HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-04-16 Packet (Public)1
COTTAGE GROVE CITY COUNCIL April 16, 2025
12800 RAVINE PARKWAY SOUTH
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA 55016
COUNCIL CHAMBER - 7:00 PM
1 Call to Order
2 Pledge of Allegiance
3 Roll Call
4 Open Forum
5 Adoption of Agenda
6 Presentations
A Spring Cleanup Presentation
Staff Recommendation: Receive Public Works Spring Cleanup Event Presentation.
B Arbor Day Presentation
Staff Recommendation: Proclaim Friday, April 25, 2025, as Arbor Day in City of Cottage Grove.
7 Consent Agenda
A Response to Open Forum Inquiry
Staff Recommendation: Receive the response to the City Council open forum inquiry on April 2, 2025.
B Economic Development and Convention & Visitors Bureau Meeting Minutes
Staff Recommendation: Approve the February 11, 2025, Regular Economic Development and Convention &
Visitors Bureau Meeting Minutes.
C Rental License Approvals
Staff Recommendation: Approve the issuance of rental licenses to the properties listed in the attached table.
D Artificial Intelligence Use Policy
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the approval to implement this policy and establish governance
structures that align AI deployment with public trust and city values.
E Receive Fund Balance of General Fund as of 12-31-2024
Staff Recommendation: Receive information on the General Fund as of December 31, 2024.
F 2024 Budget Revisions
Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2025-57, 2024 Budget Revisions.
G Approve 2024 Interfund Transfers
Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution 2025-56, Approving interfund transfers and closing funds.
H 2024 Ambulance Write-Offs
Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution 2025-055, Authorizing Write-offs of the EMS accounts receivable
of $4,742,890.
2
I Abatement of Tall Weeds Certification
Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2025-58, authorizing the abatement of a Tall Weed Certification in
the amount of $334.81 for parcel identification number 17.027.21.41.0063.
J 2025 Washington County Grant Agreement for Municipal Recycling
Staff Recommendation: Approve the 2025 Grant Agreement for Municipal Recycling Grant Distribution in the
amount of $59,016.00.
K Rental Agreement with Midwest Machine for Track Loader
Staff Recommendation: Approve the one-year rental agreement with Midwest Machinery for a track loader
for the amount of $12,000.
L City Hall Fountain Renovation
Staff Recommendation: Authorize Resolution 2025-59 awarding the City Hall Fountain Renovation Project to
Superior Landscape and Irrigation in the amount of $14,877.63 and authorize the service agreement
between Superior Landscape and Irrigation and the City of Cottage Grove.
M 80th Street Feasibility Report Scope Amendment
Staff Recommendation: Adopt resolution 2025-062 amending the scope of the 80th Street Reconstruction
Project feasibility report to include East Point Douglas Road from 80th Street to the three-way intersection of
East Point Douglas Road.
N Maxfield Research Comprehensive Housing Needs Study
Staff Recommendation: Accept the Maxfield Research Comprehensive Housing Needs Study
O Prairie Dunes – Revised Final Plat and Development Agreement
Staff Recommendation: 1) Adopt Resolution 2025-060 approving the amended Final Plat for Prairie
Dunes. 2) Approve the First Amendment to the Prairie Dunes Development Agreement with Pulte Homes of
Minnesota LLC and DRP Multistate P, LLC, with minor modifications as approved by the City Attorney.
P Ordinance Amendments - Zoning Code, Sign Code, and Mining, Sand, and Gravel
Operations Code
Staff Recommendation: 1) Adopt Ordinance No. 1100 amending Title 11, Zoning Regulations. 2) Adopt
Ordinance No. 1098 amending Title 12, Sign Regulations. 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 1099 amending Title 3,
Business and License Regulations.
Q Belden and Hardwood Park Playground Surplus Declaration and Disposal
Staff Recommendation: Declare surplus for fixed assets Belden Park (#100778) and Hardwood Park
(#100781) and authorize disposal services agreement with Kids Around the World.
R Oltman Park Project – Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize Bidding
Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2025-064 approving the plans and specifications and authorize
bidding for the Oltman Park Project.
S 2025 Water Conservation Program, SWWD Cooperative Agreement, and Water in Motion
Work Order
Staff Recommendation: 1) Approve the Residential Smart Irrigation Controller Program Cooperative
Agreement with SWWD; 2) Approve the work order from Water in Motion; 3) Approve the expenditures from
the Water Utility Fund of up to $96,000 to supplement the SWWD contribution of $4,000 for the
implementation of the 2025 Water Conservation Program.
T Water Service on 110th St S - Agreement for Contractor Services and Memorandum of
Understanding with Property Owner
Staff Recommendation: Approve the Agreement for Contractor Services and the Memorandum of
Understanding and appropriate officials are hereby authorized to sign all necessary documents to effectuate
these actions.
8 Approve Disbursements
3
A Approve Disbursements
Staff Recommendation: Approve disbursements from 03-28-25 through 04-10-25 in the amount of
$2,067,537.18.
9 Public Hearings
10 Bid Awards
A 2025 Denzer Park Project - Reject All Bids
Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2025-063 rejecting all bids submitted for the 2025 Denzer Park
Project.
B Public Works Shop Remodel
Staff Recommendation: Adopt resolution 2025-054 awarding the Public Works Facility Mechanics Shop
Remodel to Rochon Construction for the base bid amount plus the alternate for a total of $298,915.
11 Regular Agenda
A Leafline Labs – Conditional Use Permit
Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2025-061 rescinding prior conditional use permit and site plan
resolutions and approving the Conditional Use Permit for a Medical Cannabis Combination Business at 8235
97th Street South.
12 Council Comments and Requests
13 Workshops - Open to Public
A 2026 Budget Workshop
Staff Recommendation: Receive information regarding the 2026 Budget Workshop and provide feedback to
staff.
14 Workshops - Closed to Public
15 Adjournment
1
City Council Action Request
6.A.
Meeting Date 4/16/2025
Department Public Works
Agenda Category Presentation
Title Spring Cleanup Presentation
Staff Recommendation Receive Public Works Spring Cleanup Event Presentation.
Budget Implication N/A
Attachments 1. Spring Cleanup Day -Flyer
Location
Cottage Grove
Public Works Garage
8635 W Point Douglas Road
Household Goods by Item
Air Conditioner
Chair
Commercial or RV Appliances
Couch
Dehumidifier
Dishwasher
Dryer
Exercise Equipment
Freezer
Grill
Hot Water Heater
Mattress or Box Spring (all sizes except crib)
Mattress (crib)
Push Lawn Mower
Riding Lawn Mower
Refrigerator (no gas ammonia)
Snow Blower
Stove/Oven
Washer
Water Softener
............................................................ $10
............................................................................. $10
........................ $100 and up
........................................................................... $15
................................................................ $10
.................................................................. $10
............................................................................ $10
..................................................... $15
......................................................................... $10
.............................................................................. $15
........................................................ $10
.............. $20
............................................................. $10
........................................................ $15
..................................................... $20
.................................. $10
................................................................ $25
.................................................................. $10
......................................................................... $10
............................................................ $10
...................... FREE
...................................................... FREE
..................... FREE
...................................................................... FREE
.......................................... FREE
................................................ FREE
................................................................. FREE
....................................................... $5
............................................................ $15
.................................................................. $35
....................... $90 and up (price varies on size)
................................................................ $30-70
....................................... $70-170
................................................ $40-90
...................................................................... $5/piece
...................................................................... $8/piece
......................................... $10/piece
Electronics
Computers, Monitors and Accessories
Microwave Ovens
Phones, Cell phones and Fax Machines
Printers
TVs, DVD and VCR Players
Document Shredding
In order to serve as many people as possible, no more
than 15 boxes per customer will be accepted. Shredding
capacity may be reached before the end of the event.
Hazardous Items
We no longer accept household hazardous materials at
this event. The Washington County Environmental Center
is open year-round for hazardous waste drop off. See
reverse side for their location and hours of operation.
Tires and Batteries
Car Battery
Car/Light Truck Tire
Semi Truck Tire
Tractor Tire
Miscellaneous Material By Load
Box Truck
Car Trunk
Pickup Truck (level load)
Station Wagon/SUV
Proportional rates may be applied to partial loads and overloaded trucks
Treated Lumber
2x4
4x4
6x6/6x8/Railroad Tie
Got junk? Public Works will be hosting their annual
Spring Cleanup Day! Please pay with cash or check
only. Make checks payable to City of Cottage Grove.
Spring Cleanup Day
Saturday, May 3, 2025, 7 a.m. – 3 p.m.
Questions?
Drop-off Items
CottageGroveMN.gov/SpringCleanupDay
651-458-2808
CGPublicWorks@CottageGroveMN.gov
61Jamaica Ave.W.
P
o
int Douglas Rd. S.
96th St. S.Irvin Ave.I-4
9
4
N
Note
traffic flow.
Location
Washington County Environmental Center
4039 Cottage Grove Drive, Woodbury, MN 55129
Hours of Operation
Tuesday .................................
Thursday ...............................
Friday ....................................
Saturday ................................
Closed on all county-observed holidays.
11 a.m. – 7 p.m.
8 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.
8 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.
8 a.m. – 2 p.m.Open to residents of Washington, Anoka, Carver, Chisago, Dakota,
Hennepin, Ramsey and Scott counties. Proof of county residency,
such as a driver’s license, is required.
Do you have hazardous materials, electronics or recyclables to get rid of? You
can bring them to Washington County’s Environmental Center in Woodbury.
Environmental Center
For more information visit: co.washington.mn.us/envirocenter or call: 651-275-7475
1
City Council Action Request
6.B.
Meeting Date 4/16/2025
Department Public Works
Agenda Category Presentation
Title Arbor Day Presentation
Staff Recommendation Proclaim Friday, April 25, 2025, as Arbor Day in City of Cottage
Grove.
Budget Implication N/A
Attachments 1. Arbor Day Proclamation 2025
ARBOR DAY PROCLAMTION
WHEREAS, in 1872, the Nebraska Board of Agriculture established a special day
to be set aside for the planting of trees, and
WHEREAS, this holiday, called Arbor Day, was first observed with the planting of
more than a million trees in Nebraska, and
WHEREAS, Arbor Day is now observed throughout the nation and the world, and
WHEREAS, trees can be a solution to combating climate change by reducing the
erosion of our precious topsoil by wind and water, cutting heating and cooling
costs, moderating the temperature, cleaning the air, producing life-giving oxygen,
and providing habitat for wildlife, and
WHEREAS, trees are a renewable resource giving us paper, wood for our homes,
fuel for our fires, and countless other wood products, and
WHEREAS, trees in our city increase property values, enhance the economic
viability of business areas, and beautify our community, and
WHEREAS, trees – wherever they are planted – are a source of joy and spiritual
renewal, and
WHEREAS, The City of Cottage Grove will host a ceremonial tree planting and
volunteer planting event at the Cottage Grove Trailway Corridor on Tuesday, April
22nd, 2025, and tree giveaway to residents on Friday, April 25th, 2025, and
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, County of
Washington, State of Minnesota, hereby proclaim April 25th, 2025, as Arbor Day in
the City of Cottage Grove.
Passed this 16th day of April 2025.
Myron Bailey, Mayor
1
City Council Action Request
7.A.
Meeting Date 4/16/2025
Department Administration
Agenda Category Action Item
Title Response to Open Forum Inquiry
Staff Recommendation Receive the response to the City Council open forum inquiry on
April 2, 2025.
Budget Implication N/A
Attachments 1. Environmental Review Response
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE 12800 Ravine Parkway Cottage Grove, Minnesota 55016
cottagegrovemn.gov 651-458-2800 Fax 651-458-2897 Equal Opportunity Employer
April 3, 2025
Bonnie Matter
6649 Inskip Ave S
Cottage Grove, MN 55016
Ms. Matter,
During the March 24th, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting, the City of Cottage Grove
held a public hearing on zoning code amendments. Your comments were received during
the public hearing at the March 24th, 2025 Planning Commission public hearing as well
as at the April 2, 2025 Open Forum at the City Council meeting.
When an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), Alternative Urban Areawide
review (AUAR), or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is triggered by a proposed
project, the rules outlined in Minnesota State Statute 4410 are required to be followed by
the project proposer and the designated Regulatory Governmental Unit (RGU). Title 11-
2-10 of the City of Cottage Grove’s Zoning Code requires that environmental documents
are reviewed pursuant to 4410 which includes a required public meeting be held and the
proposed document be published for public comment in the Environmental Quality Board
Monitor for no less than 30 days.
Different from standard planning applications received at the city, environmental review
processes triggered by State Statute require transparency processes which are unique.
The proposed amendment to the city’s zoning code is not intended to reduce
transparency and continues to require applicants to follow the public outreach processes.
The proposed amendment aligns with the State process and maintains the transparency
of the public process.
Sincerely,
Emily Schmitz
Community Development Director
1
City Council Action Request
7.B.
Meeting Date 4/16/2025
Department Administration
Agenda Category Action Item
Title Economic Development and Convention & Visitors Bureau Meeting
Minutes
Staff Recommendation Approve the February 11, 2025, Regular Economic Development
and Convention & Visitors Bureau Meeting Minutes.
Budget Implication N/A
Attachments 1. 2-11-2025 EDA & CVB Joint Meeting Minutes
MINUTES February 11, 2025
COTTAGE GROVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA)
& CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU (CVB)
JOINT MEETING
12800 Ravine Parkway South
Cottage Grove, MN 55016
TRAINING ROOM - 7:30 A.M.
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a joint meeting of the Economic Development Authority and the Convention and Visitors
Bureau was held on the 11th day of February, 2025, at 7:30 a.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
The joint meeting between the Cottage Grove Economic Development Authority and the Cottage Grove Convention and Visitors
Bureau was called to order at 7:30 a.m. by EDA President Myron Bailey.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
EDA President Bailey asked everyone to please stand and join in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. ROLL CALL
Gretchen Larson, Economic Development Director, called the roll:
Convention and Visitors Bureau: Chairman Justin Olsen-Here; Director Grecula-Absent; Director Khambata-Here; Director Levine-
Here; Director Olson-Here; Director Reese-Absent.
Economic Development Authority: EDA President Bailey-Here; EDA Vice President Olsen-Here; EDA Member Jean-Baptiste-Absent;
EDA Member Khambata-Here; EDA Member Latack-Here; EDA Member Scott-Here; EDA Member Tschida-Here.
Staff Present: Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator
Gretchen Larson, Economic Development Director
Phil Jents, Communications Manager
Brenda Malinowski, Finance Director
Others Present: Steve Chandler, Owner/Brand Strategist, Chandlerthinks
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Staff Recommendation: Approve the December 3, 2024 EDA Regular Meeting Minutes.
EDA Member Scott made a motion to approve the December 3, 2024 EDA Regular Meeting Minutes. Motion was seconded by
EDA Member Khambata. Motion passed unanimously (6-to-0 vote).
5. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. Chandlerthinks Strategic Plan Final Review
Staff Recommendation: Receive the Chandlerthinks Strategic Plan Final Report.
Phil Jents, Communications Manager, stated we’re here this morning to talk about the Chandlerthinks CVB Strategic Plan. Our
consultant, Steve Chandler, is here this morning, and thanked him for coming in person to Cottage Grove for this meeting. Jents also
reviewed the process that we had engaged in to date:
•October 7 and 8, 2024: There was a site visit to the City where the City arranged in-person meetings with members of the
City Council, EDA, CVB Board Members, River Oaks Golf Course and Event Center staff, Parks and Recreation staff, area
hoteliers, business managers, and many others were also present.
•November 26, 2024: There was a general update provided to the CVB Board about where we were at in that process, some
of the feedback we had heard and were considering incorporating into our tourism strategies.
Economic Development Authority & Convention and Visitors Bureau Joint Meeting Minutes
February 11, 2025
Page 2 of 17
•January 9, 2025: Many of you were present for a joint meeting of the CVB and EDA Board Members to conduct a SWOT
Analysis.
In addition, any feedback that we have heard to date, throughout this process, we are already considering, which we have
incorporated, and also any more feedback we hear today, of course will be incorporated into a final plan. That’s just a little bit of
background of what brought us here today, and I’ll turn it over to our consultant, Steve Chandler.
Steve Chandler, Chandlerthinks, said it’s great to be here. I’d like to set up as far as the plan, so we’ll be on the same page here. I
mean, we’re making recommendations, and we get the credit for it, right? Because we’re from so far away, but we also don’t have
to live with the recommendations. We get to make them, you should do this, and we walk away; the reality is this is your plan. Our
approach to this is always this is your plan, and so, there’s kind of been some messaging going on to get to today, but that doesn’t
mean that it’s even finished yet. We still have to finish the plan. There will be a written, printed plan that you’ll be able to have and
touch, hoping someone’s going to follow it, and monitor it and measure it, but it’s very important. The worst thing is that we do
work with consultants, they come in and make their recommendations and leave, and it’s like, I don't know if we want to do what
they told us. You have to embrace it to be yours, which means its not a tablet in stone, its something that you adopt as you mature.
Hopefully, what you see is the big picture of where you need to go, and that’s definitely going to be the emphasis today.
That being said, I’m not going to go over this, I know it’s in your packet, so you can read it. You’ll notice we stated some goals, but
the authoritative voice, you’ll notice some pattern in the language and the direction, and it’s very deliberate. So, I hope you pick up
on that to become the authoritative voice for managing, promoting, and growing tourism in Cottage Grove. That takes time, it takes
commitment, it’s the very single most important thing that you all could do; it’s not marketing and advertising, it is actually to
establish the culture of the community and the leadership of you all and others. Tourism is a serious economic development
opportunity for us. This isn’t party planning, this is about bringing money into our community, that’s what this is for. So, yeah, we
want to increase funding for tourism by bringing more dollars in, and there are ways of doing that, of course. It talks about revenue
to increase because you all get such a little bit out here in Minnesota, I’m still trying to pitch myself on that, but nonetheless, we can
increase it and mainly, let’s get visitors spending, and I think a lot more than 3% is possible.
Now, I’m just going to elaborate a little bit more of the work that was done. We did meet with a lot of folks, for sure, and yes, there
was a site visit. Yes, there was a tourism audit and a marketing assessment. There was actually a little bit of a business survey that
was done, and it was kind of impromptu because we saw an opportunity or at least we wanted a little bit more information, I’ll come
back to that in a second. We wanted more information, so, we decided let’s do a quick little business survey to find out some
elementary information, and it turned out to be pretty insightful, by the way. We also did some human movement data; we
subscribe to Placer AI, if you’re familiar with it, that allows us to look at visitor habits to Hope Glen and The Madison and the Cottage
Grove Journal, where do people come from? What are they doing? Are they staying overnight, or do they come straight from
somewhere else? So, we were looking at what visitors look like now. We conducted about six focus groups, so, over 40 people
participated in that, and 50 one-on-one interviews, a Gap analysis, a SWOT Analysis, a lot of work was done. A lot of people were
included, and I think that’s important. For a plan, you can’t have just a person come in and look around and give you their opinion. It
has to be the input engagement of your tourism community is super important. So, I just wanted to state that before we get going.
That being said, briefly, your SWOT Analysis, you’ve all seen it, so I’ll try to be brief here; I’m not one to read every word, no one
likes it anyway. So, I’ll copy what I want you to see, for the most part. So, we’re going to hit them quick, and you all should know this
by now:
STRENGTHS
•Access to the Mississippi River: Obviously is a great strength and a big possibility ahead.
•Well Maintained and Beautiful City: You are clean, it’s safe, it’s a very family-friendly environment, that was very evident in
everything that we saw.
•Wedding Venue Appeal: You have a little collection of places for wedding venues, which is a nice opportunity.
•Sports Tournaments: Your Ice Arena obviously is a huge asset and could we tap more? That’s a big question, we were
talking about it even more so last night.
•Positive Attitude: There’s an optimism about truism right now; it’s very, very new, but there’s optimism, it’s not real
tourism overall, there is not much yet here, you all know that. But there’s this outlook of yeah, let’s do something, and that
is a tremendous opportunity to bring everyone together and kind of march together. So, I applaud you, you just passed the
tax two years ago, if that, and then immediately like, okay, now let’s get a plan together and move. I mean, you’re doing the
right things.
•Events: You’ve got some nice events, particularly, Strawberry Festival, as your big strength, I’m sorry your list isn’t longer.
Economic Development Authority & Convention and Visitors Bureau Joint Meeting Minutes
February 11, 2025
Page 3 of 17
WEAKNESSES
•Limited Lodging: You all know this, as we’ve talked in the past already. It’s your biggest, it’s the big thing. A huge drain is we
need more hotel rooms and that accounts for a lot, right? Can we do anything to get an extra hotel built? Yes, but we have
to be resourceful and a little bit creative.
•Absence of a Tourism Culture: That doesn’t mean you don’t like tourism, it just means you’re not used to tourism, you’re
not even in agreement of what it is, probably, right? Some people think that its fanny packs, and they’re scared to death
we’re going to put a rollercoaster around here, they don’t want that. Not in a clean, nice, little family-friendly community,
it’d be get that out of here! What is a strong tourism culture? Is it Chamber of Commerce stuff? What exactly is it? So, this
absence of tourism culture, that foreshadowing is something we have to create, it’s not an accident, right?
•No Major Attraction or Driver: There’s no real reason why people from out of town visit Cottage Grove as there’s nowhere
to stay, really. There’s one place, kind of two, right? But people are coming here because they have to, not because they
want to, and it’s true; I have to come here for work, you have a lot of businesses around here that are bringing a lot of
tourists, and we need to redefine what tourists are. They don’t always wear fanny packs, sometimes they were Carhartt’s
and they go to work and they go to training, and they’re working at 3M and they’re working at Andersen, right? If they’re
from out of town, they’re a tourist. You don’t have to be Clark Griswold to be a tourist; in fact, these kind of tourists that
you all could get don’t mess up your community as much. They don’t want to, right? They come here and then leave; they
spend some money, by the way, but you don’t have any real attraction, there’s no driver for it.
•No Central Gathering Space in Cottage Grove: There’s no place where people can just walk around and spend money on
accident, like downtown Hastings, for example. But you don’t have that gathering spot, you’re talking about it, which is
good, but that density of things to do creates an attraction; that’s one thing you should look at for tourism, you don’t have
it.
•Location Challenges: You’re not on a major Interstate, and you have Highway 61/10, which is nice, but there’s not a lot of
action, I just happen to be driving through and maybe they’re going to Woodbury, I guess, a little bit.
•Low Awareness: Now, what you’ve all been doing for the last three years and we’re past this now, so, the staff doesn’t get
mad at me anymore, I think, and they’ve already been working on it. I should hope people haven’t been sitting there,
twiddling their thumbs, waiting for the consultant; staff’s already made adjustments, they’re doing things, by the way, very
well. This is one of those, but when we first looked at you, we’re like they’re all over the place. Like why the heck, I
remember I looked at the Visitors Guide, and I’m like what’s the Chamber of Commerce ad doing on the inside. If I’m a
visitor, I want to visit, I don’t want to join the Chamber, I’m using that as just an example; it’s a well-done ad, by the way.
But why do I want Chamber of Commerce messaging? And there was messaging throughout our website and our Visitors
Guide that was like community-minded stuff, which is nice, it feels good, but it didn’t make me want to visit. It didn’t attract
me any, I don’t want to join your community, I’m just wanting to come and check it out, right? Now, if I have a good time I
might come back and join it, right? So, we felt like you were really distracted on a lot of non-tourism content, I won’t go
into more detail than that. Low awareness, when we did a digital audit, over 80% of all travel planning, as you all do, is done
online, that’s not a surprise. So, if you really want to see how we’re going to be competitive, you kind of need to look at the
online world, just find out what we look like. Well, what we found out is nobody’s searching for you. The most common
thing we all do is name of city where I’m going, hotels. And name of city where I’m going, things to do. You’re all practically
goose eggs on both of those things, nobody is actually searching for those things; it means you’re not the destination. I
have to go there because 3M’s making me, or my boss is sending me there, right? Some of the, a lot of the businesses I
think are really doing that. Or, I have a wedding, your weddings are really regional, because I first met with you all, you’re
all like weddings, weddings, weddings; you’ve got some really cool wedding venues, but the data shows most of them, over
80% of everybody who comes to your weddings, live in the Minneapolis area. That shouldn’t be a big surprise. Uncle Ned
and Betty, they’re from Indiana, they come in, so you might get a couple people at the wedding that are from out of town,
but for the most part, they’re local, right? So, everybody has to come here. If you look at Trip Advisor, the #1 travel website
in the world, you’re nonexistent; it looks worse, the reality is there’s nothing in Cottage Grove, you might as well be up
north somewhere. So, we have a real low awareness; that takes a little bit of time, it takes somebody doing stuff there.
Creating an online presence is a lot of work and the most important thing you could be doing from a marketing perspective.
Somebody’s got to do it, all right?
OPPPORTUNITIES
•Additional Lodging: You all know that. It’s the biggest one, I’m just not going to push it because you know it so well, but it’s
obviously big.
•Packaging Your Assets Together: Partnering and packaging is one of the best things we can do because you don’t have to
create a new product, you just group things together. We went through an exercise with some of our groups, and we’re
like, what is there to do? And they’re like nothing, your own people, and they’re telling me there’s nothing to do here. I
Economic Development Authority & Convention and Visitors Bureau Joint Meeting Minutes
February 11, 2025
Page 4 of 17
don't know why I keep fighting with this, Cottage Grove, I like living here, but I’m not going to visit. And, so, we challenged
them and had them put together itineraries, okay, well then you three people, you’re part of a girls’ getaway weekend, and
you have to put two days of what you’re going to do. And that’s kind of the exercise we did around the room. And everyone
immediately did it. They’re like oh, well, I’d go eat at this one place, and we’d go have pottery here and this activity, and
then they all put together the little itineraries; that’s what we have to do. We have to package what assets we have and
make it sound attractive, and when we do that, we actually have a lot, it’s actually pretty nice.
•Weddings: Is a big opportunity for us.
•Old Cottage Grove: That seemed to be a sensitive topic for you all, just in my observation. I don't know why, it’s got a lot of
baggage with it, I think that’s why, I get that. And I know some of the stories, right? I’m just playing dumb. But there is also
a sense of pride for some people in the community about Old Cottage Grove, it does exist, and you don’t have much
historical assets and gathering spots. I get it, and you hold on to what you got. So, there does seem to be an opportunity
there, a little bit. I’d do something with it, and I know half the room disagrees with me. I don’t care, I would do something
with it. I think there’s something, there’s an opportunity there.
THREATS
•Lodging Shortfalls: Again, your lodging shortfalls are ripe for other people because it teaches your partners, your partners
being your business community, how many people in your Business Park? Like 20 something? You know what we’re
teaching them right now? Not on purpose, go to Woodbury; they’re bringing guests to town for work, contractors, things
like that, and they’re sending them to Woodbury; every single week this is happening, we talked to a handful of them, and
overwhelmingly, that’s what they do, right? And they would like something here, they told us that, but the more they do it,
the more those relationships are being built, the conference hotel, wherever it is, right? And Woodbury loves it, and by the
way, you know, they’re attacking tourism right now, you know that. I think that’s what led to this project, they’re ready, so,
they are a threat. I know you ought to get competitive against them anyway.
LOCAL AUDIENCES
I won’t get too deep into this, but we also looked at audiences. I just want to remind us, again, there’s a little bit of theme of
education of what tourism is, I think is as important as anything. It’s not the fanny pack stuff, right? That’s not even on our radar
screen, right? We’re not looking for that kind of leisure tourism.
•Local Tourism Stakeholders: Are your #1 audience, the most important. Getting people that are in the tourism business that
actually provide the product, a place to stay, things to do, places to eat, things to buy, isn’t that the goal is to make those
cash registers ring? So, your tourism stakeholders are your #1 audience; you can package them together and sell it. That’s
what our itinerary does, and you want them on board with every single thing you’re doing because they’re the ones who
are going to make it happen. You’re just going to promote it.
•Elected Leadership: Obviously, there’s an education of what tourism is and what it’s not for Cottage Grove is super, super
important. We have to make sure they’re always, I talked last night about regularly dropping you updates of here’s what’s
going on in tourism, and I mean numbers, and here’s what’s happened since last time. Showing them results, showing them
that it actually is making an economic impact in our community. Do they know that now, do they believe in it now? A little
bit, or they wouldn’t have made some decisions the past couple years, but it’s still down here, we’ve got to continue to
grow it, we have to constantly merchandise what it means and the impact we have on it. I’m putting this emphasis because
you’re going to see that’s going to be our #1 recommendation; the most important thing you need to be doing is in this
ballpark.
•Residents: Need to know a little bit, some of them know; reality is if 50% of them know what’s going on, we’ll be happy,
that’s the way it is.
•Existing Business Owners: We spoke to St. Paul Tourism, we spoke to Minneapolis Tourism, they’re excited that you’re
doing something. Why? Because they already bought in a long time ago to a regional tourism effect, they’ve already bought
into it; not everybody wants the big metro of Minneapolis, they know that. So, it’s going to spill out, we provide something
that a lot of big people in Minneapolis can’t deliver, it’s too expensive or intimidating. So, they want to have an arsenal of
opportunities that they can sell, so, of course, they’re excited that you all are doing this.
•Industry Peers: Include Woodbury and Hastings, our neighbors. Our hotels that are on our fringe for now, believe it or not,
right? I can’t put groups here, we got all this big Ice Arena. How many days open do we have? That’s one of the first
questions I’d ask. How many days open do we have, and what sells? There’s nowhere for them to stay. Well, there’s hotels
around here, and I’m going to go to these hotels and negotiate; so, I’ll tell you what, we’re going to bring a block of rooms
to your community, and for the rooms that I bring you, give me 1% of your 3%, is that a deal? I’ll go out and sell it, and bring
all these people, overnight, to stay in your community, but you’ve got to give me 1% of your 3%. I’m using that as an
example, but for now, we can’t just sit here and twiddle our thumbs until we have more hotels, can we? So, that’s the kind
of, being a little creative, but also I’m controlling the teams because I’m the one selling the groups to come to our arena, as
Economic Development Authority & Convention and Visitors Bureau Joint Meeting Minutes
February 11, 2025
Page 5 of 17
an example. So, with your industry peers, right now, we can easily say our competitors are our partners, too, when you
think of them that way.
VISITOR AUDIENCES
•Corporate Travelers: Business travel, this kind of seems like your #1, in my opinion. If I could only do one thing, I’m putting
all my efforts on making the business traveler’s experience to Cottage Grove great because those are important
partnerships that you already have. You’ve already the relationships, so, to me, is the #1.
•Sports Teams: This is #2, for sure, because you do have the Ice Arena, but granted, it’s how many days open do you have?
Can you actually sell it?
•Weddings: Are nice, for sure.
•Surrounding Communities: You are a regional draw; we don’t need to be spending money outside, we don’t need to spend
money at the Minneapolis airport telling people to come to Cottage Grove. No, we don’t need to be doing that. We need to
be getting people, you know, within 100 miles or less of the community.
FUNDAMENTALS OF TOURISM
We’ll review Fundamentals 101 real quick, and then we’ll get to our recommendations, and then we’ll fly, okay?
First of all, remember this:
•For tourism to be real, it has to be real. This isn’t make believe, this isn’t party planning, right?
•You must have somebody to own it.
•Must have the organizational structure to be accountable and provide direction, which you do.
•It must have a revenue source and funding; you’ve put that in place, so you’re doing the right fundamental things. But I’ll
pause you on that, it must have a revenue source and it must have funding; I think the thing with this number is, cool, we
can market outside, but that’s the least important thing you all need to be doing right now is spending money. I’m not
saying don’t spend it, I’m just saying it is a priority, you’re going to see, it’s just not the top of the list, all right? Because
you’ve got to pay somebody here, and it takes time to do a lot of the things that you need to do.
Keys to Tourism Success
•Promotion: How do we promote? What do we promote? Where do we promote?
•Ownership: Person, Organization, Accountability.
•Product: Food, Shopping, Lodging, Entertainment, Amenities.
•Funding: Occupancy Tax, Tourism Special District, Grants (State & Federal), Sponsorships, Private.
When people get to stay overnight, they spend three-to-five times more money in a community if they stay overnight. Right now,
we’ll bend the rules. Why? Because we don’t have a place for them to stay, but I can make those kind of partnerships with
neighboring hotels, hopefully I can do something with our restaurants as a part of that package, right? We’ll bid it that we just go
one step for right now, right? If no one’s spending their money here, on shopping and restaurants. So, if you have to leave in the
next five minutes, no worries, here’s the recommendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Key Initiatives:
1. Develop a Culture of Tourism
We have to educate ourselves and decide what tourism is all about and what our plan for success is today, so
that’s the first thing we have to do. But, again, whoever is owning this thing, you’re going to be like, why are you
doing this? You’re going to point to one of these.
2. Partnering and Packaging with Existing Assets
I mentioned this a while ago, there are some ideas that we’re going to have on how to do that.
3. Facilitate Product Development (Long Term)
Of course, product is a big part of this. This one is where you have to be careful; you want to always be looking for
opportunities, but if you’re trying to chase too many things at once, you’ll get distracted. The one part of product
development that you really need to focus on right now is a hotel, no doubt about it. There are other options out
there, of course, especially if you’re doing a lot of partnering and packaging, the product may reveal itself to some
of your existing partners, long term.
4. Ongoing Marketing
We do want to promote ourselves a little bit, and we have some suggestions of where you should put your dollars.
5. Tracking and Reporting
We can’t accomplish this if we don’t do this. We have to be accountable, right? We have to show, okay, here’s
what we’re doing with our $90,000 to 100,000 that we’re getting for now, where it’s going, and are we moving
Economic Development Authority & Convention and Visitors Bureau Joint Meeting Minutes
February 11, 2025
Page 6 of 17
that needle? If so, we need to adjust ourselves a little bit to what’s going on, right? That’s how you build or earn
respect and trust that tourism is a real thing, and that we’re doing the right stuff.
So, those are the five key initiatives; we have some suggestions of how you can build those and where your priorities need to be.
Key Initiative #1, Develop a Culture of Tourism
Yes, developing a culture of tourism, that’s priority #1, it’s probably more than anything else, as I mentioned. It’s even more priority
over developing another hotel, as big as that is; we have to, as tourism is a word that sometimes just gets bent to different agendas
and it means different things to different people. So, we’ve got to define what it is, literally.
WHAT IS A CULTURE OF TOURISM? So, creating a culture of tourism must happen in order for it to develop into a real economic
driver, and that’s why you’re doing this for Cottage Grove. It means…
•It’s viewed as economic development.
•It’s viewed as a viable new business opportunity.
•Businesses expect new faces and willing to help, this is what tourism culture means. Businesses are used to visitors being
here; oh, yeah, where are you from? What’s going on? I mean, right now, the hotel that happens, but outside of that, it’s
teaching people that when we have visitors and guests, we greet them, and there’s a level of hospitality training that
occurs.
•Tourism businesses are connected to one another.
•Unified understanding of what tourism creates.
ESTABLISH THE STRUCTURE FOR TOURISM:
•Accountability to leadership AND tourism professionals: Tourism board-steering is crucial. When stakeholders are a part of
creating the direction, they will also make sure their business aligns.
•Tourism Management: For now, Tourism should continue as a department of the City, and it can stay that way, but at some
point, it may be necessary to create a separate Tourism Department or consider branding it out as a 501(c)(6). That’s pretty
common; the challenge is always when Tourism and Chambers are together, they often get messaging and the purpose are
different, they should be. Serving membership in a Chamber and serving visitors are just two different agendas, but shared
resources are very tempting, so I would imagine that’s why that was probably done, to some degree. I don't know the
details of that. But, mostly, Tourism, keep it in the department, and at some point in the future, if your Lodging Tax gets
large enough, you may want to push it up; this is more about how people see a source of revenue coming in. Taxpayers are
not used to tourism, and when they see revenue coming in, they think it’s their money being spent, and it’s not, right?
Tourism revenues are visitors’ money being spent, that’s the beauty of it, it’s self funding. So, keeping those revenues
separate from the rest of your budget, your finances, is super important, and residents will not get confused. So, that’s why
you just want to see the separation, just remember that, and I’ve talked to Jennifer about that, too.
•As tourism grows, you may want to hire a Tourism Director, Manager, or Coordinator; what the title is, specifically doesn’t
matter, walk before you run, would be my recommendation, but you want ownership, you want someone whose job it is.
Right now, it’s split probably between three-ish people, I think, right? And their #1 priority is City communications; hey,
snow removal. I mean, a visitor kind of cares about snow removal, I guess, but not in the same way, you know? Again, they
don’t care about Easter Egg Hunts, they don’t care about the utilities, and the things that you care about as a resident, and
so, it’s tough to do that, and the Communications Team are going to have to balance both right now. So, at some point, I
think your use of revenue is better spent on more focus of a person than advertising outside. And that’s just one piece of it,
they have to get training, they need to go to conferences. What? Yeah, if we’re going to elevate tourism, to be serious,
shouldn’t there be an expert in the room? Shouldn’t there be someone who lives and breathes, every day wakes up and
goes man, I’ve got to go do tourism in Cottage Grove? And they know the latest things that are going on, they understand
how the latest trends that are happening, what’s affecting Minneapolis and CVBs around the State. They don’t just wake up
and know it, they have to train themselves, they have to do ongoing training. All right, that’s what you need, it’s what
serious industry would do, and so should this person; that takes time, and money, and travel, and all that good stuff.
CHANGE THE DEPARTMENT NAME:
•Since you are not involved in “conventions” and won’t be anytime soon; we’re not in the convention business. We
recommend changing the name of the organization to Cottage Grove Tourism or Cottage Grove Tourism & Sports.
•You can keep discovercottagegrove.com; add MN in your URL, discovercottagegrovemn.com, might be advantageous for
search engine results. Even your consultant a few days ago, when I went to book a hotel in Cottage Grove, because
remember the first thing everyone does, where you’re going and hotels. I entered Cottage Grove hotels, and I almost
booked it, but it was in Wisconsin, right? So, you need to add MN in your URL.
Economic Development Authority & Convention and Visitors Bureau Joint Meeting Minutes
February 11, 2025
Page 7 of 17
EDUCATE AND EVANGELIZE YOUR TOURISM BOARD:
•Your Board should represent tourism in some form and should be educated on tourism today. The person who owns
tourism, whoever that person may be, needs to be the expert in the room in the community, but the next level are you all;
you all need to know what’s going on, and it takes a person to keep you all educated.
•They need to be aware of the latest trends and local-regional tourism, it’s super important data because you’re going to get
out in the community, and you’re going to talk about it. We need people to spread the word that tourism is awesome,
right?
•Always provide some level of ongoing education to the Board.
•We recommend you use the newly formed Mission-Vision-Values as guiding lights for tourism, including how the Board
works with others and one another.
ESTABLISH YOUR MISSION/VISION/VALUES:
•Proposed Mission Statement: Stimulate the Cottage Grove economy for residents and businesses through the thoughtful
promotion, coordination, and preservation of tourism. The Mission Statement is who we are, why we exist, and who we
serve. Preservation’s in your Mission Statement because tourism isn’t just about promoting, it’s about maintaining the
quality of life that’s important to our community and it obviously is, right? You will be voting on that to make that official,
and if you want to tweak it, fine.
•Proposed Vision Statement: Vision Statement is more aspirational, of what do we want to become? We want: To be seen as
a desired community to visit, an economic catalyst into the local economy, and a trusted community partner. I’m not sure
about this, if anyone has brought tourism in, they need to be in this meeting, that’s what that means.
•Proposed Values: Passion, Expertise, Resiliency, Collaborative, Authentic, Hospitality, Pride; how are we going to treat each
other, how are we going to work together? As a new member of the Tourism Board, you need to know this is how we treat
each other, this is how we work together, this is what we’re about, right?
DEFINE TOURISM: Create an agreed-upon definition of tourism so everyone knows our purpose and focus.
Our Recommended Definition of Tourism: Tourism is the new tax revenue and direct spending generated by those not living in
Cottage Grove (ideally more than 50 miles away). This includes overnight stays and day trippers, it includes recreational, leisure, or
business purposes. For now, Cottage Grove Tourism marketing efforts will be regional and will include the Twin Cities area. This is
actually your biggest market because it’s so close and you’ll get a lot of day trippers from there, you’re not going to get a lot of
overnights, but that’s okay for now.
DEFINE COTTAGE GROVE’S TOURISM ROLE: The role of a tourism agency is…
•Destination Marketing: Be the voice for why visitors should want to and should come here.
•Destination Leadership: That’s all the hard work, actually; that’s bringing partners and stakeholders together under a
shared vision and destination strategy.
•In-Destination Management: We want to influence how visitors experience the destination and support sustainable
development. So, we’ve got our nose in things that actually work well for the City and others, like is it clean or is there
blight? I don’t want people getting off that exit if it looks like rats, no way. Are our front-desk workers at our restaurants
and hotels friendly? Do they have the hospitality training that we need? Those are things that we can bring to the table;
hospitality training is a very common thing that DMOs (Destination Marketing Organization) do. Hospitality training is very
typical of a DMO, once you have a collection of people, of stakeholders together. Because their biggest challenge is keeping
their people trained, right? They know how to use their systems and stuff, but basic customer service, believe it or not, is an
art, and it’s not natural for a lot of people and it’s the biggest challenge that our industry has.
This is so you understand the building block that we’re creating here, okay?
HOST AN INTRODUCTORY STAKEHOLDER SUMMIT: I’m just going to barely touch on this, but we’ve got to start beating our chest at
least once a year that says hey, here’s what tourism’s doing. Do we really need to have a Tourism Annual Meeting? It seems a little
bit big right now for us; well, maybe it’s not a big meeting, but I’d have it. Once a year, I’d beat your chest and say here’s what
tourism’s done. Why? Because it’s serious, I’m trying to elevate the role of tourism here. I recognize frontline workers, do some
work; you know, we only have a couple hotels. Well, fine, but I’m going to establish the Frontline Worker of the Year, and anybody
can nominate who they are, restaurants are included in that; Partner of the Year, Elected Leader, Tourism Ambassador of the Year.
Let’s recognize our champions so we facilitate the idea of working together, right? And it’s an opportunity to show the results of
everything that we do. When would I do it? I don't know, how about National Travel and Tourism Week, which is usually the first or
second week of May, maybe not this year, but you get my point? Use it whenever tourism’s elevated.
ONGOING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: I mentioned this, it’s necessary.
•Tourism Director/Manager/Coordinator must develop into the local expert, somebody has to be bringing knowledge into
the community about what’s going on now in tourism. Short-term rentals are the big thing going on, like what’s happening
Economic Development Authority & Convention and Visitors Bureau Joint Meeting Minutes
February 11, 2025
Page 8 of 17
with Airbnb and VRBO? Are we collecting the taxes the right way? Are there resources (and there are) that allow us to
monitor the short-term rental and tell whether they’re lying to us or not, which they do. Who’s keeping up with the trends?
•Seek industry training and ongoing learning. You’ve got to invest time to go to the State Tourism Conferences and even
Regional Tourism Conferences when they have some. Destination International is international, but it’s really U.S. based,
but it’s kind of the industry authority of tourism; U.S. Travel is another one, they have an annual conference, but they have
regional ones, which would be more appropriate for you all. Annual would be too big for you right now; to be honest with
you, it’d be overwhelming. But you have to go to those things, and that costs money, and that’s time, travel, and budgeting
for that.
•Require each Tourism Board Member to attend at least one tourism-related educational event or class annually.
•Constantly share industry trends, other examples and initiatives.
REGULAR STAKEHOLDER COMMUNICATIONS: We can’t just ask people to come to a meeting like this all the time, so we need to
have…
•A Cottage Grove Tourism newsletter for the stakeholders, for the business of tourism, and that needs to go out every other
month, probably. Here’s what we’re doing, here’s where we’re going.
•Celebrate the successes of tourism efforts in Cottage Grove, highlight upcoming events, and provide insights into current
projects and initiatives. We just got a plan, we’re finishing that now, we’re actually assembling the group to help us with
this, whatever it may be.
•Present short top-line overview of Cottage Grove Tourism Activity-report the numbers, any significant milestones or
accomplishments, and upcoming opportunities. It’s the opportunity to brag about people in your industry, brag about what
you’re doing, but you need to keep in touch with them on an ongoing basis. Some places have a whole dedicated portion of
their website just for the stakeholders; that way, you can keep kind of a little bulletin board of everything going on, that’s
not a bad idea, by the way.
BE THE REGIONAL TOURISM HUB: You can work with your neighbors right now, you can work with Woodbury, and I mean, it’s in the
case of hosting some things. There are other communities in the same situation as you are, so, maybe regionally, we work together
and we develop the relationships; relationships take time, it takes a person to do it, who’s going to do it? But with Hastings and
Woodbury or whatnot and many others. So, you can work together, maybe it’s not we do all of our marketing by ourselves, maybe
we work together. I gave you an example earlier about bringing groups to town and using the hotel in a nearby community.
•Position Discover Cottage Grove as a central connector for tourism in the region.
•Develop strong partnerships with neighboring communities through regular collaboration, such as a quarterly breakfast
hosted by Discover Cottage Grove.
•Explore joint marketing campaigns and multi-country travel packages.
VISITORS GUIDE: I’m not going to talk about it, we made some recommendations, and your new Visitors Guides just came out like
last week or two weeks ago, and a lot of the changes that we recommended are already incorporated. So, again, staff is already
moving on a lot of things, which is fantastic.
The primary goal of the Visitors Guide is to inspire visitation. Focus is better. Create itineraries and easy listings of things to do
and places to visit.
•More concise Visitors Guide-streamlined page count-add a dedicated section for “Paddle Sports.”
•Create a standalone Wedding Guide.
A WEBSITE BUILT FOR TOURISM: Your website is undergoing some changes right now, from a lot of the recommendations that
we’re making. The one thing I’ll say that’s super, super important is developing an inquiry database, believe it or not, so we can
email people about things and things going on; but when we talk about measurement later on, we don’t have a way to measure it.
How am I going to do that? How am I going to survey people? You can’t walk up to them on the street; well, you can, but that’s just
not a good sample method to do it because you’d have to do that almost every week for a whole year to make that justifiable. But if
we have a database of people who ask for a Visitors Guide, I can follow up with them; because what’s the point of a Visitors Guide?
Inspire travel, inspire a visit. So, if I have their email address because I know I sent them one, then everybody here has, I’ve got like
3,000 people that I’ve sent them to, and I can still survey, and I can ask them the really important question: Did you visit? Hey,
goodness gracious, we have a ROI. Now I can tell that for every dollar we spent on marketing Cottage Grove, we’re generating $20
for our community; because I’m not just going to ask if they visit, because of the 25-to-30% that say they did, which is usually what it
is, by the way, then I’m going to follow up and ask, oh, really, when? What did you do? Who did you come with? Why’d you visit?
Where did you stay? And including, how much money did you spend on those things? Research has shown even six months after the
fact or even a year after the fact, it’s pretty accurate; people have an idea of how much they spend when they go to a community, it
averages out. So, now, I can generate an economic impact of our budget; that’s called measuring, being accountable, right?
