he had an opportunity to go sit out on
a patio and overlook the Mississippi at the River Oaks Golf Course, that’s where he’d be
going. They had been voted the best patio and people were trying to call and do
City Council Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2016
Page 32
reservations, but they were told we don’t do reservations to come and sit on the patio
and eat your bar food. This would be another way to really add some value to the golf
course and that particular process.
Council Member Thiede said they should think about any promotions to businesses,
especially for the lunchtime crowd and things like that.
Administrator Stevens stated they’d come back to the next Council Meeting with some
supplemental budgets, some identified sources, and they can flush out that timeline now
that they had a direction. Some of these things, the seating and the bar reconfiguration,
need to be worked into off peak hours because they could be disruptive to the
operations. She stated they could certainly look at the food cart for this year and/or the
2017 budget.
Council Member Dennis stated they purchased a food assembly table with underneath
refrigeration and got it for $800 or so. There are sites like Auction Masters where you
can generally get a lot of restaurant equipment that’s available. He hoped they could
somehow maintain a little bit of flexibility and if there’s an opportunity that’s good
enough to save us major dollars, let’s capitalize on that. He felt they should all look at
that site every day for bargains.
14. WORKSHOPS – CLOSED TO PUBLIC - None.
15. ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Council Member Olsen, second by Council Member Dennis, to adjourn the
meeting at 10:20 p.m. Motion carried: 5-0.
Minutes prepared by Judy Graf and reviewed by Joe Fischbach, HR Manager/City
Clerk.