•The website should have some similar connections to the Visitors Guide (of course it has more fun content).
•Make updates similar to the template of the Guide, but with more options and connections to partners.
Economic Development Authority & Convention and Visitors Bureau Joint Meeting Minutes
February 11, 2025
Page 9 of 17
•Section dedicated to Wedding Venues, which should include information on the Explore Cottage Grove’s website before
linking to the venue or other websites.
•Include reference to Weddings in Twin Cities, St. Paul, Minneapolis; all of this helps with search engine optimization.
LOOK TO INCREASE FUNDING: At some point, we’ll have to increase funding. Right now, you don’t need to be raising taxes, I don’t
care if it’s visitors’ money, you just passed one two years ago, you don’t need to be asking for it right now. But a hotel is going to
double your funding, one hotel will double your funding, which is fantastic.
•Annual budget needs to be $150K-$300K for marketing tourism.
•Apply for State tourism grants, also, many Federal grant opportunities; it takes time for someone to search for grants.
•Near future: Increase Lodging Tax to 5%, additional 2% allocated to tourism.
It’s important to highlight that this tax is a non-resident tax, collected from visitors, ensuring that local residents are not burdened.
Below are potential grant programs available through the Minnesota Division of Tourism:
https.//mn.gov/tourism-industry/industry-opportunities/grant-programs/
KEY INITIATIVE #2: PARTNERING/PACKAGING WITH EXISTING ASSETS
The goal is to package and promote existing assets, because we have work to do now; we’ve got to bring our partners together right
now, that’s really the idea of this. By packaging these experiences into marketable products, Cottage Grove can attract more visitors
and increase tourism revenue.
CONNECT WITH TOURISM STAKEHOLDERS: The best ideas for connecting partners do not come from the consultant, they come
from the partners. Bring them together for the purpose of developing ideas on how the community can work together to create
tourism programs and events.
So, the best ideas for Packaging and Partners don’t come from us, we have some, and they’re going to be in your plan, the best
ideas are going to come from your tourism partners. Hey, our tourism consultant said that we should do this, it ain’t gonna happen.
You know any small business out there, they’re going to have their ideas, and it’s going to be focused on what they should focus on;
they want to make money, so, the most important thing we can do in creating a partnership is set a meeting and go, hey, how can
we work together? How can we get this restaurant and this restaurant and this restaurant and this restaurant together? I don't
know. Well, some communities have a Food Week; oh, that’s a good idea. Why don’t we do a food week? Let’s do it right. The ideas
you need to move forward on, on partnering, are with your partners. So, again, we have some, and that’s fine, but I’ve never seen
anyone execute them because they want to make money and they’re letting them come up with it; that’s a true partnership, okay?
HIGHLIGHTING FAMILY AND FRIENDS GATHERINGS: Many visitors come to Cottage Grove to reconnect with loved ones. However,
our research shows that residents often take their guests to destinations outside of Cottage Grove. To encourage locals to explore
and enjoy what the area has to offer, we propose creating a brochure featuring the top five must-do activities in Cottage Grove. This
will serve as a guide for residents, helping them to discover great spots to take their family and friends right within their own
community.
You are a family and friends community, it’s probably, other than business workers, although they stay at your houses, you do
bring friends and family to visit your community from time to time. So, you can create programs that are friendly to that; if you think
about it, it’s really tourism focused, but you could create a program to residents that says hey, when your friend or family member
comes to town, you can create a little passport or something like that, that’s creative. But it’s the Cottage Grove Friends and Family
Week or Month, or whatever; you can put together promotions with your partners. Like, there’s an idea there; again, I don’t want to
get down to details because it’s worthless, but the point is you’ve got to work with what you have right now. And you could do
something around Friends and Family, no doubt about it.
WEDDING FAIR EVENT: Thinking of weddings, you’ve got really smart wedding venue people that know exactly what they should be
doing more than we do. You all have some great wedding assets.
•Host an annual Wedding Fair, designed to showcase Cottage Grove as a premier wedding destination.
•Highlight your beautiful, unique wedding venues: The Madison and Hope Glen and even your golf course does fantastic
weddings, too.
•A variety of local vendors, include booths from local dress shops, florists, photographers, caterers, makeup artists, and
entertainment services, creating a one-stop experience for couples planning their weddings.
If you go to the Meet Minneapolis website, they don’t any of you all listed on there for weddings, and barn weddings have never
been more popular; that’s the reason why that young couple just bought it. It’s super, super popular, and take your niche where you
can do it, right? And, so, how can you take what you already have and make it something bigger, like a Wedding Fair, and you’re
bringing flowers and florists from all over the Twin Cities, all over; it’s just you happen to be the hub where you host them all for a
long weekend or something like that. So, those types of ideas are the point of using what you have.
STRAWBERRY FESTIVAL - “BRING A FRIEND”: The Annual Strawberry Festival is a beloved event in Cottage Grove, celebrating the
community’s rich agricultural heritage and small-town charm. To make this festival even more impactful, we suggest launching a
Economic Development Authority & Convention and Visitors Bureau Joint Meeting Minutes
February 11, 2025
Page 10 of 17
“Bring a Friend” initiative, encouraging locals to invite friends and family from outside the area to experience the festival and
discover the charm of Cottage Grove firsthand. This initiative can foster a sense of community pride while also introducing visitors to
the town’s unique attractions and local businesses, driving tourism and economic growth.
This is where you all deliver the best, where you like hit it out of the park, so I’d double down on it; that’s the one that you make a
big deal of, it’s when the community is showcased the best, it’s when your residents are loving it and they’re bragging about it. So, I
think that’s an opportunity to use programs like the “Bring a Friend,” or something like that, come up with a pass for it.
COTTAGE GROVE DINING WEEK: Launch Cottage Grove Dining Week, a weeklong celebration of the vibrant local food scene,
designed to encourage both locals and visitors to explore the area’s restaurants.
Event Structure: Special Menus and Pricing, Burger Week feature.
Marketing & PR: Targeted PR Campaign, Engage with Social Media.
Bonus Events at the Farmers’ Market: Cooking Demonstrations, Live Music & Entertainment, Pop-Up Food Tastings.
KEY INITIATIVE #3: FACILITATE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT (LONG TERM)
EXPAND LODGING CAPACITY: The City understands the need for a hotel. Currently, Cottage Grove is missing potential for additional
revenue. For example, if a new hotel with 90 rooms, with an average room rate of $135 and a 60% occupancy rate, with a 3%
Lodging Tax, can generate over $80,000 annually in revenue for the City.
The hotel I left this morning is at 90%+ occupancy, and the 3% Lodging Tax, that’s going to generate $80,000 or $90,000. Right
now, you basically have one-ish hotels, they’re generating about $90,000, right? So, you double that with one hotel.
But more than hotels, you can also attract other types of lodging, by the way, I just want to throw that out there: Tiny homes,
cabins, or glamping, etc. You have a treehouse, and you can see how popular that is to attract nature enthusiasts.
The short-term rental market is exploding; people are building communities of tiny homes, and communities of cabins, and those
become the attraction. So, that’s just another thing to open your mind a little bit.
Hotels are the one you want, especially for business travelers, but there are other types of lodging that’s available. There’s
another way to look at it, too, that I’m going to emphasize:
NEW HOTEL POTENTIAL
Number of Rooms: 90
Total Rooms’ Nights: 32,850
Occupancy Rate: 65% (National Average, but you’re actually over that)
Rooms’ Nights Sold: 21,353
Avg Daily Rate (ADR): $125
Overall Hotel Revenue Generated: $2,669,063
MN Sales Tax Generated (6.85%): $ 182,831
Cottage Grove City Tax (.28%): $ 7,473
Lodging Tax Generated (3%): $ 80,072
So, these numbers are cool; that’s another $80,000 for marketing, and that would pay for somebody, how about that? But the City is
losing approximately $5 million in hotel revenue and $4 million in direct spending.
If you think about the other part of it, it’s not just the money that they’re paying to stay at the room, it’s the money that could be
spent in our community. They’ve got to eat, they shop, those are the two things people do when they visit anywhere; that’s what
everybody does. And we project that you’re losing about $4 million a year right now; so, it’s not just about the hotel revenue,
although whoever wants to put a hotel here, we want you to be successful and we have it waiting for us. It’s also our businesses that
are out there and the money that’s not going into the community, and right now, it’s going somewhere else. We’re one of the best
business development products that Woodbury could ask for, as long as we don’t put any more hotels here.
WINTER WONDERLAND - A MAGICAL HOLIDAY EXPERIENCE:
•Look for opportunities to take existing winter events and create a “Winter Wonderland”, a magical and festive atmosphere
that delights locals and draws visitors.
•Multi-week event with holiday markets, family-friendly activities, and eye-catching decorations that encourage spending,
dining, and even overnight stays at local accommodations. Could include: Christmas Market; Ice Skating Rink; Christmas
Lights Tour; Tree Lighting Ceremony; Santa’s Village & Workshops.
This is a partner idea, but again, we can come up with ideas all day long, but a Christmas Market is because you have these venues
that are great and you have some neat little shops; like, you can create an experience over a holiday season, and there’s countless
numbers of examples of communities that do this. It’s just a commitment to lights; if you want a good example, there’s a place
Economic Development Authority & Convention and Visitors Bureau Joint Meeting Minutes
February 11, 2025
Page 11 of 17
where they call themselves Christmas Town U.S.A., they change their name literally one day a year or one month a year or
something, it’s McAdenville, North Carolina. And it’s actually a Statute that you have to participate; as a business owner, you have
to, and I don’t know the details of it, but I’ll look it up if you really want to know. But everyone in the community participates in
Christmas with lights, so, it’s this little bitty town, there’s nothing to do there the rest of the year, but when Christmas comes,
everybody goes there. It’s just outside of Charlotte, about 35 miles west. And it’s a completely different community during Christmas
because everybody participates; that means they bought their own lights, they did their own stuff, it just became something that the
community bought into, like let’s have some fun, let’s generate some short-term tourism. So, there are examples out there of how if
we work together, we can kind of create a short-term experience without bringing in a big investor at all. We like the investors, but
we can still do something, you’ve got the people who can do most of these things, and in this Minneapolis area, you’ve all seen ice
skating rinks.
BENEFITS OF CEDARHURST MANSION RESTORATION: Preserving a community asset and story-telling venue could open doors for
many opportunities:
•Corporate events.
•Community and social events.
•Live concerts.
•Festivals.
•Attracting locals and visitors!
That’s a big discussion that I won’t get into, but it’s definitely something, it seems like it’s worth stating as a product development
opportunity for you all, you don’t have a lot of heritage assets in Cottage Grove, but you do have that one. And it is a source of pride,
it’s a lot of work, it’s intimidating because its so big, but the potential of what that could do seems pretty strong and worthy for all of
those reasons that are listed.
A TOWN CENTER ATTRACTS PEOPLE: By creating a town center or gathering place in Cottage Grove, MN, the community can
experience enhanced cohesion, economic growth, and a stronger sense of identity, making it an even more attractive place to live,
work, and visit. Advantages to a town center:
•Foster community engagement.
•Support local economy.
•Enhance walkability and sustainability.
•Cultural and civic identity.
•Attracting visitors.
I know you all have been talking about that, so I won’t go deeper into that, but having a gathering spot is great tourism because
people know they can go do something there. Like, I don't know what we’re going to do in Hastings tonight, but let’s go, Lori, let’s go
to Hastings. What, where are we going to? I don't know, we’ll figure out something. We can walk around, we’ll have a beer, go shop,
go to the tavern, right? Density creates attraction, especially for residents, and if they’re bringing friends and family, they’re going to
go there. So, I’d just encourage you all, it’s not as easy as the consultant saying you do it, there’s a lot of numbers to make all that
happen, or course, but it’s a tremendous opportunity for you.
DEVELOP MORE FAMILY-FRIENDLY ATTRACTIONS: Cottage Grove lacks entertainment options, especially for families and children.
We recommend working with private investors to develop additional family-friendly attractions, such as:
•Indoor arcade with games, laser-tag, and mini golf
•Outdoor adventure park offering zip-lining, obstacle courses, and climbing walls
•Big Swing
Things like Big Swing, family-friendly attraction like things, especially outdoors, seems like it would be a good fit for you. Because
you’re looking for how can we develop tourism, things to do, I think in the natural, outdoor space makes a lot of sense.
LEVERAGE NATURAL AND RECREATIONAL ASSETS:
•Outdoor Adventure Promotion: Cottage Grove’s parks and trails could be marketed as a destination for outdoor recreation,
including hiking, biking, kayaking, and bird-watching. Host outdoor events, like 5Ks or nature walks to draw enthusiasts.
•Mississippi River Access: You’ve got opportunity to develop waterfront activities with the Mississippi River, like kayaking
and paddle boats to capitalize on the scenic beauty and calm backwaters of the Mississippi River.
•Winter Tourism: Promote winter sports, like cross-country skiing, ice fishing, and snowshoeing. Consider hosting winter
festivals or sporting events to bring tourists during the colder months.
WINERY/BREWERY: If possible, pitch to investors to develop/invest in a local winery, brewery, or distillery. These venues could host
events like tastings, live music nights, or craft beer festivals. Just think about that, but I don’t want to go too far on that.
Economic Development Authority & Convention and Visitors Bureau Joint Meeting Minutes
February 11, 2025
Page 12 of 17
KEY INITIATIVE 4: ONGOING MARKETING
MARKETING PRIORITIES:
1. Branding: Tourism doesn’t really have a strong brand right now, see what you think about “More Than You Imagine” as a
tagline. I said you’re not, you’re not more than I imagined. Actually, what research shows is no one’s imagining you, no one
imagines you, so, you definitely aren’t more than that. And its, you have a nice experience, but its not, you don’t walk away
and go, wow, that was awesome! Man, Cottage Grove is amazing! I don’t see that happening right now. No one’s saying
anything bad about you, they’re just not bragging about you. And not in a visitor world, like, I mean, you need to go check
out Cottage Grove. An unidentified person said, how about, “It’s everything you want within a 10-minute drive.” Everything
you want within a 10-minute drive, there you go, yeah, but, I think that’s a City thing. I actually would encourage you all to
consider branding for tourism, but also for the City economic development, everything. How do we really position
ourselves? And you can only be the best you can be. You cannot act like you’re someone you’re not. You kind of just have a
blank slate; there’s nothing negative, you just have a, you’re like vanilla, and there’s an opportunity to tell a stronger story.
You do have passionate people in this community that love where they live, and so, I think you need to do a better job
harvesting it, to be honest with you. Having that identity, knowing who you are, your voice, the whole thing that goes along
with it.
2. Website: If you think about priorities with dollars and time, that goes with that.
3. Visitors Guide
4. Social Media: Is probably the most active, most used, and most valuable; that’s the most frequently used volume of work,
time, effort of anything that we do in tourism marketing. It’s a lot of work, but it pays off because you people in Cottage
Grove, you can get a lot of attention without a lot of money.
5. Content Development: Photography, videos. If you’re going to do this well and this well and this well, you have to have
content, and that’s a never-ending process. You can’t be talking like, “Whatever your fare, there’s something for everyone
in Cottage Grove.” Please don’t say that. Don’t say that, you can say it, the Chambers love saying it, the City loves saying it,
don’t say it for tourism. “We are the friendliest people,” don’t say that either. Everybody says those things, be very specific.
What makes you interesting? And write it down. Don’t worry about, well, they’re going to get mad because we’re
promoting them over other people. I don’t care, I’m trying to get people interested in this place, so, the fact that the
Subway restaurant is mad at me that I’ve given this unique place attention and not giving it to them, I don’t care. I mean, I
care that they’re mad, but my job is to be marketing for tourism, right? And not to look like everybody else. But we need
content, this is an ongoing process.
6. Targeted Paid Promotion (Digital Ad Campaign): By the time you get to this, you’re not going to have any money left. You
have $90,000, if you do it right. So, there’s not much money left. When you all do advertising, I would put it on Strawberry
Festival, and I would target, do digital targeting of people in the Minneapolis, Twin Cities area, and I can work some
promotion. I’d have something specific, I mean, you’ve already got a lot of people there, it’s just what the goal would be
people have such a good time, they come back, you know, later on. Oh, man, it’s ‘cause you’re on your best at Strawberry
Festival, right? “Oh, what a great place, we ought to come back here sometime when it’s not as crazy,” that would be your
desired takeaway, right? So, I would put efforts of an event-based advertising, digital advertising only, and I would target
certain ZIP Codes in the Twin City area; that’s about all you’re going to have the money to do.
7. Build Database (For E-newsletters and future research): So, what marketing dollars you have we agree you’re going to be
spending them. Make sense?
KEY INITIATIVE 5: TRACKING & REPORTING
PROVIDE REGULAR UPDATES:
•Be tenacious in measuring and reporting tourism. On a semiannual basis, give a State of Tourism report during a
commission meeting or tourism’s own Annual Meeting.
•Consider recognizing a Lodging Partner of the Year and a Hospitality Partner of the Year for those who have helped in
promoting tourism in Cottage Grove.
•Create marketing materials on the impact of tourism during National Tourism Week.
This is pretty self-explanatory, and I mentioned you need to have an annual State of Tourism report, you need to have a Lodging
Partner of the Year, you need to have a Hospitality Partner of the Year. You need to be in front of the City Council a couple times a
year, saying here’s what’s going on, here’s the needle that we’re moving.
I can’t emphasize this enough, and I feel so strongly about it: Many times it’s, well, we’re going to draw up a plan for tourism;
because of the nature of tourism, we always assume that means marketing dollars, and these great, creative ideas of how we’re
going to spend our money. Let’s do that in five years. Right now, let’s get the foundation we need, right? We’re going to make more
things happen by not spending money out there, but investing in ourselves, our time, bringing in partners, and getting the assets we
need so we have something to promote.
Economic Development Authority & Convention and Visitors Bureau Joint Meeting Minutes
February 11, 2025
Page 13 of 17
So, that’s kind of the plan, folks. That’s just showing examples of being committed to merchandising: This is Delco, Pennsylvania,
and they’re showing numbers, look where we’re at: Here’s the economic impact, here’s the spending in our county, here’s the sales
tax generated, or whatever you want to say. And this is Louisiana, and they’re pushing the same thing, but it shows you have to work
to get your respect at the table.
Steve said, so, that’s the plan; I hope it makes a lot of sense.
The goal is after today, in the next 36 hours usually is what happens, there’s comments, questions, what about this, what about
this? That’s fed into Phil and Gretchen, that comes to us, and we make some tweaks and stuff to the plan because, ultimately, it is
your plan. And then we’re actually, we’re going to, no one looks at a presentation after today, and it’ll actually be a document. We
try not to make it too big, but we’ll have an appendix of all background reports and stuff, but I like a plan to be something that’s
actionable, not a dust catcher, and we all know that, too. So, but that’s what we’ll be doing the next couple weeks is actually making
any revisions and printing up the report and send that to you all. He asked if there were any questions.
EDA President Bailey asked if there were any questions from the EDA or the CVB.
EDA Member Khambata said that was a lot of information to take in; I think, you know, some of it is kind of humbling to kind of
admit some of the shortfalls, but I think, you know, everyone kind of knew that they existed. We’re finding a way to kind of pull all
the pieces of the puzzle, that we do have, together to create more opportunity, and kind of like an organizational structure and how
to structure accountability, so we can; because I think right now, and to your point, like we’ve kind of gone in a lot of directions
because the job itself was split up between a handful of people and a handful of stakeholders. I think kind of condensing these ideas
and responsibility and accountability into one narrower focus is going to be really beneficial.
EDA President Bailey agreed.
EDA Member Latack said, yeah, you know, that sums up the whole thing perfectly.
EDA Member Khambata replied yeah, so, and it was a good presentation. You have a lot to roll around.
EDA Vice President Olsen said first and foremost, thanks for the in-depth kind of study and suggestions and all of that. I think there
was a lot of very good content.
My questions, and I have several, start with: You mentioned that you work with Placer AI, and the mayor and I had a chance to
visit with them at the ICSC Convention in Vegas last year, and Myron was asking some questions about the data for our City and how
to interpret it and all those sorts of things. And one of the things that we learned is we have an overabundance of grocery stores,
like we have way too much for the resident demand; and on the flip side, you know, talked about you don’t have enough
restaurants, you don’t have enough lodging, you don’t, all of which sort of ties into that tourism piece. So, I’m wondering how
should we consider working with an analytics firm like that for those sort of regular updates, or do you think that may be overkill?
Steve replied Placer, a year of Placer is going to cost you around $30,000; I say that with great confidence, that’s what it is. I’d just
say, I mean, that takes off $30K of your budget right away. But you would have access to it nonstop, and you’re not to the place
where you probably need it nonstop. You could get it, it’s going to be wise for you to make some tactical and some strategic
decisions on certain opportunities, and for that, I’d use it; you could probably work with them directly. Their bread and butter,
they’re working with municipalities right now, and they’re getting it, they actually started it through municipalities. Now, they’re
starting to go, wait a second, tourism’s a big deal, too; so, they’re starting to buckle up and go that route, but it’s actually new for
them to look at it that way. So, I think it’s incredibly valuable because, you know, I used to have a client that said, “You know, In God
We Trust, everyone else bring data.” You know, people make big decisions, they need data that’s going to give them confidence, and
Placer provides data we’ve never had before. We’ve just never been able to track things, just been guesses; so, I am a big advocate
of it, I think on a very case-by-case scenario is what I would use it, though. I wouldn’t subscribe to it, not yet, unless you’ve got
another fund to pay for it outside of tourism.
EDA Vice President Olsen asked EDA Member Khambata, so, did you want to follow up on that?
EDA Member Khambata said, so, I’m a real estate broker, and the go-to resource for housing affordability, for the number of
transactions for every sale price is the Association of Realtors because they bill themselves to be the authority on that information.
And without having to reinvent the wheel, like where do we go, who’s the authority on the type of tourism information that is out
there? Like, as you said, in terms of like a semiannual or an annual report, and in an environment or in an ecosystem where
everyone’s trying to sell you information, and they want, like everyone has the best information; like, again, we can’t go chasing
around a $30,000 proposition that we’re not going to pay off. And, whereas, like the Association of Realtors sends every one of
these Council Members that information at no cost, and you can believe it, you can rely on it. Are there resources out there like that,
trade organizations that are willing to share those aspects of tourism with us that we can deem as reliable, without having to kind of
go through like a trial and error process?
Steve replied for you, that’s going to be Meet Minneapolis or State of Minnesota Tourism. They spend money on research every
year, and so, they have knowledge, but it’s also to give it to the Cottage Groves. The Minneapolis, St. Pauls of the world, even
Economic Development Authority & Convention and Visitors Bureau Joint Meeting Minutes
February 11, 2025
Page 14 of 17
Duluth, they might not need it as much, but we do, and there’s more people like Cottage Grove than there are Minneapolis. But how
come we don’t know about it? Whose job is it? Whose job is it to have the relationship and know? I mean, tonight when I get home,
I’m going to the winter meeting of the State of Tennessee Tourism, and there are three regional directors for all areas of Tennessee,
as well as six sub-directors are going to be there, and they’re having meetings with all the little Cottage Groves all over Tennessee.
And the state provides the Placer, by the way, and part of their goal is to make sure what are your specific requests, they made a
deal with Placer that they can pull their reports for any of their communities and give them their data. So, that’s what we’ve been
talking about, right? So, but you’ve got to have a relationship with the State of Minnesota and maybe even Minneapolis and St. Paul;
I mean, you are part of those metros, and they invest a lot of money in research as well. But if you’re not there to ask them, and to
be aware of what they’re providing, that’s 100% where I’d go, and I’m also 100% they have resources; every state tourism agency
and tourism agencies that watch Minneapolis invest heavily in research or they’re partners. We’re just not there looking for it. Yep,
no doubt about it. There’s a couple other larger organizations, but I wouldn’t worry about them; Destinations International is the big
one, U.S. Travel’s a big one, so, if you want to know big travel trends, that’s where you get that information. They publish annual
reports to make it available for everybody, but the State is where you go right now.
EDA Vice President Olsen said you mentioned rebranding, and sort of in a halfway method about not just tourism, but also the City.
We started on this journey, and we took some counsel from some other communities that do tourism and have been for a long time,
and we landed on Discover Cottage Grove as our tag for our tourism. What do you think? Steve said, which I like. EDA Vice President
Olsen said you do?
Steve replied yeah, I mean, the industry; I’m sorry, I almost kind of cut you off, is that what you’re wanting to know?
EDA Vice President Olsen said well, I think I know what you’re going to say, so continue, and then I’ll check and see.
Steve said about 10 years ago, all of a sudden, I don't know who started, it became the thing to do, it’s like instead of calling
ourselves Convention and Visitors Bureaus or Tourism Authority, which is a very local business name and there’s value to that, we’re
going to tell people what we want them to do. And, so, everybody had visit, discover, explore, tour, in some cases that’s a bad one,
but everybody started doing it. And my point of view is that’s fine, and there’s nothing wrong with it. Like, it’s good, it’s cool, but
your brand is actually Cottage Grove, it’s the City name. That’s the dot on the map that people are going to visit. So, you could say
Discover, it gives you that little call to action, that’s what I loved about it; oh, we’re telling them we want them to discover, and
that’s exactly what we want them to do. Cool. Is it better than Visit? I don't know. Or Explore? I don't know. They’re all great, so
that’s fine. More importantly, when it comes to branding, no one ever visits a place, I don't care where it is, because they have a cool
logo, they don’t do it. I’m not saying a great logo’s not important and a tagline; like, I’m not going to go, “Hey, honey, we gotta go to
Hastings. Why? Look at their tagline, it’s amazing.” We don’t, that’s not how we book travel, that’s not how we decide to go
somewhere; we do it because of, remember the Content Development? That’s why. More people are bragging about communities
like Cottage Grove because of the food experiences that are there, because of the cool things to do, because the architecture looks
great; that’s another reason why a town center is so important, right? If I’m going to brag about Cottage Grove, we have to have a
true picture of it. All right? People are showing the bridges in Hastings, more to great placemaking is branding. So, branding is more
than just, you need the organizational branding, a logo, and a position we’re on is fine, some places don’t even use it. And what you
do, rules of branding that we all know apply. But unlike any company that I’ve ever seen, a City has a more-challenging job of
branding because it’s not just an organization, its a place, and you don’t own your name. Like, if I were to bad mouth 3M, I’m going
to get a lawsuit. Well, who uses the Cottage Grove name? The City, economic development, tourism, Chamber of Commerce; how
many businesses have the name Cottage Grove? We don’t own our name, everybody uses it on their address. So, anybody can use
the name and everybody is your product, your roads, your people, your businesses, good and bad. It’s why we’ll go, those people are
so worried when you have one bad experience. You brand the whole town, oh, they’re rude people over there, right? Yeah, I’m
making that up, but you know what I’m talking about. Branding a place as a City is tough to do, and it requires everyone be involved,
and you want a nice logo, but the role of the logo is ownership, it shows who’s talking to you, who owns the building, who’s behind
that message, and that’s about it. So, I think it’s super important, but really the goal of branding is to have an edge and have some
distinction and a voice and personality of our community.
EDA Vice President Olsen said on that note, you went exactly where I was going, which was Discover Cottage Grove when you
look in the tourism world, as you mentioned, everybody’s using discover this, find that, every business needs that; and I was going to
ask you if you felt like we needed to come up with something more unique, something that separates us from the pack, or if that
was a waste of time?
Steve replied, I think the City of Cottage Grove is a bigger priority than tourism right now. EDA Vice President Olsen said okay, fair
enough.
Steve said and I think they’re connected, don’t get me wrong, but it’s just that we’re not going to be spending a ton of time telling
the outside world to come to Cottage Grove right now; I mean, but when we do, we want to be presentable and we want to be
unique, and why, why should we? I mean, so, the need is there, but right now, you’re in such your infancy of tourism, it’s the Friends
Economic Development Authority & Convention and Visitors Bureau Joint Meeting Minutes
February 11, 2025
Page 15 of 17
and Family aspect of it. I think knowing who we are and having some pride and distinction about what Cottage Grove is, in general, is
important. I think that’s why I mentioned, when I said branding, I said tourism branding is necessary, I don’t think it has to be alone
without the City, I think they are together for now. And I’m the biggest advocate in the world, actually, that it’s okay for tourism and
the City to have different looks to them, but for you all, that’s not necessary; you’re one place right now.
EDA Vice President Olsen said and then the last thing is you mentioned about kind of use what you have, package things, all that,
which we’ve all talked about that for many years, but you showed the picture of Cedarhurst. Now, over time, and many in the room
know this already, that facility has served several different purposes. When you think about what we have and packaging what we
have and all that, should the City be looking at Cedarhurst as kind of a central draw for concerts, for the arts, and maybe even as a
lodging facility? Make it into a historic hotel; because I think about Red Wing, they’ve got the St. James, which is a nice, old, historic
hotel, and they now have The Confluence in Hastings, which is in a little historic building downtown there, etc. Do you see that as a
potential opportunity to kill two birds with the one stone? We get a lot of people for tournaments and different things all year
round, who come and play here, but go to Woodbury to eat their dinner and stay in their hotel. Do you see Cedarhurst as an
opportunity to alleviate a little bit of that pressure on the 1.5 hotels that we already have?
Steve replied we see Cedarhurst as a tremendous opportunity for you however, I don't know that it falls under the sports teams
staying there.
EDA Vice President Olsen replied no, what I’m saying is it’s a historic hotel, then maybe there are people currently staying in Place
A that would choose to stay in Place B. Steve said 100%.
EDA Vice President Olsen said weddings. Steve said I was going to say where do you think most people that go to one of those
weddings at Hope Glen or The Madison, where do you think they stay? I’m going to put my money that they’re not staying at
Country Inn & Suites, they’re not; EDA Vice President Olsen agreed.
Steve said again, there might be a couple that do, but they’re staying at The Confluence. Especially, I don’t think the weddings at
Hope Glen and The Madison are very cheap, right? EDA Vice President Olsen replied, they’re not. Steve said, I mean, they’re the kind
of weddings where the wedding party is going to have a block of rooms somewhere. Where are you going to put them? I’m going to
The Confluence, for example. I mean, right? So, you’d think if that was a historic hotel, do you think? Absolutely, the wedding could
be there, I mean, that could be the wedding venue as well. EDA Vice President Olsen agreed. Steve said I think that’s worthy of a lot
of attention and some discussions of what it could be, it’s a tremendous opportunity, historic places like that are. I know where I live
we had a farm, I’ll just call it a farm for lack of word, but it had some facilities like that on it; and it was actually gifted over to the city
with one term, that it can never, ever be developed beyond, they had some parameters around it, because they want it to always be
an outlet for the people in the community. So, they have concerts there, they have Fourth of July concerts and things there. Now,
they cannot build a hotel on that one, they would never let them do it, a different scenario. But preserving that, and that is your
mission, preserving that the right way I think is super important for the community. And if it, if you don’t, you just don’t have many
assets like that.
EDA Vice President Olsen said I appreciate your feedback on that. You know, it is owned by a group that claims to specialize in
historic preservation, but they haven’t done anything with it, so, I’m just spitballing there. And you’re right about the wedding
venues, I was at the old barn out in Old Cottage Grove last week, meeting with those owners, and prior to me meeting with them,
they had a group of five-or-six families that were touring the facility in hopes of potentially booking it as a wedding; and that was
one of the first questions that came up in the group is well, do you have a bridal suite? Do you have a place for mom and dad to
stay? Those kinds of things, so, I think we’re missing out, and Cedarhurst maybe could be that opportunity, but I guess we’ll have to
talk about that some more. With that, mayor, back to you.
EDA President Bailey asked if there were any other questions at this point.
EDA Member Latack said one question I have is if we’re guarding the content side of things, I think there’s already been some
good content, but a lot of times with content, for somebody willing to share it on social, they have to get some social currency out of
it. So, they don’t say, oh, I had a great time in South Chicago, visiting, you know? It’s like, oh, I had a great time in Las Vegas, or
whatever. So, I’m wondering if we almost set up situations where it’s almost for Instagram-able type social? So, now, it’s other
people saying how fun Cottage Grove is, which is whatever.
Steve replied that is the goal, that’s the whole goal of social media, and that’s why you see; again, you don’t have a town center
to do this stuff. I mean, the go-to things are architecture, murals, I mean, how many places have winged murals in places where
people? You know what I’m talking about, right? We don’t have places for winged murals, right? The Instagram-able moments, the
sharable moments; I guarantee you Hope Glen and The Madison get shared galore because they’re such unique, interesting places.
No one Instagrams the logo of a place. Cottage Grove is so cool, there’s a neat logo, nope, no one does that. But they’re going to do
something that’s interesting, that’s brag worthy. That’s why placemaking is so important, actually, and you can create things; it
doesn’t have to be a huge project. Indianapolis, they have a big NDY in their downtown, the big N-D-Y, and you make the I, so
Economic Development Authority & Convention and Visitors Bureau Joint Meeting Minutes
February 11, 2025
Page 16 of 17
everyone gets their picture made and it says INDY, because I’m the I, you get what I’m saying? Like, that wasn’t that expensive. But
that’s why they did it, so people could brag, and what’s behind it? A cool backdrop of the city and all kinds of stuff, right?
EDA Vice President Olsen said well, think about when Chicago did their Bull, right?
Steve said that’s what started it all, I think, I really do. Yes, that’s why getting art involved and having those types of things that they
give you a little bit of a story telling. And they didn’t say, hey, we need our logo on art all over town; no, you’re not NASCAR, right?
You can tell your story in a lot of different ways, if you ever want a different flavor in the community, that’s what makes it
interesting. So, that’s big, placemaking from a City perspective, I think that’s super, super important. And you’re clean, you’re super
clean and nice and well executed. The roads are nice, they look great, and the Business Park here, it’s a nice place, but having that,
and a little edge usually sounds like it’s pretty and stuff and it can be, but it doesn’t have to be, but you lack having some
placemaking points of distinction. We asked people in our groups, what’s the iconic visual of Cottage Grove? And, overwhelmingly,
everybody’s like, they really don’t have one. Maybe look at the Mississippi River; well, you’re looking at the river, not us, that might
be the one thing that came back the most. EDA Vice President Olsen said and my last question is with the limited pay budget, do
you think Geofence ads where you can Geofence people that go to Rivertown Days because they’re most likely going to some other
festivals type thing?
Steve replied, that’s 100% what I was talking about when I said digital advertising for Strawberry Festival, and I didn’t get into it,
but you want to Geo; you don’t want to just blanket the whole place and say, hey, everybody come here. You can target people that
went to a similar festival to yours last year; you can target people that went to Strawberry Fest a little bit and don’t live here, they
came to it last year, tell them to come back. And festivals just like it in Hastings; I mean, they came to Hastings, they might as well
come here, or Woodbury. You can target people that visited those events last year because they’re likely to come. I mean, that’s
exactly what you want to do, and you’ve done this before. Steve said that’s the tactical way you need to spend your money because
you don’t have much, but it’s high return with that. That’s great, I’m glad you brought that up.
EDA President Bailey said all right, thank you, that’s a lot of info.
Steve said I hope that stuck, it is a lot of info, you all have a tremendous opportunity here to make sure you’re doing the right
things.
B. 2025 Meeting Schedule
Staff Recommendation: Accept the schedule for the 2025 Economic Development Authority Meeting Schedule, as presented.
EDA President Bailey said Director Larson has the 2025 EDA Meeting Schedule up on the board.
EDA Member Tschida asked on the meeting schedule, why are we meeting the first Tuesday in November instead of the second?
It’s just curiosity more than anything else.
Director Larson replied that there are a few things to point out on the calendar:
•We won’t have a March meeting.
•November 4 is proposed because your regular meeting date in November falls on Veterans Day, so, in observance of
Veterans Day, we moved it to November 4, which is the first Tuesday of the month.
•December 2 is always your HRA Final Levy consideration, and so that has to be held in the evening, at 6:00 p.m., before the
City budget is adopted and that is a statutory requirement.
EDA Member Tschida said I should already know the answer to this, but are we allowed to meet on Election Day? Director Larson
replied yes.
Director Larson said and that’s your recommendation for the schedule, and once that’s done, as presented, then we’ll finally get
those the meetings on your calendars; we hadn’t done it yet because we had to have you adopt your annual meeting calendar.
EDA Member Khambata made a motion to accept the 2025 Economic Development Authority meeting schedule, as presented.
EDA Member Scott seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously (6-to-0 vote).
C. DARTS Updates
Staff Recommendation: Receive the DARTS Annual Report.
EDA President Bailey said we’re not going to go through the DARTS Updates at this particular point. But for those who don’t know,
the EDA funds DARTS transportation for one day a week, in essence, for DARTS to go between different senior facilities; frankly, it
doesn’t have to just be seniors, it can be anywhere because they go up to the library, etc.
Economic Development Authority & Convention and Visitors Bureau Joint Meeting Minutes
February 11, 2025
Page 17 of 17
I will mention to you the data is in there, but I know the County is looking at adding a second day, hopefully by the end of this year,
to try to enhance the transportation infrastructure, if you will, within Cottage Grove. So, that’s just a heads up for you on that, I just
happen to know that from talking to the County.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None.
7. OTHER BUSINESS - None.
8. WORKSHOP - None.
9. ADJOURNMENT
EDA Member Khambata made a motion to adjourn. Motion was seconded by EDA Member Tschida. Motion passed unanimously
(6-to-0 vote). The meeting was adjourned at 8:57 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gretchen Larson
Economic Development Director
/jag
1
City Council Action Request
7.C.
Meeting Date 4/16/2025
Department Community Development
Agenda Category Action Item
Title Rental License Approvals
Staff Recommendation Approve the issuance of rental licenses to the properties listed in
the attached table.
Budget Implication N/A
Attachments 1. Rental License Approvals CC Memo
2. Rental License Approvals Table
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator
FROM: Samantha Drewry, Code Enforcement Officer
DATE: April 10, 2025
RE: Rental License Approvals
Background/Discussion
Rental licenses are required for nonowner-occupied residential properties (City Code Title
9-13, Property Maintenance, and Title 9 -14, Rental Licensing) and are issued on a
biennial basis. The licensing process includes submittal of the rental license application,
payment of $180, and public criminal history report. Rental inspections are conducted on
all rental properties as part of the licensing process. Once all information has been sub -
mitted and the inspection satisfactorily completed, the Council must approve the license
prior to it being issued.
The properties listed in the attached table have completed the licensing process and are
ready to have their licenses issued following Council approval.
Recommendation
Approve the issuance of rental licenses to the properties in the attached table.
2025 RENTAL LICENSES
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL - APRIL 16, 2025
RENTAL LICENSE
NUMBER
PROPERTY
STREET #PROPERTY STREET NAME PROPERTY OWNER
RENT-002742 6636 Hinterland Trail South Easyrentmmk, Mai Yang
MULTI-FAMILY:
Hinton Heights, 7750 Hinton Avenue South: 24 Buildings, 249 Units
The View, 7675 Hardwood Avenue South: 1 Building, 31 Units
1
City Council Action Request
7.D.
Meeting Date 4/16/2025
Department IT Department
Agenda Category Action Item
Title Artificial Intelligence Use Policy
Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the approval to implement this policy and
establish governance structures that align AI deployment with public
trust and city values.
Budget Implication None
Attachments 1. AIPolicyCouncil
1
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator
FROM: Brian Bluhm
DATE: April 16, 2025
RE: Artificial Intelligence Use Policy
Discussion
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming industries and government operations,
enhancing efficiency, decision-making, and service delivery. With this growth, ethical
considerations such as data privacy, bias mitigation, and accountability are crucial in guiding
AI implementation. To ensure responsible AI deployment within our city government
operations, we propose the adoption of an AI Use Policy, which outlines the types of AI
technologies in use and establishes guiding principles for their application.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the approval to implement this policy and establish governance structures
that align AI deployment with public trust and city values.
Attachments
1. AIPolicyCouncil
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator
From:
Cc:
Brian Bluhm, IT Manager
Joe Fischbach, Human Resources Manager
Date: April 3, 2025
Subject: Artificial Intelligence Use Policy
Introduction
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming industries and government operations, enhancing
efficiency, decision-making, and service delivery. With this growth, ethical considerations such as data
privacy, bias mitigation, and accountability are crucial in guiding AI implementation. To ensure
responsible AI deployment within our city government operations, we propose the adoption of an AI
Use Policy, which outlines the types of AI technologies in use and establishes guiding principles for
their application.
AI Covered in the Policy
The proposed AI Use Policy addresses several key AI technologies relevant to city operations:
• Generative AI – Systems that create text, images, and other content based on input prompts. Examples
include automated report generation and virtual assistants.
• Machine Learning (ML) – Algorithms that improve decision-making through data analysis and pattern
recognition, such as predictive analytics for city planning.
• Natural Language Processing (NLP) – AI that enables machines to understand and respond to human
language, improving communication between residents and government services.
• Prompt-Based AI – AI models that respond to structured prompts to generate responses, useful for
customer service and information dissemination.
• Training Datasets – Data sets used to develop AI models, ensuring they are fair, diverse, and reflective of
the community’s needs.
Guiding Principles for AI Usage
The policy is built on key principles to ensure ethical and effective AI deployment:
A. Security & Safety: AI systems maintain confidentiality, integrity, and availability through
safeguards that prevent unauthorized access and use. Implementation of AI systems is reliable
and safe, and minimizes risks to individuals, society, and the environment.
B. Privacy: Privacy is preserved in all AI systems by safeguarding personally identifiable
information (“PII”) and sensitive data from unauthorized access, disclosure, and manipulation.
C. Transparency: The purpose and use of AI systems is proactively communicated and disclosed to
the public. An AI system, its data sources, operational model, and policies that govern its use
are understandable and documented.
D. Equity: AI systems support equitable outcomes for everyone. Bias in AI systems is effectively
managed with the intention of reducing harm for anyone impacted by its use.
E. Accountability: Roles and responsibilities govern the deployment and maintenance of AI
systems, and human oversight ensures adherence to relevant laws and regulations.
F. Effectiveness: AI systems are reliable, meet their objectives, and deliver precise and
dependable outcomes for the utility and contexts in which they are deployed.
G. Workforce Empowerment: Staff are empowered to use AI in their roles through education,
training, and collaborations that promote participation and opportunity.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the approval to implement this policy and establish governance structures that align
AI deployment with public trust and city values.
1
SECTION 36. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE POLICY
36.1 Scope. The Artificial Intelligence Policy applies to all City departments, agencies,
and entities involved in the development, procurement, deployment, or use of AI
technologies, as defined herein. It also covers any third-party contractors or vendors that
work with the City of Cottage Grove on AI-related projects.
36.2 Policy purpose.
The purpose of this Policy is to establish guidelines and principles for the responsible and
ethical use of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) technologies within the City of Cottage Grove
(“City”). This policy enables the City to use AI systems for the benefit of the community
while safeguarding against potential harms by ensuring that its deployment upholds the
values of transparency, accountability, fairness, and privacy. The key objectives of this
Policy are to:
• Provide guidance that is clear, easy to follow, and supports decision-making for the
staff, interns, consultants, contractors, partners, and volunteers who may be or
leveraging AI systems to provide services to the residents of the City;
• Ensure that when using AI systems, the City or those operating on its behalf,
adhere to the Guiding Principles that represent values with regards to how AI
systems are purchased, configured, developed, operated, or maintained;
• Define roles and responsibilities related to the City’s usage of AI systems;
• Establish and maintain processes to assess and manage risks presented by AI
systems used by the City;
• Align the governance of AI systems with existing data governance, security, and
privacy measures in accordance with the State of Minnesota’s Public Artificial
Intelligence Services Security Standard, the Minnesota Data Practices Act, and the
City’s Data Policies;
• Define prohibited uses of AI systems;
• Establish procedures to safely retire AI systems that no longer meet the needs of
the City; and
• Define how AI systems may be used for legitimate City purposes in accordance
with applicable local, state, and federal laws, and existing policies.
36.3 Definitions. The following words and terms shall have the meaning as defined
herein, unless the context indicates otherwise.
A. Generative AI – Generative AI refers to AI systems capable of generating new
content, such as images, text, audio, or videos, which imitates or is
indistinguishable from human-created content. It includes technologies such as
Generative Adversarial Networks (“GAN”s), Variational Autoencoders (“VAE ”s),
and other deep learning-based models. Generative AI models are trained on large
datasets and learn the underlying patterns and structures of the data. They can
then generate updated content that is like the examples they were trained on. The
generated content can take various forms, such as text, images, music, or even
videos.
2
B. Machine Learning – Machine Learning (“ML”) is a subset of AI that focuses on the
development of algorithms and models that enable computers to learn from data
and make predictions or decisions without being explicitly programmed. ML
algorithms learn patterns and relationships from training data and use that
knowledge to make predictions or take actions.
C. Narrow or Weak AI – Narrow or Weak AI refers to AI systems designed to perform
a specific task or a set of specific tasks. These systems excel at the task they are
programmed for but lack the ability to generalize beyond their specific domain.
Examples include voice assistants, image recognition systems, and
recommendation algorithms.
D. Natural Language Processing: Natural Language Processing (“NLP”) focuses on
enabling computers to understand, interpret, and generate human language. NLP
involves tasks such as text classification, sentiment analysis, machine translation,
and question answering systems. NLP techniques are used in various applications
like chatbots, virtual assistants, and language translation tools.
E. Prompt: Prompts are the inputs or queries that a user or a program gives to a
Generative AI tool to elicit a specific response. Prompts can normally be expressed
as natural language questions and can be successively refined to tailor the
response provided. The prompts and responses may be used by the AI tool to
expand its knowledge base, so care must be taken not to expose any sensitive
data in the prompt input.
F. Training Dataset: The “corpus” of information used to train a generative AI tool in
the questions it may expect to be posed and how to formulate its response. For
City specific generative AI tools, the software vendor may provide a baseline
corpus of data, to be extended and refined by City employees to tailor the
responses to ensure appropriateness and relevance. For publicly available
Generative AI tools, the training data may include arbitrary sources from across
the internet and will not be within City control. For example, ChatGPT is trained on
a large corpus of text data from the internet. It learns patterns, relationships, and
statistical properties of language by processing billions of sentences and uses that
knowledge base to formulate its responses. In this case, note that there is no
guarantee that its training dataset does not include false or misleading data.
36.4 Policy Statement. Correct usage of Artificial Intelligence technologies within the
City shall ensure that confidential City information is not compromised, that generated
content is always validated by a person before publishing, and that responsible City staff
know, and are comfortable with, the extent to which data provided to an AI tool may be
shared with non-City audiences.
AI is a tool, much like a Google search, but more sophisticated. Nevertheless, ultimately
the people using the tools are responsible for the outcomes. City users of AI tools must
3
remain mindful of this reality. Technology enables our work; it does not replace our
judgment nor our accountability.
36.5 Guiding Principles For AI Usage. Information Technology (“IT”) develops,
delivers, operates, and supports solutions that help City departments efficiently and
effectively deliver equitable and responsive services to the public. We recognize that we
are entrusted with responsibly stewarding the public’s data and protecting our IT systems.
We see the emergence of Generative AI as providing both opportunities that can help us
deliver our services, but it also has risks that can threaten our responsibilities. Because
the Generative AI field is emergent and rapidly evolving, the potential policy impacts and
risks to the City are not yet fully understood. The use of Generative AI systems within the
City can have unanticipated and unmitigated impacts. This Policy seeks to safeguard and
protect against those negative impacts by ensuring the following:
A. Security & Safety: AI systems maintain confidentiality, integrity, and availability
through safeguards that prevent unauthorized access and use. Implementation of
AI systems is reliable and safe, and minimizes risks to individuals, society, and the
environment.
B. Privacy: Privacy is preserved in all AI systems by safeguarding personally
identifiable information (“PII”) and sensitive data from unauthorized access,
disclosure, and manipulation.
C. Transparency: The purpose and use of AI systems is proactively communicated
and disclosed to the public. An AI system, its data sources, operational model, and
policies that govern its use are understandable and documented.
D. Equity: AI systems support equitable outcomes for everyone. Bias in AI systems is
effectively managed with the intention of reducing harm for anyone impacted by its
use.
E. Accountability: Roles and responsibilities govern the deployment and maintenance
of AI systems, and human oversight ensures adherence to relevant laws and
regulations.
F. Effectiveness: AI systems are reliable, meet their objectives, and deliver precise
and dependable outcomes for the utility and contexts in which they are deployed.
G. Workforce Empowerment: Staff are empowered to use AI in their roles through
education, training, and collaborations that promote participation and opportunity.
36.6 Rules for Using AI. Staff may use AI products if they follow this Policy and the
following basic rules:
4
A. The IT Department will maintain a list of approved AI products. Any AI product used
by employees must be on the approved list. Anything not on the approved list must
be reviewed and approved by IT prior to introduction or use.
H. Be mindful and careful of the data input into prompts. Data provided in generative
AI prompts, especially in the publicly accessible platforms such as ChatGPT and
Bard, are used by the companies that power these systems to continuously grow
their tool’s knowledge base. Even generative AI components embedded in other
third-party software may exhibit the same behavior. Do not share sensitive or
confidential information in the prompts. Any information that includes personally
identifying information about other employees and/or community members could
inadvertently be shared with others. Basically, if you would not share information
with the public, avoid sharing it in the prompt. If you have a case that requires
sensitive information to be used with a generative AI, contact IT so we can help
you establish an appropriate solution.
B. Reference AI usage when you use it for significant communications with the public
or for other important purposes. Even when you use AI minimally, disclosure builds
trust through transparency, and it might help others catch errors. So be forthcoming
about crediting your usage of a generative AI “assistant,” and ideally include the
version and type of model you used. For example, “This document was generated
by ChatGPT 3.5 and edited (heavily | moderately | lightly) by John Doe.”
C. Fact-check all AI generated data. While Generative AI can rapidly produce clear
prose, the information and content might be inaccurate, outdated, offensive, or
simply made up, making it essential to validate that the output of generative AI
systems is accurate, properly attributed, free of someone else’s intellectual
property, and free of unintended or undesirable instances of bias and potentially
offensive or harmful material. City employees must fact check and review all
content generated by AI, especially if it will be used in public communication or
decision-making. It is the responsibility of the City employee using AI to verify that
the information is accurate and appropriate by independently researching claims
made by the Generative AI tool.
36.7 Governance Framework. The City’s Information Technology Department (“IT
Department”) will oversee all artificial intelligence initiatives, in concert with employees
from sponsoring departments.
A. The IT Department is responsible for:
• Directing City technology resources, policies, projects, services, and
coordinating the same with other City departments.
• Approving all AI products for use
• Overseeing the digital privacy practices, data processing practices, and
responsible usage of technology in compliance with this Policy.
5
• Overseeing the privacy practices of AI systems used by or on behalf of City
departments.
• Conducting an AI review to assess the potential risks of AI systems.
The IT Department shall designate the IT Manager to actively ensure AI systems
are used in accordance with this Policy, and to actively ensure the AI system is
used in accordance with this policy and the requirements of all other laws,
regulations, or orders.
B. The IT Manager is responsible for:
• Overseeing the security infrastructure, cybersecurity operations, updating
security policies, procedures, standards, guidelines, and monitoring policy
compliance.
• Actively ensure the AI system is used in accordance with this policy; and
• Overseeing the security practices of AI systems used by or on behalf of City
departments.
C. Each city department involved in AI projects will consult with the Information
Technology Department to coordinate and ensure compliance with this Policy.
D. The City Administrator may inspect the usage of AI systems and require a
department to alter or cease its usage of AI systems or a partner’s usage of AI
systems on behalf of the department.
36.8 Oversight and Evaluation Mechanisms.
A. The IT Department will establish an ongoing evaluation and monitoring process to
assess the effectiveness, fairness, and safety of AI systems. Periodic audits will
be conducted to identify and address any issues related to compliance and ethical
considerations.
B. City employees shall obtain IT Department approval before accessing or acquiring
an AI product. This is a standard operating practice in the City for all new or non-
standard technology. For introduction of new commercial software that includes an
AI capability, employees requesting its introduction will provide the IT Department
with answers to the following questions:
• What function(s) does the AI component provide or support?
• What data does it use for its training dataset?
• Is it public data, data shared with other vendor customers, or City-accessible
only?
• Who creates the training dataset? Who maintains it?
• Does anyone outside the City have access to our data, including user
submissions to prompts and the responses?
• Does the City have access to anyone else’s data? If so, whose, and why?
6
• Can we disable the AI component if we so choose? What impact would this
have on system functionality?
36.9 Prohibited Uses. The use of certain AI systems is prohibited due to the sensitive
nature of the information processed and severe potential risk. This includes the following
prohibited purposes:
• Real-time biometric identification;
• Fully automated decisions that do not require any meaningful human oversight,
but may substantially impact individuals;
• Emotional analysis, or the use of techniques to classify human facial and body
movements into certain emotions or sentiments;
• Social scoring, or the use of AI system to track and classify individuals based on
their behaviors, socioeconomic status, or personal characteristics; and
• Any other uses which attempt to score, or otherwise rank individuals based on
protected characteristics.
36.10 Policy Review and Updates. This Policy will be reviewed annually, and updates
will be made as necessary based on technological advancements and emerging best
practices.
36.11 Continuous Learning and Improvement. The City will promote continuous
learning and improvement in AI governance and ensure that AI policies remain at the
forefront of ethical and technological standards. The IT Department is responsible for
conducting an AI review to assess the potential risk of AI systems and coordinate review
of AI systems used by the City with all departments as detailed in this Policy.
36.12 Conclusion. This Policy reflects the City’s commitment to harnessing AI
technologies responsibly and ethically to enhance public services, foster innovation, and
benefit our community. Through transparent, accountable, and inclusive AI practices, we
aim to create a thriving and sustainable future for all citizens. This Policy sets the
foundation for a human-centric approach to AI governance that prioritizes the well-being
and values of our City's residents.
1
City Council Action Request
7.E.
Meeting Date 4/16/2025
Department Finance
Agenda Category Action Item
Title Receive Fund Balance of General Fund as of 12-31-2024
Staff Recommendation Receive information on the General Fund as of December 31, 2024.
Budget Implication N/A
Attachments 1. cc memo 2024 Designated Fund Balance
2. 2024 Designated fund balance
To:Mayor and City Council Members
Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator
From:Brenda Malinowski, Finance Director
Date:April 16, 2025
Subject:Fund Balance – General Fund on December 31, 2024
Introduction
In accordance with Resolution 2024-183, the City Council shall be advised about the designation of fund balance
and associated transfers as soon as is practical after the close of the fiscal year.
Discussion
Council approved the Fund Balance Policy in 2024 which specifies that unassigned fund balance for the General
Fund shall be between 45% and 55% of the subsequent General Fund expenditure budget. 48.2% will be
unassigned at year-end.
The 2024 original adopted budget for the General Fund was a balanced budget. In other words, there was not
to be an increase or decrease to the fund balance. The revised budget for the General Fund has a decrease in
fund balance of $1,370,900 due to the one-time transfer out of $1,370,900 to establish the Compensated
Absences Fund.
This new fund that was approved on December 18, 2024, will demonstrate strong financial stewardship by
recording the compensated absences liability and the assets to fund this liability in a separate fund. Previously,
the fund balance to fund the compensated absences liability had been simply designated in the General Fund.
The new fund will provide more transparency in funding compensated absences.
Despite the large transfer out to establish the new fund, the General Fund-fund balance will increase by
$150,914.
On December 31, 2024, General Fund operating revenues are projected to be 2.3% greater than the revised
budget. Building permit revenue and investment earnings were the primary reasons for the positive results.
Operating expenditures are projected to be 3.38% less than the revised budget due to a favorable winter
season, lower utility costs, and operating savings throughout all departments.
Please note that this information is subject to audit and is not finalized.
General Fund – Fund Balance December 31, 2024, is as follows:
Non-spendable Fund Balance:
Prepaid Items $ 13,556
Assigned Fund Balance:
Designated for future budgets 776,000
One-time public safety aid for future public safety expenses 1,052,777
School bus safety 5,600
Unassigned Fund Balance (working capital) 48.2% of 2025 Budget 13,719,571
$15,567,504
Assignment of Fund Balance for Specific Purposes
The City Administrator and Finance Director have assigned the following balances for specific purposes under
the policy.
•$776,000 is assigned for use in the 2025 budget as follows:
Description Amount
Absorb LGA cut $50,000
Annual Leave Cap 190,000.00
Police Officer start 1/1 60,000.00
Park restrooms-increased costs of service 17,000.00
Bobcat lease-increased costs of lease 14,000.00
Tasers lease-new lease for tasers 42,000.00
Forestry trimming-increased costs 20,000.00
Fire building maintenance-increased costs 4,400.00
Refurbish bearcat-Cottage Grove portion 27,000.00
Stump grinding from 08/29 storm 48,600.00
Topsoil for 8/29 cleanup 12,000.00
8/29 storm tree debris disposal (1st year of 4 Year program) 30,000.00
Traffic Officer 4th Quarter 2024 41,000.00
Gold Award 12,000.00
Fire Cadet Program 58,000.00
Outdoor sirens grant 10,000.00
Police camera 20,000.00
City hall fountain renovation project 20,000.00
Contract items 100,000.00
776,000.00
•$1,733,127 was received for one-time public safety aid in December 2023. $1,052,777 of this amount
will be utilized in 2025 and 2026 so these funds have been assigned at year-end.
•Fine revenue that is received from drivers who violate the school bus stop sign law is restricted to
education programs related to traffic safety. The amount that is unspent is $5,600.
The remaining $13,719,571 is 48.2% of the annual expenditures of the subsequent years budget as directed per
the Fund Balance Policy.
Action Requested
No action is required by the Council.
General Fund
Computation of Fund Balance - December 31, 2024 Designated Designated
Based on Amount Based on Amount
General Fund Amount Available : Per the preliminary financial statements 15,567,504$ 15,447,112$
Non Spendable Fund Balance
Prepaid Items 13,556 7,816
Other Amounts as determined by City Administrator/Finance Director
Designated for future budgets 776,000 194,000
Compensated Absences - 894,900
One-time public safety aid 1,052,777 1,733,127
Amounts collected for violations of "school bus arm"5,600 5,600
Unassigned Fund Balance per fund Balance Policy 28,446,310 25,152,640
45% to 55% of subsequent year budget 48.2%13,719,570 50.0%12,576,320
Total 15,567,503 15,411,763
Amounts in excess of fund balance policy - available for transfer 1 35,349
Outstanding debt 30%- 30%10,605
Equipment Replacement 25%- 25%8,837
Building Replacement 15%- 15%5,302
Future Pavement Mgmt 10%- 10%3,535
Internal Service Funds-Insurance Fund 5%- 5%1,767
Transferred to other funds - 30,046
Remaining Unassigned 1 Unassigned 4,805
Remaining year-end General Fund - Fund Balance 15,567,504$ 15,416,568$
2024
Fund Balance Amounts Assigned
(Per 2024 Fund Balance Policy)
2023
Fund Balance Amounts Assigned
(Per 2023 Fund Balance Policy)
1
City Council Action Request
7.F.
Meeting Date 4/16/2025
Department Finance
Agenda Category Action Item
Title 2024 Budget Revisions
Staff Recommendation Adopt Resolution 2025-57, 2024 Budget Revisions.
Budget Implication N/A
Attachments 1. CC Memo 2024 Budget Adjustments
2. Resolution 2025-57 Revised 2024 Budget
To:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator
From:Brenda Malinowski, Finance Director
Date:April 16, 2025
Subject:2024 Budget Revisions
Background
The Council is requested to consider resolutions to amend the 2024 Budget.
Discussion
2024 Budget Adjustments
Each year events occur that were not identified in the original adopted Budget. The adopted Budget can be
amended to reflect these changes.
o Development Related ($93,000)
▪Increase expenditure budgets for building inspection, engineering and finance
for amounts that were needed due to increased development activity. Increase
building permit revenue, charges for services, and investment earnings by the
same amount.
o Grants ($60,000)
▪Increase police aid in police. Increase expenditures in police related to
operating costs.
o Transfers out ($1,370,900)
▪Increase transfers out by the transfer to establish the new Compensated
Absences Fund. This transfer was previously approved on December 18, 2024.
This action will increase the budget for the transfer.
Recommendation
Approve Resolution 2025-57, 2024 Budget Revisions.
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2025-57
2024 BUDGET REVISIONS
WHEREAS, events surrounding development, grants, donations, and other events that occurred
in 2024 that were not part of the original Adopted Budget; and
WHEREAS Resolution 2023-153 adopted the 2024 operating budget and 2024-180 amended the
2024 operating budget; and
WHEREAS the City Council may authorize additional budget adjustments.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, County of
Washington, State of Minnesota, that the 2024 Budget shall be revised as follows:
2024
Original
Budget
2024 Revised
Budget 2024-
180
2024 Revised
Budget
2025-57
General Fund
Revenue
General Property Tax $18,567,010 $18,567,010 $18,567,010
Licenses & Permits 2,371,670 2,658,670 2,723,670
Intergovernmental 1,637,810 1,823,810 1,883,810
Charges for Services 1,567,910 1,597,910 1,621,910
Fines 150,000 150,000 150,000
Miscellaneous 208,915 375,015 379,015
Transfers In 649,325 649,325 649,325
Total $25,152,640 $25,821,740 $25,974,740
2024
Original
Budget
2024 Revised
Budget
2024 Revised
Budget
Expenditures
General Government
Mayor & Council $116,370 $116,370 $116,370
Administration 919,620 987,420 987,420
Professional services 492,600 572,600 572,600
City Clerk & Elections 236,785 297,985 297,985
Finance 676,130 702,230 706,230
City Hall 574,260 574,260 574,260
Employee & Community Programs 181,335 215,335 215,335
Budget contingency 200,000 --
Transfer out --1,370,900
Community Development
Planning, Zoning & Historic Preservation 590,600 596,300 596,300
Building inspection & Code Enforcement 1,372,805 1,501,005 1,566,005
Public Safety
Police 9,893,825 10,068,825 10,128,825
Animal Control 30,710 30,710 30,710
Emergency Preparedness 114,560 327,560 327,560
Fire 1,931,190 1,935,590 1,935,590
Public Works
Engineering 628,570 633,870 657,870
Street Maintenance 2,048,280 2,049,780 2,049,780
Signage 259,840 259,840 259,840
Snow Plowing 1,019,000 1,019,000 1,019,000
Public Works Admin 485,530 490,230 490,230
Forestry 416,340 441,340 441,340
Parks & Recreation
Park Maintenance 2,305,300 2,308,600 2,308,600
Recreation 658,990 692,890 692,890
Total $25,152,640 $25,821,740 $27,345,640
Passed this 16th day of April 2025.
__________________________
Myron Bailey, Mayor
Attest:
__________________________
Tamara Anderson, City Clerk
1
City Council Action Request
7.G.
Meeting Date 4/16/2025
Department Finance
Agenda Category Action Item
Title Approve 2024 Interfund Transfers
Staff Recommendation Approve Resolution 2025-56, Approving interfund transfers and
closing funds.
Budget Implication N/A
Attachments 1. CC Memo 2025 Interfund Transfers
2. Resolution 2025-56 Interfund Transfers 2024
To:Mayor and City Council Members
Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator
From:Brenda Malinowski, Finance Director
Date:April 16, 2025
Subject:2024 Interfund Transfers and Closing of Funds
Background
The City Council is requested to consider a resolution approving interfund transfers and closing of funds
for 2024. During the course of the year, various funding transfers occur in order to reflect accurate
financial activities between funds. In addition, various TIF-12 funds will be closed into the main TIF 1-12
construction fund since the bonds and pay-go obligations were paid in full during 2024.
Action Requested
Adopt Resolution 2025-56, Resolution Approving Interfund Transfers and Closing Funds.
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2025-56
RESOLUTION APPROVING INTERFUND TRANSFERS AND CLOSING FUNDS
WHEREAS certain interfund transfers have been determined to be necessary in the
completion of the 2024 financial statements, and
WHEREAS certain can now be closed since the activity needed to be accounted for in
the fund is now complete and the fund is no longer necessary, and
NOW THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove,
County of Washington, State of Minnesota, that the following interfund transfers and
closed funds are made effective December 31, 2024.
From To Amount
610-Water Operating Fund 418,078
620-Sewer Operating Fund 3,330
230-Storm Water Utility
Fund
714,430
235-Roadway Maint. Fund 306,729
Total 520-MSA Fund $1,442,567
Purpose-Record utility portions of East Point Douglas and Jamaica Avenue
project as per CIP, feasibility report and final cost allocation report from
engineers.
610-Water Operating Fund 9,202
620-Sewer Operating Fund 15,924
230-Storm Water Utility
Fund
22,125
Total 560-Pavement Manage. Fund 47,251
Purpose-Record utility portions of 2024 Pavement Management project as
per CIP, feasibility report and final cost allocation report from engineers.
610-Water Operating Fund 4,012
620-Sewer Operating Fund 2,564
230-Storm Water Utility
Fund
145,882
Total 520-MSA Fund $152,458
Purpose-Record utility portions of 2024 Mill and Overlay (Jamaica) project
as per feasibility report and final cost allocation report from engineers.
575-Water Area Fund 118,540
580-Sewer Area Fund 192,536
585-Storm Water Area
Fund
314,944
Total 286-ED Trust Fund 626,020
Purpose-Record area fund and utility portions of South District Street and
Utility (Phase 2) project as per CIP and final cost allocation report from
engineers.
From To Amount
290-HERO Center 100-General Fund 52.400
Transfer for administration services provided to HERO Center based upon
agreed amounts as outlined in the JPA agreement.
230-Storm Water Utility 210-Equipment Replace. Fund 52,900
Transfer for vehicle purchased in the prior year for storm water
maintenance activities but funded with equipment replacement funds due
to timing of vehicle arrivals.
570-Park Trust Fund 494-2023A Bonds 492,801
Transfer for unspent bonds funds that will be used for the 2023A principal
and interest payments as allowed in bond document.
300-Closed Debt Fund 310-2018A Improve. Bonds 100,000
Transfer as per the 2024 Budget and Financial Management Plan to use of
Closed Debt Fund to reduce debt service property tax levy.
338-2014A Exempt TIF Bonds 2,500
341-2014A Taxable TIF Bonds 39,951
532-Westside const. Fund 8,528
534-TIF 1-12 Const.Fund 50,979
Closed TIF 1-12 debt service funds and westside construction fund to the
TIF 1-12 Fund since all debt and pay-go obligations have been satisfied for
the District.
Passed this 16th Day of April 2025.
________________________
Myron Bailey, Mayor
Attest:
________________________
Tamara Anderson, City Clerk
1
City Council Action Request
7.H.
Meeting Date 4/16/2025
Department Finance
Agenda Category Action Item
Title 2024 Ambulance Write-Offs
Staff Recommendation Approve Resolution 2025-055, Authorizing Write-offs of the EMS
accounts receivable of $4,742,890.
Budget Implication N/A
Attachments 1. cc memo 2024 ambulance write-offs
2. Resolution 2025-55 Ambulance Write offs 2024
To:Mayor and City Council Members
Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator
From:Brenda Malinowski, Finance Director
Date:April 16, 2025
Subject:Ambulance Write-Offs
Introduction
Each year, certain uncollectible ambulance accounts must be written off. These amounts are
a combination of mandatory adjustments related primarily to Medicare and Medicaid. In
addition, there is “bad-debt” which has previously been turned over to collection.
Discussion
The following is the breakdown of ambulance charges to be written-off for the year-ended
December 31, 2024.
2023 2024
Gross Revenues:
$6,625,657
$6,875,298
Write-off's:
Mandatory $3,647,976 $3,898,473
Bad Debt Expense $793,398 $844,417
Total Write-offs $4,441,374 $4,742,890
Net Revenue 2,184,283 2,132,408
Mandatory write-off’s relate to Medicare, Medicaid and Worker’s Compensation write-off’s.
Payments for these types of calls consist of a small government payment and a small co-
payment from the patient for the call. The amounts paid are a fraction of our billing rate and
lower than the actual cost to provide the service.
Cottage Grove EMS, like all medical service providers, is required to accept assignment for
Medicare payments. Medicare/Medicaid pays a predetermined dollar amount no matter what
billing rate is charged. The table below reflects Medicare reimbursement amounts for the past
three years. As our rates increased in 2024, the change in the reimbursement amount had
little impact on the total Medicare write offs in the collection cycle.
TYPE OF CALL 2022 2023 2024
BLS
Rate $1,775.00 $1,900.00 $2,000.00
Medicare Reimbursement 402.31 439.12 463.26
% Reimbursed 22.67%23.11%23.16%
ALS-1
Rate 2,200.00 2,400.00 2,500.00
Medicare Reimbursement 477.74 521.46 550.12
% Reimbursed 21.72%21.73%22.00%
ALS-2
Rate 2,500.00 2,700.00 2,800.00
Medicare Reimbursement 691.47 754.75 767.19
% Reimbursed 27.66%27.95%27.40%
The “bad debt” accounts are for ambulance call activity occurring from 2020 through 2024 for
the accounts that have not been collected and are deemed uncollectible. Accounts turned over
for collection take over 12 months from the date of service to go through the full collection
process. If an account is not paid within 120 days of billing, it is sent to collection and/or placed
in the State Revenue Recapture program for collection.
Preliminary financial numbers for the EMS Fund indicate a net loss of $137,330 before transfers
and a net loss after transfers of $255,830. Mandatory write-offs and small reimbursements for
the Medicare and Medicaid patients continue to create challenges for the operation.
Action Requested
Adopt Resolution 2025-55, Approve 2024 Ambulance Write-offs.
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2025-055
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING WRITE-OFFS OF THE
COTTAGE GROVE EMS ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE IN THE
AMOUNT OF $4,742,890
WHEREAS, certain ambulance bills are determined uncollectable
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Cottage Grove,
County of Washington, State of Minnesota, that $4,742,890 be written off the
Cottage Grove EMS accounts.
Passed this 16th day of April 2025.
________________________
Myron Bailey, Mayor
Attest:
____________________
Tamara Anderson, City Clerk
1
City Council Action Request
7.I.
Meeting Date 4/16/2025
Department Finance
Agenda Category Action Item
Title Abatement of Tall Weeds Certification
Staff Recommendation Adopt Resolution 2025-58, authorizing the abatement of a Tall
Weed Certification in the amount of $334.81 for parcel identification
number 17.027.21.41.0063.
Budget Implication N/A
Attachments 1. CC Memo Tall Weeds Abatement 04-16-25
2. Resolution 2025-58 Abatement of Tall Weeds Certification
To:Mayor and City Council Members
Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator
From:Judith Afdahl, Assistant Finance Director
Date:April 16, 2025
Subject:Abatement of Tall Weeds Certification
Introduction
During the review of accounts receivable balances outstanding as part of the year-end audit
preparation process, city staff identified an invoice that had been paid but certified to
Washington County for collection with the 2025 property taxes. Therefore, the certification
should be abated at the County.
Discussion
Parcel identification number 17.027.21.41.0063, 8557 Hinton Avenue South was assessed
$334.81 for the removal of noxious weeds and plants from private property on October 16th
2024. This property was certified to Washington County for collection with the 2025 property
taxes. Staff recently discovered a payment was made to the city in full for the amount of the
service charges for removal of noxious weeds and plants.
Since the payment was received prior to the November 15th, 2024, due date it is necessary to
abate the $334.81 that was certified to Washington County to remove the assessment.
City staff has notified the property owner of the error and the pending abatement.
Action Requested
Adopt Resolution 2025-58, authorizing the abatement of a Tall Weed Certification in the
amount of $334.81 for parcel identification number 17.027.21.41.0063.
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-58
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ABATEMENT OF A TALL WEED CERTIFICATION IN
THE AMOUNT OF $334.81
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 2024-142 adopting service
charges for the removal of noxious weeds and plants from private property on October
16th 2024; and
WHEREAS, parcel identification number 17.027.21.41.0063, 8557 Hinton
Avenue S, was a property included in the resolution; and
WHEREAS, the amount due for this property was paid in full by the November
15th, 2024 due date and should not have been part of the certification file submitted to
Washington County for collection with the 2025 property taxes.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Cottage
Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, abates $334.81 for parcel
identification number 17.027.21.41.0063
Passed this 16th Day of April 2025.
__________________________
Myron Bailey, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________
Tamara Anderson, City Clerk
1
City Council Action Request
7.J.
Meeting Date 4/16/2025
Department Engineering
Agenda Category Action Item
Title 2025 Washington County Grant Agreement for Municipal Recycling
Staff Recommendation Approve the 2025 Grant Agreement for Municipal Recycling Grant
Distribution in the amount of $59,016.00.
Budget Implication N/A
Attachments 1. 2025 Recycling Grant Memo
2. Cottage Grove 2025 Recycling Grant Agreement
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator
From: Joe Fox, PE, Project Engineer
Date: April 8, 2025
Re: 2025 Washington County Grant Agreement for Municipal Recycling
Background
In an effort to improve recycling, the Washington County Department of Public Health and
Environment awards grants to participating cities to fund recycling awareness messaging
and programming for residents. The annual recycling grant reimburses the city for
qualifying recycling programs.
Discussion
The County grant for Cottage Grove in 2025 is $59,016.00. The city utilizes this grant
funding for the food scraps collection program, the spring clean-up event at Public Works,
to offset the costs of articles on recycling topics that appear in C ottage Grove Reports,
and on other recycling-related projects. The grant funding also reimburses the city for
staff time spent working on recycling programs.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council approve the 2025 Grant Agreement for Municipal
Recycling Grant Distribution in the amount of $59,016.00.
-1-
WASHINGTON COUNTY
CONTRACT # 17295
PUBLIC HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT
2025
GRANT AGREEMENT
FOR
MUNICIPAL RECYCLYING GRANT DISTRIBUTION
THIS GRANT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) made and entered into by and between the County of
Washington, 14949 62nd Street North, Stillwater, MN 55082, hereinafter referred to as the "County", and
the City of Cottage Grove, 12800 Ravine Parkway South, Cottage Grove, MN 55016, hereinafter referred
to as the "Grantee".
WHEREAS, the County desires to encourage and provide opportunities for residential recycling
to reduce the County's reliance on solid waste disposal facilities, and
WHEREAS, the Washington County Board of Commissioners has budgeted funds to be used to
further develop recycling projects in the County.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual consideration contained herein, the parties hereto
agree as follows:
1. Term:
The term of the Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is approved by the
County to December 31, 2025.
2. The County's Obligations:
The County will pay the Grantee an amount of up to $59,016.00 which is to be used for
recycling program expenses in 2025. Payment will be within sixty (60) days of execution of
this Agreement.
3. The Grantee's Obligations:
a. The Grantee agrees to follow their 2025 Municipal Recycling Grant Application and
the guidelines therein, attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit A.
b. The Grantee will use all recycling grant money received in 2025 as a result of this
Agreement, for base funding activities, recycling projects, and public education
related to recycling, as indicated in Exhibit A. If all recycling grant funds are not
used within the term of this Agreement, the Grantee must return all
unexpended funds to the County unless the County approves utilizing the
unspent funds for recycling projects the following year.
c. The Grantee shall sign and return this Agreement to the County by July 1, 2025.
Failure to do so will result in a reduction or loss of grant funds.
d. The Grantee agrees to support State efforts in obtaining hauler reports by ensuring
compliance through ordinance, contract or license requirements and the ability to
exercise punitive actions, if needed.
e. The Grantee will prepare and submit annual work plan project reports to the
County. The reports shall cover the time period from January 1 to December 31
and shall be submitted to the County by January 31st of the year following the
reporting period. The annual reports are available on the County’s Municipal
-2-
Recycling Grant Application and Reporting software (Re-TRAC Connect).
f. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 115A.46 and 115A.471, all waste
generated by city/township government activities (including city/town halls, public
works buildings, parks, and for city/townships that arrange for waste services on
behalf of their residents) shall be delivered to the Ramsey/Washington Recycling
and Energy Center in Newport for disposal. Failure to comply with this provision
shall constitute a breach of this Agreement.
g. The parties agree that if the Grantee contracts or otherwise arranges for municipal
solid waste hauling service on behalf of its residents and/or businesses and the
Grantee issues bills for this service, the Grantee shall bill the County Environmental
Charge (CEC) as a separate line item on the solid waste bill and shall make
reasonable effort to collect the CEC. Exception to this provision is if the licensed
hauler collected the CEC for the previous year. All County Environmental Charges
collected shall be remitted to the County according to section 14.5 of Washington
County Ordinance #178 or its replacement, Ordinance #194, effective July 1st, 2014.
Failure of the Grantee to comply with this provision shall constitute a breach of this
Agreement and will result in loss of grant funds.
4. Indemnification and Insurance:
a. The Grantee agrees it will defend, indemnify and hold harmless the County, its
officers and employees against any and all liability, loss, costs, damages, and
expenses which the County, its officers, or employees may hereafter sustain, incur,
or be required to pay arising out of the negligent or willful acts or omissions of the
Contractor/Consultant in the performance of this Agreement.
b. The Grantee agrees that in order to protect itself, as well as the County,
under the indemnity provisions set forth above, it will at all times during the
term of this Agreement, keep in force the following insurance protection in
the limits specified:
1. Commercial General Liability with Contractual liability coverage in the amount of
$1,500,000 per occurrence with a $3,000,000 aggregate. An excess or umbrella liability
policy may be used in conjunction with primary coverage limits to meet the minimum
limit requirements.
2. Automobile coverage in the amount of $1,500,000 on a combined single limit basis and
include hired and non-owned.
3. Worker’s Compensation in statutory amount (if applicable) of bodily injury by accident in
the amount of $500,000 each accident, bodily injury by disease in the amount of
$500,000 each employee, and bodily injury by disease in the amount of $500,000 policy
limit.
Washington County shall be listed as additional insured as it relates to Commercial General
Liability and Automobile Liability.
Prior to the effective date of this Agreement, the Grantee will furnish the County with a current
and valid proof of insurance certificate indicating insurance coverage in the amounts required
by this Agreement. This certificate of insurance shall be on file with the County throughout the
-3-
term of the Agreement. As a condition subsequent to this Agreement, Grantee shall ensure that
the certificate of insurance provided to the County will at all times be current. The parties
agree that failure by the Grantee to maintain a current certificate of insurance with the County
shall be a substantial breach of the Agreement and payments made pursuant to the
Agreement shall be withheld by the County until a certificate of insurance showing current
insurance coverage in amounts required by the Agreement is provided to the County.
Any policy obtained and maintained under this clause shall provide that it shall not be
cancelled, materially changed, or not renewed without thirty days’ notice thereof to the
County.
5. Data Practices:
All data collected, created, received, maintained, or disseminated for any purpose by the
activities of the Grantee, because of this Agreement shall be governed by the Minnesota
Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 (Act), as amended and the
Rules implementing the Act now in force or as amended. The Grantee is subject to the
requirements of the Act and Rules and must comply with those requirements as if it is a
governmental entity. The remedies contained in section 13.08 of the Act sh all apply to the
Grantee.
6. Condition Subsequent:
It is understood and agreed that in the event that reimbursement to the County from state
sources is not obtained and continued at a level sufficient to allow the disbursement of
grant funding under this Agreement, the obligations of each party hereunder shall
thereupon be reviewed to determine the necessity of renegotiating all or parts of this
Agreement.
7. Records Availability and Retention:
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 16C.05, Subd. 5, the Grantee agrees that the
County, the State Auditor, or any of their duly authorized representatives at any time
during normal business hours and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall
have access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books,
documents, papers, records, etc. which are pertinent to the accounting practices and
procedures of the Grantee and involve transactions relating to this Agreement.
Grantee agrees to maintain these records for a period of six (6) years from the date of
termination of this Agreement.
8. Independent Contractor:
Nothing contained in this Agreement is intended or should be construed as creating the
relationship of co-partners or joint ventures with the County. No tenure or any rights or
benefits, including Worker's Compensation, Unemployment Insurance, medical care, sick
leave, vacation leave, severance pay, PERA, or other benefits available to County
employees, shall accrue to the Grantee or employees of the Grantee performing services
under this Agreement.
-4-
9. Nondiscrimination:
The Grantee agrees to comply with the nondiscrimination provision set forth in Minnesota
Statutes, Section 181.59 and not discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, or national
origin. The Grantees failure to comply with this requirement may result in cancellation or
termination of the Agreement, and all money due or to become due under the Agreement
may be forfeited for a second or any subsequent violation of the terms or conditions of
this Agreement.
10. Possession of Firearms on County Premises:
Unless specifically required by the terms of this Agreement or the person it is subject to an
exception provided by 18 USC § 926B or 926C (“LEOSA”), no provider of services pursuant
to this Agreement or subcontractors shall carry or possess a firearm on County premises
or while acting on behalf of Washington County pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
Violation of this provision is grounds for immediate suspension or termination of this
Agreement.
11. Noncompliance by Grantee:
If the County finds that there has been a failure to comply with the provisions of this
Agreement, the County may terminate the Agreement at any time following seven (7) days
written notice to the Grantee and upon failure of the Grantee to cure the default within
the seven (7) day period. The County will require the Grantee to repay the grant funds in
full or a portion thereof as determined by the County. Nothing herein shall be construed
so as to limit the County's legal remedies to recover grant funds.
12. Termination:
This Agreement may be canceled by either party upon thirty (30) days written notice
delivered to the other party at the following addresses:
If to County: Department of Public Health and Environment
14949 62nd Street N
Stillwater, MN 55082-0006
Attention: Max Dalton
If to Grantee: City of Cottage Grove
12800 Ravine Parkway
Cottage Grove, MN 55016
Attention: City Administrator
13. Merger and Modification:
a. It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties is
contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and
negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement.
All items referred to in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and are
deemed to be part of this Agreement.
-5-
b. Any material alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of this
Agreement shall be valid only when they have been reduced to writing as an
amendment and signed by the parties.
14. Conflict of Interest:
Grantee affirms that, to the best of its knowledge, this Agreement does not present a conflict of
interest with any party or entity, which may be affected by the terms of this Agreement. The
Grantee agrees that, should any conflict or potential conflict of interest become known, it will
immediately notify the County of the conflict or potential conflict, and will advise the County
whether it will or will not resign from and/or terminate the other engagement or representation.
Unless waived by the County, a conflict or potential conflict may, in the County's discretion, be
cause for cancellation or termination of this Agreement.
15. Force Majeure Events:
For purposes of this Agreement, “Force Majeure” refers to an event that by its nature is
unforeseen, or, if it was foreseen, was beyond reasonable control by either party. Neither
County nor Grantee shall be considered in default of this Agreement for delays in
performance caused by circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the
nonperforming party. For purposes of this Agreement, such circumstances include, but are
not limited to, abnormal weather conditions; floods; earthquakes; fire; epidemics; war,
riots, and other civil disturbances; strikes, lockouts, work slowdowns, and other labor
disturbances; sabotage; judicial restraint; and inability to procure permits, licenses or
authorizations from any local, state, or federal agency for any of the supplie s, materials,
accesses, or services required to be provided by either County or Grantee under this
Agreement. With a Force Majeure event, the parties agree to 1) make an attempt to
reschedule any such municipally planned events impacted included but not limited to
community clean-ups, collection events, planned performances, and promotional
campaigns, or 2) substitute the impacted event with other acceptable recycling efforts as
outline in Exhibit A of this Agreement.
16. Severability:
If any term of this Agreement is found to be void or invalid, such invalidity shall not affect
the remaining terms of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect.
17. Governing Law:
This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota
and any action must be venued in Washington County District Court.
-6-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the dates indicated
below.
WASHINGTON COUNTY
BY:
David Brummel, Director
Department of Public Health
and Environment
DATE:
APPROVED AS TO FORM
BY: _____________________________________
Ass't Washington Co. Attorney
DATE:___________________________________
-7-
GRANTEE
BY: ______________________________
Myron Bailey, Mayor
BY: ______________________________
Tamara Anderson, City Clerk
DATE:____________________________
1
2025 Municipal Recycling Grant Guidelines
EXHIBIT A
Municipalities in Washington County are responsible for establishing and maintaining municipal
recycling programs. The County provides educational, financial and technical assistance to local
governments to aid these programs. The County’s municipal recycling grant program assists
municipalities with recycling program expenses.
Grant funding levels are dependent on municipality household counts and recycling program activities.
Municipalities are encouraged to apply for the maximum level of funding. Four levels of grant funding
are available:
1. Base Funding: funding to cover administrative and program expenses to sustain existing
programs and covers the BASIC category of the recycling continuum. Base funding is dependent
on the number of households in a community.
2. Project Funding: funding to target specific grant projects that are related to achieving recycling
goals and covers projects contained in the IMPROVED and ADVANCED categories of the
recycling continuum.
3. Incentive Funding: funding for one-time special projects or purchases that cannot be covered
with project funding. Project funding shall be used for before incentive funding is applied for.
4. Shared Resources Funding: funding for collaboration among multiple municipalities.
I. Eligibility Requirements
To receive funding through the Washington County municipal recycling grant program, municipalities
must meet the following eligibility requirements:
1. A municipality’s curbside recycling program shall be established by; 1) ordinance, 2) contracted
with a hauler, or 3) a hauler be licensed to operate within the municipality.
2. Municipality must support State efforts in obtaining hauler reports by ensuring compliance
through ordinance, contract or license requirements and the ability to exercise punitive actions,
as needed.
3. All multi-unit dwellings (4 or more units) must have recycling service available.
4. At a minimum, the municipality must meet or plan to meet the components under the BASIC
category of the recycling continuum (see page 8).
5. At a minimum, municipal staff must participate in two recycling coordinator meetings and one
meeting with PHE staff per year to develop the grant project work plan(s).
6. Supply Verification of Compliance with Minnesota Statute 115.471 and 115A.46 Public Entities
Law (if applicable).
7. Submit completed previous grant cycle expenditures and project final reports.
8. Submit complete application and project(s) form, as applicable.
• Complete projects and performance measures outlined on the application or return
funds for incomplete projects.
9. Continue to make progress along the municipal recycling performance continuum.
2
Washington County, on behalf of State requirements, reserves the right to withhold any and all funding
from municipalities for; 1) failure to report on previous grant activities of a municipality (not in good
effort), 2) failure to complete application and project work plans and 3) failure to not actively engaging
with PHE staff in grant funding activities and the execution of projects.
II. Funding Application
Municipalities must complete a funding application by February 28th, 2025, to receive grant funding.
Applications and yearly work plan(s) must be submitted using Re-TRAC Connect.
III. Grant Funding Allocation
Funding is separated into four (4) categories:
1. Base funding: funding for activities that sustain the municipalities existing recycling program.
This includes funding for administration of a recycling ordinance, resident questions, completing
the municipal grant application, work plan(s) and annual report, residential recycling
information, website maintenance, and meeting the BASIC category of the continuum, which
can be found on page 8. The table below shows how base funding is determined for each
community.
# of Households Eligible Amount for Base
Funding
<450 $1,500.00
451-1000 $2,500.00
1001-2000 $5,000.00
2001-5000 $10,000.00
5001-10000 $20,000.00
>10000 $30,000.00
Note: household data is retrieved from the Metropolitan Council’s most recent population
estimates. These estimates are the official population and household estimates for state
government purposes, including how local government aid (LGA) and local street aid allocations
are determined. Previous year estimates are prepared the following year and certified by July
15.
2. Project funding: funding to develop and implement new or expanded recycling projects that
encourage movement along the recycling continuum in the IMPROVED and ADVANCED
categories, found on page 8. A municipality is eligible to receive $0.50/household/project. A
municipality may qualify for up to four projects per year.
3. Incentive funding: one-time special project funding for large purchases that cannot be covered
with project funding. Incentive funding can be applied for after the February 29th grant
application deadline so long as the municipality meets to discuss with PHE staff. Funding can be
requested and utilized at any time during the 2025 grant cycle.
3
4. Shared Resource funding: this is targeted to fund collaborations among municipalities.
Municipalities participating in shared resource funding must designate one municipality to act as
representative and fiscal agent to be liaison with the county.
IV. Eligible Expenses
Grant funds are used for the following expenses and are subject to approval by PHE staff:
1. Administrative (maximum of 75% of County grant funds)
• Salary and legal costs of personnel only while directly working on, part time or full time,
the planning, implementation and promotion of eligible activities.
• Salaries, benefits and mileage for consultant services or temporary help with prior
written approval from PHE and must be related to eligible activities.
• County-approved educators, performers, and municipal staff who help implement
required education activities using County toolkits and standardized messaging.
2. Capital Expenses
• Event recycling containers
• Public space recycling containers
• Recycling containers and education for municipally owned/operated buildings and
internal spaces
• Resident-only municipal food scraps drop-off site
3. Public Education and Promotion*
• Design, production, and distribution of flyers, brochures, newsletter articles, posters,
advertisements, videos, billboards, audio (radio, video, television, theater), electronic
(website and e-news) and other communication promotional items reaching at least 1%
of a community’s population
• Disseminating Washington County flyers, brochures, newsletters, posters,
advertisements, videos, billboards, audio (radio, video, television, theatre) electronic
(website and e-news) and other communication promotional items
• Development of promotional materials for a community event such as a clean-up day or
road clean up event
• The percentage of cost for a municipality’s newsletter devoted to recycling
• Environmental commissions and related expenses directly related to recycling and
waste education (maximum of 25% of County grant funds)
4. Singular Item Collection
• Design, production, and distribution of flyers, brochures, newsletter articles, posters,
advertisements, videos, billboards, audio (radio, video, television, theater), electronic
(website and e-news) and other communication specific to the collection of a specific
item or material. *
• Disposal costs of items collected for recycling or reuse at special collection events by an
approved County vendor
5. Other
• Yard waste, recycling, or composting project
• Reuse projects and promotion
• Other expenses with prior written approval from the PHE
*Municipalities should reference MN State Statute 16C.073 for purchasing of paper for print materials.
4
V. Ineligible Expenses
Ineligible expenses are considered the following and subject to review by PHE:
1. Permanent, single sort, year-round recycling drop-off locations
2. Disposal expenses for community clean up events or road cleanup activities where specific items
are not directed to recycling or reuse
3. Expenses for non-waste abatement, such as energy or ground water
4. Ongoing recycling or garbage service fees (collection, processing, transportation)
5. Costs for office equipment and supplies
6. Street sweeping expenses
7. Beautification projects or rain gardens
8. Lobbying and legal expenses
9. Food or refreshments
10. Funding currently budgeted or being provided by applicant
VI. Standard List of Residential Curbside Recyclables to Be Collected Curbside for
Single Sort Collection
PHE created the list of standard recyclable materials to be collected curbside after researching current
materials collected curbside by haulers as well as the availability of viable end markets for those
materials. This list covers only the minimum materials recommended for residential curbside collection.
A municipality may require the collection of additional recyclable materials. A municipality may choose
how to enforce such as through ordinance or hauler licensing. The Standard List of Residential Curbside
recyclables can be found at the link below.
Washington County Standard List of Residential Curbside Recyclables
This standard list of recyclables for single sort recycling collection will be periodically reviewed and
updated by PHE as additional materials and end markets become available. PHE may add materials to
this list and require municipalities to begin collection of the new materials within one year of receiving
notification from the PHE.
VII. Verification of Compliance with Minnesota Statute 115.471 and 115A.46
Public Entities Law
As a condition of eligibility for the Washington County Municipal Recycling Grant funds, pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes 115A.46, subd. 5 and 115A.471, all waste generated by municipal government
activities, including, but not limited to city/town halls, public works buildings, parks, etc., and waste
arranged or waste contract for on behalf of its residents (such as organized garbage collection), must be
managed in accordance with the County’s Solid Waste Management Plan and delivered to the
Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Facility in Newport for disposal. Failure to comply with
this provision shall constitute a breach of the Municipal Recycling Grant Agreement.
VIII. Reporting
5
1. Hauler Reporting
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (the State) will collect tonnage reports directly from
haulers on behalf of counties and municipalities. Reports will be collected on a quarterly basis
and will have tonnage amounts for MSW/garbage, recycling and source separated organics
listed for each county. To ensure data is provided to the State quarterly, municipalities are
expected to continue their role in enforcing hauler compliance through existing ordinances,
contracts or licenses with haulers. Municipalities are expected to exercise punitive actions, if
needed. The final, compiled hauler reports will be available on the County’s Re-TRAC Connect
system for municipality’s to view after the reporting period has closed.
2. Annual Work Plan Project Status Reports
Municipalities receiving funding through the Washington County municipal recycling grant
program must complete annual work plan project status reports. The annual report is a measure
of a municipality’s progress towards meeting components on the recycling continuum and on
program expenditures. Annual reports must be completed by the municipality receiving the
grant by January 31st of each year using the County’s Re-TRAC Connect system.
• Work plan project status report:
o project completion (yes/no)
o performance measurements (minimum of 3 forms of measurement, as
identified in work plan, should be reported)
o description of information helpful to other municipalities desiring to replicate
projects
3. Final Program Expenditures Report
Municipalities receiving funding through the Washington County municipal recycling grant
program must complete final program expenditures report at the end of the grant term. Reports
must be completed to receive funding in future grant cycles. Components to be included in the
final report includes the following:
• Program expenditures: Total program expenditures must equal total program revenue.
o Administrative costs including
1. Direct salaries
2. Direct membership, training, subscriptions
3. Consultant services and or temporary help
4. Promotion
5. Design, printing and postage
6. Advertisements/Videos/Promotional items
7. Special events
8. Other (list and describe)
o Capital Costs
o Collection Costs (grant funds cannot be used for collection costs)
o Other
• For each line item on the report’s expenditures sheet, indicate:
o Total County grant funds used
o City/Township funds contributed
o % of County grant used for particular line item
o Total expenditures
IX. Recycling Performance
6
A municipality’s performance will be evaluated based on information from the annual work plan project
status reports, and reasonable effort towards reaching outcomes from work plan activities implemented
and progression along the recycling continuum. PHE reserves the right to request documentation for
information submitted.
Failure by a municipality to demonstrate measurable progress towards one or more of the work plan
goals will result in a Recycling Improvement Plan be submitted 90 days of being notified by PHE. The
Plan must be negotiated with PHE and specify the efforts that will be undertaken by the municipality to
improve its recycling program to achieve the identified goal in the work plan by implement strategies
agreed upon by municipal staff and PHE. The plan should focus on components of the recycling
continuum. Funding will be withheld until the municipality’s Plan is completed and approved by PHE.
X. County Responsibilities
The county will be responsible for the following:
1. Grant documents
PHE will provide the grant application and work plan by January 1st for each municipality to use
to request grant funding and to develop project work plans. PHE will also provide the report for
municipalities to report on their recycling program. Annual reports are available year-round.
2. Meetings
PHE staff will host quarterly recycling coordinator meetings and will make meeting materials
available on the City Recycling Resources webpage on the County’s website. PHE staff will also
coordinate individual work plan meetings with each municipality to identify grant projects.
3. Technical assistance
PHE staff will help identify if and how additional technical assistance is needed.
4. Payments
Grant payment will be made in one installment, which is to be used for recycling program
expenses in 2025. The payment will be made within 60 days of execution of the Recycling Grant
Agreement.
5. Recycling tonnages
Recycling tonnages for each municipality will be collected by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (the State) from the community’s recycling hauler(s) on a bi-annual basis. Reports are
available by request.
6. Residential recycling survey
If requested, PHE will develop a survey on residents’ recycling knowledge and behavior for
municipalities to promote and distribute regularly.
7. Online recycling information and best practices
PHE will maintain the City Recycling Resources webpage on the County’s website for use by
municipal staff to obtain information on recycling best practices, track recycling coordinator
meetings and access templates and other educational information designed specifically for use
by municipalities.
8. Commercial Recycling
PHE has a separate funding mechanism to promote and support recycling in the commercial
sector. This program is called BizRecycling and more information can be found at
www.bizrecycling.com.
9. Recycling in multi-unit dwelling (4+ units)
PHE has a separate funding mechanism to promote and support recycling in multi-unit
7
dwellings. More information and ways to access this program can be found on
www.bizrecycling.com.
Supplemental documents required upon application submittal:
1. Updated waste and recycling ordinance(s) (if applicable)
2. Updated waste and recycling contract(s) (if applicable)
3. City/Township council meeting minutes discussing/approving updated ordinances/contracts (if
applicable)
4. Verification of public entities law (MN Statute 115.471 and 115A.46) (if applicable)
5. A certificate of insurance indicating the municipalities’ general liability limits as indicated in
Section 4 of the Agreement. Please include certificate with the application.
Washington County Municipal Recycling Grant Continuum
BASIC IMPROVED ADVANCED
Administrative
Actively participate in municipal recycling grant program Engage in professional development around recycling best practices Provide professional development opportunities to municipal
leadership and staff on recycling best practices
Participate in a minimum of two recycling coordinator meetings per
year
Develop partnerships within the community to create more
widespread knowledge of recycling best practices Establish partnerships with other municipalities
Establish a curbside recycling program by ordinance or contract Update solid waste/recycling ordinance and/or contract with county
assistance to meet current state requirements
Update solid waste/recycling ordinance and/or contract with county
assistance to expand and require recycling best practices
Require collection of standard list of recyclables Support community wide efforts to increase recycling of non-
standard items
Adopt municipal policies to support waste reduction, reuse, and
recycling for non-standard items
Support state efforts in obtaining hauler reports through ordinance,
contract or license requirements
Capital Expenses
Establish signage or updated signage for collection best practices Replace worn/torn/missing signage Establish municipal drop locations for use by residents for items not
available for curbside pick-up
Provide recycling in municipally owned/operated public spaces Expand recycling in municipally owned/operated public spaces Establish permanent-away-from-home recycling opportunities, such
as fairs, parks, athletic fields, arenas, and recreation centers
Provide recycling in municipally owned/operated buildings (non-
public facing)
Expand recycling in municipally owned/operated facilities (non-
public facing) Establish programs that target reuse
Education & Information
Establish and maintain web page with recycling and waste
information for residents and businesses that meet minimum
requirements set by the county
Improve information on municipal web page to encourage waste
reduction and reuse
Provide recycling and waste information to all new residents in the
community
Share designated county created communications Encourage backyard composting and provide information on
county's compost bin/rain barrel sales Establish recycling targets for the community
Update county resources as shared by the county Encourage special events in community to utilize the county’s
special event resources
Encourage special events in the community to utilize municipal-
owned special event resources (ex. Clear Streams)
Reach 1% of resident population with municipal waste and recycling
information and programs
Encourage reuse opportunities and provide outreach on
environmental benefits of reuse Establish reuse incentive programs or equipment library
Reach 1% of resident population with information on the
Ramsey/Washington Food Scrap Pickup Program
Encourage participation in the Ramsey/Washington Food Scrap
Pickup Program
Provide recycling and food scrap containers for events hosted or
sponsored by the municipality or located on public property
Multi-Unit Dwellings
Ensure all multi-unit dwellings (4 or more units) have recycling
services available
Provide educational materials to interested properties and refer
property managers to Washington County staff Target education to specific multi-units and/or property managers
Coordinate targeted information /events for multi-units Host clean-up events for multi-units based on multi-unit turnover
1
City Council Action Request
7.K.
Meeting Date 4/16/2025
Department Public Works
Agenda Category Action Item
Title Rental Agreement with Midwest Machine for Track Loader
Staff Recommendation Approve the one-year rental agreement with Midwest Machinery for
a track loader for the amount of $12,000.
Budget Implication $12,000 from Golf Course Rental Fund
Attachments 1. Skid Steer Rental Golf Course Memo
2. Skid rental
3. Midwest Machinery 325G RENTAL QUOTE
4. T76 River Oaks GC March 2023-Bobcat quote
To:Honorable Mayor and City Council
Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator
From:Adam Moshier, Fleet and Facilities Manager
Date:April 4th, 2025
Re:Approve One Year Rental Agreement with Midwest Machinery for a Track Loader
Background
In the approved 2025 budget, there is $12,000 to rent a track loader. This was included in the
budget from 2024-2026 for a three-year rental. The River Oaks Golf Course previously rented
a track loader from Midwest Machinery for the year 2024. Staff is requesting to continue to rent
a track loader from Midwest Machinery for $1,000 per month for a total of $12,000 in 2025. A
new rental agreement is needed as the golf course is getting a new machine.
Staff collected two quotes in 2024.
Midwest Machinery - $12,000 per year lease
Tri-State Bobcat - $17,760 per year lease
Staff recommends the approval of the one-year rental agreement with Midwest Machinery for
the amount of $12,000. The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the agreement.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council approve the one-year rental agreement with Midwest
Machinery for a track loader for the amount of $12,000.
Date:11 May 2022 Offer Expires:31 May 2022
Confidential
26664566Quote Id:
Prepared For:
RIVER OAKS MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE
Prepared By:Michael Savage
Midwest Machinery Co.
12040 Point Douglas Dr South
Hastings,MN 55033
Tel: 651-437-7747
Fax: 651-437-3483
Email:msavage@mmcjd.com
Salesperson : X ______________Accepted By : X ______________
Confidential
Quote Summary
Prepared For:
RIVER OAKS MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE6225 LAMAR AVE SCOTTAGE GROVE, MN 55016
Prepared By:
Michael SavageMidwest Machinery Co.12040 Point Douglas Dr SouthHastings, MN 55033Phone: 651-437-7747msavage@mmcjd.com
RENTAL OPTION:
$12,000 / YEAR
1, 2, OR 3 YEAR OPTION
- MIDWEST MACHINERY MAY SWAP THE MACHINE FOR A
NEW UNIT AT ANY TIME.
- FIRST YEAR WILL NEED TO BE PAID UP FRONT
Quote Id:26664566
11 May 2022
16 February 2023
Created On:
Last Modified On:
Expiration Date:31 May 2022
Equipment Summary Suggested List Selling Price Qty Extended
JOHN DEERE 325G COMPACT
TRACK LOADER
$ 101,925.00 $ 80,500.00 X 1 =$ 80,500.00
Extended Warranty $ 4,390.00 X 1 =$ 4,390.00
Extended Warranty, 325G, Comprehensive,
2000 Total Hours or 48 Total Months, $200
Deductible
Sub Total $ 84,890.00
Equipment Total $ 84,890.00
Quote Summary
Equipment Total $ 84,890.00
SubTotal $ 84,890.00
Total $ 84,890.00
Down Payment (0.00)
Rental Applied (0.00)
Balance Due $ 84,890.00
Selling Equipment
Quote Id: 26664566 Customer:RIVER OAKS MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE
Confidential
JOHN DEERE 325G COMPACT TRACK LOADER
Hours:
Stock Number:
Suggested List
$ 101,925.00
Selling Price
$ 80,500.00
Code Description Qty Unit Extended
00D2T 325G COMPACT TRACK LOADER 1 $ 82,391.00 $ 82,391.00
Standard Options - Per Unit
0755 Cab/Heat/AC, Power QT, Hi Flow, SL
& RC, 2Spd, LED Lights, Rev Fan
1 $ 10,126.00 $ 10,126.00
0953 ISO-H Switchable Controls and EH
Joystick Performance Package
1 $ 1,111.00 $ 1,111.00
1301 Engine - Turbocharged - FT4 1 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
1501 English Operator's Manual and Decals 1 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
1741 Less JDLink 1 $ 0.00 $ 0.00
2645 Zig-Zag Bar Tread Pattern - 15.8 in.
(400mm) Tracks
1 $ 1,750.00 $ 1,750.00
4001 2-Inch Seat Belt with Shoulder Harness 1 $ 228.00 $ 228.00
6006 Air Suspension Seat (Cloth with Heat)1 $ 671.00 $ 671.00
8042 Rear View Camera 1 $ 912.00 $ 912.00
8050 Cold Start Package 1 $ 326.00 $ 326.00
8342 Radio, AM/FM with Bluetooth 1 $ 645.00 $ 645.00
8380 Footrest with Floormat 1 $ 154.00 $ 154.00
9052 78 in. HD Construction Bucket (19.4
cu. ft.) with Edge
1 $ 2,503.00 $ 2,503.00
Standard Options Total $ 18,426.00
Value Added Services
Extended Warranty 1 $ 4,390.00 $ 4,390.00
Value Added Services Total $ 4,390.00
Other Charges
Freight 1 $ 608.00 $ 608.00
Setup 1 $ 500.00 $ 500.00
Other Charges Total $ 1,108.00
Suggested Price $ 106,315.00
Customer Discounts
Customer Discounts Total $ -21,425.00 $ -21,425.00
Total Selling Price $ 84,890.00
Confidential
Extended Warranty Proposal PowerGard™ Protection Plan
COMPACT CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Date :February 16, 2023
Machine/Use Information Plan Description Price
Manufacturer JOHN DEERE Plan Type:Extended Warranty Deductible:$ 200
Equipment Type COMPACT CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Coverage:Comprehensive Quoted Price $ 4,390.00
Model 325G Total Months:48
Country US Total Hours:2000 Date Quoted February 16, 2023
MFWD/Tracks N
Scraper Use
THIS PROPOSAL IS VALID FOR 30-DAYS FROM DATE ISSUED. GRACE pricing is offered only early during the Deere basic warranty period and has no surcharges. After this period,
DELAYED PURCHASE pricing (surcharged) is offered later during the John Deere Basic Warranty. Many PowerGard quotes presented in the Delayed Purchase Period will require
inspection/certification process and must also past fluid testing. The Total Months and Total Hours listed above include the John Deere Basic Warranty terms (24 months / 2000 hours on
Tractors, 24 months on Golf & Turf Products, 12 months for all AG Harvesting and Sprayer equipment, and 12 months/1000 hours on most Gator Utility Vehicles)."Limited" Plan coverage =
Engine & Powertrain only. “Comprehensive” Plan coverage = Full Machine.
Customer Name - Please Print
Customer Signature
PowerGard Protection Proposal Prepared for:I have been offered this extended warranty and
I ACCEPT the PowerGard Protection✔
I DECLINE the PowerGard Protection
If declined, I fully understand that my equipment listed above is not covered for repair expenses due to component failures beyond the original basic warranty period provided by John Deere.
This is not a contract. For specific PowerGard Protection coverage terms and conditions, please refer to the actual PowerGard Protection Plan contract for more information and the terms, conditions and limitations of the agreement.
Note :
What PowerGard Protection is :
The PowerGard Protection Plan is an extended warranty program for reimbursement on parts and labour for covered components that fail due to faulty material or original workmanship that occur beyond the John Deere Basic Warranty coverage period. The agreement is between Deere & Company and the owners of select John Deere Commercial and Agricultural equipment, who purchase the PowerGard Plans for the desired coverage as indicated in this proposal.
What PowerGard Protection is not :
PowerGard Protection is not insurance.It also does not cover routine maintainance or high wear items,or insurance-related risks/perils such as collision, overturn, vandalism, wind, fire, hail, etc. It does not cover loss of income or loss of value of crops during or after an equipment failure. See the actual product-specific PowerGard Protection Plan agreement for a complete listing of covered components, and limitations and conditions under the program.
Confidential
Features/Benefits:
PowerGard protection include the following features and benefits under the program :
Pays for parts and labour costs incurred on failed covered components (less any applicable deductibles),
Does not require pre-approval before repairs are made by the authorized John Deere dealership,
Payments are reimbursed directly to the dealership with no prepayment required by the contract holder.
PowerGard Protection agreements ensure that only Genuine John Deere Parts are used in all repairs,
PowerGard coverage is fully transferable to future owners, with no transfer fees when coverage remains,
PowerGard ensures higher resale value and makes equipment more marketable during the sale or trade-in,
PowerGard allows you to budget your total cost of ownership, with financing available through John Deere Credit or other sources,
PowerGard helps prevent large,unexpected repair bills during later years of equipment ownership,in exchange
for a smaller protection fee up front.
Product Quotation
Quotation Number: 37063D037160
Date: 2023-03-20 10:59:14
Ship to Bobcat Dealer Bill To
River Oaks Golf Course
11099 HIGHWAY 61
Cottage Grove, MN
Tri-State Bobcat, Inc, Little Canada,
MN
71 MINNESOTA AVE
LITTLE CANADA MN 55117
Phone: (651) 407-3727
Fax: (952) 894-5759
---------------------------
Contact: Adam Delander
Phone: 7152450533
Cellular: 7152450533
E Mail: adamd@tristatebobcat.com
River Oaks Golf Course
11099 HIGHWAY 61
Cottage Grove, MN
Description Part No Qty Price Ea.Total
T76 T4 Bobcat Compact Track Loader M0371 1 $61,645.92 $61,645.92
74.0 HP Tier 4 V2 Bobcat Engine
Auxiliary Hydraulics: Variable Flow
Backup Alarm
Bob-Tach
Bobcat Interlock Control System (BICS)
Controls: Selectable Joystick Controls
Cylinder Cushioning - Lift, Tilt
Engine/Hydraulic Performance De-rate Protection
Glow Plugs (Automatically Activated)
Horn
Instrumentation: Standard 5" Display (Rear Camera Ready)
with Keyless Start, Engine Temperature and Fuel Gauges,
Hour meter, RPM and Warning Indicators. Includes
maintenance interval notification, fault display, job codes,
quick start, auto idle, and security lockouts.
Lift Arm Support
Lift Path: Vertical
Lights, Front and Rear LED
Operator Cab
Includes: Vinyl Adjustable Vinyl Suspension Seat, Top
and Rear Windows, Parking Brake, Seat Bar and Seat Belt
Roll Over Protective Structure (ROPS) meets SAE-J1040
and ISO 3471
Falling Object Protective Structure (FOPS) meets SAE-
J1043 and ISO 3449, Level I; (Level II is available
through Bobcat Parts)
Parking Brake: Spring Applied, Pressure Released
(SAPR)
Solid Mounted Carriage with 4 Rollers
Tracks: Rubber, 12.6" Wide
Warranty: 2 years, or 2000 hours whichever occurs first
P69 Performance Package M0371-P06-P69 1 $6,819.96 $6,819.96
Power Bob-Tach
7-Pin Attachment Control
High Flow
Two-Speed
Dual Direction Bucket Positioning
Automatic Ride Control
Reversing Fan
C67 Comfort Package M0371-P07-C67 1 $6,209.28 $6,209.28
Enclosed Cab with HVAC
Sound Reduction
Touch Display with Radio & Bluetooth
Heated Cloth Air Ride Suspension Seat
Premium LED Lights
17.7" Multi Bar Track M0371-R09-C05 1 $599.76 $599.76
5-Link Torsion Suspension Undercarriage M0371-R21-C13 1 $2,084.88 $2,084.88
Engine Block Heater 7372533 1 $200.00 $200.00
Rear View Camera 7384581 1 $612.20 $612.20
80" Heavy Duty Bucket 7272681 1 $1,550.64 $1,550.64
---Bolt-On Cutting Edge, 80"6718008 1 $450.00 $450.00
Total of Items Quoted $80,172.64
Dealer P.D.I.$0.00
Freight Charges $0.00
Dealer Assembly Charges $0.00
Other Charges:Material and Logistics $0.00
Quote Total - US dollars $80,172.64
Notes:
3 Year Lease/500 Hours Per Year $1,480 Per Month
All prices subject to change without prior notice or obligation. This price quote supersedes all preceding price quotes.
Customer Acceptance:Purchase Order: ___________________________
Authorized Signature:
Print:_________________________ Sign:_________________________ Date: ________
1
City Council Action Request
7.L.
Meeting Date 4/16/2025
Department Parks and Recreation
Agenda Category Action Item
Title City Hall Fountain Renovation
Staff Recommendation Authorize Resolution 2025-59 awarding the City Hall Fountain
Renovation Project to Superior Landscape and Irrigation in the
amount of $14,877.63 and authorize the service agreement
between Superior Landscape and Irrigation and the City of Cottage
Grove.
Budget Implication Funds from 2500-4371
Attachments 1. Council Memo_City Hall Fountain Renovation
2. Resolution_City_Hall_Fountain
3. ServiceAgreement_City_Hall_Fountain(Final)
To:Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator
From:Gavin Hochstetler, Management Analyst
Date:April 16, 2025
Subject:City Hall Fountain Renovation
Introduction/Background
The city hall fountain has served as one of the building's visual focal points since opening in
2012. Events such as Memorial Day have been centered around the fountain. Recently,
cosmetic and mechanical problems have made maintenance costly and inefficient. A
renovation of the fountain was proposed to greatly improve its functionality and ease of
maintenance. Key points the city is looking to accomplish from the renovation of the fountain
are as follows:
1. Renovation to existing weathered landscaping block
2. Improved operational efficiencies
3. Significant reliability improvements
4. 10-year manufacture warranty on lighting fixtures
A request for proposals for this project was distributed to two landscape and irrigation
companies. The following proposals were received:
1. Superior Landscape and Irrigation - $14,877.63
2. Cedar Creek Landscaping - $18,575.00
Staff Recommendation
Authorize Resolution 2025-59 awarding the City Hall Fountain Renovation Project to Superior
Landscape and Irrigation in the amount of $14,877.63 and authorize the Service Agreement
between Superior Landscape and Irrigation and the City of Cottage Grove.
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2025-059
RESOLUTION AWARDING THE CITY HALL FOUNTAIN RENOVATION TO
SUPERIOR LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION, FOR $14,877.63.
WHEREAS, quotes were requested to provide the necessary work for the City Hall
Fountain Renovation according to City standards; and
WHEREAS, quotes were requested from two firms to provide the necessary work;
and
WHEREAS, two firm submitted quotes; and
WHEREAS, it appears that Superior Landscape and Irrigation provided the lowest
responsible quote; and
WHEREAS, it is the recommendation of the Parks Director that the quote be
awarded to Superior Landscape and Irrigation.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Cottage
Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, that the City Hall Fountain Renovation
be awarded to Superior Landscape and Irrigation, for $14,877.63.
Passed this 16th day of April 2025.
Myron Bailey, Mayor
Attest:
Tamara Anderson, City Clerk
1
City Council Action Request
7.M.
Meeting Date 4/16/2025
Department Public Works
Agenda Category Action Item
Title 80th Street Feasibility Report Scope Amendment
Staff Recommendation Adopt resolution 2025-062 amending the scope of the 80th Street
Reconstruction Project feasibility report to include East Point
Douglas Road from 80th Street to the three-way intersection of East
Point Douglas Road.
Budget Implication N/A
Attachments 1. 1-80th Street Feasibility Report Scope Amendment 2025-4-16
2. 2-80th Street Feasibility Report Scope Amendment Resolution 2025-4-16
To:Honorable Mayor and City Council
Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator
From:Ryan Burfeind, PE, Public Works Director
Date:April 9, 2025
Re:80th Street Reconstruction – Highway 61 to Ideal Avenue – Amend Feasibility
Report Authorization
Background
Over the past nine years, the City has been rehabilitating the 80th Street corridor in phases,
starting with the section from Ideal Avenue to Jamaica Avenue in 2016. This first phase included
a full pavement replacement and spot curb replacement. In 2020, a total reconstruction was
completed from Jamaica Avenue to Keats Avenue. On June 21, 2023, the City Council
authorized a feasibility study for 80th Street from Ideal Avenue to Highway 61, which is shown in
yellow below. This project is programmed in the CIP for 2026. As staff has further refined the
overall scope of the 80th Street project, it has been determined that East Point Douglas Road
south of 80th Street should be added to the 2026 project. This section of road is highlighted in
red below.
This recommendation is based on two primary considerations. The first is due to the planned
improvements at the 80th Street & East Point Douglas Road/Hardwood Ave signal, which will
include the construction of dual left turn lanes on 80th Street. These improvements will require
modifications on East Point Douglas Road, which will involve adding an additional traffic lane.
This will address the existing traffic issue where a through lane on East Point Douglas Road is
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt
80th Street Reconstruction – Amend Feasibility Report Scope
April 9, 2025
Page 2
dropped at the Hy-Vee signal. Secondly, this section of roadway is in poor condition and in need
of rehabilitation, which will be most cost effective to complete with the 80th Street Reconstruction
Project.
Recommendation
It is recommended the City Council adopt resolution 2025-062 amending the scope of the 80th
Street Reconstruction Project feasibility report to include East Point Douglas Road from 80th
Street to the three-way intersection of East Point Douglas Road.
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2025-062
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE SCOPE OF THE
FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE
80TH STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
WHEREAS, based upon the City Council’s acceptance of the Capital Improvement
Plan, the City Council authorized Resolution 2023-083 authorizing a feasibility report for
the 80th Street Reconstruction Project from Highway 61 to Ideal Avenue; and
WHEREAS, due to the scope of improvements necessary at the intersection of
80th Street & East Point Douglas Road/Hardwood Avenue, along with the poor condition
of East Point Douglas Road south of 80th Street, it is recommended that the scope of the
feasibility report be amended to include East Point Douglas Road from 80th Street to the
three-way intersection of East Point Douglas Road; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to assess the cost of said improvements to all bene-
fitted properties.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Cottage
Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, that the scope of the 80th Street
Reconstruction Project feasibility report be amended to include East Point Douglas Road
from 80th Street to the three-way intersection of East Point Douglas Road.
Passed this 16th day of April 2025.
Myron Bailey, Mayor
Attest:
Tamara Anderson, City Clerk
1
City Council Action Request
7.N.
Meeting Date 4/16/2025
Department Community Development
Agenda Category Action Item
Title Maxfield Research Comprehensive Housing Needs Study
Staff Recommendation Accept the Maxfield Research Comprehensive Housing Needs
Study
Budget Implication N/A
Attachments 1. Housing Study CC Memo 2025-4-16
2. FINAL SUBMITTAL - Cottage Grove Comp Housing Needs Analysis
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator
FROM: Emily Schmitz, Community Development Director
DATE: April 9, 2025
RE: Maxfield Research Comprehensive Housing Needs Study
Background
In April of 2024 the EDA approved a recommendation to engage the services of Maxfield
Research & Consulting to complete a Housing Needs Study for the city. With the completion of
the Study, a detailed recommendation for housing types have been identified as needed in the
short and long-term and has identified recommended housing initiatives to close gaps when and
where needed as the community continues to grow.
The findings of the study have been presented and reviewed by the Planning Commission and
Economic Development Authority.
Recommendation
Accept the Maxfield Research Comprehensive Housing Needs Study.
Attachments:
Maxfield Research Comprehensive Housing Needs Study
Comprehensive Housing
Needs Analysis for
Cottage Grove, Minnesota
Prepared for:
City of Cottage Grove
Cottage Grove, MN
October 2024
901 Twelve Oaks Center Dr.
Suite 922
Wayzata, MN 55391
612.338.0012
main (612) 338-0012 fax (612) 904-7979
901 Twelve Oaks Center Drive, Suite 922, Wayzata, MN 55391
www.maxfieldresearch.com
October 8, 2024
Ms. Emily Schmitz
Community Development Director
City of Cottage Grove
12800 Ravine Parkway S
Cottage Grove MN 55016
Dear Ms. Schmitz:
Attached is the Comprehensive Housing Needs Analysis for Cottage Grove, Minnesota conducted by
Maxfield Research and Consulting. The study projects the demand for various housing products in the
City to 2035. The study also provides recommendations on the amount and types of housing that could
be built in Cottage Grove to satisfy demand from current and future residents in the short-term (2024-
2029) and the long-term (2030-2035). The study identifies a potential demand for 3,858 to 5,086 new
housing units to 2035 divided between general-occupancy housing and age-restricted senior housing.
Overall, the housing market in Cottage Grove in all sectors has been strong during this past decade. Cot-
tage Grove’s strong development trend continues and new developments are under construction and
approved. Additional multifamily development is needed across all income spectrums as well as addi-
tional senior housing, predominantly active adult and independent living. Despite new supply, the
rental housing vacancy rate is less than 3% and below market equilibrium. Median sales prices are up
considerably from early 2020. The recent uptick of mortgage rates has moderated appreciation and
sales velocity decreased slightly as a result. Assisted living senior housing is still recovering from the
pandemic, but product targeting active seniors is in strong demand. Detailed information regarding rec-
ommended housing concepts can be found in the Conclusions and Recommendations section at the end
of the report.
We have enjoyed performing this study for you and are available should you have any questions or need
additional information.
Sincerely,
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING
Mary C. Bujold Andrew McIntyre
President Research Associate
Attachment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
KEY FINDINGS ............................................................................................................... 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 4
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 11
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 11
Cottage Grove PMA ........................................................................................................... 11
Historical Population ......................................................................................................... 16
Population and Household Growth from 2000 to 2020 ................................................... 17
Population and Household Estimates and Projections ..................................................... 17
Age Distribution Trends .................................................................................................... 21
Race and Ethnicity ............................................................................................................. 24
Household Income by Age of Householder ...................................................................... 26
Tenure by Age of Householder ......................................................................................... 31
Tenure by Household Income ........................................................................................... 33
Tenure by Household Size ................................................................................................. 35
Household Type ................................................................................................................ 37
Net worth .......................................................................................................................... 39
Demographic Summary ..................................................................................................... 43
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS ......................................................................................... 45
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 45
Residential Construction Trends ....................................................................................... 45
American Community Survey ............................................................................................ 47
Occupied Housing Units by Tenure ................................................................................... 47
Age of Housing Stock......................................................................................................... 49
Housing Units by Structure and Tenure ............................................................................ 52
Owner Occupied Units by Mortgage Status...................................................................... 53
Owner Occupied Housing Units by Value ......................................................................... 55
Renter Occupied Units by Contract Rent .......................................................................... 56
Tenure by Household Income ........................................................................................... 58
Mobility in the Past Year ................................................................................................... 59
EMPLOYMENT TRENDS ................................................................................................. 61
Employment Growth and Projections ............................................................................... 61
Resident Labor Force......................................................................................................... 63
Covered Employment by Industry .................................................................................... 67
Employment and Wages ................................................................................................... 69
Commuting Patterns ......................................................................................................... 71
Inflow/Outflow .................................................................................................................. 72
Resident Profile ................................................................................................................. 74
Major Employers ............................................................................................................... 75
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(CONTINUED)
Page
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS........................................................................................... 76
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 76
Rental Market Overview ................................................................................................... 76
General-Occupancy Rental Properties .............................................................................. 79
Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (i.e. Unsubsidized Affordable) .......................... 84
SENIOR HOUSING ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 91
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 91
Senior Housing Defined ..................................................................................................... 91
Older Adult (Age 55+) Population and Household Trends ............................................... 93
Supply of Senior Housing .................................................................................................. 97
FOR-SALE HOUSING ANALYSIS ...................................................................................... 101
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 101
Home Resales in the PMA ................................................................................................. 101
Current Supply of Homes on the Market .......................................................................... 104
Owner-Occupied Turnover ............................................................................................... 112
School Districts .................................................................................................................. 113
Lot Supply .......................................................................................................................... 117
PLANNED/PENDING DEVELOPMENTS ........................................................................... 120
Planned and Proposed Developments .............................................................................. 120
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY ............................................................................................ 122
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 122
Housing Cost Burden.......................................................................................................... 126
Housing Vouchers .............................................................................................................. 128
Housing Costs as Percentage of Household Income ......................................................... 129
HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS....................................................................................... 131
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 131
Demographic Profile and Housing Demand ...................................................................... 132
Housing Demand Overview ............................................................................................... 132
Estimated Demand for For-Sale Housing .......................................................................... 135
Estimated Demand for General-Occupancy Rental Housing ............................................. 138
Demand for Active Adult (55+) Housing ............................................................................ 141
Demand for Subsidized/Affordable Active Adult Housing ................................................ 144
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(CONTINUED)
Page
Demand for Independent Living Housing .......................................................................... 144
Demand for Assisted Living Housing .................................................................................. 145
Demand for Memory Care ................................................................................................. 148
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................... 150
Introduction/Overall Housing Recommendations ............................................................ 150
Recommended Housing Product Types ............................................................................ 154
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES ............................................................................... 161
APPENDIX .............................................................................................................................. 168
Definitions ......................................................................................................................... 168
LIST OF MAPS
Map Title Page
Cottage Grove Primary Market Area ..................................................................................... 11
Met Council Thrive 2040 Community Designations ............................................................. 12
City of Cottage Grove and Seven County Metro ................................................................... 13
Primary Market Area Remainder & Cottage Grove City Boundaries .................................... 14
Cottage Grove Median Household Income by Block Group, 2023 ....................................... 29
Median Net Worth by Census Block in and Near Cottage Grove .......................................... 40
Cottage Grove Employment Inflow/Outflow ......................................................................... 72
Cottage Grove Median Home Value by Block Group, 2023 .................................................. 110
Cottage Grove Average Home Value by Block Group. 2023 ................................................. 111
Cottage Grove and Neighboring School District Boundaries ................................................. 116
LIST OF TABLES
Table Number and Title Page
D1. Population and Household Growth Trends and Projections, Cottage Grove Market
Area, 2000 to 2040........................................................................................................ 17
D2. Population Age Distribution, Cottage Grove Market Area, 2010 to 2029 .................... 21
D3. Race, Cottage Grove Market Area, 2010 & 2024 ......................................................... 23
D4. Household Income by Age of Householder, City of Cottage Grove, 2024 & 2030 ....... 26
D5. Tenure by Age of Householder, Cottage Grove Market Area, 2010,2020,2024 .......... 31
D6. Tenure by Household Income, Cottage Grove Market Area, 2024 .............................. 33
D7. Household Size, Cottage Grove Market Area, 2024 ..................................................... 35
D8. Household Type, Cottage Grove Market Area, 2010 & 2024 ....................................... 37
D9. Net worth by Age of Householder, Cottage Grove Market Area, 2024 ....................... 38
D10. Demographic Summary, Cottage Grove Market Area, 2024 ........................................ 43
HC1. Residential Construction Building Permits, Cottage Grove, Washington County,
& Seven County Metro 2010-2023 ............................................................................... 45
HC2. Occupied Housing Units by Tenure, Cottage Grove Market Area, 2021 ...................... 47
HC3. Age of Housing Stock, Cottage Grove Market Area, 2021 ............................................ 50
HC4. Housing Units by Structure & Tenure, Cottage Grove Market Area, 2021 .................. 52
HC5. Owner-Occupied Housing Units by Mortgage Status, Cottage Grove Market Area, 2021 53
HC6. Owner-Occupied Units by Value, Cottage Grove Market Area, 2021 .......................... 55
HC7. Renter-Occupied Units by Contract Rent, Cottage Grove Market Area, 2021 ............. 56
HC8. Tenure by Household Income, Cottage Grove Market Area, 2021 .............................. 57
HC9. Mobility in the Past Year by Age of Current Residence, Cottage Grove Market Area,
2021 .............................................................................................................................. 59
E1. Employment Projections, Cottage Grove, Washington County, & Seven County Metro,
2000-2035 ..................................................................................................................... 61
E2. Annual Average Resident Employment, Cottage Grove, Washington County, Seven County
Metro, Minnesota, & US, 2010 through 2024 (July) ..................................................... 63
E3. Covered Employment Trends, City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, & Seven County
Metro, 2000 through 2023 (NAICS) .............................................................................. 67
E4. Quarterly Census Employment and Wages, City of Cottage Grove, Washington County,
& Seven County Metro, Q4 2022 & Q4 2023 ................................................................ 69
E5. Commuting Patterns, City of Cottage Grove, 2021 ...................................................... 71
E6. Commuting Inflow/Outflow Characteristics, City of Cottage Grove, 2021 .................. 72
E7. Resident Profile – Cottage Grove, Hennepin County, Seven County Metro, & MN,
2021 .............................................................................................................................. 73
E8. Major Employers, City of Cottage Grove, 2023 & 2024 ............................................... 74
LIST OF TABLES
(CONTINUED)
Table Number and Title Page
R1. Average Rents/Vacancies Trends, Cottage Grove & Neighboring cities, 2nd Quarters
2023 & 2024 .................................................................................................................. 77
R2. Rent Summary, General Occupancy Rental Properties, Sep 2024 ............................... 80
R3. Maximum Rent Based on Household Size and Area Median Income, Minneapolis-St.
Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI HUD Metro FMR Area, 2024 ............................................. 86
R6. Multifamily Market Rate Rental Developments, Assessment of Market Rate Rental
Housing by Affordability Calculation, City of Cottage Grove, Aug 2024 ...................... 87
R7. Multifamily Market Rate Rental Developments, Natural Occurring Summary, City of
Cottage Grove, Aug 2024 .............................................................................................. 88
SN1. Older Adult and Senior Population and Age Distribution, 2010 to 2029 ...................... 94
SN2. Senior Housing Properties, Cottage Grove PMA, August 2024 .................................... 98
FS1. Closed Resales: Cottage Grove PMA and the Seven County Metro, 2010 to 2023...... 101
FS2. Median Resale Prices: Cottage Grove, PMA Remainder, Metro Area 2010 to 2023 ... 102
FS3. Homes Currently Listed For-Sale, Cottage Grove and PMA ......................................... 104
FS4. Active Listings by Housing Type, Cottage Grove, August 2024 .................................... 106
FS5. Active Listings by Housing Type, Primary Market Area, August 2024 .......................... 107
FS6. Owner-Occupied Turnover, Cottage Grove, Seven County Metro ............................... 112
FS7. Cottage Grove & Nearby Communities: 2024 High School Rankings ........................... 115
FS8. Lot Supply Within Newer Subdivisions Cottage Grove ................................................. 118
P1. Pending Housing Developments, September 2024 ...................................................... 121
HA1. MHFA/HUD Income and Rent Limits, Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI
HUD FMR Area, 2024 .................................................................................................... 124
HA2. Maximum Rent Based on Household Size and Area Median Income, Minneapolis-
St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI HUD Metro FMR Area, 2024 ........................................ 125
HA3. Housing Cost Burden, Cottage Grove, & Twin Cities, 2024 .......................................... 127
HA4. Cottage Grove Housing Affordability – Based on Household Income .......................... 130
LIST OF TABLES
CONTINUED)
Table Number and Title Page
HD1. For-Sale Housing Demand, Cottage Grove, 2024 to 2030 ............................................ 136
HD2. For-Sale Housing Demand, Cottage Grove, 2030 to 2035 ............................................ 137
HD3. Rental Housing Demand, Cottage Grove, 2024 to 2030 ............................................... 139
HD4. Rental Housing Demand, Cottage Grove, 2030 to 2035 ............................................... 140
HD5. Market Rate Active Adult/Few Services Housing Demand, Cottage Grove, 2024
and 2030 ....................................................................................................................... 142
HD6. Deep-Subsidy/Shallow Subsidy Active Adult Housing Demand, Cottage Grove Market
Area, 2024 and 2030 ..................................................................................................... 143
HD7. Independent Living Rental Housing Demand, Cottage Grove, 2024 and 2030 ............ 144
HD8. Assisted Living Demand, Cottage Grove, 2024 and 2030 ............................................. 146
HD9. Memory Care Demand, Cottage Grove, 2024 and 2030 .............................................. 149
CR1. Housing Demand Summary, Cottage Grove, MN, 2024 to 2035 .................................. 150
CR2. Recommended Housing Development, City of Cottage Grove, 2024 to 2030 ............. 152
KEY FINDINGS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 1
This section highlights key findings from the Comprehensive Housing Needs Analysis completed
for the City of Cottage Grove. Calculations of projected housing demand are provided to 2035.
In addition, recommendations for housing products to meet demand over the short-term (2024
through 2029) and long-term (2030 to 2035) are found in the Conclusions and Recommenda-
tions section of the report.
Key Findings
1. Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, the Cottage Grove housing market and economy has
fared better than expected and outperformed many Metro Area communities. Cottage
Grove continued to be a preferred location for new construction owned housing during
the pandemic. Home prices increased more than 20% since early 2020. At the same
time, the unemployment rate decreased to 2.2% in 2022, albeit rising modestly in 2023
(2.5%) and again in 2024 (3.8%).
2. Cottage Grove has experienced strong population and household growth over the past
two decades, increasing its residential base with for-sale and rental options. Looking
forward to 2030 and 2040, growth is expected to continue but at a slightly slower pace
than in the previous decade. Growth of the city can largely be attributed to the multi-
family housing boom that has occurred over the past decade.
3. Cottage Grove’s near-term growth is led primarily by the Millennials and Baby Boomers.
To 2030, the aging of the population will be led by growth in the 75 to 84 age cohort.
These shifts will result in demand for housing products at opposite ends of the residen-
tial continuum, including active adult (55+) rental and for-sale homes in addition to
households wanting to purchase their first home or move-up. Market rate rental hous-
ing has been developed recently in the community, attracting Millennials and empty-
nesters.
4. With the amount of residential land remaining for new homes, for-sale and rental hous-
ing will combine to increase the housing stock in Cottage Grove. As low-density land
supplies decrease, it is important to identify areas where there will be increased density
to accommodate a higher number of housing units. Numerically, those 25 to 34 repre-
sent the largest number of renters (485 people), or 27.2% of all renters. This is followed
by those 35 to 44 (324 people – 18.2% of all renters).
KEY FINDINGS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 2
5. Rental housing in the City is primarily comprised of market rate housing, although there
are also a few affordable rental properties. Market rate rental housing comprises most
of the units followed by income-restricted affordable housing. Subsidized units repre-
sent a small portion of the rental market in Cottage Grove. Combined, the overall va-
cancy rate is less than 3% across all stabilized projects regardless of income.
6. As detailed previously, Cottage Grove’s senior population increased from 2010 to 2020.
As noted in the report, active adult rental properties have almost no vacancies, while
service-enriched housing posted higher vacancies, resulting from challenging labor sup-
ply and seniors preferring to remain in their homes longer rather than relocate to senior
housing. We note however, that many senior properties have already or are recovering
and occupancies have increased. Although active adult product has virtually no vacan-
cies (1.6% - all active adult types), assisted living was the only service-enriched segment
to post a vacancy rate higher above market equilibrium at 10.0%. Therefore, demand is
strongest for active adult and independent seniors in the short-term while service-inten-
sive demand will continue growing this decade.
7. The for-sale market has experienced significant appreciation since 2018 as the median
sale price is at an all-time high of $392,500 through year-end 2023. Cottage Grove, Has-
tings and Woodbury have all been exceptionally strong housing markets as growth has
expanded to third-tier locations. Price acceleration slowed slightly with the rapid uptick
in mortgage rates, but fewer homes for sale continues to place upward pressure on pric-
ing as demand continues to outstrip supply. With the Federal Reserve now lowering in-
terest rates, the housing market is anticipated to strengthen.
8. The lack of available land, comprised with the high cost of redevelopment, make the
construction of new for sale and rental housing a challenge especially in a high interest-
rate environment. This makes housing affordability a pressing issue in the City as buyers
are on the sidelines and renters are facing rent inflation due in-part to the high inflation
conditions property owners are facing for labor, property taxes, insurance, utilities, etc.
New construction is expected to be muted in the short-term as buyers put new home
purchases on-hold while apartment developers are faced with increasing debt service
and tighter underwriting policies. As such, new multifamily construction should slow in
the short-term as buyers and developers wait out the market in anticipation for lower
interest rates.
9. The unemployment rate in Cottage Grove has remained low since recovering jobs from
the pandemic. The unemployment rate was 2.2% in 2022 but increased in 2023 to 2.8%
and to 3.5% as of July 2024. Cottage Grove’s labor force increased during this period,
while employment recently decreased in the first half of 2024. Employment industries
in Cottage Grove are diverse with a good mix of jobs throughout almost all sectors.
Manufacturing accounted for the largest employment sector with 29.3% of jobs. Trade,
Transportation and Utilities accounted for 25.4% and Education and Health Services ac-
counted for 21.3% of jobs as of 4th Quarter 2023.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 3
Purpose and Scope of Study
Maxfield Research and Consulting was engaged by the City of Cottage Grove to conduct a Com-
prehensive Housing Needs Analysis for the City. The scope of this study includes: an analysis of
the demographic and economic characteristics of the City and the residential draw area in
which it functions; a review of the characteristics of the existing housing stock and building per-
mit trends; an analysis of the market condition for a variety of rental and for-sale housing prod-
ucts; and an assessment of the need for housing by product type in the City. Recommendations
on the number and types of housing products that should be considered are also supplied. The
Housing Needs Analysis provides recommendations on the amount and types of housing that
should be developed to meet the needs of current and future households.
Demographic Analysis
• As of 2024, Cottage Grove is estimated to have 43,148 people. The City continued to expe-
rience growth over the last decade (2010 to 2020 – 12.3%), but at a slightly slower pace
than in the 2000s (2000 to 2010 – 13.1%). We project that Cottage Grove will add 5,361
people (13.8%) and 3,295 households (25.1%) between 2020 and 2030. These growth rates
are higher than what is currently projected by the Metropolitan Council, rates of 7.4% and
8.8%, respectively.
• Between 2030 and 2040, Cottage Grove’s population is forecast to experience an increase
of 4,300 people (9.7%) from 44,200 people in 2030 to 48,500 people in 2040 while its
households are projected to increase by 2,400 (14.6%) from 16,400 households in 2030 to
18,800 households in 2040.
• The 35 to 44 age cohort is the largest cohort in Cottage Grove comprising 14.8% as of 2024.
This age cohort comprised a higher proportion in Cottage Grove than the Metro Area
(13.7%).
• Cottage Grove’s population of 18 to 34-year-olds, which consists primarily of renters and
first-time homebuyers, increased by 4.2% between 2010 and 2024. However, the same age
cohort is projected to increase by 18.2% over the next five years; increasing the demand for
rental units and starter homes.
• Cottage Grove had an estimated median household income of $114,459 in 2024. It is pro-
jected to increase to $125,707 by 2030 (9.8%, or 1.6% annually).
• The median resale price of homes in Cottage Grove was $392,500 through 2023 (see Table
FS-1). The income required to afford a home at this price is estimated to be between
$112,143 to $130,833; based on the standard of 3.0 to 3.5 times the median income (and
assuming households do not have a high level of debt).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 4
• In 2020, 86.3% of all households in Cottage Grove owned their housing. By 2024, that per-
centage increased slightly to 87.3%. This is primarily due to increased construction of for-
sale housing in the City.
• In 2024, 78.6% of Cottage Grove’s households under age 25 rented their housing, com-
pared to 20.8% of households between the ages of 25 and 34. Cottage Grove households
between the ages of 35 and 74 are overwhelmingly homeowners with homeownership
rates ranging from 88.9% to 97.3%. The very high proportion of households ages 65 to 74
owning their housing may also reflect a lack of rental active adult options for households in
this age group.
• An estimated 36.6% of renter households in the City of Cottage Grove in 2024 have one per-
son while an additional 17.9% of renter households have two people. One-person house-
holds are more likely to look for one-bedroom units and two-person households are more
likely to prefer a two-bedroom unit. Two-person households that consist of a parent and
child or roommate would primarily seek two-bedroom units. Larger households would seek
units with multiple bedrooms.
• Persons Living Alone increased by 384 households (22.0%) between 2010 and 2024. As of
2024, Persons Living Alone accounted for 15.1% of all households. The largest household
types in Cottage Grove are Married Couple families without children (35.1%) followed
closely by Married Couple families with children (31.0%). Cottage Grove has a higher pro-
portion of Married Couples without children and a lower proportion of people living alone
than does the Metro Area.
Housing Characteristics
• From 2010 through May 2024, Cottage Grove issued permits for a total of 2,064 new resi-
dential units. Of those, 1,598 were issued for single-family and 466 were issued for multi-
family.
• Cottage Grove’s housing stock is generally newer with the largest proportions of homes
built in the 1990s followed by the 2000s.
• Single-family detached units are the dominant housing type for owned units in Cottage
Grove (91.0%) compared to 80% in the Twin Cities Metro Area.
• In Cottage Grove, 72% of homes have a mortgage while 28% own their homes without a
mortgage. Thus, the percentage of housing units in Cottage Grove owned without a mort-
gage is less than the Metro Area (30%).
• The estimated median contract rent in 2024 in Cottage Grove is $1,467 in 2022, 24.5%
higher than the Metro Area.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 5
• The median income of renter households was 39.8% less than the median income of owner
households in Cottage Grove. In 2024, owner households in Cottage Grove reported a me-
dian income of $123,333 compared to $74,167 among renter households.
• Most residents in Cottage Grove did not move during the past year (89% remained in their
same home). In the Metro Area, 86% of residents did not move in the last year.
Employment Trends
• Unemployment in Cottage Grove was at its highest in 2009 during the Great Recession at
7.4% and after that continued to drop to 2.2% in 2022. The current unemployment rate is
3.8% as of July 2024. This compares to 3.7% for the Twin Cities Metro Area.
• Unemployment increased briefly in 2020 to 6.5% during the Pandemic, but rapidly declined
during the recovery.
• In Cottage Grove, the Information industry reported the highest weekly wage, $1,474, fol-
lowed closely by the Manufacturing sector with $1,435.
• As Table E-5 illustrates, St. Paul was the largest work destination for Cottage Grove resi-
dents (16.2%) and the largest home destination for Cottage Grove workers (25.3%).
• Cottage Grove was the second largest work destination for Cottage Grove residents (12.7%)
and the first home destination for Cottage Grove workers (25.31%).
• The City of Cottage Grove is a net importer of workers, with 37,337 workers commuting into
the city compared to 23,826 workers leaving the city for work. In addition, 2,839 workers
live and work in the City.
• Independent School District 833 in the Education sector is the largest employer in the City
with an estimated 2,983 employees. The second largest employer is Renewal by Andersen,
a window manufacturer, employing 1,600 people in Cottage Grove.
• The largest employers in Cottage Grove include primarily businesses in education, manufac-
turing, public administration and retail sectors.
Rental Housing Market Analysis
• All rental properties in the PMA represent a combined total of 7,133 units, including 6,298
market rate units (92.4%), 785 affordable units (4.8% of all units) and 50 subsidized units
(2.8% of all units).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 6
• At the time of our survey, Cottage Grove had an overall stabilized vacancy rate of 5.5% (322
vacancies), at market equilibrium (5% vacancy rate). Market rate properties had a stabilized
vacancy rate of 2.7% (370 vacancies) while affordable and subsidized units each had a va-
cancy rate of 0.3%. As a result, all unit types have pent up demand.
Senior Housing Market Analysis
• Between 2010 and 2020, the fastest growing proportion of the population in Cottage Grove
was those between the ages of 65 and 74, which experienced a 78% increase in population,
an addition of 1,379 people. In addition, over the next five years, the fastest population
growth in Cottage Grove is projected to be those between the ages of 75 and 84, which are
forecast to experience a 52% increase in population, an addition of 708 people.
• The Primary Market Area maintains high rates of homeownership in the older adult age co-
horts. The homeownership rate as of 2024 is 81% for households 65+. Seniors typically
begin to consider moving into senior housing alternatives or more convenient housing such
as apartment buildings or twin homes in their early to mid-70s, although there is not much
of a drop between the age 65 to 74 age cohort (82%) and the 75+ age cohort (81%).
• Maxfield Research identified eight senior housing properties in the PMA. Combined, these
projects contain a total of 2,110 senior housing units. Of those 2,110 units, 1,353 units are
market rate units while 728 are affordable.
• Based on the survey, 61.8% of age-restricted housing provide optional or included services
(service-enhanced housing), a total of 1,305 units. These include 471 independent living
units, 462 assisted living units and 372 memory care units. The remaining 805 units are ac-
tive adult (55+ or 62+), including 728 affordable (deep- and shallow-subsidy), 4 market rate
rental and 73 cooperative/ownership units. Of all age-restricted units, 90 are currently va-
cant, representing a 4.3% vacancy rate.
• The affordable active adult properties are predominantly shallow-subsidy properties devel-
oped through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program.
Housing Affordability
• In Cottage Grove, 15% of owner households and 42% of renter households are considered
cost burdened. By comparison, 16% of owner households and 41% of renter households
are considered cost burdened in the PMA. The Seven-County Metro Area has 34% of its
owner households cost burdened and 47.5% of its renter households cost burdened. The
median income of all Cottage Grove households in 2024 was $114,459. However, the me-
dian income varies by tenure. According to the 2022 American Community Survey (most
recent available), the median income of a homeowner is $123,333 compared to $74,167 for
renters.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 7
• An estimated 87% of all households and 80% of owner households could afford to purchase
an entry-level home in Cottage Grove ($250,000). When adjusting for move-up buyers
($385,000), 63% of all households and 60% of owner households would income qualify.
• About 73% of existing renter households can afford to rent a one-bedroom unit in Cottage
Grove ($1,200/month). The percentage of renter income-qualified households decreases to
59% that can afford an existing three-bedroom unit ($1,600/month). After adjusting for
new construction rental housing, the percentage of renters that are income-qualified de-
creases.
For-Sale Housing Market Analysis
• Between 2010 and 2023, there has been an average of 664 residential sales per year in Cot-
tage Grove.
• Between 2021 and 2023, Cottage Grove’s median resale prices increased 10.5% to $392,500
while the Seven County Metro’s median resale price increased 7.7% to $370,000.
• As of August 2024, there were 141 homes listed for sale in Cottage Grove and 484 homes
listed for sale in the PMA.
• The median list price in Cottage Grove is $442,000 and $509,873 for the PMA.
• Based on a median list price of $442,000 for Cottage Grove, the income required to afford a
home at this price would be between $126,286 and $147,333; based on the standard of 3.0
to 3.5 times the median income (and assuming these households do not have a high level of
debt). A household with significantly more equity (in an existing home and/or savings)
could afford a higher priced home. An estimated 45% of Cottage Grove households have
annual incomes at or above $126,286.
• Most single-family and multifamily homes listed for sale listed for sale in Cottage Grove are
priced between $300,000 and $399,999 and $400,000 and $499,999, respectively.
Housing Needs Analysis (New Construction units)
• Based on our calculations (detailed in the demand section of the report), demand exists in
Cottage Grove for the following general occupancy product types between 2024 and 2030:
o Market Rate Rental 570 units
o Affordable Rental 185 units
o Subsidized Rental 178 units
o For-Sale Single-Family 1,317 units
o For-Sale Multifamily 593 units
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 8
• In addition, we find demand for multiple senior housing product types (detailed in the de-
mand section of the report). By 2030, demand in Cottage Grove for senior housing is esti-
mated for the following:
o Active Adult Ownership 201 units
o Active Adult Market Rate Rental 267 units
o Active Adult Affordable 131 units
o Active Adult Subsidized 116 units
o Independent Living 158 units
o Assisted Living 78 units
o Memory Care 72 units
• On the following page are suggested development targets by product type for Cottage
Grove to 2030.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 9
Purchase Price/Development
Monthly Rent Range¹Timing
Owned Homes
Single Family 2
Entry-level $300,000 - $350,000 300 -400 2025+
Move-up $450,000 - $699,999 400 -500 2025+
Executive $700,000+100 -150 2025+
Total 800 -1,050
Townhomes/Twinhomes/Villas 2
Attached Townhomes-Entry-level $250,000 - $325,000 200 -200 2025+
Attached Townhomes-Move-Up $400,000 - $500,000 100 -200 2025+
Twinhomes / Detached Townhomes/Villas $500,000+100 -200 2025+
Total 400 -600
Total MF Style For-Sale 400 -600
Total Owned 1,200 -1,650
General Occupancy Rental Housing
Market Rate Rental Housing
Apartment-style (moderate)$1,050/Eff - $2,300/3BR 300 -350 2025+
Apartment-style (luxury)$1,500/1BR - $2,600/3BR 300 -400 2026+
Rental Townhomes $2,500/2BR - $2,800/3BR 60 -80 2025+
Total 660 -830
Affordable Rental Housing
Apartment-style Moderate Income3 120 -130 2025+
Townhomes Moderate Income3 50 -60 2025+
Subsidized 30% of Income4 50 -65 2025+
Total 220 -255
Total Renter-Occupied 880 -1,085
Senior Housing (i.e. Age Restricted)
Active Adult Ownership / Co-op4 $200,000+80 -120 2025+
Active Adult Market Rate Rental5 $1,600/1BR - $2,300/2BR 80 -100 2025+
Active Adult Affordable Rental5 Moderate Income3 125 -150 2027+
Independent Living $2,400+ per month 100 -125 2025+
Assisted Living $3,000/EFF - $5,000/2BR 40 -45 2027+
Memory Care $5,000/EFF - $6,000/2BR 30 -35 2027+
Subsidized Senior 30% of Income4 70 -90 2025+
Total 525 -665
Total - All Units 2,605 -3,400
RECOMMENDED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
COTTAGE GROVE
2024 TO 2030
No. of
Units
Source: Maxfield Research and Consulting
¹ Pricing in 2024 dollars. Pricing can be adjusted to account for inflation.
2 Replacement need, infill, and redevelopment. Development of single-family homes and townhomes/twinhomes will hinge on land availability.
3 Affordablity subject to income guidelines per Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). See Table HA-1 for Metro Area (Twin Cities) Income limits.
4 Subsized housing will be difficult to develop financially
5 Alternative development concept is to combine active adult affordable and market rate active adult into mixed-income senior community
Note - Recommended development does not coincide with total demand. Cottage Grove may not be able to accommodate all recommended housing types based
on land availability and development constraints.
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 10
Introduction
This section of the report examines factors related to the current and future demand for owned
and rented housing in Cottage Grove, Minnesota. It includes an analysis of population and
household growth trends and projections, age distribution, household income, household types
and household tenure. Comparisons, where appropriate, are provided to the Primary Market
Area (described in the following section), Washington County and the Twin Cities Seven County
Metro (Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and Washington Counties). A review
of these characteristics provide insight into the demand for various types of housing needed in
the City.
Primary Market Area
For the housing analysis, the Primary Market Area (PMA) is identified as the Cities of Cottage
Grove, Woodbury, Newport, St. Paul Park, Hastings and the Townships of Grey Cloud Island and
Denmark. The Primary Market Area is considered as the geography from which an estimated
70% of the demand for housing will be generated. The remaining 30% of demand is expected
to be generated from outside of the PMA due to higher household mobility across the Metro
Area.
Cottage Grove is classified as a Suburban Edge community by the Metropolitan Council’s Thrive
MSP 2040 document. Suburban Edge communities are characterized generally by their auto-
focused development patterns, limited transit options, access to recreational opportunities,
and ample land still available for development.1
In some cases, additional demand for housing will come from individuals moving from just out-
side the Market Area, those who return from other locations (particularly young households re-
turning after pursuing their degrees or elderly returning from retirement locations), and seniors
who move to be near their adult children living in Cottage Grove or the Remainder of the Mar-
ket Area. Demand generated from inside and outside of the Market Area considered in the de-
mand calculations is presented later in the analysis. The maps on the following pages highlight
the Primary Market Area, the Metropolitan Council’s 2040 Community Designations, Regional
Boundaries, the Primary Market Area Remainder and Cottage Grove city boundaries.
1 “Urban Center: Growing vitality in the region’s core.” Metropolitan Council: Thrive MSP 2040. Pgs. 96-97.
https://metrocouncil.org/Planning/Publications-And-Resources/Thrive-MSP-2040-Plan-(1)/ThriveMSP2040.aspx.
Accessed 7 May. 2024.
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 11
Cottage Grove Primary Market Area
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 12
Metropolitan Council’s Thrive 2040 Community Designations
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 13
City of Cottage Grove and Seven County Metro
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 14
Primary Market Area Remainder & Cottage Grove City Boundaries
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 15
Historical Population Growth
In 1920, Cottage Grove had a total of 667 people. Rapid growth began in Cottage Grove in the
1950s when the community grew 449.3% from 883 people in 1950 to 4,850 people in 1960.
High growth continued in the City between 1960 and 1970, with an increase of 176.7% from
4,850 people in 1960 to 13,419 people in 1970. Rapid growth persisted between 1970 and
1980 with Cottage Grove’s population growing by 41.5% to 18,994 people by 1980. Growth
continued, but at a slower pace than during the 1980s, increasing by 20.7% to 22,935 people as
of 1990. From 1990 to 2000, the City reached 30,000 people, growing 33.3% to 30,582 people
by 2000. From 2000 to 2010 and from 2010 to 2020, Cottage Grove’s population increased by
13.1% and 12.3%, respectively, growing to 34,589 people in 2010 and 38,839 people by 2020.
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 16
Population and Household Growth from 2000 to 2020
Table D-1 presents population and household growth trends in Cottage Grove as of 2000, 2010
and 2020. Current estimates and projections to 2040 are addressed in the following section.
Historical data is from the U.S. Decennial Census.
Population
• Cottage Grove’s population increased from 34,589 people to 38,839 people between 2010
and 2020 (4,250 people, 12.3%). Growth this past decade was higher numerically than be-
tween 2000 and 2010, but at a slightly slower growth rate, 12.3% versus 13.1%. Washing-
ton County’s and the Metro Area’s growth rates from 2010 to 2020 were 12.4% and 11.0%,
respectively.
Households
• Household growth trends are typically a more accurate indicator of housing needs than
population growth since a household is, by definition, an occupied housing unit. Additional
demand however, can result from changing demographics of the population base, which re-
sults in demand for different housing products.
• Cottage Grove added 2,087 households during the 2010s (9.6%), increasing its household
base to 23,830 households as of 2020. Households in Washington County increased by
13.3% and the Metro Area increased 10.9% over the same period.
• Household growth rates over the past two decades (2000 to 2020) outpaced population
growth in Cottage Grove and in the PMA. Cottage Grove’s population increased 27% com-
pared to a 32% increase in households between 2000 and 2020. This is the result of fewer
people in each household, caused by demographic and social trends such as couples delay-
ing marriage, an increasing senior base and couples’ decisions to have fewer children or no
children at all. As a result, most new apartment construction has targeted smaller house-
hold sizes in these properties unit mixes (i.e. a higher proportion of one-bedroom units).
Population and Household Estimates and Projections
Table D-1 presents population and household growth trends and projections for Cottage Grove,
the Primary Market Area, Washington County and Seven County Metro Area to 2040. Esti-
mates for 2024 and projections to 2040 are based on information from ESRI (a national de-
mographics service provider) and the Metropolitan Council, with adjustments by Maxfield Re-
search.
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 17
Estimate
2000 2010 2020 2024 2029 2030 2040 No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.
Cottage Grove 30,582 34,589 38,839 43,148 43,700 44,200 48,500 4,007 13.1% 4,250 12.3% 5,361 13.8% 4,300 9.7%
Remainder of PMA*75,107 94,873 108,681 113,952 117,840 118,420 124,460 19,766 26.3% 13,808 14.6% 9,739 9.0% 6,040 5.1%
PMA 105,689 129,462 147,520 157,100 161,540 162,620 172,960 23,773 22.5% 18,058 13.9% 15,100 10.2% 10,340 6.4%
Washington County 201,130 238,136 267,568 284,411 305,950 310,260 341,330 37,006 18.4% 29,432 12.4% 42,692 16.0% 31,070 10.0%
Seven-County Metro Area 2,642,056 2,849,567 3,163,104 3,242,239 3,350,000 3,397,400 3,590,000 207,511 7.9% 313,537 11.0% 234,296 7.4% 192,600 5.7%
Cottage Grove 9,932 11,719 13,105 14,300 16,200 16,400 18,800 1,787 18.0% 1,386 11.8% 3,295 25.1% 2,400 14.6%
Remainder of PMA*27,163 35,382 40,697 43,400 43,300 45,520 49,120 8,219 30.3% 5,315 15.0% 4,823 11.9% 3,600 7.9%
PMA 37,095 47,101 53,802 57,700 59,500 61,920 67,920 10,006 27.0% 6,701 14.2% 8,118 15.1% 6,000 9.7%
Washington County 71,462 87,859 99,507 108,000 110,000 115,000 124,000 16,397 22.9% 11,648 13.3% 15,493 15.6% 9,000 7.8%
Seven-County Metro Area 1,021,454 1,117,749 1,239,526 1,285,000 1,330,000 1,348,230 1,448,000 96,295 9.4% 121,777 10.9% 108,704 8.8% 99,770 7.4%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; ESRI; Metropolitan Council; Maxfield Research & Consulting
Change
2030 to 2040
POPULATION
HOUSEHOLDS
Seven County Metro Area includes Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and Washington Counties.
U.S. Census
TABLE D-1
POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD GROWTH TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS
PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2000 to 2040
Forecast 2000 to 2010 2010 to 2020 2020 to 2030
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 18
• As of 2024, Cottage Grove is estimated to have 43,148 people. The City continued to grow
during the last decade (2010 to 2020 – 12.3%), but at a slightly slower rate than in the
2000s (2000 to 2010 – 13.1%). Between 2020 and 2030, we estimate that Cottage Grove
will add 5,361 people (13.8%) and 3,295 households (25.1%).
• As of 2024, the PMA is estimated to have 157,100 people. The Market Area, like Cottage
Grove, grew over the last decade (2010 to 2020 – 13.9%), but at a slower rate than in the
2000s (2000 to 2010 – 22.5%). The PMA is estimated to add 9,739 people (9.0%) and 8,118
households (15.1%) between 2020 and 2030.
• Between 2030 and 2040, Cottage Grove’s population is forecast to increase by 4,300 people
(9.7%) to 48,500 people while households are projected to increase by 2,400 (14.6%),
reaching 18,800 households.
• Between 2030 and 2040, the PMA population is forecast to increase by 9,739 people (9.0%)
to 172,960 people while households are projected to increase by 5,585 (9.3%) to 65,378
households.
• Washington County is forecast to increase by 15,100 people (7.4%) and 15.493 people
(15.1%) from 2020 to 2030. Between 2030 and 2040, Washington County is projected to
gain 20,983 people (7.3%) and 10,528 households (9.6%).
• The Metro Area is forecast to grow by 234,296 people (7.1%) and 108,704 households
(8.8%) between 2020 and 2030. From 2030 and 2040, the Metro Area is projected to gain
192,600 people (5.7%) and 99,970 households (7.4%).
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 19
30,58234,58938,83943,14843,70044,20048,50075,10794,873108,681113,952117,840118,420124,460105,689129,462147,520157,100161,540162,620172,9600
25,000
50,000
75,000
100,000
125,000
150,000
175,000
200,000
2000 2010 2020 2024 2029 2030 2040Population
Year
Population Trends: 2000 -2040, Primary Market Area
Cottage Grove
Remainder of PMA
PMA
9,93211,71913,10514,30016,20016,40018,80027,16335,38240,69743,40043,30045,52049,12037,09547,10153,80257,70059,50061,92067,9200
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
2000 2010 2020 2024 2029 2030 2040Households
Year
Household Trends: 2000 -2040, Primary Market Area
Cottage Grove
Remainder of PMA
PMA
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 20
City Water Tower
Age Distribution Trends
Age distribution affects demand for different types of housing since needs and desires change
at different stages of the life cycle. Table D-2 shows the distribution of persons in nine age co-
horts for Cottage Grove, PMA Remainder, PMA and Seven-County Metro Area in 2000 and 2010
with estimates for 2024 and projections for 2030. The 2000 and 2010 age distribution numbers
are from the U.S. Census Bureau while 2024 and 2030 data is based on data obtained from the
Metropolitan Council and ESRI Inc. with adjustments by Maxfield Research. The following are
key points from the table.
• The 35 to 44 age cohort is the largest adult cohort in Cottage Grove and the PMA Remain-
der comprising 14.8% and 15.5%, respectively as of 2024. This age cohort in Cottage Grove
and the PMA Remainder represented higher proportions than in the Metro Area (14.1%).
• Cottage Grove’s and the overall PMA’s populations of 18 to 34-year-olds, which consists pri-
marily of renters and first-time homebuyers, increased by 28.9% and 18.2%, respectively
between 2010 and 2024. The same age cohort is projected to decrease by 0.8% in Cottage
Grove, while decreasing by 3.5% in the PMA over the next six years. Despite the modest de-
creases, demand remains strong as home production has not kept pace with the need.
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 21
• Between 2010 and 2020, the largest percentage growth rates in the PMA occurred in the 65
to 74 (81.3%) and the 85 plus (85.9%) age groups. The third largest proportional growth
was in the 75 to 84 age group (53.8%). The 25 to 34 age group and the 45 to 54 age groups
lost 2.1% and 3.4%, respectively, due to regional demographic shifts in this group.
Estimate Forecast
2000 2010 2020 2024 2030
Age No. No. No. No. No. No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.
Cottage Grove
Under 18 9,987 10,015 10,604 10,787 10,785 28 0.3%589 5.9% 181 1.7%
18 to 24 2,257 2,688 2,949 3,322 3,050 431 19.1% 261 9.7% 101 3.4%
25 to 34 4,760 4,609 4,658 6,084 6,276 -151 -3.2% 49 1.1% 1,618 34.7%
35 to 44 5,756 5,447 5,760 6,386 6,895 -309 -5.4% 313 5.7% 1,135 19.7%
45 to 54 4,144 5,318 5,076 5,609 5,481 1,174 28.3% -242 -4.6%405 8.0%
55 to 64 2,188 3,655 4,727 5,178 5,039 1,467 67.0% 1,072 29.3% 312 6.6%
65 to 74 1,092 1,765 3,144 3,711 3,978 673 61.6% 1,379 78.1% 834 26.5%
75 to 84 342 860 1,369 1,596 2,077 518 151.5% 509 59.2% 708 51.7%
85 and over 56 232 552 475 619 176 314.3% 320 137.9% 67 12.1%
Total 30,582 34,589 38,839 43,148 44,200 4,007 13.1% 4,250 12.3% 5,361 13.8%
Remainder of PMA
Under 18 22,064 26,483 27,874 28,959 29,708 4,419 20.0% 1,391 5.3% 1,834 6.6%
18 to 24 5,261 6,494 7,974 8,931 8,659 1,233 23.4% 1,480 22.8%685 8.6%
25 to 34 11,668 12,934 12,521 14,025 15,515 1,266 10.9% -413 -3.2% 2,994 23.9%
35 to 44 14,366 14,303 15,266 17,650 17,823 -63 -0.4% 963 6.7% 2,557 16.7%
45 to 54 10,339 15,178 14,730 14,814 15,009 4,839 46.8% -448 -3.0% 279 1.9%
55 to 64 5,419 10,124 14,252 13,988 13,337 4,705 86.8% 4,128 40.8% -915 -6.4%
65 to 74 3,344 5,168 9,426 9,643 10,658 1,824 54.5% 4,258 82.4% 1,232 13.1%
75 to 84 1,823 3,055 4,651 4,373 5,728 1,232 67.6% 1,596 52.2% 1,077 23.2%
85 and over 823 1,134 1,987 1,568 1,983 311 37.8% 853 75.2%-4 -0.2%
Total 75,107 94,873 108,681 113,952 118,420 19,766 26.3% 13,808 14.6% 9,739 9.0%
Primary Market Area
Under 18 32,051 36,498 38,478 39,746 40,492 4,447 13.9% 1,980 5.4% 2,014 5.2%
18 to 24 7,518 9,182 10,923 12,254 11,709 1,664 22.1% 1,741 19.0% 786 7.2%
25 to 34 16,428 17,543 17,179 20,109 21,791 1,115 6.8% -364 -2.1% 4,612 26.8%
35 to 44 20,122 19,750 21,026 24,036 24,718 -372 -1.8% 1,276 6.5% 3,692 17.6%
45 to 54 14,483 20,496 19,806 20,423 20,490 6,013 41.5% -690 -3.4% 684 3.5%
55 to 64 7,607 13,779 18,979 19,166 18,376 6,172 81.1% 5,200 37.7% -603 -3.2%
65 to 74 4,436 6,933 12,570 13,354 14,636 2,497 56.3% 5,637 81.3% 2,066 16.4%
75 to 84 2,165 3,915 6,020 5,970 7,806 1,750 80.8% 2,105 53.8% 1,786 29.7%
85 and over 879 1,366 2,539 2,042 2,602 487 55.4% 1,173 85.9% 63 2.5%
Total 105,689 129,462 147,520 157,100 162,620 23,773 22.5% 18,058 13.9% 15,100 10.2%
Seven-County Metro Area
Under 18 697,534 700,960 728,883 723,019 733,838 3,426 0.5% 27,923 4.0% 4,955 0.7%
18 to 24 244,226 263,462 283,334 288,559 295,574 19,236 7.9% 19,872 7.5% 12,240 4.3%
25 to 34 411,155 420,311 461,046 453,913 462,046 9,156 2.2% 40,735 9.7% 1,000 0.2%
35 to 44 469,324 391,324 433,214 457,156 492,623 -78,000 -16.6% 41,890 10.7% 59,409 13.7%
45 to 54 363,592 440,753 383,578 392,311 407,688 77,161 21.2% -57,175 -13.0% 24,110 6.3%
55 to 64 200,980 326,007 407,524 415,007 390,701 125,027 62.2% 81,517 25.0% -16,823 -4.1%
65 to 74 130,615 163,425 280,318 311,255 349,932 32,810 25.1% 116,893 71.5% 69,614 24.8%
75 to 84 90,292 97,442 130,248 142,659 193,652 7,150 7.9% 32,806 33.7% 63,404 48.7%
85 and over 34,338 45,883 54,959 58,360 71,345 11,545 33.6% 9,076 19.8% 16,386 29.8%
Total 2,642,056 2,849,567 3,163,104 3,242,239 3,397,400 207,511 7.9% 313,537 11.0% 234,296 7.4%
TABLE D-2
POPULATION AGE DISTRIBUTION
PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2000 to 2030
2000-2010
Census
2020-2030
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; ESRI; Maxfield Research and Consulting
2010-2020
Change
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 22
• Mirroring trends observed across the Nation, the aging Baby Boom generation is substan-
tially impacting the composition of the PMA’s population. Born between 1946 and 1964,
these individuals primarily comprise the 55 to 64 and 65 to 74 age groups. As of 2024, the
55 to 64 and 65 to 74 age groups accounted for a combined 20.7% of the PMA’s population
and 20.5% in Cottage Grove.
• The 75 to 84 age cohort is projected to have the greatest percent growth in the PMA from
2024 to 2030, increasing by 30.8% (1,836 people). Growth in this age cohort can be largely
attributed to the continued aging of the Baby Boom generation.
• The next three age cohorts with the largest projected proportional growth rates are those
85 and over (27.4%), 65 to 74 (9.6%), and the 25 to 34 (8.4%).
• The social changes that occurred with the aging of the Baby Boom generation, such as
higher divorce rates, higher levels of education and lower birth rates has led to a greater va-
riety of lifestyles than existed in the past – not only among baby boomers, but also among
their parents and children. The increased variety of lifestyles has fueled demand for alter-
native housing products to the single-family home. Seniors and mid-age people tend to do
more traveling and participate in more activities than previous generations and they in-
creasingly prefer maintenance-free housing that enables them to spend more time on activ-
ities outside the home.
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 23
Race and Ethnicity
Table D-3 presents the race and ethnicity of the population in Cottage Grove, the PMA Remain-
der, PMA and Seven County Metro in 2010, 2020 and 2024. One must select their race as well
as whether one is of Hispanic/Latino origin. Since people self-identify their racial classification,
there may be confusion on the part of some people about what category most accurately de-
scribes their race. Some people may choose to self-identify using their ethnicity as their race.
The increase in diversity of the United States will likely result in some confusion over race/eth-
nicity classifications for some time until additional racial classifications are formulated and as-
signed to population subsets. The term “Whites” in this report refers to Non-Hispanic White or
White, Not Hispanic or Latino individuals.
• “Whites,” in 2024, comprised the largest proportion of the population in Cottage Grove
(79.4%) and the Primary Market Area (78.5%). While this category has always been the
largest, it has increased from the 2010 proportions of 86.5% in Cottage Grove and 85.6% in
the PMA. Compared to the Metro Area (69.8%), Cottage Grove has a higher percentage of
those considered “White” in 2024.13.9%22.1%6.8%-1.8%41.5%81.1%56.3%80.8%55.4%5.4%19.0%-2.1%6.5%-3.4%37.7%81.3%53.8%85.9%5.2%7.2%26.8%17.6%3.5%-3.2%16.4%29.7%2.5%-20.0%
-10.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Under 18 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75 to 84 85 and
overPercent ChangeAge Cohort
Percent Change in Population, Primary Market Area, 2000-2030
2000-2010
2010-2020
2020-2030
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 24
2010 2020 2024 2010 2020 2024 2010 2020 2024 2010 2020 2024
Number
Cottage Grove 29,921 29,623 34,244 1,348 2,370 2,767 175 177 62 20 15 57
Remainder of PMA 80,580 82,797 90,649 4,203 6,734 4,822 335 506 123 26 32 89
Primary Market Area 110,771 112,420 123,329 5,551 9,104 7,293 510 683 180 46 47 140
Seven-County Metro Area 2,161,906 2,216,027 2,262,377 237,599 328,772 334,133 20,698 24,566 18,670 1,247 1,206 967
Percentage
Cottage Grove 86.5% 71.4% 79.4% 3.9% 5.7% 6.4% 0.5% 0.4% 0.1% 0.06% 0.04% 0.13%
Remainder of PMA 85.2% 72.7% 79.6% 4.4% 5.9% 4.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.1% 0.03% 0.03% 0.08%
Primary Market Area 85.6% 72.4% 78.5% 4.3% 5.9% 4.6% 0.4% 0.4% 0.1% 0.04% 0.03% 0.09%
Seven-County Metro Area 78.4% 67.0% 69.8% 8.6% 9.9% 10.3% 0.8% 0.7% 0.6% 0.05% 0.04% 0.03%
2010 2020 2024 2010 2020 2024 2010 2020 2024 2010 2020 2024
Number
Cottage Grove 1,820 2,769 2,497 493 959 714 812 2,926 2,807 1,658 2,628 2,053
Remainder of PMA 6,220 9,553 10,956 976 1,684 2,201 2,263 7,375 5,112 3,504 5,232 5,786
Primary Market Area 8,040 12,322 14,339 1,469 2,643 2,909 3,075 10,301 8,910 5,162 7,860 7,840
Seven-County Metro Area 180,943 259,578 257,408 73,185 115,503 120,207 82,947 217,452 248,477 167,558 146,529 222,840
Percentage
Cottage Grove 5.3% 6.7% 5.8% 1.4% 2.3% 1.7% 2.3% 7.1% 6.5% 4.8% 6.3% 4.8%
Remainder of PMA 6.6% 8.4% 9.6% 1.0% 1.5% 1.9% 2.4% 6.5% 4.5% 3.7% 4.6% 5.1%
Primary Market Area 6.2% 7.9% 9.1% 1.1% 1.7% 1.9% 2.4% 6.6% 5.7% 4.0% 5.1% 5.0%
Seven-County Metro Area 6.6% 7.8% 7.9% 2.7% 3.5% 3.7% 3.0% 6.6% 7.7% 6.1% 4.4% 6.9%
Asian Alone
Note: Hispanic/Latino totals included within the other race categories.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Maxfield Research and Consulting.
Hispanic or Latino (Ethnicity)Two or More Races AloneSome Other Race
TABLE D-3
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION BY RACE
PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2010, 2020, & 2024
White Alone Black or African American Alone American Indian or Alaska Native
Alone (AIAN)
Native Hawaiian or Pacific
Islander Alone (NHPI)
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 25
• “Two or More Races Alone” comprised the second largest proportion of those in Cottage
Grove (6.5%), followed by “Black, African American” at 6.4% in 2024 while in the PMA,
“Asian Alone” was the second largest category (9.1%).
• “Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Alone” experienced the largest proportional growth in
the PMA, increasing by 204.3% (94 people) between 2010 and 2024. In Cottage Grove,
“Two or More Races Alone” experienced the largest proportional growth, increasing by
247.2% (1,995 people).
• Compared to the Twin Cities Metro Area, Cottage Grove and the PMA are less diverse.
• In Cottage Grove and the PMA, Hispanics/Latinos comprised 4.8% and 5.0%, respectively of
the population in 2024, less than the Seven-County Metro Area where Latinos comprised
6.9% of the population. Hispanic/Latino Origin may be of any race.
Household Income by Age of Householder
The estimated distribution of household incomes in the Primary Market Area for 2024 and 2030
are shown in Table D-4. The data was estimated by Maxfield Research based on income trends
provided by ESRI. The data helps ascertain the demand for different housing products based on
the size of the market at specific cost levels.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development defines affordable housing costs as 30% of
a household’s adjusted gross income. For example, a household with an income of $100,000
per year would be able to afford a monthly housing cost of about $2,500. Maxfield Research
utilizes a figure of 25% to 30% for younger households and 40% or more for seniors, since sen-
iors generally have lower living expenses and can often sell their homes and use the proceeds
toward rent payments.
A generally accepted standard for affordable owned housing is that a typical household can af-
ford to pay 3.0 to 3.5 times their annual income. Thus, a $110,889 income would translate to
an affordable owned home of between $332,700 and $388,100. The higher end of this range
assumes that the person has adequate funds for down payment and closing costs, but also does
not include savings or equity in an existing home which would allow them to purchase a higher
priced home.
• The PMA had an estimated median household income of $110,889 in 2024. It is projected
to increase over the next six years to $124,608 in 2030 (12.4%, or 2.0% annually).
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 26
• A 2024 household income of $96,024 for households under age 65 translates to an esti-
mated monthly housing cost of $2,401, based on an allocation of 30% of income toward
housing. A senior household (65+) with a 2024 median income of $70,467 could afford a
monthly housing cost of $2,349 based on an allocation of 40% of income toward housing.
Total Under 25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
Less than $15,000 2,050 125 251 236 239 394 369 437
$15,000 to $24,999 1,701 82 147 149 148 318 330 528
$25,000 to $34,999 2,333 110 328 224 227 362 377 706
$35,000 to $49,999 3,835 174 562 547 386 603 691 874
$50,000 to $74,999 8,060 310 1,210 1,355 1,034 1,304 1,868 980
$75,000 to $99,999 7,737 256 1,409 1,678 1,329 1,380 1,193 493
$100,000 to $149,999 12,749 207 2,126 3,169 2,908 2,487 1,436 417
$150,000 to $199,999 9,076 88 1,383 2,287 2,238 1,851 793 437
$200,000+10,159 39 1,227 2,784 2,851 2,257 793 208
Total 57,700 1,389 8,641 12,428 11,359 10,955 7,847 5,080
Median Income $110,889 $65,513 $108,773 $129,795 $138,662 $120,622 $82,507 $51,871
Less than $15,000 1,832 134 214 197 187 277 335 489
$15,000 to $24,999 1,226 62 117 92 93 171 229 463
$25,000 to $34,999 1,905 95 262 158 128 224 308 730
$35,000 to $49,999 3,219 138 486 408 280 405 563 939
$50,000 to $74,999 7,967 310 1,215 1,184 909 1,119 1,919 1,311
$75,000 to $99,999 7,763 265 1,419 1,552 1,271 1,247 1,312 698
$100,000 to $149,999 13,906 253 2,440 3,341 2,972 2,472 1,770 659
$150,000 to $199,999 11,719 116 1,886 2,854 2,634 2,217 1,197 815
$200,000+12,383 38 1,681 3,367 3,182 2,526 1,171 417
Total 61,920 1,411 9,719 13,152 11,657 10,657 8,804 6,521
Median Income $124,608 $73,991 $122,501 $148,728 $155,273 $140,641 $99,132 $63,818
Less than $15,000 -218 9 -37 -39 -52 -117 -34 52
$15,000 to $24,999 -475 -20 -30 -57 -54 -147 -101 -65
$25,000 to $34,999 -428 -15 -66 -66 -99 -138 -69 24
$35,000 to $49,999 -616 -35 -76 -139 -106 -198 -127 65
$50,000 to $74,999 -93 1 5 -171 -124 -185 52 330
$75,000 to $99,999 26 10 10 -126 -58 -134 119 205
$100,000 to $149,999 1,156 46 314 172 64 -15 334 242
$150,000 to $199,999 2,643 28 503 567 397 365 405 378
$200,000+2,224 -1 454 583 331 269 378 209
Total 4,220 22 1,078 724 297 -299 957 1,441
Median Income $13,718 $8,478 $13,728 $18,934 $16,612 $20,020 $16,625 $11,947
Sources: ESRI; Maxfield Research and Consulting.
Change - 2024 to 2030
TABLE D-4
HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY AGE OF HOUSEHOLDER
PRIMARY MARKET AREA
(Number of Households)
2024
2030
2024 and 2030
Age of Householder
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 27
Non-Senior Households
• In 2024, 2.8% of non-senior (under age 65) households in the Primary Market Area had in-
comes under $15,000 (1,258 households). These households would be eligible for subsi-
dized rental housing. Another 2.0% of the PMA’s non-senior households had incomes be-
tween $15,000 and $25,000 (898 households). Many of these households would also qual-
ify for subsidized housing, but many could also afford “affordable” or older market rate
apartments. If housing costs absorb 30% of income, households with incomes of $15,000 to
$25,000 could afford to pay $375 to $625 per month. Note that very few naturally occur-
ring (NOAH) units in Cottage Grove and the PMA have rents in this range.
• In most geographic areas, household median incomes peak in the 45 to 54 age group, when
householders are considered in their peak earning years. This is also the case in the PMA
where household median incomes peak in the 45 to 54 age cohort at $138,662. By 2030,
the median income for the 45 to 54 age group is projected to increase by 12.0% to
$155,273.
• The median resale price of homes in the PMA was $399,890 through 2023 (see Table FS-1).
The income required to afford a home at this price would be between $114,254 and
$133,297; based on the standard of 3.0 to 3.5 times the median income (and assuming
these households do not have a high level of debt).
• Incomes are expected to increase by 13.8% between 2024 and 2030 in the PMA for a me-
dian income of $140,782 for non-senior households, equating to a 2.8% annual increase.
The PMA’s non-senior household income growth is higher than the Metro Area’s projected
non-senior household income growth of 1.9%.
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 28
Senior Households
• The oldest householders are likely to have lower incomes in 2024. In the PMA, 4.7% of
households ages 65 to 74 had incomes below $15,000, in addition to 8.6% of households
ages 75 and over. Many of these low-income older senior households rely solely on social
security benefits. Typically, younger seniors have higher incomes due to the fact they are
still working or are married couples with two incomes and/or higher social security benefits.
The 2024 median income for PMA householders in the 65 to 74 age cohort and 75+ age co-
hort are $82,507 and $51,871; respectively.
• Generally, senior households with incomes greater than $35,000 can afford market rate
senior housing (often with the sale of their home proceeds). Based on a 40% allocation of
income for housing, this translates to monthly rents of at least $1,000. An estimated 10,286
senior households in the PMA had incomes of $35,000 or higher in 2024. A one-bedroom
market rate unit at $1,400 is affordable at $42,000 based on a 40% allocation of income to-
ward housing.
• Seniors who are able and willing to pay 80% or more of their income on assisted living hous-
ing would need an annual income of $37,875 to afford monthly rents of $2,525; which is
about the beginning monthly rent for assisted living properties in the PMA. There are an
estimated 3,243 older senior (ages 75 and over) households with incomes greater than
$37,875 (64.0% of households 75 and over) in 2024. Seniors 75 and older are the primary
market for assisted living housing.
• The median income for seniors age 65+ in the PMA is $70,468 in 2024 and is projected to
increase by $13,638 (19.4%) to $84,105 by 2030.
A map on the following page, created with ESRI data, displays 2023 median household incomes
by block group across Cottage Grove and neighboring communities. Income categories are as
follows: under $50,000; $50,000 to $74,999; $75,000 to $99,999; $100,000 to $124,999; and
$125,000 and over. Median incomes in Cottage Grove are highest in the far southern portion of
the City, the far eastern portion of the City and the far northern portion of the City.
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 29
Cottage Grove Median Household Income by Block Group, 2023
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 30
Tenure by Age of Householder
Table D-5 shows the number of owner and renter households in Cottage Grove, the PMA Re-
mainder, PMA and Seven-County Metro Area by age group in 2010, 2020, and 2024. The data is
useful in determining demand for certain types of housing since housing preferences change
throughout an individual’s life cycle. The following are key findings from Table D-5.
• In 2010, 88.6% of all households in Cottage Grove and 78.9% of all households in the PMA
owned their housing. By 2024, those percentages decreased to 87.3% in Cottage Grove
and 78.0% in the PMA as homeownership rates across the Metro Area decreased over the
period.
• As households progress through their life cycle, housing needs change. Typically, the pro-
portion of renter households decreases as households age out of their young-adult years.
This trend is evident in both Cottage Grove and the PMA. For seniors, rental housing often
becomes a more viable option than homeownership, reducing the responsibility of mainte-
nance and a financial commitment.
• In 2024, 60.5% of PMA households between the ages of 15 and 24 rented their housing
(78.6% of Cottage Grove households), compared to 37.4% of PMA households between the
ages of 25 and 34 (20.8% of Cottage Grove households). The PMA’s households between
65 and 74 were overwhelmingly homeowners, resulting in a 90.4% homeownership rate
(97.3% in Cottage Grove). Also, note that in the recent 2020 Census 80.9% of white house-
holds in the PMA owned versus 68.5% of non-white households. In Cottage Grove, as of
2020, 88% of white households in the PMA owned versus 77.5% of non-white households.
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 31
Age No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.
15-24 Own 127 52.9% 67 43.5%49 21.4% 270 26.7% 160 21.5% 523 44.6%
Rent 113 47.1% 87 56.5% 181 78.6% 741 73.3% 585 78.5% 650 55.4%
Total 240 100.0% 154 100.0% 230 100.0% 1,011 100.0% 745 100.0% 1,173 100.0%
25-34 Own 1,597 82.5% 1,371 81.1% 1,843 79.2% 3,967 65.8% 3,078 56.8% 3,180 49.7%
Rent 339 17.5% 319 18.9% 485 20.8% 2,066 34.2% 2,339 43.2% 3,224 50.3%
Total 1,936 100.0% 1,690 100.0% 2,327 100.0% 6,033 100.0% 5,417 100.0% 6,404 100.0%
35-44 Own 2,480 89.5% 2,566 87.3% 2,601 88.9% 6,280 81.2% 6,260 76.6% 7,796 80.9%
Rent 291 10.5% 373 12.7% 324 11.1% 1,450 18.8% 1,917 23.4% 1,836 19.1%
Total 2,771 100.0% 2,939 100.0% 2,925 100.0% 7,730 100.0% 8,177 100.0% 9,632 100.0%
45-54 Own 2,678 92.2% 2,449 90.0% 2,539 90.6% 7,475 86.5% 6,881 82.4% 7,031 81.0%
Rent 225 7.8% 272 10.0% 262 9.4% 1,162 13.5% 1,466 17.6% 1,644 19.0%
Total 2,903 100.0% 2,721 100.0% 2,802 100.0% 8,637 100.0% 8,347 100.0% 8,675 100.0%
55-64 Own 1,967 95.1% 2,393 92.3% 2,431 91.9% 5,261 88.1% 6,950 85.3% 6,735 79.9%
Rent 101 4.9% 199 7.7% 214 8.1% 713 11.9% 1,200 14.7% 1,690 20.1%
Total 2,068 100.0% 2,592 100.0% 2,645 100.0% 5,974 100.0% 8,150 100.0% 8,425 100.0%
65-74 Own 985 93.1% 1,616 90.5% 1,887 97.3% 2,795 87.6% 4,797 85.2% 5,115 85.4%
Rent 73 6.9% 170 9.5% 52 2.7% 397 12.4% 836 14.8% 874 14.6%
Total 1,058 100.0% 1,786 100.0% 1,939 100.0% 3,192 100.0% 5,633 100.0% 5,989 100.0%
75+Own 553 74.4% 852 69.7% 918 77.7% 1,987 70.8% 2,983 70.6% 2,805 71.0%
Rent 190 25.6% 371 30.3% 264 22.3% 818 29.2% 1,245 29.4% 1,147 29.0%
Total 743 100.0% 1,223 100.0% 1,181 100.0% 2,805 100.0% 4,228 100.0% 3,952 100.0%
TOTAL Own 10,387 88.6% 11,314 86.3% 12,268 87.3% 28,035 79.2% 31,109 76.4% 33,185 75.0%
Rent 1,332 11.4% 1,791 13.7% 1,782 12.7% 7,347 20.8% 9,588 23.6% 11,065 25.0%
Total 11,719 100.0% 13,105 100.0% 14,050 100.0% 35,382 100.0% 40,697 100.0% 44,250 100.0%
Age No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.
15-24 Own 397 31.7% 227 25.3%555 39.5% 7,947 16.0% 5,639 12.1% 17,582 34.3%
Rent 854 68.3% 672 74.7% 849 60.5% 41,789 84.0% 40,844 87.9% 33,607 65.7%
Total 1,251 100.0% 899 100.0% 1,404 100.0% 49,736 100.0% 46,483 100.0% 51,189 100.0%
25-34 Own 5,564 69.8% 4,449 62.6% 5,462 62.6% 102,236 50.6% 93,576 43.8% 144,663 68.7%
Rent 2,405 30.2% 2,658 37.4% 3,269 37.4% 99,716 49.4% 119,854 56.2% 66,043 31.3%
Total 7,969 100.0% 7,107 100.0% 8,731 100.0% 201,952 100.0% 213,430 100.0% 210,706 100.0%
35-44 Own 8,760 83.4% 8,826 79.4% 10,631 84.7% 154,678 72.3% 157,237 67.3% 203,244 82.7%
Rent 1,741 16.6% 2,290 20.6% 1,926 15.3% 59,303 27.7% 76,238 32.7% 42,459 17.3%
Total 10,501 100.0% 11,116 100.0% 12,557 100.0% 213,981 100.0% 233,475 100.0% 245,703 100.0%
45-54 Own 10,153 88.0% 9,330 84.3% 9,792 85.3% 202,404 79.8% 162,870 75.1% 190,547 86.5%
Rent 1,387 12.0% 1,738 15.7% 1,685 14.7% 51,379 20.2% 53,890 24.9% 29,742 13.5%
Total 11,540 100.0% 11,068 100.0% 11,477 100.0% 253,783 100.0% 216,760 100.0% 220,289 100.0%
55-64 Own 7,228 89.9% 9,343 87.0% 9,449 85.4% 162,595 82.6% 187,656 78.9% 213,142 88.5%
Rent 814 10.1% 1,399 13.0% 1,620 14.6% 34,355 17.4% 50,148 21.1% 27,638 11.5%
Total 8,042 100.0% 10,742 100.0% 11,069 100.0% 196,950 100.0% 237,804 100.0% 240,780 100.0%
65-74 Own 3,780 88.9% 6,413 86.4% 7,168 90.4% 85,347 82.6% 138,161 80.0% 166,166 87.5%
Rent 470 11.1% 1,006 13.6% 760 9.6% 17,998 17.4% 34,483 20.0% 23,736 12.5%
Total 4,250 100.0% 7,419 100.0% 7,928 100.0% 103,345 100.0% 172,644 100.0% 189,902 100.0%
75+Own 2,540 71.6% 3,835 70.4% 3,802 74.1% 67,268 68.6% 82,507 69.4% 96,817 73.7%
Rent 1,008 28.4% 1,616 29.6% 1,331 25.9% 30,734 31.4% 36,333 30.6% 34,613 26.3%
Total 3,548 100.0% 5,451 100.0% 5,133 100.0% 98,002 100.0% 118,840 100.0% 131,430 100.0%
TOTAL Own 38,422 81.6% 42,423 78.9% 46,860 80.4% 782,475 70.0% 827,646 66.8% 1,032,161 80.0%
Rent 8,679 18.4% 11,379 21.1% 11,440 19.6% 335,274 30.0% 411,790 33.2% 257,838 20.0%
Total 47,101 100.0% 53,802 100.0% 58,300 100.0% 1,117,749 100.0% 1,239,436 100.0% 1,289,999 100.0%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Maxfield Research and Consulting.
202420202010
SEVEN COUNTY METRO AREAPRIMARY MARKET AREA
202420202010
2010 2020 2024 2010 2020 2024
TABLE D-5
TENURE BY AGE OF HOUSEHOLDER
PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2010, 2020, and 2024
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE REMAINDER OF PRIMARY MARKET AREA
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 32
Tenure by Household Income
Table D-6 shows household tenure by age of householder for Cottage Grove, the PMA Remain-
der, PMA, and the Seven-County Metro Area in 2024. Data is based on estimates from the
American Community Survey with adjustments by Maxfield Research. Household tenure infor-
mation is important to assess the propensity for owner-occupied or renter-occupied housing
options based on household affordability. As stated earlier, the Department of Housing and Ur-
ban Development determines affordable housing as not exceeding 30% of the household’s in-
come. It is important to note that the higher the income, the lower percentage a household
typically allocates to housing. Many lower income households, as well as many young and sen-
ior households, spend more than 30% of their income, while middle-aged households in their
prime earning years typically allocate 20% to 25% of their income.
• Typically, as income increases, so does the rate of homeownership. This can be seen in the
PMA, where the homeownership rate steadily increases from 55.0% of households with in-
comes below $15,000 (73.4% of Cottage Grove households) to 94.2% of households with
incomes above $150,000 (95.6% of Cottage Grove households).
• A portion of renter households that are referred to as lifestyle renters, or those who are fi-
nancially able to own but choose to rent, have household incomes above $60,000 ($1,500
rent | 59.2% of PMA renters and 62.3% of Cottage Grove renters in 2024). In addition,
27.5% of PMA renters and 59.2% of Cottage Grove renters earn $100,000 or more. Some
renters choose to be cost burdened (i.e. pay more than 30% of income to housing) and pay
higher rental costs for amenities and proximity to transit while giving up their vehicles.
• Households with incomes below $25,000 are the primary market for deep-subsidy rental
housing (14.8% of PMA renters and 8.3% of Cottage Grove renters in 2024). An estimated
11.7% of the PMA’s rental housing is affordable units.
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 33
Owner-Renter-Owner-Renter-Owner-Renter-Owner-Renter-
Income Occupied Pct. Occupied Pct. Occupied Pct. Occupied Pct. Occupied Pct. Occupied Pct. Occupied Pct. Occupied Pct.
Less than $15,000 279 73.4% 101 26.6% 933 51.2% 889 48.8% 1,212 55.0% 990 45.0% 23,658 32.8% 48,435 67.2%
$15,000 to $24,999 167 81.8% 37 18.2% 1,195 64.6% 655 35.4% 1,362 66.3% 692 33.7% 21,481 36.7% 37,129 63.3%
$25,000 to $34,999 301 67.4% 146 32.6% 956 55.6% 763 44.4% 1,257 58.0% 909 42.0% 30,081 44.9% 36,925 55.1%
$35,000 to $49,999 414 67.5% 199 32.5% 2,073 67.7% 989 32.3% 2,488 67.7% 1,188 32.3% 54,371 49.7% 55,114 50.3%
$50,000 to $74,999 1,514 80.5% 366 19.5% 3,485 65.9% 1,800 34.1% 4,999 69.8% 2,167 30.2% 110,556 59.9% 74,085 40.1%
$75,000 to $99,999 1,548 89.8% 177 10.2% 4,064 65.5% 2,142 34.5% 5,612 70.8% 2,319 29.2% 110,118 68.6% 50,392 31.4%
$100,000 to $149,999 3,649 89.3% 436 10.7% 7,972 83.5% 1,571 16.5% 11,622 85.3% 2,006 14.7% 197,397 80.0% 49,217 20.0%
$150,000+4,504 95.6% 210 4.4% 13,845 94% 917 6.2% 18,350 94.2% 1,127 5.8% 313,128 90.9% 31,189 9.1%
Total 12,378 88.1%1,672 11.9% 34,524 78.0%9,726 22.0% 46,902 80.4% 11,398 19.6% 860,790 69.2% 382,486 30.8%
Median Household Income*
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau - American Community Survey; Maxfield Research and Consulting.
$119,273 $54,187
TABLE D-6
TENURE BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME
PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2024
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE REMAINDER OF PMA PRIMARY MARKET AREA SEVEN-COUNTY METRO AREA
*As of 2022. PMA and PMA Remainder renter household income number does not include Grey Cloud Island in calculationswhich is missing data.
$123,333 $74,167 $130,364 $73,331 $125,079 $68,649
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 34
Tenure by Household Size
Table D-7 shows the distribution of households by size and tenure in the PMA in 2024. This
data is useful in that it sheds insight into the number of units by unit type that may be most
needed in the City of Cottage Grove, PMA Remainder, PMA, and Seven County Metro Area.
• Household size for renters tends to be smaller than for owners. This trend is a result of the
typical market segments for rental housing, including households that are younger and are
less likely to be married with children as well as older adults and seniors who choose to
downsize from their single-family homes. In 2022, the average Cottage Grove renter house-
hold consisted of 2.66 persons compared to the average owner household of 3.01 persons.
• An estimated 41.6% of renter households in the PMA and 36.6% of renter households in
Cottage Grove, in 2024, have one person while an additional 32.0% of renter households in
the PMA and 17.9% of renter households in Cottage Grove have two people. One-person
households would primarily seek one-bedroom units and two-person households that are
couples would primarily seek one-bedroom units. Two-person households that consist of a
parent and child or roommate would primarily seek two-bedroom units. Larger households
would seek units with multiple bedrooms.
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 35
Size Number Pct.Number Pct.Number Pct.Number Pct.Number Pct.Number Pct.
1PP Household 1,370 13.2% 374 28.1% 1,550 14.9% 633 47.5% 1,516 12.3% 611 36.6%
2PP Household 3,446 33.2% 318 23.9% 3,755 36.2% 433 32.5% 4,168 33.7% 299 17.9%
3PP Household 1,938 18.7% 250 18.8% 2,038 19.6% 259 19.4% 2,340 18.9% 301 18.0%
4PP Household 2,162 20.8% 189 14.2% 2,273 21.9% 234 17.6% 2,878 23.3% 216 12.9%
5PP Household 980 9.4% 135 10.1% 1,063 10.2% 128 9.6% 1,025 8.3% 119 7.1%
6PP Household 325 3.1% 47 3.5% 380 3.7% 64 4.8% 284 2.3% 71 4.3%
7PP+ Household 166 1.6% 19 1.4% 255 2.5% 40 3.0% 166 1.3% 53 3.2%
Total 10,387 100.0%1,332 100.0%11,314 108.9%1,791 134.5%12,378 100.0%1,672 100.0%
Size Number Pct.Number Pct.Number Pct.Number Pct.Number Pct.Number Pct.
1PP Household 5,220 18.6% 2,714 36.9% 5,939 57.2% 3,754 281.8% 6,908 20.0% 4,049 41.6%
2PP Household 9,567 34.1% 2,144 29.2% 10,537 101.4% 2,852 214.1% 11,675 33.8% 3,343 34.4%
3PP Household 4,861 17.3% 1,192 16.2% 5,102 49.1% 1,324 99.4% 6,075 17.6% 1,138 11.7%
4PP Household 5,159 18.4% 786 10.7% 5,800 55.8% 955 71.7% 5,975 17.3% 859 8.8%
5PP Household 2,242 8.0% 327 4.5% 2,544 24.5% 382 28.7% 2,627 7.6% 286 2.9%
6PP Household 666 2.4% 121 1.6% 803 7.7% 194 14.6% 749 2.2% 31 0.3%
7PP+ Household 320 1.1% 63 0.9% 384 3.7% 127 9.5% 515 1.5% 20 0.2%
Total 28,035 100.0%7,347 100.0%31,109 299.5%9,588 719.8%34,524 100.0%9,726 100.0%
Size Number Pct.Number Pct.Number Pct.Number Pct.Number Pct.Number Pct.
1PP Household 6,590 17.2% 3,088 35.6% 7,489 72.1% 4,387 329.4% 8,424 18.0% 4,661 40.9%
2PP Household 13,013 33.9% 2,462 28.4% 14,292 137.6% 3,285 246.6% 15,843 33.8% 3,642 32.0%
3PP Household 6,799 17.7% 1,442 16.6% 7,140 68.7% 1,583 118.8% 8,415 17.9% 1,440 12.6%
4PP Household 7,321 19.1% 975 11.2% 8,073 77.7% 1,189 89.3% 8,854 18.9% 1,075 9.4%
5PP Household 3,222 8.4% 462 5.3% 3,607 34.7% 510 38.3% 3,653 7.8% 405 3.6%
6PP Household 991 2.6% 168 1.9% 1,183 11.4% 258 19.4% 1,033 2.2% 102 0.9%
7PP+ Household 486 1.3% 82 0.9% 639 6.2% 167 12.5% 681 1.5% 73 0.6%
Total 38,422 100.0%8,679 100.0%42,423 408.4%11,379 854.3%46,902 100.0%11,398 100.0%
Size Number Pct.Number Pct.Number Pct.Number Pct.Number Pct.Number Pct.
1PP Household 171,241 21.9% 147,789 44.1% 175,744 1692.0% 181,959 44.2% 195,840 21.9% 181,499 45.7%
2PP Household 280,552 35.9% 87,139 26.0% 297,838 2867.4% 115,980 28.2% 327,652 36.7% 111,258 28.0%
3PP Household 128,197 16.4% 42,563 12.7% 130,571 1257.1% 48,041 11.7% 140,966 15.8% 45,037 11.3%
4PP Household 123,219 15.7% 29,587 8.8% 132,666 1277.2% 33,797 8.2% 139,247 15.6% 31,241 7.9%
5PP Household 50,854 6.5% 14,883 4.4% 56,390 542.9% 16,539 4.0% 57,225 6.4% 15,955 4.0%
6PP Household 16,887 2.2% 6,908 2.1% 20,411 196.5% 8,376 2.0% 18,944 2.1% 6,240 1.6%
7PP+ Household 11,525 1.5% 6,405 1.9% 14,026 135.0% 7,188 1.7% 13,267 1.5% 5,631 1.4%
Total 782,475 100.0%335,274 100.0%827,646 7968.1%411,880 100.0%893,140 100.0%396,860 100.0%
SEVEN-COUNTY METRO AREA
2010 2024
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Renter Occupied Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
2020
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
TABLE D-7
TENURE BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE
PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2010, 2020, AND 2024
PRIMARY MARKET AREA
REMAINDER OF PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2010 2024
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
2024
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE
2010
Owner Occupied
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Maxfield Research and Consulting, LLC.
2020
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
2020
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
2020
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
2010 2024
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 36
Household Type
Table D-8 shows a breakdown of the type of households present in Cottage Grove, the PMA Re-
mainder, PMA, and Seven-County Metro Area in 2010, 2020, and 2024. The data is useful in as-
sessing housing demand since the household composition often dictates the type of housing
needed and preferred.
• Between 2010 and 2024, Cottage Grove and the PMA experienced an increase in all types of
households. “Other families” include single-parents and unmarried couples with children.
Households with Roommates experienced the largest increase as a percentage in both Cot-
tage Grove (28.3%) and the PMA (40.8%).
• Compared to the PMA, PMA Remainder, and the Metro Area, Cottage Grove had a lower
proportion of Married without Children households. In 2024, 35.1% of Cottage Grove
households were in the Married without Children compared to 31.3% in the PMA, 30.1% in
the PMA Remainder, and 19.2% in the Metro area.
• Persons Living Alone grew significantly adding 3,397 households (37.9%) between 2010 and
2024 in the PMA. This household type is significantly larger in the PMA compared to Cot-
tage Grove (22.0%) and the Metro Area (18.3%). This could indicate an aging senior popula-
tion or millennials moving to the area.
• As the frailty level of seniors increases, they typically move out of their homes in pursuit of
housing with services. Millennials are more likely to choose to live alone due to the genera-
tions’ delayed marriage and home purchase rates and preference to live in smaller quarters
in urban areas.
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 37
Households 2010 2020 2024 2010 2020 2024 2010 2020 2024 2010 2020 2024 2010 2020 2024 2010 2020 2024
Cottage Grove 11,719 13,105 14,050 3,857 3,789 4,360 3,947 4,523 4,925 1,633 2,052 1,948 1,744 2,183 2,128 538 558 690
Remainder of PMA 35,382 40,697 44,250 10,269 10,358 11,835 10,219 12,350 13,308 4,858 6,023 5,202 7,934 9,693 10,945 2,102 2,273 2,960
Primary Market Area 47,101 53,802 58,300 14,126 14,147 16,189 14,166 16,873 18,236 6,491 8,075 7,147 9,678 11,876 13,075 2,640 2,831 3,653
Seven-County Metro Area 1,117,749 1,239,526 1,290,000 244,687 244,749 377,487 298,723 343,050 247,221 164,086 186,774 179,342 319,030 357,703 377,339 91,223 107,250 108,611
Percent
Cottage Grove 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 32.9% 28.9% 31.0% 33.7% 34.5% 35.1% 13.9% 15.7% 13.9% 14.9% 16.7% 15.1% 4.6% 4.3% 4.9%
Remainder of PMA 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 29.0% 25.5% 26.7% 28.9% 30.3% 30.1% 13.7% 14.8% 11.8% 22.4% 23.8% 24.7% 5.9% 5.6% 6.7%
Primary Market Area 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 30.0% 26.3% 27.8% 30.1% 31.4% 31.3% 13.8% 15.0% 12.3% 20.5% 22.1% 22.4% 5.6% 5.3% 6.3%
Seven-County Metro Area 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 21.9% 19.7% 29.3% 26.7% 27.7% 19.2% 14.7% 15.1% 13.9% 28.5% 28.9% 29.3% 8.2% 8.7% 8.4%
No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.
Cottage Grove 2,331 19.9% 503 13.0% 978 24.8% 315 19.3% 384 22.0% 152 28.3%
Remainder of PMA 8,868 25.1% 1,566 15.3% 3,089 30.2% 344 7.1% 3,011 37.9% 858 40.8%
Primary Market Area 11,199 23.8% 2,063 14.6% 4,070 28.7% 656 10.1% 3,397 35.1% 1,013 38.4%
Seven-County Metro Area 172,251 15.4% 132,800 54.3% -51,502 -17.2% 15,256 9.3% 58,309 18.3% 17,388 19.1%
* Predominantly single-parents with children
** Includes unmarried couples without children and unrelated people living together
TABLE D-8
HOUSEHOLD TYPE
PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2010, 2020, & 2024
Family Households Non-Family Households
Sources: U. S. Census; ESRI, Inc.; Maxfield Research and Consulting
Change 2010-2024
Total HH's Married w/ Child Married w/o Child Other *Living Alone Roommates **
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 38
Net Worth
Table D-9 shows household net worth by age of householder in Cottage Grove, the PMA Re-
mainder, PMA and the Seven-County Metro Area in 2024 as well as the 2024 average and me-
dian net worth by age cohort for 2024. Simply stated, net worth is the difference between as-
sets and liabilities, or the total value of assets after the debt is subtracted. The data was com-
piled and estimated by ESRI based on the Survey of Consumer Finances and Federal Reserve
Board data with adjustments by Maxfield Research.
According to data released by the National Association of Realtors in February 2022, the aver-
age American homeowner has a net worth about 40 times greater than that of a renter which
equates to an average net worth of $300,000 for homeowners and $8,000 for renters.2
Cottage Grove had an average net worth of $1,532,161 in 2024, 2.1% lower than the average
net worth of a PMA householder ($1,565,742) but 15.7% higher than the average net worth of
a Metro Area householder ($1,324,393). Cottage Grove had a 2024 median net worth of
$425,439; 14.4% higher than the median net worth in the PMA ($371,983) and 76.5% higher
than the median net worth in the Metro Area ($371,983). Median net worth is generally a bet-
ter indicator of the net worth as it is not significantly impacted by uncommonly high- or low-
income households. Median net worth peaked in the 55 to 64 age cohort at $655,185 while av-
erage net worth also peaked in the 55 to 64 age group at $2,573,769. Similarly, in Cottage
Grove, median and average net worth peaked in the 55 to 64 age group at $665,032 and
$2,343,98; respectively.
2 “2022 Snapshot of Race and Home Buying in America.” National Association of Realtors Research® Group, pp. 5,
Feb. 2022. https://www.nar.realtor/research-and-statistics/research-reports/a-snapshot-of-race-and-home-buying-in-
america. Accessed 7 Oct. 2022.
Average Median Average Median Average Median Average Median
Cottage Grove $1,532,161 $425,439 $111,288 $88,724 $281,353 $165,665 $1,176,862 $373,335
Remainder of PMA $1,577,033 $351,707 $85,250 $40,609 $214,410 $99,971 $1,093,431 $305,620
Primary Market Area $1,565,742 $371,983 $89,725 $55,401 $233,084 $117,715 $1,113,771 $324,012
Seven-County Metro Area $1,324,393 $241,045 $50,523 $14,200 $145,139 $54,857 $841,835 $841,835
Average Median Average Median Average Median Average Median
Cottage Grove $1,884,635 $552,878 $2,343,968 $665,032 $1,995,413 $649,895 $1,739,365 $458,220
Remainder of PMA $2,156,903 $559,403 $2,650,388 $650,458 $1,922,131 $578,868 $1,321,447 $354,046
Primary Market Area $2,087,338 $557,804 $2,573,769 $655,185 $1,941,043 $597,336 $1,422,097 $377,222
Seven-County Metro Area $1,750,410 $368,163 $2,269,398 $452,657 $1,846,160 $485,383 $1,414,027 $338,807
Sources: ESRI; Maxfield Research and Consulting
TABLE D-9
ESTIMATED NET WORTH BY AGE OF HOUSEHOLDER
PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2024
Age of Householder
Total 15-24 25-34 35-44
45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 39
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 40
Median Net Worth by Census Block in and Near Cottage Grove
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 41
• The following chart depicts median net worth by race and ethnicity nationwide between
1989 and 2019. The data is sourced to the Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances.
As of 2019 housing net worth by category were as follows: White (Non-Hispanic), $189,100;
Black (Non-Hispanic), $24,100; Hispanic, $36,050; and Other $74,500. Between 1989 and
2019 net worth by category increased the following percentages: White (Non-Hispanic),
31.7%; Black (Non-Hispanic), 181.9%; Hispanic, 262.7%; and Other 3.5%.
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 42
Demographic Summary
Table D-10 provides a demographic summary that compares Cottage Grove and the PMA and
the Metro Area. Data in D-10 is as of 2024.
• Cottage Grove had higher proportions of those age 35 to 44 and 45 to 54 than the Metro
Area. As of 2024, 14.8% and 13.0%, respectively of Cottage Grove’s population were in
these age groups compared to 14.1% and 12.1%, respectively in the Metro Area.
• Cottage Grove’s median household income ($114,459) was an estimated $5,012 more than
in the Remainder of the PMA ($109,447), $3,569 more than in the PMA ($110,889) and
$22,027 more than in the Twin Cities Metro ($92,432).
• Cottage Grove had a lower percentage of renters at 12.7% of its households compared to
25.0% of households in the PMA Remainder, 22.0% of households in the PMA and 20.0% of
households in the Metro Area.
• Cottage Grove had a high percentage of households that were married with children
(31.0%). As a comparison, the PMA had 26.7% of households married with children and the
Metro Area had 29.3% of households married with children. Additionally, Cottage Grove
had a higher proportion of households living alone (15.1%); lower than in the PMA (22.4%)
and the Metro Area (29.3%).
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 43
Summary
Num Pct.Num Pct.Num Pct.Num Pct.
Demographics
Population 39,940 100.0% 114,180 100.0% 154,120 100.0% 3,281,675 100.0%
Households 14,050 100.0% 44,250 100.0% 58,300 100.0% 1,290,000 100.0%
Age Distribution
Under 18 10,787 27.0% 28,959 18.8% 39,746 25.8% 723,019 22.0%
18-24 3,322 8.3% 8,931 5.8% 12,254 8.0% 288,559 8.8%
25-34 6,084 15.2% 14,025 9.1% 20,109 13.0% 453,913 13.8%
35-44 6,386 16.0% 17,650 11.5% 24,036 15.6% 457,156 13.9%
45-54 5,609 14.0% 14,814 9.6% 20,423 13.3% 392,311 12.0%
55-64 5,178 13.0% 13,988 9.1% 19,166 12.4% 415,007 12.6%
65-74 3,711 9.3% 9,643 6.3% 13,354 8.7% 311,255 9.5%
75-84 1,596 4.0% 4,373 2.8% 5,970 3.9% 142,659 4.3%
85+475 1.2% 1,568 1.0% 2,042 1.3% 58,360 1.8%
Household Income
Average Household Income
Median Household Income
Net Worth
Average Net Worth
Median Net Worth
Household Tenure
Own 12,268 87.3% 33,184 75.0% 45,452 78.0% 1,032,161 80.0%
Rent 1,782 12.7% 11,066 25.0% 12,848 22.0% 257,839 20.0%
Household Type
Married with Children 4,360 31.0% 11,835 26.7% 16,189 27.8% 377,487 29.3%
Married without Children 4,925 35.1% 13,308 30.1% 18,236 31.3% 247,221 19.2%
Other 1,948 13.9% 5,202 11.8% 7,147 12.3% 179,342 13.9%
Living Alone 2,128 15.1% 10,945 24.7% 13,075 22.4% 377,339 29.3%
Roommates 690 4.9% 2,960 6.7% 3,653 6.3% 108,611 8.4%
$351,707
TABLE D-10
DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY
PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2024
Cottage Grove PMA TWIN CITIES METRORemainder of PMA
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; ESRI; Maxfield Research & Consulting
$144,426
$114,459
$145,831
$110,889
$129,699
$92,432
$1,532,161
$425,439
$1,565,742
$371,983
$1,324,393
$241,045
$146,304
$109,447
$1,577,033
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 44
Introduction
The variety and condition of the housing stock in a community provides the basis for an attrac-
tive living environment. Housing functions as a building block for neighborhoods and goods
and services. We examined the housing market in Cottage Grove by reviewing data on the age
of the existing housing supply; examining residential building trends since 2010; and reviewing
housing data from the American Community Survey. Data is also provided for the PMA Remain-
der and Seven County Metro Area or Minnesota for comparison.
Residential Construction Trends
Building Permits
Maxfield Research obtained data on the number of new construction housing units in Cottage
Grove from 2019 through May 2024. Note that data for 2024 is through May. Data was ob-
tained from the City of Cottage Grove. Table HC-1, on the following page, displays information
for these years.
Detached single-family is defined as fully detached housing units. Multifamily housing includes
for-sale and rental projects includes duplex, triplex, and four-plex structures, in addition to
buildings with five or more units. A multifamily structure is generally defined as a residential
building containing units built one on top of another and those built side-by-side which do not
have a ground-to-roof wall and/or have common facilities. Townhomes include attached sin-
gle-family units, semi-attached units, side-by-side units, and rowhouses. All permitted multi-
family units permitted in Cottage Grove between 2019 and May 2024 were townhomes. Table
HC-1 breaks down permit activity by single-family and low- and higher-density multifamily.
• Development activity has been high in the City of Cottage Grove with an average of 376
units built per year between 2019 and 2023. In addition, 185 units have already been per-
mitted between January and May 2024.
• Of the 2,064 new residential units permitted in Cottage Grove, over 77% (77.4%) of those
permitted units were issued for single-family units while 22.6% were issued for multifamily
units.
• In addition to new units added, 54 permits for demolition were issued between 2019 and
June 7, 2024. This equates to nine demolition permits issued annually during the period.
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 45
Single-Family Multifamily Total
Year Units Units Units
2019 246 38 284
2020 273 109 382
2021 423 151 574
2022 267 82 349
2023 235 55 290
2024* 154 31 185
Totals 1,598 466 2,064
HC-1
PERMITTED UNITS
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE
2019 THORUGH MAY 2024
* Through May.
Sources: City of Cottage Grove & Maxfield Research and
Consulting.
Units Permitted
Note: All multifamily units are townhomes.
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 46
American Community Survey
The American Community Survey (“ACS”) is an ongoing statistical survey administered by the
U.S. Census Bureau that is sent to approximately 3 million addresses annually. The survey gath-
ers data previously contained only in the long form of the decennial census. As a result, the
survey provides a more “up-to-date” portrait of demographic, economic, social, and household
characteristics every year, not just every ten years. The most recent ACS highlights data col-
lected between 2018 and 2022. All ACS surveys are subject to sampling error and uncertainty.
The ACS reports margins of errors (MOEs) with estimates for most standard census geogra-
phies. The MOE is shown by reliability from low, medium to high. Due to the MOE, 2022 ACS
data may have inconsistencies with previous 2010 Census data and more current 2020 Census
data.
Tables HC-2 through HC-10 show key data from the American Community Survey for the City of
Cottage Grove, PMA Remainder, Seven County Metro Area and for Table HC-2 and Minnesota.
Occupied Housing Units by Tenure
Tenure is a key variable that analyzes the propensity for householders to rent or own their
housing unit. Tenure is an integral statistic used by numerous governmental agencies and pri-
vate sector industries to assess neighborhood stability. Table HC-2 shows the tenure by occu-
pied housing units in 2022.
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 47
• Housing in Cottage Grove is predominantly owner occupied. In 2022, 66.4% of housing
units were owner occupied in the City. By comparison, to the PMA Remainder (78.0%
owner-occupied), the Seven County Metro (69.2% owner-occupied) and the State of Minne-
sota (72.3% owner-occupied), the proportion of owner-occupied units in Cottage Grove
(66.4%) is less than in the other three geographies.
• The proportion of renter occupied units was higher within the City of Cottage Grove than in
the PMA Remainder, Seven-County Metro or the State of Minnesota. In Cottage Grove,
33.6% of households were renter occupied in 2022 compared to 22.0% of households in the
PMA Remainder, 30.8 of households in the Seven County Metro, and 27.7% of households
in the State of Minnesota.
Year/Occupancy Pct. Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.
Owner Occupied 3,036 66.4% 32,817 78.0% 860,790 69.2% 1,631,701 72.3%
Renter Occupied 1,534 33.6% 9,230 22.0% 382,486 30.8% 624,425 27.7%
Total 4,570 100.0%42,047 100.0%1,243,276 100.0%2,256,126 100.0%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau-American Community Survey & Maxfield Research and Consulting.
2022
PMA Remainder Minnesota
TABLE HC-2
OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS BY TENURE
PRIMARY MARKET AREA
Cottage Grove Seven County Metro
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 48
Age of Housing Stock
The following graph shows the age distribution of the housing stock based on data from the
U.S. Census Bureau and the American Community Survey (5-Year estimates). Table HC-3 in-
cludes the number of housing units built in the City of Cottage Grove, the PMA Remainder, and
the Seven County Metro, prior to 1940 and during each decade since.
• In Cottage Grove, the highest proportion of homes were built in the 1990s (22.2%). In con-
trast, in the PMA Remainder, the highest proportion of homes were built in the 2000s
(22.1%) while in the Seven County Metro Area most homes were built in the 1980s (14.6%).
• The second highest decade for which housing was built in Cottage Grove was the 1970s
(16.3%). By comparison, the second highest decade the PMA Remainder was prior to the
1940s (18.2%) while in the Seven-County Metro the second highest decade was the 1970s
(14.1%).
• Since the 2010s, 10.2% of Cottage Grove’s housing stock has been built compared to 18.1%
in the PMA Remainder and 8.2% in the Metro Area. With over 10% of homes in Cottage
Grove and over 18% of homes in the PMA Remainder built since the 2010s, new construc-
tion will continue to play a big role in new housing stock in the Market Area.
• The below chart illustrates the breakdown by decade of the housing stock in Cottage Grove
compared to the PMA Remainder.
• Owner occupied units in Cottage Grove have an older median age (1988) than in the PMA
Remainder (1987) but newer than in the Seven County Metro Area (1976). Similarly, renter
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 49
occupied units in Cottage Grove have an older median age (1987) than in the PMA Remain-
der (1990) but newer than in the Seven-County Metro Area (1978).
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 50
Total Med. Yr.
Units Built No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.
Owner-Occupied 11,624 1988 106 0.9% 60 0.5% 1,061 9.1% 1,645 14.2% 1,943 16.7% 1,254 10.8% 2,567 22.1% 1,756 15.1% 910 7.8% 322 2.8%
Renter-Occupied 1,570 1987 0 0.0% 16 1.0% 99 6.3% 227 14.5% 207 13.2% 331 21.1% 356 22.7% 226 14.4% 108 6.9%0 0.0%
Total 13,194 1988 106 0.8% 76 0.6% 1,160 8.8% 1,872 14.2% 2,150 16.3% 1,585 12.0% 2,923 22.2% 1,982 15.0% 1,018 7.7% 322 2.4%
Owner-Occupied 41,682 1991 9,230 22.1% 1,183 2.8% 519 1.2% 1,638 3.9% 2,389 5.7% 2,701 6.5% 4,397 10.5% 9,271 22.2% 7,312 17.5% 3,042 7.3%
Renter-Occupied*9,069 1990*0 0.0% 366 4.0% 111 1.2% 228 2.5% 555 6.1% 1,049 11.6% 1,686 18.6% 1,964 21.7% 1,864 20.6% 1,246 13.7%
Total 50,751 1991 9,230 18.2% 1,549 3.1% 630 1.2% 1,866 3.7% 2,944 5.8% 3,750 7.4% 6,083 12.0% 11,235 22.1% 9,176 18.1% 4,288 8.4%
Owner-Occupied 860,790 1976 120,364 14.0% 37,154 4.3% 99,931 11.6% 77,985 9.1% 107,767 12.5% 125,151 14.5% 125,931 14.6% 109,695 12.7% 52,402 6.1% 4,410 0.5%
Renter-Occupied 382,486 1978 53,183 13.9% 11,396 3.0% 25,765 6.7% 47,762 12.5% 67,433 17.6% 56,658 14.8% 39,738 10.4% 36,025 9.4% 42,496 11.1% 2,030 0.5%
Total 1,243,276 1978 173,547 14.0% 48,550 3.9% 125,696 10.1% 125,747 10.1% 175,200 14.1% 181,809 14.6% 165,669 13.3% 145,720 11.7% 94,898 7.6% 6,440 0.5%
TABLE HC-3
AGE OF HOUSING STOCK
PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2022
Year Unit Built
City of Cottage Grove
<1940 1940s 1990s1950s
PMA Remainder
Seven County Metro
2010s1980s 2020s
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau - American Community Survey & Maxfield Research and Consulting.
1960s 2000s1970s
*Excludes Grey Cloud Island Township for which renter-occcupied data by median year built is not available.
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 51
Housing Units by Structure and Tenure
Table HC-4 shows the housing stock in Cottage Grove, the PMA Remainder, and the Seven
County Metro by type of structure and tenure based on 2022 Five-year ACS estimates (2018-
2022).
• Single-family detached units are overwhelmingly the dominate housing type for owner-oc-
cupied units in the City Cottage Grove (91.0%), the PMA Remainder (74.1%), and the Seven
County Metro (80.0%).
• Single family detached units also made of up the largest share of renter-occupied units in
the City of Cottage Grove (25.7%). In contrast, in both the PMA Remainder and Seven
County Metro, the 50 or more-unit category made up the largest share of renter-occupied
units at 11.3% and 34.1%, respectively.
• Single-family units account for about 62.3% of all unit types in Cottage Grove, 60.4% of all
unit types in the PMA Remainder, and 59.0% of all unit types in the Seven County Metro.
Cottage Grove has a relatively high amount of single-family rental units at 25.7% compared
to the PMA Remainder and Seven County Metro at 11.3% and 11.6%, respectively. Single-
family rental housing demand is on the rise as home prices continue to increase, due largely
to rising home values and higher mortgage rates of the past year. Other Twin Cities ex-ur-
ban communities are now building purpose-built single-family rental housing.
• Rental properties with 50 or more units accounted for 10.1% of rental units and buildings in
Cottage Grove, 18.6% of rental units with 20 to 49 units in the city, and 15.0% of rental units
with 10 to 19 units in the City.
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 52
Owner-Occupied Housing Units by Mortgage Status
Table HC-5 shows mortgage status from the American Community Survey for 2022 (5-Year esti-
mates). Mortgage status provides information on the cost of homeownership when analyzed in
conjunction with mortgage payment data. A mortgage refers to all forms of debt where the
property is pledged as security for repayment of debt. A first mortgage has priority claim over
any other mortgage or if it is the only mortgage. A second (and sometimes third) mortgage are
called a “junior mortgage,” a home equity line of credit (HELOC) would also fall into this cate-
gory. Finally, a housing unit without a mortgage is owned free and clear and is debt free.
• In Cottage Grove, 71.9% of homes have a mortgage while 28.1% own their homes without a
mortgage. Thus, the percentage of housing units in Cottage Grove owned without a mort-
gage is less than the PMA Remainder (30.2%) and the Metro Area (30.3%).
• Of homes with a mortgage in Cottage Grove, 10.6% had an additional second mortgage,
home equity loan, or both. In comparison, 10.2% of homes in the PMA Remainder and 3.4%
of homes in the Seven County Metro had a second mortgage, home equity loan, or both.
• Housing units with a mortgage reported a higher median value than those without a mort-
gage. The median value of housing units with a mortgage was $339,600 in Cottage Grove
compared to $329,400 for homes without a mortgage. Compared to Cottage Grove, homes
with mortgages had a median value of $282,744 in the PMA and $400,689 in the Seven
County Metro. Homes without a mortgage had a median value of $252,352 in the PMA Re-
mainder and $376,222 in the Seven County Metro.
Owner-Renter-Owner-Renter-Owner-Renter-
Units in Structure Occupied Pct.Occupied Pct.Occupied Pct.Occupied Pct.Occupied Pct.Occupied Pct.
1, detached 2,764 91.0% 395 25.7% 24,328 74.1% 1,040 11.3% 688,821 80.0% 44,556 11.6%
1, attached 180 5.9% 25 1.6% 6,806 20.7% 2,078 22.5% 101,802 11.8% 35,013 9.2%
2 16 0.5% 88 5.7% 238 0.7% 223 2.4% 8,604 1.0% 21,731 5.7%
3 to 4 16 0.5% 140 9.1% 327 1.0% 694 7.5% 6,610 0.8% 18,546 4.8%
5 to 9 14 0.5% 99 6.5% 326 1.0% 339 3.7% 6,738 0.8% 22,202 5.8%
10 to 19 0 0.0% 230 15.0% 113 0.3% 604 6.5% 4,586 0.5% 42,713 11.2%
20 to 49 12 0.4% 285 18.6% 110 0.3% 1,252 13.6% 8,553 1.0% 64,470 16.9%
50 or more 0 0.0% 155 10.1% 157 0.5% 2,884 31.2%22,469 2.6% 130,561 34.1%
Mobile home 34 1.1% 117 7.6% 408 1.2% 73 0.8% 12,461 1.4% 2,376 0.6%
Boat, RV, van, etc.0 0.0%0 0.0%4 0.0% 43 0.5% 146 0.0% 318 0.1%
Total 3,036 100% 1,534 100% 32,817 100% 9,230 100% 860,790 100% 382,486 100%
Seven County MetroPMA Remaider
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau - American Community Survey & Maxfield Research and Consulting.
TABLE HC-4
HOUSING UNITS BY STRUCTURE & TENURE
PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2022
Cottage Grove
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 53
Mortgage Status No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.
Housing units without a mortgage 3,272 28.1% 9,923 30.2% 260,985 30.3%
Housing units with a mortgage/debt 8,352 71.9% 22,894 69.8% 599,805 69.7%
Second mortgage only 164 1.4%568 1.7%18,526 2.2%
Home equity loan only 934 8.0%2,632 8.0%8,713 1.0%
Both second mortgage and equity loan 136 1.2%159 0.5%2,138 0.2%
No second mortgage or equity loan 7,023 60.4%19,184 58.5%506,576 58.9%
Total 11,624 100.0% 32,817 100.0% 860,790 100.0%
Median Value by Mortgage Status
Housing units with a mortgage
Housing units without a mortgage $376,222
Cottage Grove PMA Remainder Seven-County Metro
* Excludes Washington County portion of Hastings, for which data is not available.
$339,600 $282,744*$400,689
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau - American Community Survey & Maxfield Research and Consulting.
TABLE HC-5
OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS BY MORTGAGE STATUS
PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2022
$329,400 $252,352*
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 54
Owner-Occupied Housing Units by Value
Table HC-6 presents data on housing values summarized by nine price ranges. Housing value
refers to the estimated price point the property would sell if the property were for sale. For
single-family and townhome properties, value includes both the land and the structure. For
condominium units, value refers to only the unit.
• The median owner-occupied home value in Cottage Grove ($337,000) was lower than in ei-
ther the PMA Remainder ($373,513) or the Seven-County Metro ($342,501).
• In Cottage Grove, homes valued between $300,000 and $399,999 comprised the largest
proportion of homes, accounting for 30.9% of owner-occupied units. Another 20.2% of
owner-occupied units were valued between $200,000 and $249,999.
• The largest proportion of owner-occupied homes in the PMA Remainder were priced at
greater than $500,000 (22.7%) followed by homes between $300,000 and $399,999
(21.5%). The Metro Area’s two largest categories of owner-occupied homes were between
$300,000 and $399,999 (24.4%) followed by greater than $500,000 (20.3%).
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 55
Renter-Occupied Units by Contract Rent
Table HC-7 presents information on the monthly housing costs for renters called contract rent
(also known as asking rent) as sourced from the U.S. Census ACS. Contract rent is the monthly
rent agreed to regardless of any utilities, furnishings, fees, or services that may be included.
• Cottage Grove renters were most likely to pay between $1,000 and $2,499 in monthly rent,
with an estimated 80.7% of renter-occupied units reporting rents in this range. Reflecting
the high rents in the City, another 4.5% of renters paid $2,500 or more in monthly rent.
Therefore, over 85% (85.2%) of renter households paid $1,000 or more in monthly rent.
• Compared to the PMA Remainder, residents in the PMA Remainder and Seven County
Metro were less likely than Cottage Grove to pay $1,000 or more in monthly rent. The per-
centages of those paying $1,000 or more were the following: 76.3% in the PMA Remainder
and 70.7% in the Seven-County Metro.
• The median rent in Cottage Grove was estimated at $1,467 in 2022, 7.7% higher than in the
PMA Remainder ($1,362) and 16.6% higher than in the Seven-County Metro ($1,255). Fac-
toring in annual percentage rent increases, the 2024 median rent in Cottage Grove is esti-
mated at $1,578, based on recent increases of 5% annually. This would compare to $1,465
for the PMA Remainder and $1,350 for the Seven County Metro.
Home Value No.Pct.N o.Pct.No.Pct.
Less than $50,000 223 1.9% 878 2.7% 21,689 2.5%
$50,000-$99,999 26 0.2% 239 0.7% 10,401 1.2%
$100,000-$149,999 176 1.5% 541 1.6% 23,115 2.7%
$150,000-$199,999 561 4.8% 2,124 6.5% 55,715 6.5%
$200,000-$249,999 1,150 9.9% 3,708 11.3% 104,397 12.1%
$250,000-$299,999 2,346 20.2% 4,424 13.5% 128,226 14.9%
$300,000-$399,999 3,595 30.9% 7,062 21.5% 210,332 24.4%
$400,000-$499,999 1,915 16.5% 6,394 19.5% 132,516 15.4%
Greater than $500,000 1,632 14.0% 7,447 22.7% 174,399 20.3%
Total 11,624 100.0% 32,817 100.0% 860,790 100.0%
Median Home Value
TABLE HC-6
OWNER-OCCUPIED UNITS BY VALUE
PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2022
$337,000 $342,501$373,513
Cottage Grove PMA Remainder
Note: The median year built for the PMA Remainder is weighted and only includes cities/townships
with available data.
Seven-County Metro
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau - American Community Survey & Maxfield Research and Consulting.
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 56
• Housing units without payment of rent (“no cash rent”) make up 5.3% of Cottage Grove
renters. The proportion was modestly lower in the PMA Remainder (4.5%) but less than
that in the Metro Area (2.3%). Typically, units may be owned by a relative or friend who
lives elsewhere whom allow occupancy without charge. Other sources may include caretak-
ers or ministers who may occupy a residence without charge.
Contract Rent No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.
No Cash Rent 83 5.3% 415 4.5% 8,746 2.3%
Cash Rent 1,487 94.7% 8,815 95.5% 373,740 97.7%
$0 to $249 0 0.0%151 1.6%9,687 2.5%
$250-$499 0 0.0%204 2.2%20,694 5.4%
$500-$749 59 3.8%320 3.5%17,234 4.5%
$750-$999 90 5.7%1,101 11.9%53,582 14.0%
$1,000-$2,499 1,267 80.7%6,568 71.2%251,831 65.8%
$2,500+71 4.5%471 5.1%18,480 4.8%
Total 1,570 100.0% 9,230 100.0% 382,486 100.0%
Median Contract Rent
*Excludes Denmark Township, Grey Cloud Isand Township, and the Washington County portion of
Hastings. No data is available for these geographies.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau - American Community Survey & Maxfield Research and Consulting.
$1,467 $1,255$1,362*
TABLE HC-7
RENTER-OCCUPIED UNITS BY CONTRACT RENT
PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2022
Seven-County MetroPMA RemainderCottage Grove
5.3%0.0%0.0%3.8%5.7%80.7%4.5%4.5%1.6%2.2%3.5%11.9%71.2%5.1%2.3%2.5%5.4%4.5%14.0%65.8%4.8%0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
50.0%
55.0%
60.0%
65.0%
70.0%
75.0%
80.0%
85.0%
No Cash Rent $0 to $249 $250-$499 $500-$749 $750-$999 $1,000-$2,499 $2,500+PercentageRent Range
Renter Occupied Units by Contract Rent
Cottage Grove, PMA Remainder, & Seven County Metro -2022
Cottage Grove
PMA Remainder
Seven Co Metro
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 57
Tenure by Household Income
Table HC-8 presents information on tenure by household incomes in the PMA. Data was ob-
tained through the American Community Survey for 2022 and adjusted forward by Maxfield Re-
search based on current household income totals and tenure proportions.
• Larger communities attract development of rental properties due to employment opportu-
nities and retail goods and services offered. Cottage Grove and its proximity to Woodbury,
Interstates 94 and 494, Interstate 35E and the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport make the City an
attraction location for renters. The City is estimated to have 11.9% renter households and
88.1% owner households. By comparison, the PMA Remainder is estimated to have 22.0%
renter households and 78.0% owner households while the Metro Area is estimated to have
30.8% renter households and 69.2% owner households.
• As incomes rise, the proportion of owner-occupied units increases. In Cottage Grove, for
households earning $150,000 or more, 95.6% are owners, up from a low of 67.5% of those
making between $25,000 and $34,999.
• A portion of renter households are referred to as lifestyle renters, those who are financially
able to own a home but choose to rent. Lifestyle renters in the Twin Cities Metro Area typi-
cally have household incomes of $60,000 or above ($1,500 in monthly housing expenses).
An estimated 58% of renter households have incomes of $60,000 or more in Cottage Grove.
Therefore, renters in Cottage Grove are more well off than in the PMA Remainder and the
Metro Area where 47.6% and 41.9%, respectively, are lifestyle renters.
• The median income of renter households was 40% less than the median income of owner
households in Cottage Grove. In 2024, owner households in Cottage Grove reported a me-
dian income of $123,333 compared to $74,167 among renter-occupied households.
Owner-Renter-Owner-Renter-Owner-Renter-Owner-Renter-
Income Occupied Pct. Occupied Pct. O ccupied Pct. Occupied Pct. Occupied Pct. Occupied Pct. Occupied Pct. Occupied Pct.
Less than $15,000 279 73.4% 101 26.6% 933 51.2% 889 48.8% 1,212 55.0% 990 45.0% 23,658 32.8% 48,435 67.2%
$15,000 to $24,999 167 81.8% 37 18.2% 1,195 64.6% 655 35.4% 1,362 66.3% 692 33.7% 21,481 36.7% 37,129 63.3%
$25,000 to $34,999 301 67.4% 146 32.6% 956 55.6% 763 44.4% 1,257 58.0% 909 42.0% 30,081 44.9% 36,925 55.1%
$35,000 to $49,999 414 67.5% 199 32.5% 2,073 67.7% 989 32.3% 2,488 67.7% 1,188 32.3% 54,371 49.7% 55,114 50.3%
$50,000 to $74,999 1,514 80.5% 366 19.5% 3,485 65.9% 1,800 34.1% 4,999 69.8% 2,167 30.2% 110,556 59.9% 74,085 40.1%
$75,000 to $99,999 1,548 89.8% 177 10.2% 4,064 65.5% 2,142 34.5% 5,612 70.8% 2,319 29.2% 110,118 68.6% 50,392 31.4%
$100,000 to $149,999 3,649 89.3% 436 10.7% 7,972 83.5% 1,571 16.5% 11,622 85.3% 2,006 14.7% 197,397 80.0% 49,217 20.0%
$150,000+4,504 95.6% 210 4.4% 13,845 94% 917 6.2% 18,350 94.2% 1,127 5.8% 313,128 90.9% 31,189 9.1%
Total 12,378 88.1%1,672 11.9% 34,524 78.0%9,726 22.0% 46,902 80.4% 11,398 19.6% 860,790 69.2% 382,486 30.8%
$73,331 $125,079 $68,649Median Household
Income*
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau - American Community Survey; Maxfield Research and Consulting.
$119,273 $54,187
TABLE D-6
TENURE BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME
PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2024
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE REMAINDER OF PMA PRIMARY MARKET AREA SEVEN-COUNTY METRO AREA
*As of 2022. PMA and PMA Remainder renter household income number does not include Grey Cloud Island in calculationswhich is missing data.
$123,333 $74,167 $130,364
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 58
Mobility in the Past Year
Table HC-9 shows the mobility patterns of PMA residents. The information reflects the propor-
tion of residents that reported a move within the last year at the time the ACS survey was con-
ducted. The table presents the estimates of mobility within the last year based on an average
of five years of data collection (2018-2022).
• Most Cottage Grove residents (86.4%) did not move during the last year. In the PMA Re-
mainder (81.9%) of its residents did not move in the last year while 81.8% of Metro Area
residents did not move.
• Among Cottage Grove residents that moved, most were likely to move within their same
county (5.0%) followed by a move from a different county in Minnesota (4.3%). Those mov-
ing from a different state represented 1.2% while those moving from abroad represented
0.1%.
• The age group most likely to move is the age 25 to 34 cohort as an estimated 20.5% moved
in the past year followed by those ages 35 to 44 at 18.8%. Those ages 25 to 34 may con-
sider moving to communities such as Cottage Grove as they begin families.
• Mobility increased among those age 75 years or older as this age group often relocates for
health and lifestyle reasons. This cohort may move to smaller homes, a senior living facility
or to another community to be closer to family.
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 59
Cottage Grove
Age No.P ct.No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.
Under 18 8,939 86.1% 678 6.5% 349 3.4% 92 0.9% 12 0.1%
18 to 24 2,795 87.2% 132 4.1% 61 1.9% 120 3.7%0 0.0%
25 to 34 3,573 79.5% 169 3.8% 504 11.2% 105 2.3% 12 0.3%
35 to 44 5,829 81.2% 556 7.7% 472 6.6% 107 1.5%0 0.0%
45 to 54 4,751 91.2% 199 3.8% 105 2.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%
55 to 64 4,043 90.7% 174 3.9% 93 2.1% 17 0.4%0 0.0%
65 to 74 2,766 93.1%0 0.0% 73 2.5% 44 1.5%0 0.0%
75+1,804 88.4% 102 5.0% 74 3.6%0 0.0%0 0.0%
Total 34,500 86.4% 2,010 5.0% 1,731 4.3% 485 1.2% 24 0.1%
Remainder of
PMA
Age No.P ct.No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.
Under 18 22,495 82.5% 1,527 5.6% 986 3.6% 793 2.9% 12 0.0%
18 to 24 6,488 66.8% 865 8.9% 1,143 11.8% 721 7.4%0 0.0%
25 to 34 8,667 68.4% 926 7.3% 1,884 14.9% 497 3.9% 12 0.1%
35 to 44 13,656 80.8% 1,181 7.0% 569 3.4% 529 3.1%0 0.0%
45 to 54 14,130 87.5% 492 3.0% 288 1.8% 372 2.3%0 0.0%
55 to 64 13,215 88.8% 342 2.3% 342 2.3% 194 1.3%0 0.0%
65 to 74 9,086 89.8% 207 2.0% 289 2.9% 25 0.2%0 0.0%
75+5,828 89.8% 171 2.6% 139 2.1% 26 0.4%0 0.0%
Total 93,565 81.9% 5,711 5.0% 5,640 4.9% 3,157 2.8% 24 0.0%
PMA
Age No.P ct.No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.
Under 18 31,434 83.5% 2,205 5.9% 1,335 3.5% 885 2.4% 93 0.2%
18 to 24 9,283 71.9% 997 7.7% 1,204 9.3% 841 6.5%3 0.0%
25 to 34 12,240 71.3% 1,095 6.4% 2,388 13.9% 602 3.5% 74 0.4%
35 to 44 19,485 80.8% 1,737 7.2% 1,041 4.3% 636 2.6% 123 0.5%
45 to 54 18,881 88.4% 691 3.2% 393 1.8% 372 1.7% 53 0.2%
55 to 64 17,258 89.3% 516 2.7% 435 2.3% 211 1.1% 42 0.2%
65 to 74 11,852 90.6% 207 1.6% 362 2.8% 69 0.5%5 0.0%
75+7,632 89.5% 273 3.2% 213 2.5% 26 0.3%0 0.0%
Total 128,065 83.1% 7,721 5.0% 7,371 4.8% 3,642 2.4% 393 0.3%
Seven-County
Metro
Age No.P ct.No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.
Under 18 611,554 84.1% 42,550 5.9% 23,526 3.2% 9,253 1.3% 2,764 0.4%
18 to 24 184,140 64.8% 36,437 12.8% 30,187 10.6% 15,699 5.5% 3,125 1.1%
25 to 34 340,010 70.2% 57,468 11.9% 40,453 8.4% 18,042 3.7% 3,345 0.7%
35 to 44 382,551 82.5% 30,022 6.5% 17,312 3.7% 8,112 1.7% 1,633 0.4%
45 to 54 353,929 87.0% 16,279 4.0% 10,355 2.5% 4,211 1.0% 1,212 0.3%
55 to 64 377,827 88.6% 13,709 3.2% 8,726 2.0% 3,035 0.7% 1,020 0.2%
65 to 74 263,819 89.8% 8,015 2.7% 4,370 1.5% 1,836 0.6% 500 0.2%
75+169,551 86.9% 8,516 4.4% 4,572 2.3% 1,740 0.9% 639 0.3%
Total 2,683,381 81.8% 212,996 6.5% 139,501 4.3% 61,928 1.9% 14,238 0.4%
Same House Within Same County Different County
Same State Different State Abroad
Same House Within Same County Different County
Same State Different State Abroad
Different State Abroad
Moved
TABLE D-9
MOBILITY IN THE PAST YEAR BY AGE FOR CURRENT RESIDENCE
PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2022
Did Not Move
Same House Within Same County AbroadDifferent County
Same State Different State
Same House Within Same County Different County
Same State
Sources: American Community Survey; Maxfield Research and Consulting.
EMPLOYMENT TRENDS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 60
Introduction
Employment characteristics are important components in assessing housing needs in any given
Market Area. These trends are important to consider since employment growth often fuels
household growth. Typically, households prefer to live near work for convenience, which is a
primary factor in choosing a housing location. This preference is particularly true among
renters. Young adults entering the workforce, a primary target market for rental housing, often
place excellent value on living near employment, education, shopping and entertainment.
Many households commute greater distances to work provided their housing is affordable
enough to offset the additional transportation costs.
Although employment growth often parallels population growth, it is tied more strongly to
transportation access. Cities with interstate access and intra- and inter-metro transportation
connections attract more businesses and post higher employment gains.
Employment Growth and Projections
Table E-1 on the following page shows employment growth trends and projections in Cottage
Grove, Washington County, the Seven-County Metro Area and Minnesota from 2000 to 2035
based on the latest information available from the Minnesota Department of Employment and
Economic Development (MN DEED). Data from 2000 through 2023 represents the annual aver-
age employment for that year. Projections for 2025, 2030 and 2035 are based on projections
from MN DEED with adjustments by Maxfield Research.
• Between 2000 and 2010, Cottage Grove and Washington County experienced employment
increases of 5.3% and 6.3%, respectively. In comparison, the Seven County Metro Minne-
sota saw declines in employment. The Metro Area declined by 4.0% while Minnesota de-
clined by 1.7%.
• Cottage Grove accounted for 9.0% of jobs in Washington County and 0.4% of jobs in the
Seven County Metro in 2000 and 2010. In 2020, Cottage Grove’s percentage of jobs in
Washington County and the Metro increased to 10.6% and 0.5%, respectively. By 2030,
Cottage Grove is projected to make up 12.5% of jobs in Washington County and 0.7% of
jobs in the Metro Area.
• Between 2010 and 2023, Cottage Grove gained 4,083 jobs (63.9%) while Washington
County gained 22,392 jobs (31.4%). During those 13 years, the number of jobs also in-
creased in the Metro Area (217,284 jobs, 14.1%) and Minnesota (339,873, 13.3%).
EMPLOYMENT TRENDS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 61
Annual
Employment
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2021
2022
2023
2025 Forecast
2030 Forecast
2035 Forecast
Change No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.
2000 - 2010 324 5.3% 4,236 6.3% -63,700 -4.0% -45,453 -1.7%
2010 - 2023 4,083 63.9% 22,392 31.4% 217,284 14.1% 339,873 13.3%
2023 - 2030 3,347 32.0% 16,911 18.1% 171,510 9.8% 274,296 9.4%
2030 - 2035 2,835 20.5% 12,715 11.5% 98,235 5.1% 145,585 4.6%
1,679,342
1,730,056
1,754,325
1,832,865
1,925,835
1,600,741
1,593,962
1,537,041
1,675,292
1,644,852
6,061
6,321
6,385
6,863
8,917
10,468
11,465
16,650
Sources: MN DEED; & Maxfield Research & Consulting.
123,310 3,323,145
99,195 3,038,350
13,815 110,595 3,177,560
93,684 2,903,264
2,024,070
9,561
9,860
67,056
73,456
2,608,844
71,292
2,637,323
2,563,391
2,707,821
79,139 2,774,426
84,005
88,479
91,825
2,774,366
2,856,018
Washington
County Minnesota
TABLE E-1
EMPLOYMENT GROWTH TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS
PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2000 to 2035
Cottage Grove Seven County
Metro Area
EMPLOYMENT TRENDS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 62
• Between 2023 and 2030, jobs are projected to increase by 3,347 (32.0%) in Cottage Grove
and 16,911 jobs (18.1%) in Washington County. In contrast, the Seven County Metro Area
and Minnesota are forecast to increase employment by 171,510 (9.8%) and 274,296 (9.4%),
respectively.
• Between 2030 and 2035, employment is projected to increase by 2,835 (20.5%) in Cottage
Grove and 12,715 jobs (11.5%) in Washington County. In contrast, the Seven County Metro
Area and Minnesota are forecast to increase employment by 98,235 (5.1%) and 145,585
(4.6%), respectively.
Resident Labor Force
Table E-2, on the following page, presents resident employment data for the Cottage Grove
from 2008 through July 2024. Resident employment data is calculated as an annual average
and reveals the work force and number of employed persons living in the County. Not all of
these individuals work in Cottage Grove. The data is obtained from the Minnesota Department
of Economic Development (MN DEED). Data is also provided for the Twin Cities Metro Area,
Minnesota and the US.
• In 2023, Cottage Grove had a labor force of 21,179 with 20,640 employed residents, which
equates to a 2.5% unemployment rate. By comparison, 2023 unemployment rates were
2.6% in Washington County, 2.6% in the Seven County Metro Area, 2.8% in Minnesota and
3.6% in the US.
• Cottage Grove’s annual unemployment rate has been lower than Washington County, the
Seven County Metro, Minnesota and the US every year since 2020.
EMPLOYMENT TRENDS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 63
Labor Unemployment
Year Force Employed Unemployed Rate
2008 19,304 18,344 960 5.0%
2009 19,207 17,795 1,412 7.4%
2010 19,369 18,071 1,298 6.7%
2011 19,458 18,317 1,141 5.9%
2012 19,528 18,480 1,048 5.4%
2013 19,618 18,698 920 4.7%
2014 19,698 18,952 746 3.8%
2015 19,836 19,184 652 3.3%
2016 19,968 19,283 685 3.4%
2017 20,563 19,902 661 3.2%
2018 20,704 20,170 534 2.6%
2019 21,052 20,466 586 2.8%
2020 21,206 19,990 1,216 5.7%
2021 20,676 19,993 683 3.3%
2022 20,961 20,501 460 2.2%
2023 21,179 20,640 539 2.5%
2024 21,208 20,401 807 3.8%
Change 2008 through 2024 (July)
Number 1,904 2,057 -153 --
Percent 9.9%11.2%-15.9%--
2008 1,603,501 1,522,589 80,912 5.0%
2009 1,601,871 1,482,667 119,204 7.4%
2010 1,593,385 1,479,385 114,000 7.2%
2011 1,606,856 1,506,887 99,969 6.2%
2012 1,611,797 1,524,778 87,019 5.4%
2013 1,626,969 1,550,140 76,829 4.7%
2014 1,642,460 1,577,850 64,610 3.9%
2015 1,653,838 1,597,310 56,528 3.4%
2016 1,669,746 1,612,583 57,163 3.4%
2017 1,706,940 1,653,641 53,299 3.1%
2018 1,714,156 1,668,797 45,359 2.6%
2019 1,736,631 1,686,236 50,395 2.9%
2020 1,742,641 1,630,026 112,615 6.5%
2021 1,694,102 1,631,670 62,432 3.7%
2022 1,712,706 1,672,095 40,611 2.4%
2023 1,728,472 1,683,595 44,877 2.6%
2024 1,726,370 1,661,889 64,481 3.7%
Change 2008-2024 (July)
Number 122,869 139,300 -16,431 --
Percent 7.7%9.1%-20.3%--
Continued
Seven-County Metro Area
TABLE E-2
ANNUAL AVERAGE RESIDENT EMPLOYMENT
COTTAGE GROVE, SEVEN-COUNTY METRO AREA, MINNESOTA, & US
2008 through 2024 (July)
Cottage Grove
EMPLOYMENT TRENDS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 64
Labor Unemployment
Year Force Employed Unemployed Rate
2008 2,925,088 2,766,342 158,746 5.4%
2009 2,941,976 2,713,426 228,550 7.8%
2010 2,940,816 2,723,025 217,791 7.4%
2011 2,952,527 2,760,399 192,127 6.5%
2012 2,949,769 2,783,181 166,588 5.6%
2013 2,961,728 2,812,452 149,275 5.0%
2014 2,979,798 2,852,487 127,310 4.3%
2015 3,005,413 2,891,672 113,740 3.8%
2016 3,023,110 2,906,348 116,761 3.9%
2017 3,071,005 2,963,829 107,176 3.5%
2018 3,075,089 2,982,657 92,431 3.0%
2019 3,111,673 3,009,672 102,001 3.3%
2020 3,122,015 2,926,643 195,371 6.3%
2021 3,049,037 2,935,653 113,384 3.7%
2022 3,077,500 2,994,919 82,580 2.7%
2023 3,099,922 3,012,707 87,215 2.8%
2024 3,115,318 2,995,686 119,632 3.8%
Change 2008-2024 (July)
Number 190,230 229,344 -39,114 --
Percent 6.5%8.3%-24.6%--
2008 154,286,666 145,362,500 8,924,250 5.8%
2009 154,142,000 139,877,500 14,264,583 9.3%
2010 153,888,583 139,063,916 14,824,750 9.6%
2011 153,616,666 139,869,250 13,747,416 8.9%
2012 154,974,583 142,469,083 12,505,583 8.1%
2013 155,389,166 143,929,333 11,459,833 7.4%
2014 155,921,833 146,305,333 9,616,416 6.2%
2015 157,129,916 148,833,416 8,296,333 5.3%
2016 159,187,166 151,435,833 7,751,000 4.9%
2017 160,319,750 153,337,416 6,982,250 4.4%
2018 162,075,000 155,761,000 6,313,916 3.9%
2019 163,538,666 157,538,083 6,000,583 3.7%
2020 160,742,333 147,794,750 12,947,583 8.1%
2021 161,203,916 152,580,666 8,623,250 5.3%
2022 164,287,166 158,291,083 5,996,000 3.6%
2023 167,116,416 161,036,583 6,079,916 3.6%
2024 169,723,000 162,038,000 7,685,000 4.5%
Change 2008-2024 (July)
Number 15,436,334 16,675,500 -1,239,250 --
Percent 10.0%11.5%-13.9%--
ANNUAL AVERAGE RESIDENT EMPLOYMENT
COTTAGE GROVE, SEVEN-COUNTY METRO AREA, MINNESOTA, & US
2008 to 2024 (July)
US
Sources: MN DEED & Maxfield Research & Consulting, LLC.
Minnesota
TABLE E-2
EMPLOYMENT TRENDS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 65
• The chart below illustrates how unemployment in Cottage Grove has mirrored national
trends but has remained well below the national rate throughout the past twelve years.
• Cottage Grove began the 2010s with a high unemployment rate of 6.4%, reached a low of
2.2% in 2022 and was still low in 2023 at 2.5%.
• As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and its related shutdowns and layoffs, Cottage
Grove’s unemployment rate increased dramatically from 2.8% in 2019 to a high of 5.7% in
2020. This was due to the shutdown and layoffs that occurred because of the pandemic.
Since 2020, unemployment decreased to 3.3% in 2021 and to 2.2% in 2022 prior to increas-
ing slightly to 2.5% in 2023.
• The chart, on the following page, provides a month-by-month unemployment rate compari-
son for Cottage Grove, the Seven County Metro, Minnesota and the US from January 2020
before the pandemic hit the US through April 2024, the most recent month with available
data.
• The chart demonstrates that after the initial shutdowns, due to the emerging pandemic, the
resulting high unemployment rates throughout the country rose significantly in the Spring
and early Summer of 2020.
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
4.5%
5.0%
5.5%
6.0%
6.5%
7.0%
7.5%
8.0%
8.5%
9.0%
9.5%
10.0%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024Annual Unemployment Rate (%)Year
Annual Unemployment Rate Comparison, 2008 through 2024 (July)
Cottage Grove Seven-County Metro Area
Minnesota US
EMPLOYMENT TRENDS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 66
Covered Employment by Industry
Table E-3 presents covered employment workforce numbers for Cottage Grove and the Seven
County Metro Area for 2000 through 2023. Covered employment data is calculated as an an-
nual average and reveals the number of jobs in the designated area, which are covered by un-
employment insurance. Many temporary workforce positions, agricultural, self-employed per-
sons and some other types of jobs are not covered by unemployment insurance and are not in-
cluded in the table. The data is sourced from the Minnesota Department of Employment and
Economic Development. The following are key trends derived from the employment data.
• The Manufacturing industry accounted for the largest share of employment in Cottage
Grove with 3,007 employees accounting for nearly 29% (28.7%) in 2023. The Manufacturing
Industry is followed by the Trade, Transportation, and Utilities sector with 2,704 employees
(25.8% of 2023 employment) and the Education and Health Services sector with 2,147 em-
ployees (20.5% of 2023 employment).
• In contrast to Cottage Grove, the Education and Health Services Sector accounted for the
largest share of employment in the Seven County Metro Area, with employees accounting
for over one quarter of all employment (25.4% - 425,826) in 2023. The Trade, Transporta-
tion and Utilities sector is followed by the Trade, Transportation and Utilities sector with
318,157 employees (19.0% of 2023 employment) and the Professional and Business Ser-
vices sector with 292,175 employees (17.4% of 2023 employment).
• Between 2010 and 2023, the Education and Health Services sector experienced the largest
numeric growth in the Metro Area adding 84,148 employees, a 24.6% increase.
• The Metro Area’s Construction sector experienced the highest percentage growth between
2010 and 2023, growing by 60.1% (30,046 employees).
EMPLOYMENT TRENDS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 67
Industry 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2021 2022 2023 No.Pct.2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2021 2022 2023
Natural Resources & Mining -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Construction 118 212 102 160 321 325 469 512 410 193.4% 1.9% 3.4% 1.6% 2.3% 3.6% 3.4% 4.8% 4.9%
Manufacturing 1,400 1,256 969 870 2,211 2,317 2,593 3,007 2,038 162.3% 23.1% 19.9% 15.2% 12.7% 24.8% 24.2% 26.3% 28.7%
Trade, Transportation, and Utilities 1,501 1,645 1,554 1,891 2,432 2,690 2,667 2,704 1,150 69.9% 24.8% 26.0% 24.3% 27.6% 27.3% 28.1% 27.0% 25.8%
Information 47 42 28 23 38 24 26 23 -5 -11.9% 0.8% 0.7% 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2%
Financial Services 157 171 139 144 210 191 226 199 60 35.1% 2.6% 2.7% 2.2% 2.1% 2.4% 2.0% 2.3% 1.9%
Professional and Business Services 223 147 151 240 332 378 333 366 215 146.3% 3.7% 2.3% 2.4% 3.5% 3.7% 4.0% 3.4% 3.5%
Education and Health Services 1,428 1,515 2,107 2,132 2,109 2,108 2,059 2,147 40 2.6% 23.6% 24.0% 33.0% 31.1% 23.7% 22.0% 20.9% 20.5%
Leisure and Hospitality 656 839 746 828 759 828 866 889 143 17.0% 10.8% 13.3% 11.7% 12.1% 8.5% 8.7% 8.8% 8.5%
Other Services 282 205 318 311 237 316 321 317 -1 -0.5% 4.7% 3.2% 5.0% 4.5% 2.7% 3.3% 3.3% 3.0%
Public Administration 249 289 271 264 268 296 300 304 33 11.4% 4.1% 4.6% 4.2% 3.8% 3.0% 3.1% 3.0% 2.9%
Totals 6,061 6,321 6,385 6,863 8,917 9,561 9,860 10,468 4,083 63.9%
Industry 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2021 2022 2023 No.Pct.2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2021 2022 2023
Natural Resources & Mining 3,220 3,568 3,444 3,427 3,668 3,852 4,104 4,183 739 21.5%na 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2%
Construction 75,163 78,475 49,972 66,709 73,128 75,994 78,312 80,018 30,046 60.1% 4.7% 4.9% 3.3% 4.0% 4.6% 4.9% 5.1% 4.8%
Manufacturing 217,161 186,238 156,570 168,480 166,172 168,098 174,669 175,817 19,247 12.3% 13.6% 11.7% 10.2% 10.1% 10.4% 10.9% 11.4% 10.5%
Trade, Transportation, and Utilities 341,177 327,767 294,894 313,380 302,009 307,307 315,737 318,157 23,263 7.9% 21.3% 20.6% 19.2% 18.7% 18.9% 20.0% 20.5% 19.0%
Information 44,568 43,964 41,010 38,798 32,215 30,603 31,349 30,049 -10,961 -26.7% 2.8% 2.8% 2.7% 2.3% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 1.8%
Financial Services 126,979 137,347 130,997 137,046 140,939 138,171 133,432 130,848 -149 -0.1% 7.9% 8.6% 8.5% 8.2% 8.8% 9.0% 8.7% 7.8%
Professional and Business Services 263,779 244,612 250,151 277,443 283,689 289,095 296,168 292,175 42,024 16.8% 16.5% 15.3% 16.3% 16.6% 17.8% 18.8% 19.3% 17.4%
Education and Health Services 268,968 302,256 341,678 380,336 398,486 405,269 410,924 425,829 84,151 24.6% 16.8% 19.0% 22.2% 22.7% 25.0% 26.4% 26.7% 25.4%
Leisure and Hospitality 138,716 150,712 148,531 164,825 125,410 139,667 160,004 167,245 18,714 12.6% 8.7% 9.5% 9.7% 9.8% 7.9% 9.1% 10.4% 10.0%
Other Services 55,632 55,269 52,359 56,000 48,170 50,914 53,573 55,509 3,150 6.0% 3.5% 3.5% 3.4% 3.3% 3.0% 3.3% 3.5% 3.3%
Public Administration 65,378 63,754 67,435 68,847 70,966 70,372 71,784 74,495 7,060 10.5% 4.1% 4.0% 4.4% 4.1% 4.5% 4.6% 4.7% 4.4%
Totals 1,600,741 1,593,962 1,537,041 1,675,292 1,644,852 1,679,342 1,730,056 1,754,325 217,284 14.1%
N/A: Not Assessed.
2010 - 2023
Change
Sources: MN DEED; Maxfield Research and Consulting
% of Total
% of Total
City of Cottage Grove
Twin Cities Metro Area Change
2010 - 2023Average Number of Employees
Average Number of Employees
TABLE E-3
COVERED EMPLOYMENT TRENDS
NOBLES COUNTY AND CITY OF WORTHINGTON
2000 through 2023
NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (NAICS)
EMPLOYMENT TRENDS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 68
Employment and Wages
Table E-4 displays information on employment and wages in the City of Cottage Grove and the
Seven County Metro Area. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) data is
sourced from Minnesota DEED for the fourth quarter of 2022 and 2023. All establishments cov-
ered under the Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program are required to report wage and em-
ployment statistics quarterly to DEED. Federal government establishments are also covered by
the QCEW program.
Certain industries in the table may not display any information which means that there is either
no reported economic activity for that industry or the data has been suppressed to protect the
confidentiality of cooperating employers. This generally occurs when there are too few em-
ployers, or one employer comprises too much of the employment in that geography.
• In Cottage Grove, the Information industry reported the highest weekly wage, $1,474; or
approximately $76,648 annually in the fourth quarter of 2023. Following not far behind is
the Financial Services sector with an average weekly wage of $1,411 ($74,620 annually).
• The Manufacturing Services industry accounts for 29.3% of the employment in the City of
Cottage Grove. Other large industries in the City include the Trade, Transportation, and
Utilities sector (25.4% of employment in Cottage Grove) and the Education and Health Ser-
vices sector (20.9% of Cottage Grove employment).
• The largest industries in the Seven County Metro were in the Education and Health Services,
Trade, Transportation, and Utilities, and Trade, Professional and Business Services sectors.
• The Manufacturing industry experienced the highest percentage employment and numeric
growth in Cottage Grove between the fourth quarters of 2022 and 2023, increasing by
15.1% or 417 jobs. The industry with the largest percentage and numeric growth in the
Seven County Metro Area was the Education and Health Services Sector at 4.4% or 18,623
jobs.
• In Cottage Grove, the Financial Activities sector reported the largest numeric growth in
wages between the fourth quarters of 2022 and 2023. Wages increased by $62 in this sec-
tor. In contrast, in the Metro Area, the Information sector experienced the largest numeric
wage increase of any sector, increasing by $180 between the fourth quarters of 2022 and
2023.
• Percentage wise, the Other Services industry reported the highest percentage growth in
wages (10.2% growth) between the fourth quarters of 2022 and 2023 in Cottage Grove.
Wages in the Metro Area experienced the largest percentage increase in the Information
industry, increasing by 8.8%.
EMPLOYMENT TRENDS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 69
Industry Establish-
ments
Employ-
ment
Weekly
Wage
Establish-
ments
Employ-
ment
Weekly
Wage
Total, All Industries 600 10,050 $1,072 610 10,835 $1,099 785 7.8% $27 2.5%
Natural Resources & Mining -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Construction 27 469 $1,153 34 512 $1,196 43 9.2% $43 3.7%
Manufacturing 9 2,759 $1,462 8 3,176 $1,435 417 15.1%($27)-1.8%
Trade, Transportation, Utilities 133 2,667 $862 136 2,748 $885 81 3.0% $23 2.7%
Information 8 22 $1,497 8 23 $1,474 1 4.5%($23)-1.5%
Financial Activities 58 233 $1,349 57 188 $1,411 -45 -19.3% $62 4.6%
Professional & Business Services 93 329 $1,302 99 361 $1,338 32 9.7%$36 2.8%
Education & Health Services 141 2,109 $1,045 146 2,313 $1,071 204 9.7% $26 2.5%
Leisure & Hospitality 46 858 $414 47 924 $423 66 7.7% $9 2.2%
Other Services 82 314 $577 72 299 $636 -15 -4.8% $59 10.2%
Public Administration 3 290 $1,171 3 291 $1,231 1 0.3% $60 5.1%
Total, All Industries 93,464 1,748,505 $1,477 93,762 1,765,176 $1,517 16,671 1.0% $40 2.7%
Natural Resources & Mining 347 4,042 $1,076 345 4,063 $1,119 21 0.5% $43 4.0%
Construction 7,138 78,689 $1,794 7,106 80,988 $1,890 2,299 2.9% $96 5.4%
Manufacturing 4,064 175,921 $1,658 4,011 174,755 $1,700 -1,166 -0.7% $42 2.5%
Trade, Transportation, Utilities 15,859 320,994 $1,279 15,846 324,431 $1,283 3,437 1.1% $4 0.3%
Information 2,053 30,951 $2,054 2,024 29,545 $2,234 -1,406 -4.5% $180 8.8%
Financial Activities 9,544 132,400 $2,125 9,515 129,547 $2,273 -2,853 -2.2% $148 7.0%
Professional & Business Services 17,848 298,195 $1,984 17,937 288,046 $2,056 -10,149 -3.4% $72 3.6%
Education & Health Services 15,945 420,899 $1,255 16,488 439,522 $1,286 18,623 4.4% $31 2.5%
Leisure & Hospitality 8,356 160,229 $668 8,363 164,315 $683 4,086 2.6% $15 2.2%
Other Services 11,506 54,382 $958 11,325 55,459 $992 1,077 2.0% $34 3.5%
Public Administration 804 71,800 $1,536 804 74,502 $1,620 2,702 3.8% $84 5.5%
Sources: MN DEED; Maxfield Research and Consulting
Cottage Grove
TABLE E-4
QUARTERLY CENSUS OF EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES
PRIMARY MARKET AREA
Employment
# %
Wage
# %
Change 2022 Q4 - 2023 Q42023 Q42022 Q4
Seven County Metro Area
NA: Not Asssessed/Not Available
$0$250$500$750$1,000$1,250$1,500$1,750$2,000$2,250$2,500Total, All Industries
Natural Resources & Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Trade, Transportation, Utilities
Information
Financial Activities
Professional & Business Services
Education & Health Services
Leisure & Hospitality
Other Services
Average Weekly Wage ($)Industry2023 Q4 Employment: Average Weekly Wage by Industry
Seven County Metro Area
Cottage Grove
EMPLOYMENT TRENDS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 70
Commuting Patterns
Proximity to employment is often a primary consideration when choosing where to live, since
transportation costs often account for a considerable proportion of households’ budgets. Ta-
bles E-5 highlights the commuting patterns of workers in Cottage Grove in 2021 (the most re-
cent data available), based on Employer-Household Dynamics data from the U.S. Census Bu-
reau. Home destination is defined as where workers live who are employed in the selection
area. Work destination is defined as where workers are employed who live in the selection
area. Please note: Data is unavailable post 2021, hence these numbers do not reflect the shift
in commuting patterns post pandemic and the work from home/hybrid shift in employment.
• As Table E-5 illustrates, of workers who are employed in Cottage Grove, 25.3% also live in
Cottage Grove. Other home destinations with a large proportion of Cottage Grove workers
include St Paul (10.3%), Woodbury (8.3%), and Hastings 4.7%.
• Of workers who live in Cottage Grove, 16.7% work in St Paul and 12.7% both live and work
in Cottage Grove. Other large work destinations for Cottage Grove residents are Minneap-
olis (10.2%) and Woodbury (7.4%).
• For workers that live in Cottage Grove, over half of all workers (52.7%) commute 10 to 24
miles followed by 35.5% of those commuting less than 10 miles. In addition, 7.9% of work-
ers living in Cottage Grove commute 25 to 50 miles while 3.9% commute more than 50
miles.
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%
Natural Resources & Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Trade, Transportation, Utilities
Information
Financial Activities
Professional & Business Services
Education & Health Services
Leisure & Hospitality
Other Services
Public Administration
Percentage (%) of Total EmploymentIndustry2023 Q4 Employment: % of Total
Seven County Metro
AreaCottage Grove
EMPLOYMENT TRENDS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 71
Inflow/Outflow
Table E-6 provides a summary of the inflow and outflow of workers in Cottage Grove. Outflow
reflects the number of workers living in the city but employed outside of the city while inflow
measures the number of workers that are employed in the city but live outside. Data is sourced
to “On the Map” and subject to specified categories as identified by the U.S Census ACS.
• Cottage Grove is a net exporter of workers, with 7,725 workers commuting into the city
compared to 17,974 workers leaving the city for work. In addition, 2,614 workers live and
work in the city.
• Inflow workers and interior flow workers were most like to work in the “All Other Services”
industry, followed by the “Trade, Transportation and Utilities” industry.
Place of Residence Count Share Place of Employment Count Share
Cottage Grove city, MN 2,614 25.3%St. Paul city, MN 3,326 16.2%
St. Paul city, MN 1,061 10.3%Cottage Grove city, MN 2,614 12.7%
Woodbury city, MN 863 8.3%Minneapolis city, MN 2,096 10.2%
Hastings city, MN 488 4.7%Woodbury city, MN 1,525 7.4%
St. Paul Park city, MN 310 3.0%Eagan city, MN 884 4.3%
Minneapolis city, MN 250 2.4%Bloomington city, MN 652 3.2%
Inver Grove Heights city, MN 230 2.2%Hastings city, MN 386 1.9%
Maplewood city, MN 203 2.0%Eden Prairie city, MN 376 1.8%
Oakdale city, MN 192 1.9%Inver Grove Heights city, MN 354 1.7%
Eagan city, MN 182 1.8%Maplewood city, MN 348 1.7%
All Other Locations 3,946 38.2%All Other Locations 8,027 39.0%
Distance Traveled Distance Traveled
Total of All Jobs 10,339 100.0%Total of All Jobs 20,588 100.0%
Less than 10 miles 5,466 52.9%Less than 10 miles 7,304 35.5%
10 to 24 miles 3,436 33.2%10 to 24 miles 10,848 52.7%
25 to 50 miles 856 8.3%25 to 50 miles 1,624 7.9%
Greater than 50 miles 581 5.6%Greater than 50 miles 812 3.9%
Home Destination = Where workers live who are employed in Cottage Grove.
Work Destination = Where workers are employed who live in Cottage Grove.
Sources: US Census Bureau Local Employment Dynamics; Maxfield Research and Consulting
TABLE E-5
COMMUTING PATTERNS
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE
2021
Home Destination Work Destination
EMPLOYMENT TRENDS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 72
Cottage Grove 2021 Employment Inflow/Outflow
Source: US Census: Longitudinal Employment-Household Dynamics, 2021
City of Cottage Grove 17,974 100.0% 7,725 100.0% 2,614 100.0%
By Age
Workers Aged 29 or younger 3,663 20.4% 2,092 27.1% 915 35.0%
Workers Aged 30 to 54 10,606 59.0% 4,210 54.5% 1,120 42.8%
Workers Aged 55 or older 3,705 20.6% 1,423 18.4% 579 22.1%
By Monthly Wage
Workers Earning $1,250 per month or less 2,681 14.9% 1,405 18.2% 840 32.1%
Workers Earning $1,251 to $3,333 per month 3,422 19.0% 1,627 21.1% 766 29.3%
Workers Earning More than $3,333 per month 11,871 66.0% 4,693 60.8% 1,008 38.6%
By Industry
"Goods Producing"2,592 14.4% 2,819 36.5% 404 15.5%
"Trade, Transportation, and Utilities"2,944 16.4% 1,885 24.4% 849 32.5%
"All Other Services"*12,438 69.2% 3,021 39.1% 1,361 52.1%
Sources: US Census Bureau Local Employment Dynamics; Maxfield Research and Consulting
*includes the following sectors: Information, Financial Activities, Professional & Business Services, Education & Health
Services, Leisure & Hospitality, Other Services, and Public Administration
TABLE E-6
COMMUTING INFLOW/OUTFLOW CHARACTERISTICS
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE
2021
Outflow Inflow Interior Flow
EMPLOYMENT TRENDS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 73
Resident Profile
Table E-9 compares characteristics of employed residents living in Cottage Grove, Washington
County, the Seven County Metro and Minnesota in 2021. Information on monthly earnings,
age, race and ethnicity, educational attainment and job classification is provided. Both primary
and private jobs are included.
• Cottage Grove residents earning more than $3,333 per month (monthly earning figures
used by the U.S. Census) account for 62.6% of workers. This is above the proportion of resi-
dents earning more than $3,333 per month in the Seven County Metro Area (61.4%) and
Minnesota (57.8%), but below that in Washington County (63.2%).
• Workers between the ages of 30 and 54 account for 57.0% of workers in Cottage Grove.
This is above the proportion of residents 30 to 54 in Washington County (54.8%), the Seven
County Metro Area (54.3%) and Minnesota (52.9%).
MN
No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct. Pct.
Total All Jobs 20,588 100.0% 135,870 100.0% 1,522,848 100.0% 100.0%
$1,250 per month or less 3,521 17.1% 23,693 17.4% 257,628 16.9% 18.8%
$1,251 to $3,333 per month 4,188 20.3% 26,311 19.4% 330,636 21.7% 23.5%
More than $3,333 per month 12,879 62.6% 85,866 63.2% 934,584 61.4% 57.7%
Age 29 or younger 4,578 22.2% 29,079 21.4% 351,137 23.1% 23.5%
Age 30 to 54 11,726 57.0% 74,459 54.8% 827,110 54.3% 52.9%
Age 55 or older 4,284 20.8% 32,332 23.8% 344,601 22.6% 23.6%
White Alone 17,191 83.5% 114,612 84.4% 1,209,136 79.4% 85.2%
Black or African American Alone 1,343 6.5% 7,920 5.8% 145,553 9.6% 6.5%
American Indian or Alaska Native Alone 101 0.5% 622 0.5% 9,059 0.6% 0.9%
Asian Alone 1,589 7.7% 10,239 7.5% 125,663 8.3% 5.5%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Alone 10 0.0% 97 0.1% 1,329 0.1% 0.1%
Two or More Race Groups 354 1.7% 2,380 1.8% 32,108 2.1% 1.8%
Not Hispanic or Latino 19,440 94.4% 130,064 95.7% 1,440,887 94.6% 95.1%
Hispanic or Latino 1,148 5.6% 5,806 4.3% 81,961 5.4% 4.9%
Less than high school 1,424 6.9% 8,792 6.5% 106,681 7.0% 6.8%
High school or equivalent, no college 3,846 18.7% 24,824 18.3% 272,068 17.9% 19.4%
Some college or Associate degree 5,172 25.1% 34,577 25.4% 376,237 24.7% 26.2%
Bachelor's degree or advanced degree 5,568 27.0% 38,598 28.4% 416,725 27.4% 24.2%
4,578 22.2% 29,079 21.4% 351,137 23.1% 23.5%
Seven County Metro
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (LEHD), Maxfield Research and Consulting.
TABLE E-9
RESIDENT PROFILE
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, WASHINGTON COUNTY, SEVEN-COUNTY METRO, & MN
2021
Total Jobs
Monthly Earnings
Worker Ages
Worker Race and Ethnicity
Ethnicity
Worker Educational Attainment
City of Cottage Grove Washington County
Educational attainment not available (workers
age 29 or younger)
EMPLOYMENT TRENDS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 74
• The proportion of workers who live in Cottage Grove with a high school diploma (18.7%)
was above that of Washington County (18.3%) and the Seven County Metro Area (17.9%),
but below that of Minnesota (19.4%).
• The proportion of those with a bachelor’s degree or higher in Cottage Grove (27.0%) was
more than that in Minnesota (24.2%) but less than that in Washington County (28.4%) or
the Seven County Metro (27.4%).
Major Employers
A portion of the employment growth in Cottage Grove will be generated by the largest employ-
ers in the area. Table E-10 lists the top employers in Cottage Grove for 2023 and 2024, along
with a description of their primary industry and number of employees based on data from the
City of Cottage Grove.
The following are key points from the Table.
• The largest employer in Cottage Grove is Independent School District 833 with 2,828 em-
ployees in 2023, increasing 5.5% to 2,893 employees as of 2024. The District includes all or
parts of the communities of Cottage Grove, Woodbury, Newport, St. Paul Park and Grey
Cloud Island Township. The number listed refers to District employees in Cottage Grove.
• The only other employer in the City with more than 1,000 employees is Renewal by Ander-
son. The manufacturing company had 1,600 employees as of 2023, increasing 0.6% to
1,610 employees as of 2024.
Name Industry/Product/Service 2023 2024
Independent School District 833 Education 2,828 2,983
Renewal by Anderson Manufacturing 1,600 1,610
3M Manufacturing 751 653
Hy-Vee Retail 700 650
Up North Plastics Manufacturing 540 710
City of Cottage Grove Government 280 280
Walmart Retail 278 318
Van Meter Electrical Equipment & Supplies 189 208
ADCM Manufacturing 163 163
Menards Retail 164 149
7,493 7,724
TABLE E-10
MAJOR EMPLOYERS
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE
2023 & 2024
Sources: City of Cottage Grove and Maxfield Research and Consulting.
Number of Employees
Totals
EMPLOYMENT TRENDS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 75
• Other employers in Cottage Grove with 500 or more employees, as of 2024, include 3M
(653 employees), Hy-Vee (650 employees) and Up North Plastics (710 employees).
• Among the ten largest employers in Cottage Grove, the manufacturing industry represented
the largest employment sector with 40% of all major employers followed by the retail sector
with 30% of all major employers.
2,828
1,600
751
700
540
280
278
189
163
164
2,983
1,610
653
650
710
280
318
208
163
149
01002003004005006007008009001,0001,1001,2001,3001,4001,5001,6001,7001,8001,9002,0002,1002,2002,3002,4002,5002,6002,7002,8002,9003,000Ind. School District 833
Renewal by Anderson
3M
Hy-Vee
Up North Plastics
City of Cottage Grove
Walmart
Van Meter
ADCM
Menards
Number of EmployeesMajor EmployerNumber of Employees: City of Cottage Grove, 2023 & 2024
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 76
Introduction
Maxfield Research and Consulting identified and surveyed larger rental properties of 20 or
more units in Cottage Grove and the other communities in the Primary Market Area. In addi-
tion, interviews were conducted with real estate agents, developers, rental housing manage-
ment firms and others in the community familiar with Cottage Grove’s rental housing stock.
For the analysis, we classify rental properties into two groups, general occupancy and senior
(age restricted). All senior properties are included in the Senior Rental Analysis section of this
report. The general occupancy rental properties are divided into three groups, market rate
(those without income restrictions), affordable (those with income restrictions, with incomes
between 50% and 80% of AMI) and subsidized (those with income restrictions based an ad-
justed household income of 50% or less of AMI).
Rental Market Overview
Table R-1 shows average monthly rents and vacancy from 2nd Quarter 2023 and 2nd Quarter
2024 by unit type in Cottage Grove and its neighboring communities. Data is from Marquette
Advisors, Inc., which compiles apartment trends quarterly, with 2nd Quarter 2024 being the
most recent information available.
While Cottage Grove has its own employment base that drives housing demand, its housing
growth is also tied to the health of the Twin Cities Metro Area as a whole. Table R-1 provides
average monthly rents and vacancy as a comparison.
• Average monthly rents, as of the 2nd Quarter of 2024, in Cottage Grove/Newport/St. Paul
Park, were $725 for studio units, $1,248 for one-bedroom units, $1,312 for two-bedroom
units and $2,091 for three-bedroom units. Overall, the average monthly rent was $1,474,
which was a 5.1% increase over the previous year.
• The properties included in the survey are newer and older. The Apartment Trends Report
does not separate newer from older properties in each submarket. The average rents
shown in Table R-1 are less what the newest properties are achieving.
• The overall vacancy rate in Cottage Grove/Newport/St. Paul Park was 9.8%. Vacancy rates
above 5% indicate a potential oversupply or softness in the rental market, although a va-
cancy rate above 5% does not necessarily indicate that more units cannot be supported.
The overall Metro Area vacancy rate was 4.5%, just below market equilibrium.
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 77
• Cottage Grove/Newport/St. Paul Park’s 1st Quarter 2024 overall rent was 1.1% lower than
the overall Metro Area ($1,490). In addition, Cottage Grove/Newport/St. Paul Park’s 1st
Quarter 2024 rent was lower than its neighboring communities of Woodbury/Lake Elmo
($1,824).
1 BR 2 BR 3 BR/D Average
Total Studio 1 BR w/ Den 2 BR w/ Den 3 BR or 4BR PH Increase
Units 908 2 294 --363 --249 -- -- --
No. Vacant 82 0 56 --19 --7 -- -- --
Avg. Rent $1,405 $789 $1,107 --$1,188 --$2,079 -- --14.7%
Vacancy 9.0%0.0% 19.0%--5.2%--2.8%-- --6.9%
Units 1,082 5 395 --421 --261 -- -- --
No. Vacant 102 0 59 --29 --14 -- -- --
Avg. Rent $1,481 $725 $1,250 --$1,318 --$2,108 -- --5.4%
Vacancy 9.4%0.0% 14.9%--6.9%--5.4%-- --0.4%
Units 4,163 43 1,222 195 2,140 78 485 -- -- --
No. Vacant 127 3 39 3 78 1 3 -- -- --
Avg. Rent $1,747 $1,381 $1,497 $1,544 $1,803 $1,958 $2,206 -- --3.1%
Vacancy 3.1%7.0% 3.2% 1.5% 3.6% 1.3% 0.6%-- ---1.0%
Units 4,340 43 1,302 195 2,226 78 496 -- -- --
No. Vacant 99 3 36 0 55 3 2 -- -- --
Avg. Rent $1,829 $1,319 $1,523 $1,556 $1,941 $1,939 $2,263 -- --4.7%
Vacancy 2.3%7.0% 2.8% 0.0% 2.5% 3.8% 0.4%-- ---0.8%
Units 176,726 13,429 78,967 3,728 69,437 1,807 8,950 408 -- --
No. Vacant 7,296 794 3,453 76 2,612 65 265 31 -- --
Avg. Rent $1,458 $1,194 $1,291 $1,614 $1,600 $2,184 $1,944 $3,008 --4.4%
Vacancy 4.1%5.9% 4.4% 2.0% 3.8% 3.6% 3.0% 7.6%--0.1%
Units 186,603 14,661 83,958 3,699 72,134 1,806 9,883 462 -- --
No. Vacant 7,365 715 3,614 51 2,654 41 273 17 -- --
Avg. Rent $1,500 $1,251 $1,334 $1,626 $1,634 $2,217 $2,076 $2,737 --2.9%
Vacancy 3.9%4.9% 4.3% 1.4% 3.7% 2.3% 2.8% 3.7%---0.2%
Sources: Marquette Advisors; Maxfield Research & Consulting.
Twin Cities Metro Area
Q2/2024Q2/2023TABLE R-1
AVERAGE RENTS/VACANCIES TRENDS
COTTAGE GRVE AND NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES
2ND QUARTER 2023 & 2ND QUARTER 2024
Cottage Grove/Newport/St. Paul Park
Q2/2023Q2/2024Woodbury/Lake Elmo
Q2/2023Q2/2024
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 78
$1,474$725$1,248$1,312$0$2,091$0$1,824$1,315$1,521$1,556$1,934$1,933$2,257$0$1,490$1,237$1,324$1,621$1,624$2,193$2,062$2,728$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
$2,000
$2,200
$2,400
$2,600
$2,800
$3,000
Total Studio 1 BR 1BR w/ Den 2 BR 2BR w/ Den 3 BR 3BR/D or
4BRAverage RentUnit Type
Average Rent by Unit Type, 2nd Quarter 2024
Cottage Grove/Newport/St. Paul Park
Woodbury/Lake Elmo
Metro Area
9.8%0.0%16.7%0.0%6.9%0.0%4.2%0.0%4.9%7.0%5.8%0.0%5.2%3.8%2.8%0.0%4.5%6.0%4.9%1.5%4.1%3.0%3.5%4.3%0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
8.0%
9.0%
10.0%
11.0%
12.0%
13.0%
14.0%
15.0%
16.0%
17.0%
18.0%
Total Studio 1 BR 1BR w/ Den 2 BR 2BR w/ Den 3 BR 3BR/D or 4BRVacancy RateUnit Type
Vacancy Rates by Unit Type, 1st Quarter 2024
Cottage Grove/Newport/St. Paul Park
Woodbury/Lake Elmo
Metro Area
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 79
General Occupancy Rental Properties
Our research of the Cottage Grove PMA’s general occupancy rental market includes a survey of
57 rental properties including 41 market rate communities, 15 affordable communities and one
subsidized property as of July and August 2024. Table R-2 shows a summary of the rental prop-
erties by their affordability (market rate, affordable, and subsidized.
These properties represent a combined total of 7,049 units, including 6,282 market rate units
(89.1%) of all units, 717 affordable units (10.2% of all units) and 50 subsidized units (0.7% of all
units).
At the time of the survey, including new construction units, which have not yet reached stabi-
lized occupancy, there were 378 vacant market rate units and 25 vacant affordable units. No
subsidized units were vacant. As a result, market rate general occupancy units had a vacancy
rate of 6.0%, affordable units had a vacancy rate of 3.5%, and subsidized units had no vacan-
cies. The overall vacancy rate in Cottage Grove for all property types was 5.7%. The overall sta-
bilized vacancy rate was only 2.5%, indicating pent-up demand for additional rental units. The
stabilized vacancy rate is lower than the industry standard of 5% vacancy for a balanced rental
market which promotes competitive rates, ensures adequate choice, and allows for unit turno-
ver.
Note that vacancies in the previous paragraph includes properties still in initial lease up. Exclud-
ing properties in initial lease up leaves an overall stabilized vacancy rate of 3.7% (322 vacan-
cies), below market equilibrium (5% vacancy rate). Market rate properties had a stabilized va-
cancy rate of 4.0% (322 vacancies) while affordable and subsidized units each had a vacancy
rate of 0% (no vacancies). As a result, all unit types have pent up demand.
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 80
Table R-2 below summarizes information on the PMA’s rental properties by type (market rate,
affordable and subsidized).
Total % of Avg. Avg. Avg. Rent/
Unit Type Units Total Size Low -High Rent Sq. Ft.
Studio 160 2.5% 532 $794 -$1,686 $1,243 $2.33
1BR 1,920 30.5% 733 $946 -$2,075 $1,418 $2.01
1BR+D 186 3.0% 922 $1,424 -$1,995 $1,720 $1.86
2BR 3,011 47.8% 1,074 $1,025 -$2,807 $1,757 $1.65
2BR+D 90 1.4% 1,250 $1,614 -$2,255 $1,933 $1.55
3BR 825 13.1% 1,429 $1,054 -$3,285 $2,328 $1.63
4BR 91 1.4% 2,186 $2,888 -$3,645 $3,514 $1.61
5BR 15 0.2% 2,865 $4,375 -$4,375 $4,375 $1.53
Total:6,298 100% 1,044 $794 -$4,375 $1,825 $1.80
Total % of Avg. Avg. Avg. Rent/
Unit Type Units Total Size Low -High Rent Sq. Ft.
Studio 7 0.9% 715 $424 -$755 $590 $0.86
1BR 164 20.9% 726 $757 -$1,213 $940 $1.33
2BR 360 45.9% 1,039 $824 -$1,559 $1,114 $1.11
3BR 242 30.8% 1,264 $477 -$1,944 $1,334 $1.08
4BR 12 1.5% 1,706 $2,194 -$2,194 $2,194 $1.31
Total:785 100% 1,017 $424 -$2,194 $1,166 $1.18
Total % of Avg. Avg. Avg. Rent/
Unit Type Units Total Size Low -High Rent Sq. Ft.
2BR 16 32.0% 882 N/A -N/A N/A N/A
3BR 30 60.0% 1,313 N/A -N/A N/A N/A
4BR 4 8.0% 1,625 N/A -N/A N/A N/A
Total:50 100% 1,200 N/A -N/A N/A N/A
Note: Only includes properties with complete information.
Range
Monthly Rents
Affordable
TABLE R-2
RENT SUMMARY
GENERAL OCCUPANCY RENTAL DEVELOPMENTS
COTTAGE GROVE PRIMARY MARKET AREA
SEPTEMBER 2024
Monthly Rents
Range
Market Rate
Subsidized
Monthly Rents
Range
N/A: Not Applicable
Source: Maxfield Research & Consulting
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 81
Market Rate
• Two-bedroom units account for most of the market rate units in the Cottage Grove PMA
(46.2%).
• The unit breakout by unit type is summarized below.
o Studio units: 150 | 2.5%
o One-bedroom units: 1,902 | 30.3%
o One-bedroom + den units: 186 | 3.0%
o Two-bedroom units: 2,969| 47.3%
o Two-bedroom + den units: 90 | 1.4%
o Three-bedroom units: 869 | 13.8%
o Four-bedroom units: 91 | 1.4%
o Five-bedroom units: 15| 0.2%
• The following are the monthly rent ranges and average rent for each unit type:
o Studio units: $794 to $1,686 | Avg. $1,243
o One-bedroom units: $946 to $2,075 | Avg. $1,418
o One-bedroom + den units: $1,424 to $1,995 | Avg. $1,720
o Two-bedroom units: $1,025 to $2,807 | Avg. $1,720
o Two-bedroom + den units: $1,614 to $2,255 | Avg. $1,933
o Three-bedroom units: $1,054 to $3,285| Avg. $2,301
o Four-bedroom units: $2,888 to $3,645 | Avg. $3,514
o Five-bedroom units: $4,375 | Avg. $4,375
• One-bedroom and two bedrooms units are the most common market rate unit types in the
Cottage Grove PMA and in Cottage Grove. One-bedroom and two-bedroom units in the
PMA account for 30.2% and 46.8%, respectively. In Cottage Grove, these proportions are
26% and 28%, respectively. Three-bedroom units however, account for the highest pro-
portion of market rate units at 38%, dissimilar to most other communities.
Avg Unit SF Avg Price/SF
Studio 532 2.33
1BR 729 1.96
1BR+D 922 1.86
2BR 1,076 1.65
2BR+D 1,250 1.55
3BR 1,415 1.62
4BR 2,186 1.61
5BR 2,865 1.53
Total-Avg 1,043 1.79
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 82
Affordable
• There are eleven affordable, income-restricted, projects in the Cottage Grove PMA. The
largest proportion were constructed in the 2000s (six properties). Only one property has
been built since 2020 in Hastings.
• Two-bedroom units constitute the largest share of units (50.2%). One-bedroom units ac-
count for 22.9%, three-bedroom units account for 24.3% and four-bedroom units account
for 1.7% of units. Below is the breakdown of the unit types by number and percent. 5387289221,0791,2501,4252,2012,865$1,262 $1,430
$1,720 $1,776 $1,933
$2,330
$3,415
$4,375
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
$4,500
$5,000
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
Studio 1BR 1BR+D 2BR 2BR+D 3BR 4BR 5BR Average RentAverage Square FeetPMA Market Rate Rental Properties -Avg SF/Rent
Avg SF Avg Rent
36.6%
7.3%
12.2%12.2%
14.6%
9.8%
7.3%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
2020s 2010s 2000s 1990s 1980s 1970s 1960sPercentage of Market Rate PropertiesDecade
Percentage of Market Rate Properties by Decade Built
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 83
o Studio units: 7 | 1.0%
o One-bedroom units: 164 | 36.5%
o Two-bedroom units: 360 | 50.2%
o Three-bedroom units: 174 | 24.3%
o Four-bedroom units: 12 | 1.7%
• The following are the monthly rent ranges and average rent for each unit type:
o Studio units: $424 to $755 | Avg. $590
o One-bedroom units: $757 to $1,213 | Avg. $940
o Two-bedroom units: $824 to $1,559 | Avg. $1,114
o Three-bedroom units: $477 to $1,944 | Avg. $1,355
o Four-bedroom units: $2,194 | Avg. $2,194
• Affordable rents per square foot by unit type are as follows:
Avg./SF Avg Size
Studio $0.86 715
1BR $1.33 726
2BR $1.11 1,039
3BR $1.07 1,288
4BR $1.31 1,706
• Of the 16 affordable rental properties, one was built in the 2020s, three in the 2010s, six in
the 2000s, three in the 1990s, two in the 1980s and one in the 1970s. The following graphs
display this information.
$590
$940
$1,114
$1,355
$2,194
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
Studio 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR Average RentAverage Square FeetPMA Affordable Rental Properties-August 2024
Avg SF Avg Rent
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 84
Subsidized
• There is one subsidized property in Cottage Grove with 50 units. Woodmount Townhomes
was built in 1980 but has been renovated. The property’s wait list is closed, but they
started accepting applications in September 2024 for households to be added to the wait
list.
• Three-bedroom units account for the largest share of the units at Woodmount Townhomes
(60% of the units). The smallest share of units are two-bedroom units.
• Average sizes are 882 square feet for two-bedroom units, three-bedroom units 1,313
square feet and four-bedroom units; 1,625 square feet.
Natural Occurring Affordable Housing (i.e. Unsubsidized Affordable)
Although affordable housing is typically associated with income restrictions, there are other
housing units in communities that indirectly provide affordable housing. Housing units that
were not developed or designated with income guidelines (i.e. assisted) yet are more afforda-
ble than other units in a community are considered “naturally occurring” or “unsubsidized af-
fordable” units. This rental supply is available through the private market, versus assisted hous-
ing programs through various government agencies. Property values on these units are lower
based on a combination of factors, such as: age of structure/housing stock, location, condition,
size, functionally obsolete, lack of contemporary amenities, etc.
0.0%
11.8%11.8%
17.6%
35.3%
17.6%
5.9%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s 2020sPercentage of Affordable PropertiesPercentage of Affordable Properties by Decade Built
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 85
According to the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, the privately unsubsi-
dized housing stock supplies three times as many low-cost affordable units than assisted pro-
jects nationwide. Unlike assisted rental developments, most unsubsidized affordable units are
scattered across small properties (one to four-unit structures) or in older multifamily structures.
Many of these older developments are vulnerable to redevelopment and upgrades due to their
age, modest rents, and deferred maintenance.
Because many of these properties have rents that are affordable, project-based, and private
housing markets cannot be easily separated. Some households may income-qualify for both
market rate and project-based affordable housing, although the gap is widening between mar-
ket rate and affordable properties as rents in the private market continue to rise. Therefore, it
is important to recognize the naturally occurring affordable housing stock to quantify the pro-
portion of units with rents that may be affordable to low and/or moderate-income renters. The
analysis does not identify the number of units that are rented to households with incomes at
those affordability levels as any tenant that financially qualifies may be able to rent at the prop-
erty.
Table R-3 illustrates monthly rents by unit type and household size as they relate to affordabil-
ity. Table R-4 presents a breakdown of all market rate general-occupancy rental properties by
household size and area median income (AMI). Table R-5 summarizes property data from Table
R-6 based on unit type and affordability. Note that not all properties are included due to rents
not being available for all properties. Furthermore, the NOAH tables feature market rate units
only and inclusionary units are excluded.
• Among the 673 market rate units in Cottage Grove that were inventoried by unit mix and
monthly rents, none are affordable to households with incomes at or less than 30% of AMI.
An estimated 16% are affordable to householders with incomes at 50% of AMI. An esti-
mated 39%% of units are affordable to households with incomes at 60% AMI while 46% are
affordable to households with incomes at 80% AMI.
• Many of the existing rental units in Cottage Grove, excluding single-family and townhome
rentals (owned units), are newer construction and therefore have higher income thresholds
needed to afford. Comparatively, older rental units have more affordable rents and a
higher proportion of households with moderate incomes are able to afford those units.
• With the limited number of units available at the various AMI thresholds, Cottage Grove
needs additional rental units, market rate and affordable to meet demand across the in-
come spectrum.
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 86
Unit Type1 Min Max Min. Max.Min. Max.Min. Max.Min. Max.Min. Max.Min. Max.
Studio 1 1 $653 -$653 $1,088 -$1,088 $1,305 -$1,305 $1,740 -$1,740 $2,175 -$2,175 $2,610 -$2,610
1BR 1 2 $653 -$746 $1,088 -$1,243 $1,305 -$1,491 $1,740 -$1,988 $2,175 -$2,485 $2,610 -$2,982
2BR 2 4 $746 -$932 $1,243 -$1,553 $1,491 -$1,863 $1,988 -$2,484 $2,485 -$3,105 $2,982 -$3,726
3BR 3 6 $839 -$1,081 $1,398 -$1,801 $1,677 -$2,162 $2,236 -$2,882 $2,795 -$3,603 $3,354 -$4,323
4BR 4 8 $932 -$1,230 $1,553 -$2,050 $1,863 -$2,460 $2,484 -$3,280 $3,105 -$4,100 $3,726 -$4,920
120%
1 One-bedroom plus den and two-bedroom plus den units are classified as 1BR and 2BR units, respectively. To be classified as a bedroom, a den must have a window and
closet.
Note: 4-person Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI HUD Metro FMR Area AMI is $124,200 (2024)
Sources: HUD, MHFA, Novogradac, Maxfield Research and Consulting
TABLE R-3
MAXIMUM RENT BASED ON HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND AREA MEDIAN INCOME
MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL-BLOOMINGTON MN-WI HUD METRO FMR AREA 2024 (EFFECTIVE 4/01/2024)
Maximum Rent Based on Household Size (@30% of Income)
HHD Size 30%50%60%80%100%
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 87
• Of market rate units affordable at 60% of AMI, 51.1% are two-bedroom units, 43.4% are
one-bedroom units, 4.4% are studio units, and 1.1% are three-bedroom units.
• At 50% of AMI, 36.9% of market rate units are two-bedroom units, 55.1% are one-bedroom
units, 6.3% are studio units and 1.7% are three-bedroom units.
Total
Unit Type/Project Name Units Min Max 30% 50% 60% 80% 100% 120%
Studio
The Aurilla 12 $1,365 -$1,550 $54,600 -$62,000 -- -- --12 -- --
Grove80 Apartments 31 $1,375 -$1,450 $55,000 -$58,000 -- -- --31 -- --
Total/ Average 43 0 0 0 43 0 0
One-Bedroom 30% 50% 60% 80% 100% 120%
The Aurilla 86 $1,565 -$1,730 $62,600 -$69,200 -- -- --86 -- --
The View 1 $1,595 -$1,595 $63,800 -$63,800 -- -- --1 -- --
Grove80 Apartments 47 $1,645 -$1,725 $65,800 -$69,000 -- -- --47 -- --
Hinton Heights 40 $1,413 -$1,413 $56,520 -$56,520 -- --40 -- -- --
Grove Ridge 18 $1,195 -$1,195 $47,800 -$47,800 --18 -- -- -- --
Total/ Average 192 0 18 40 134 0 0
Two-Bedroom 30% 50% 60% 80% 100% 120%
The Aurilla 58 $1,875 -$2,420 $75,000 -$96,800 -- -- --58 -- --
The View 15 $1,895 -$1,895 $75,800 -$75,800 -- -- --15 -- --
Grove80 Apartments 35 $1,845 -$2,065 $73,800 -$82,600 -- --10 25 -- --
Hinton Heights 78 $1,569 -$1,569 $62,760 -$62,760 -- --78 -- -- --
Grove Ridge 42 $1,335 -$1,435 $53,400 -$57,400 --42 -- -- -- --
Total/ Average 228 0 42 88 98 0 0
Three Bedroom 30% 50% 60% 80% 100% 120%
The Aurilla 12 $2,400 -$2,550 $96,000 -$102,000 -- -- --12 -- --
The View 15 $2,395 -$2,395 $95,800 -$95,800 -- -- --15 -- --
Grove80 Apartments 4 $2,525 -$2,525 $101,000 -$101,000 -- -- --4 -- --
Hinton Heights 131 $1,914 -$1,924 $76,560 -$76,960 -- --131 -- -- --
Cottage Grove Estates 24 $1,385 -$1,435 $55,400 -$57,400 --24 -- -- -- --
Grove Ridge 24 $1,580 -$1,580 $63,200 -$63,200 --24 -- -- -- --
Total/ Average 210 0 48 131 31 0 0
Total/ Average 673 0 108 259 306 0 0
1 Based on a 30% allocation of income to housing for general-occupancy. Senior housing is excluded from the calculation.
Source: Maxfield Research and Consulting
2 Market rate housing that has rents that could be classified as "unsubsidized affordable" units based on the monthly rents and adjusted for household size.
Note: Plus den units are categorized by their number of bedrooms. For example one-bedroom plus den units would be classified as one bedroom units and two-
bedroom plus den units would be classified as two-bedroom units. One, two, and three bedroom townhomes are also categorized in their respective categories ie.
three bedroom townhomes are classified as three bedroom units. Note both numeric mix and rents must be included to be in table.
TABLE R-4
MULTIFAMILY MARKET RATE RENTAL DEVELOPMENTS
ASSESSMENT OF MARKET RATE RENTAL HOUSING BY AFFORDABILITY CALCULATION
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE
AUGUST 2024
Rent Range Min. Income Units that are Market Rate Affordability by AMI2
Needed to Afford1
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 88
Unit Type 30% 50% 60% 80% 100% 120%
STUDIO 0 0 0 43 0 0
1 BR 0 18 40 134 0 0
2 BR 0 42 88 98 0 0
3 BR 0 48 131 31 0 0
Subtotal 0 108 259 306 0 0
Pct. Of Total 0.0% 16.0% 38.5% 45.5% 0.0% 0.0%
Pct. Of Affordability Category
STUDIO 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.1% 0.0% 0.0%
1 BR 0.0% 16.7% 15.4% 43.8% 0.0% 0.0%
2 BR 0.0% 38.9% 34.0% 32.0% 0.0% 0.0%
3 BR 0.0% 44.4% 50.6% 10.1% 0.0% 0.0%
Note: Excludes single-family rentals, which are considered separately.
Source: Maxfield Research and Consulting
TABLE R-5
Market Rate Affordability by AMI
AUGUST 2024
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE
MULTIFAMILY MARKET RATE RENTAL PROPERTIES
NATURAL OCCURRING SUMMARY
0
108
259
306
0 00
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
30%50%60%80%100%120%Number of UnitsMarket Affordability by AMI
Naturally Occuring Housing by Area Median Income:
City of Cottage Grove
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 89
Select Newer Rental Developments
Grove 80 (Cottage Grove) The Aurilla (Cottage Grove)
The View (Cottage Grove) Lake Isabel Flats (Hastings)
Meridian at City Place (Woodbury) The Edison at Woodbury (Woodbury)
Canvas St. Croix (Woodbury) Beyond Woodbury (Woodbury)
RENTAL MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 90
Select Older Rental Developments
Hinton Heights (Cottage Grove) Eagle Pointe Apartments (Hastings)
The Barrington (Woodbury) Cottage Grove Estates (Cottage Grove)
Valley Creek Apts (Woodbury) Newport Ponds (Newport)
Valley Manor Apts (Hastings) Grove Ridge Apts (Cottage Grove)
SENIOR HOUSING ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 91
Introduction
This section provides an assessment of the market support for senior housing (active adult, in-
dependent living, assisted living and memory care) in the Primary Market Area. An overview of
the demographic and economic characteristics of the senior population in Cottage Grove, the
PMA Remainder, PMA and Twin Cities Metro is presented along with an inventory of existing
senior housing developments in the PMA. Demand for senior housing is calculated based on
demographic, economic and competitive factors that would impact demand for additional sen-
ior housing units in the city. Our assessment concludes with an estimation of the proportion of
city demand that could be captured by senior housing communities in Cottage Grove.
Senior Housing Defined
Senior housing is a concept that generally refers to the integrated delivery of housing and
services to seniors. However, as Figure 1 illustrates, senior housing embodies a wide variety of
product types across the service-delivery spectrum.
Products range from independent apartments and/or townhomes with virtually no services on
one end, to highly specialized, service-intensive assisted living units or housing geared for
people with dementia-related illnesses (termed "memory care") on the other end of the
spectrum.
In general, independent senior housing attracts people 65 and older while assisted living
typically attracts people 80 and older who need assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs).
For analytical purposes, Maxfield Research and Consulting classifies senior housing into five
primary categories based on the level and type of services offered as described in the following
figure.
FIGURE 1
CONTINUUM OF HOUSING AND SERVICES FOR SENIORS
Single-family
Home
Townhome or
Apartment
Independent Living
Apartments w/
Optional Services
Assisted Living Skilled Nursing
Active Adult
Age-Restricted Townhomes,
Apartments, Condos,
Cooperatives
Independent Living
Apartments w/
Intensive Services Memory Care
FULLY
INDEPENDENT
LIFESTYLE
FULLY OR
HIGHLY
DEPENDENT
SENIOR HOUSING ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 92
• Active Adult properties (or independent living without services available) are similar to a
general-occupancy building, in that they offer virtually no services but have age-restrictions
(typically 55 or 62 or older). Residents are generally age 70 or older if in an apartment-style
building. Organized entertainment, activities and occasionally a transportation program
represent the extent of services typically available at these properties. Because of the lack
of services, active adult properties generally do not command the rent premiums of more
service-enriched senior housing. Active adult properties can have a rental or owner-occu-
pied (condominium or cooperative) format.
• Independent Living properties (or independent living with services available) offer support
services such as meals and/or housekeeping, either on an optional basis or a limited
amount included in the rents. These properties often dedicate a larger share of the overall
building area to common areas, in part, because the units are smaller than in adult housing
and in part to encourage socialization among residents. Independent living properties at-
tract a slightly older target market than adult housing, typically seniors 75 or older. Rents
are also above those of the active adult buildings. Sponsorship by a nursing home, hospital
or other health care organization is common.
• Assisted Living properties come in a variety of forms, but the target market for most is gen-
erally the same: very frail seniors, typically age 80 or older (but can be much younger, de-
pending on their particular health situation), who need extensive support services and per-
sonal care assistance. Absent an assisted living option, these seniors would otherwise need
to move to a nursing facility. At a minimum, assisted living properties include two meals per
day and weekly housekeeping in the monthly fee, with the availability of a third meal and
personal care (either included in the monthly fee or for an additional cost). Assisted living
properties also have either staff on duty 24 hours per day or at least 24-hour emergency re-
sponse.
• Memory Care properties, designed specifically for persons suffering from Alzheimer’s dis-
ease or other dementias, is one of the newest trends in senior housing. Properties consist
mostly of suite-style or studio units or occasionally one-bedroom apartment-style units, and
large amounts of communal areas for activities and programming. In addition, staff typi-
cally undergoes specialized training in the care of this population. Because of the greater
amount of individualized personal care required by residents, staffing ratios are much
higher than traditional assisted living and thus, the costs of care are also higher. Unlike con-
ventional assisted living, however, which addresses housing needs almost exclusively for
widows or widowers, a higher proportion of persons afflicted with Alzheimer’s disease are
in two-person households. That means the decision to move a spouse into a memory care
facility involves the caregiver’s concern of incurring the costs of health care at a special facil-
ity while continuing to maintain their home.
SENIOR HOUSING ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 93
• Skilled Nursing Care, or long-term care facilities, provides a living arrangement that inte-
grates shelter and food with medical, nursing, psychosocial and rehabilitation services for
persons who require 24-hour nursing supervision. Residents in skilled nursing homes can be
funded under Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans, HMOs, and private insurance as well as use of
private funds.
Older Adult (Age 55+) Population and Household Trends
The Demographic Analysis section of this study presented general demographic characteristics
of the PMA’s population in comparison to the PMA Remainder, PMA and the Seven County
Metro Area. The following points summarize key findings from that section as they pertain to
the older adult population in the Market Area and Seven County Metro. Table SN-1 shows the
older adult and senior population and households from 2010 to 2029.
• Between 2010 and 2020, one of the fastest growing populations in the PMA was those be-
tween the ages of 70 and 74, which experienced an 81.3% increase in population, an addi-
tion of 5,637 people. Cottage Grove and the Metro Area also experienced significant
growth in this age group with increases of 68.8% (1,797 people) and 83.0% (135,656 peo-
ple), respectively of the population between 65 to 74 increased between 2010 and 2020.
• Between 2020 and 2029, the fastest population growth in the PMA is projected to be in
those between the ages of 75 and 84, which are forecast to experience a 54.6% increase in
population, an addition of 3,288 people. Over the same period, Cottage Grove and the
Metro Area are forecast to experience increases of where 23.9% (609 people) and 29.5%
(41,802 people), respectively of the population between 75 and 84 years.
SENIOR HOUSING ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 94
H Historic Current Estimate Forecast
Age 2010 2020 2024 2029
55 to 64 14,590 18,979 19,170 18,511 4,389 30.1% -468 -2.5%
65 to 69 4,014 7,023 7,973 8,888 3,009 75.0% 1,865 26.6%
70 to 74 2,919 5,547 6,230 7,384 2,628 90.0% 1,837 33.1%
75 to 79 2,318 3,610 4,584 5,495 1,292 55.7% 1,885 52.2%
80 to 84 1,597 2,410 2,820 3,813 813 50.9% 1,403 58.2%
85 + 1,366 2,539 2,774 3,291 1,173 85.9% 752 29.6%
Total 55+26,804 40,108 43,551 47,382 13,304 49.6% 7,274 18.1%
Total 65+12,214 21,129 24,381 28,871 8,915 73.0% 7,742 36.6%
Total 75+5,281 8,559 10,178 12,599 3,278 62.1% 4,040 47.2%
Tot. Pop.129,462 147,520 157,100 166,644 18,058 13.9% 19,124 13.0%
Age 2010 2020 2024 2029
55 to 64 8,109 10,742 10,871 10,366 2,633 32.5% -376 -3.5%
65 to 74 6,809 7,419 8,375 9,476 610 9.0% 2,057 27.7%
75+ 6,336 5,451 6,478 7,916 -885 -14.0% 2,465 45.2%
Total 55+21,254 23,612 25,724 27,758 2,358 11.1% 4,146 17.6%
Total 65+13,145 12,870 14,853 17,392 -275 -2.1% 4,522 35.1%
Total 75+6,336 5,451 6,478 7,916 -885 -14.0% 2,465 45.2%
Tot. HH 47,101 53,802 57,700 59,500 1,198 2.5% 5,698 10.6%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; ESRI; Maxfield Research and Consulting
2010-2020 2020-2029
Change
POPULATION
2010-2020 2020-2029
HOUSEHOLDS
TABLE SN-1
OLDER ADULT (55+) POPULATION & HOUSEHOLD AGE DISTRIBUTION
PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2010 to 2029
SENIOR HOUSING ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 95
• The primary market for service-enhanced housing is senior households age 75 and older.
While individuals in their 50s and 60s typically do not comprise the market base for service-
enhanced senior housing, they often have elderly parents to whom they provide support
when they decide to relocate to senior housing. Since elderly parents typically prefer to be
near their adult caregivers, growth in the older adult age cohort (age 55 to 64) generally re-
sults in additional demand for senior housing products.
• Homeownership information lends insight into the number of households that may still
have homes to sell and could potentially supplement their incomes from the sales of their
homes to support monthly fees for alternative housing.
• The PMA maintains high rates of homeownership in the older adult age cohorts. The home-
ownership rate as of 2024 is 85.4% for households 55 to 64. Seniors typically begin to con-
sider moving into senior housing alternatives or more convenient housing such as apart-
ment buildings or twin homes in their early to mid-70s. This movement pattern is demon-
strated by the drop in homeownership between the 65 to 74 age cohort (90.4) and the 75+
age cohort (75.1%).
26,804
40,108
43,551
47,382
12,214
21,129
24,381
28,871
5,281 8,559 10,178 12,599
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
2010 2020 2024 2029Number of PeopleProjected Older Adult and Senior PMA Pop. Growth
2010-2029
55 to 64 65 to 74 75+
SENIOR HOUSING ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 96
• With a homeownership rate of 84.7% for all Cottage Grove PMA households over the age of
65, many residents would be able to use proceeds from the sales of their homes toward
senior housing alternatives. The resale of single-family homes would allow additional senior
households to qualify for market rate housing products, since equity from the home sale
could be used as supplemental income for alternative housing. These considerations are
factored into our demand calculations.
A map on the following page, created with ESRI data, displays the percentage of 65 and older
population by census block group in Cottage Grove and neighboring communities in 2023 (lat-
est available data). Percentage categories for those 65 and older are as follows: under 5%; 10%
to 14.99%; 15% to 19.99%; 20% to 24.99%; and 25% or more. Areas of Cottage Grove with the
highest percentage of those 65 and older are in the southern portion of the City, including
Lower Grey Cloud Island and in the central portion of the City paralleling US Highway
91.9%97.3%
77.7%79.9%
85.4%
71.0%
85.4%90.4%
74.1%
88.5%87.5%
73.7%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
55-64 65-74 75+Percentage Owner HouseholdsPercent Owner Households
2024
Cottage Grove PMA Remainder PMA Metro Area
SENIOR HOUSING ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 97
Supply of Senior Housing
Table SN-2 provides summary information on number of units, average unit size, average rent
and price per square foot by service level in Cottage Grove and the surrounding PMA. The fol-
lowing paragraphs discuss the number of units in the PMA, the number of units in Cottage
Grove and current vacancies.
• Maxfield Research identified 13 senior housing developments in the PMA. Several proper-
ties provide for a continuum of care while others offer only one service level. Combined,
these properties contain a total of 2,126 senior housing units. Of those 2,126 units, 1,398
units (65.8%) are market rate and 728 (34.2%) are either shallow-subsidy or deep-subsidy
units.
• Based on the survey, 61.4% of the units provide service-enhanced housing, for a total of
1,305 units. These include 471 independent living units, 462 assisted living units and 372
memory care units. The remaining 38.6% (805 units) are active adult, including 728 afforda-
ble (deep- and shallow-subsidy), 4 market rate rental and 73 cooperative/ownership units.
Of the 2,126 senior housing units, 90 are currently vacant, representing a 4.2% vacancy
rate. Vacancy rates of 5% for independent living and 7% for assisted living and memory
care are considered equilibrium for service-enriched housing.
• Market rate active adult units are 0.0% vacant and affordable active adult properties are
2.0% vacant. As such, the current vacancy rates indicate that the market rate active adult
market is significantly undersupplied and the affordable active adult market is somewhat
undersupplied.
• The affordable active adult properties are predominantly shallow-subsidy properties with
rent levels set at between 50% and 60% of AMI. A small portion of units are deep-subsidy
where residents pay 30% of their income toward their housing costs and must qualify with
an adjusted annual gross income of no greater than 50% of AMI.
• Cottage Grove has two age-restricted senior properties that have income-restricted units:
Legends of Cottage Grove (2017) and Cottages of Cottage Grove (1993). Vacancies are very
low at both of these properties.
SENIOR HOUSING ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 98
• The Cottages of Cottage Grove is the only property with market rate active adult rental
units. The development, as mentioned in the previous bullet point, is mixed income. Of the
59 total units, only four units are market rate. Applewood Pointe of Woodbury is the only
cooperative senior living property in the PMA with 73 units.
No of Avg Avg Rent/
Unit Type Units SF Rent SF
2BR 2 960 $1,354 -$1,354 $1,354 $1.41
3BR 2 1,000 $1,577 -$1,577 $1,577 $1.58
Total/Avg 4 980 $1,354 -$1,577 $1,466 $1.50
1BR+Den 3 1,059 $1,485 -$3,110 $2,243 $2.12
2BR 59 1,301 $2,265 -$3,705 $3,283 $2.52
2BR+Den 11 1,303 $2,690 -$4,570 $3,680 $2.82
Total/Avg 73 1,024 $1,485 -$4,570 $3,007 $2.94
1BR 188 750 $1,485 -$3,110 $2,243 $2.99
1BR+Den 118 1,069 $2,265 -$3,705 $3,283 $3.07
2BR 165 1,303 $2,690 -$4,570 $3,680 $2.82
Total/Avg 471 1,024 $1,485 -$4,570 $3,007 $2.94
Studio 117 448 $2,525 -$4,150 $3,123 $6.97
1BR 261 633 $2,800 -$5,195 $3,818 $6.03
1BR+Den 40 842 $4,310 -$5,075 $4,779 $5.68
2BR 44 990 $3,250 -$5,510 $5,032 $5.08
Total/Avg 462 637 $2,525 -$5,510 $3,836 $6.02
Studio 234 355 $3,590 -$9,900 $5,759 $16.22
1BR 105 445 $4,250 -$10,210 $3,553 $7.98
2BR 6 725 $5,905 -$10,450 $8,575 $11.83
Total/Avg 345 389 $3,590 -$10,450 $5,136 $13.20
Source: Maxfield Research and Consulting
Price Range
Assisted Living
Memory Care
TABLE SN-2
PMA MARKET RATE SENIOR HOUSING UNITS BY SERVICE LEVEL
COTTAGE GROVE PRIMARY MARKET AREA
August 2024
Adult Rental
Adult Ownership
Independent Living
SENIOR HOUSING ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 99
• There are six independent living properties with services available, totaling 471 independ-
ent living units in the PMA, 10 of which are vacant (2.1% vacancy rate). Independent living
with services available units have rents that range from a low of $1,485 for a one-bedroom
unit to a high of $4,570 for a two-bedroom unit.
• There are nine assisted living properties in the PMA with a total of 462 units, 46 of which
were vacant for a vacancy rate of 9.9%. Assisted living properties generally include three
meals per day, snacks, housekeeping, linen and laundry service, and emergency call sys-
tems. Fees for service care level packages are in addition to the base monthly fee.
• There are 10 facilities providing 372 memory care units in the PMA with 19 units vacant for
a vacancy rate of 5.1%. One facility provides all-inclusive pricing while the others require
service care packages in addition to the base monthly fee.
• Pending senior developments can be found later in the report in the Pending Developments
section.
SENIOR HOUSING ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 100
Select Senior Developments
Norris Square (Cottage Grove) White Pine AL/MC (Cottage Grove)
Legends of Cottage Grove (Cottage Grove) Talamore Senior Living (Woodbury)
Prelude Memory Care (Woodbury) Red Rock Manor (Newport)
The Quill (Hastings) St. Therese of Woodbury (Woodbury)
FOR-SALE MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 101
Introduction
Maxfield Research and Consulting analyzed the for-sale housing market in Cottage Grove and
the larger Market Area, by collecting data on single-family and multifamily home sales and ac-
tive listings and pending for-sale developments.
Home Resales in PMA
Table FS-1 presents closed resale data for Cottage Grove, the PMA Remainder, PMA and the
Seven County Metro from 2010 through 2023. Table FS-2 presents median resale prices during
that same period for the same four geographies. The data was obtained from the Greater Mpls
Area Association of Realtors. The following are key points.
Closed Sales
• Between 2010 and 2023, there has been an average of 646 home sales per year in Cottage
Grove and 2,514 in the PMA. Sales averaged 768 per year from 2020 through 2023 in Cot-
tage Grove and 2,738 per year in the PMA. Earlier, from 2010 through 2019, there were an
average of 597 sales per year in Cottage Grove and 2,424 in the PMA.
• The number of closed sales from 2010 through 2023 in Cottage Grove represented one-
quarter (25.7%) of all sales in the PMA and 1.4% of all sales in the Seven County Metro.
• During 2023, there were 615 closed sales in Cottage Grove, down 24.4% from 808 closed
sales in 2022. Similarly, from 2022 through 2023, closed sales were down 19.0% and 17.5%,
in the PMA remainder and PMA, respectively. In the Seven County Metro, closed sales were
down 17.5% during the same period.
Year Cottage Grove PMA Remainder PMA Seven County Metro
2010 419 1,277 1,696 33,134
2011 439 1,419 1,858 36,194
2012 558 1,588 2,147 42,594
2013 540 1,876 2,419 46,145
2014 538 1,687 2,227 42,965
2015 631 1,914 2,545 48,750
2016 681 2,054 2,740 51,741
2017 683 2,121 2,805 51,745
2018 675 2,107 2,783 50,046
2019 803 2,217 3,022 50,518
2020 813 2,282 3,100 54,085
2021 834 2,284 3,115 55,922
2022 808 1,805 2,617 45,298
2023 615 1,507 2,121 37,389
Source: InfoSparks & Maxfield Research and Consulting.
COTTAGE GROVE, PMA REMAINDER, PMA, & SEVEN COUNTY METRO
TABLE FS-1
CLOSED RESALES
2010 - 2023
FOR-SALE MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 102
Median Resale Prices
• The median resale price declined 8.6% in Cottage Grove and 9.5% between 2010 and 2011
at the trough of the real estate market. Between 2011 and 2022, the City has experienced
median resale increases every year equating to an overall 94.5% increase (8.7% annually).
• Except the period 2022 through 2023 (1.4% decrease), Cottage Grove has experienced me-
dian resale price increases every year. Throughout the PMA, since 2011, the PMA experi-
enced median resale price increases every year (7.4% annual increase).
• The PMA Remainder and Seven County Metro Area experienced annual median resale price
increases of 7.1% and 9.7%, respectively between 2011 and 2023.
• In Cottage Grove, from 2010 through 2023, the median resale price was lowest in 2011 at
$160,000. Similarly, median resale prices were also the lowest in 2011 in the PMA Remain-
der ($177,900), the PMA ($171,500) and the Seven County Metro ($155,000).
• From 2022 through 2023, median resale prices increased in three of the four geographies.
The PMA’s median resale price increased 1.0% to $399,890 while the PMA Remainder and
Seven County Metro’s median resale prices increased 5.1% (to $368,000) and 7.7% (to
$370,000), respectively. By contrast, Cottage Grove’s median resale price decreased slightly
by 1.4% to $392,500.
Year Cottage Grove PMA Remainder PMA Seven County Metro
2010 $175,000 $199,900 $189,700 $175,000
2011 $160,000 $177,900 $171,750 $155,000
2012 $174,900 $199,000 $189,900 $172,000
2013 $194,000 $237,731 $220,000 $199,900
2014 $211,300 $247,500 $230,000 $213,000
2015 $222,000 $247,565 $235,000 $224,900
2016 $240,000 $258,050 $250,000 $237,200
2017 $250,000 $275,000 $262,000 $251,000
2018 $265,000 $290,000 $279,900 $270,000
2019 $290,000 $318,965 $309,900 $288,900
2020 $315,000 $339,900 $330,000 $312,146
2021 $355,245 $375,000 $367,000 $343,500
2022 $397,995 $395,000 $395,963 $365,115
2023 $392,500 $400,000 $399,890 $370,000
TABLE FS-2
MEDIAN RESALE PRICES
2010 - 2023
Source: InfoSparks & Maxfield Research and Consulting.
COTTAGE GROVE, PMA REMAINDER, PMA, & SEVEN COUNTY METRO
FOR-SALE MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 103
FOR-SALE MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 104
Current Supply of Homes on the Market
To examine the current market more closely for available owner-occupied housing in Cottage
Grove, we reviewed the current supply of homes on the market (listed for sale). Table FS-3
shows homes currently listed for sale in Cottage Grove and the Primary Market Area distributed
into eleven price ranges. The listings were obtained August 2024 from the Greater Mpls Area
Association of Realtors.
• As of August 2024, there were 141 homes listed for sale in Cottage Grove (96 SF and 45 MF)
and 484 homes listed for sale in the Primary Market Area (309 SF and 175 MF).
• The median list prices in Cottage Grove and the PMA, for single-family and multifamily
homes were $485,689 and $373,990, respectively. The median sale price is generally a
more accurate indicator of housing values in a community than the average sale price. Av-
erage sale prices can be easily skewed by a few very high-priced or low-priced home sales in
any given year, whereas the median sale price better represents the pricing of most homes
in a given market.
• The PMA’s average listed sales price of $509,873 was 9.2% more than Cottage Grove’s aver-
age listed sales price of $467,004.
Price Range No.Pct.No.Pct.
Under $100,000 1 0.7%1 0.2%
$100,000 to $199,999 0 0.0% 10 2.1%
$200,000 to $299,999 12 8.5% 63 13.0%
$300,000 to $399,999 42 29.8% 113 23.3%
$400,000 to $499,999 43 30.5% 84 17.4%
$500,000 to $599,999 23 16.3% 86 17.8%
$600,000 to $699,999 9 6.4% 51 10.5%
$700,000 to $799,999 5 3.5% 36 7.4%
$800,000 to $999,999 4 2.8% 17 3.5%
$900,000 to $999,999 0 0.0% 14 2.9%
$1,000,000 or More 2 1.4%9 1.9%
141 100% 484 100%
Minimum
Maximum
Median
Average
Sources: Greater Mpls Area Assoc of Realtors; Maxfield Research and
Consulting
Primary Market Area
$1,250,000
Cottage Grove
$467,004
$442,000
$3,200,000
$90,000
TABLE FS-3
HOMES CURRENTLY LISTED FOR-SALE
COTTAGE GROVE & PRIMARY MARKET AREA
August 2024
$90,000
$509,873
$474,398
Note: Includes single family, townhomes, twin homes, and condos
(Previously owned and completed new construction).
FOR-SALE MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 105
• As shown, 44% of homes in the PMA were priced at $500,000 or more compared to 31% of
homes in Cottage Grove.
• An estimated 69% of homes in Cottage Grove are priced between $200,000 and $500,000
while in the PMA, 54% of homes are priced in this same range.
• Based on a median list price of $442,000 for Cottage Grove, the income required to afford a
home at this price would be between $126,286 and $147,333; based on the standard of 3.0
to 3.5 times the median income (and assuming these households do not have a high level of
debt). A household with significantly more equity (in an existing home and/or savings)
could afford a higher priced home. An estimated 43% (42.8%) of Cottage Grove’s house-
holds have annual incomes at or above $131,274.
• Based on a median list price of $489,990 for the PMA, the income required to afford a home
at this price would be between $139,997 and $163,330; based on the standard of 3.0 to 3.5
times the median income (and assuming these households do not have a high level of debt).
A household with significantly more equity (in an existing home and/or savings) could afford
a higher priced home. About 38% (37.8%) of PMA households have annual incomes at or
above $139,997.
1 0
12
42 43
23
9 5 4 0 21
10
63
113
84 86
51
36
17 14 9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
Number of ListingsList Price
Cottage Grove and Primary Market Area Active Listings by Price, Aug 2024
Cottage Grove
Primary Market Area
FOR-SALE MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 106
• Most of the single-family and multifamily homes listed for sale in Cottage Grove are priced
between $300,000 and $399,999 (35.5%), $400,000 and $499,999 (23.2%), and $500,000
and $599,999 (16.7%). In the PMA, Most of the single-family and multifamily homes listed
for sale are also priced between $300,000 and $399,999 (27.5%), $500,000 and $599,999
(18.9%), $600,000 and $699,999 (15.4%), and $400,000 and $499,999 (14.9%).
Tables FS-4 shows homes currently listed for sale in Cottage Grove by property type while table
FS-5 does the same for the PMA. The listings were obtained May 22, 2024, from the RMLS.
• Of the 141 listings in Cottage Grove, 96 (68.1%) were single-family homes while 45 listings
(31.9%) were multifamily homes. In the PMA, of 484 listings, 309 were single family homes
(63.8%) while 175 listings were multifamily homes (36.2%).
• Townhomes (39.1%) and two story (37.1%) listings are the two most common housing types
in Cottage Grove, accounting for a combined 76.1% of all of listings. In contrast, throughout
the PMA, two story (38.0%) and townhomes (35.7%) listings are the two most common
property types accounting for a combined 73.7% of all active listings.
Avg. List Avg. Home Size Avg. Price Avg. Age
Property Type Listings Pct.Price Sq. Ft.Per Sq. Ft.of Home
One Story 11 8.0%$479,409 2,212 $217 1980
One and One Half Story 1 0.7%$380,000 2,193 $173 1945
Two-Story 55 39.9%$545,519 2,831 $193 2015
More than Two Stories 0 0.0%------ --
Two-Level Split 10 7.2%$391,450 2,077 $188 1983
Modified Two Story 6 4.3%$508,500 2,148 $237 1997
Three-Level Split 10 7.2%$452,258 1,943 $233 2003
Three or More 0 0.0%------ --
Four or More Level Split 3 2.2%$572,963 3,103 $185 1999
Total 96 69.6%$512,311 2,586 $198 2004
Townhouse 45 32.6%$378,606 1,864 $203 2017
Twin Home 0 0.0%------ --
Condominiums 0 0.0%------ --
Total 45 32.6%$378,808 1,864 $203 2017
Cottage Grove Totals 138 100.0%$459,458 2,300 $200 2009
Sources: RMLS & Maxfield Research and Consulting.
COTTAGE GROVE
TABLE FS-4
ACTIVE LISTINGS BY HOUSING TYPE
AUGUST 2024
Single-Family
Multifamily
FOR-SALE MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 107
• In Cottage Grove, the only multifamily housing type are townhomes. By comparison, town-
homes represent 35.7% of all listings, condominiums represent 1.2% of all listings and twin
homes represent 0.7% of all listings in the overall PMA.
• Listings for townhomes report the lowest average list price ($378,190) in Cottage Grove
while condominiums report the lowest average list price in the PMA ($244,240). Town-
homes report the lowest average square footage in Cottage Grove (1,864 square feet) while
condominiums report the lowest average square footage in the PMA (1,266 square feet).
• Listings for four or more level split homes report the highest average list price ($572,963) in
Cottage Grove while two story homes report the highest average list price in the PMA
($662,726). Four or more level split homes report the highest average square feet in Cot-
tage Grove (3,103 square feet) while more than two-story homes report the highest aver-
age square feet in the PMA (3,767 square feet).
Avg. List Avg. Home Size Avg. Price Avg. Age
Property Type Listings Pct.Price Sq. Ft.Per Sq. Ft.of Home
One Story 58 13.5%$558,998 2,362 $237 1997
One and One Half Story 5 1.2%$315,940 1,641 $193 1928
Two-Story 163 38.0%$662,726 3,214 $206 2012
More than Two Stories 2 0.5%$527,000 3,767 $140 1949
Two-Level Split 14 3.3%$385,386 1,994 $193 1982
Modified Two Story 5 1.2%$522,400 2,571 $203 1997
Three or More 0 0.0%------ --
Three-Level Split 14 3.3%$476,514 2,025 $235 2002
Four or More Level Split 7 1.6%$531,827 2,641 $201 1994
Total 268 62.5%$531,827 2,641 $201 1994
Townhouse 153 35.7%$378,190 1,879 $201 2011
Twin Home 3 0.7%$519,667 2,820 $184 2003
Condominiums 5 1.2%$244,240 1,266 $193 1989
Total 161 37.5%$376,804 1,787 $211 2018
PMA Totals 429 100.0%$517,773 2,486 $208 2013
Sources: Greater Mpls Area Assoc of Realtors; Maxfield Research and Consulting.
TABLE FS-5
ACTIVE LISTINGS BY HOUSING TYPE
PRIMARY MARKET AREA
August 2024
Single-Family
Multifamily
FOR-SALE MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 108
7.8%
0.7%
39.0%
7.1%
4.3%
0.0%
7.1%
0.0%
2.1%
31.9%
0.0%
0.0%
13.5%
1.2%
38.0%
3.3%
1.2%
0.5%
3.3%
0.0%
1.6%
35.7%
0.7%
1.2%
0.0%5.0%10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%40.0%45.0%
One story (SF)
One and one half story (SF)
Two-Story (SF)
Two-level split (SF)
Modified two-level (SF)
More than two stories (SF)
Three-level split (SF)
Three or More (SF)
Four or more level split (SF)
Townhouse (MF)
Twin Home (MF)
Condominiums (MF)
Percentage of ListingsHousing TypeActive Single and Multifamily Housing Types by Percentage, Aug 2024
Primary Market Area
Cottage Grove
$479,409$380,000$545,519$0$391,450$508,500$452,258$0$572,963$378,606$0$0$217
$173
$193
$0
$188
$237 $233
$0
$185
$203
$0 $0
$0
$25
$50
$75
$100
$125
$150
$175
$200
$225
$250
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
$450,000
$500,000
$550,000
$600,000
$650,000
Price Per Square FootAverage List PriceHousing Type
Cottage Grove Average Pricing by Housing Type, Aug 2024
Avg. List Price
Avg. List Price PSF
FOR-SALE MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 109
Maps of 2023 median and average home values by census block, created with ESRI data, across
Cottage Grove and neighboring communities are displayed on the following pages. Home value
categories for both maps are as follows: under $100,000; $100,000 to $199,999; $200,000 to
$299,999; $300,000 to $399,999; $400,000 to $499,999; and $500,000 and over. Median and
average home values in Cottage Grove are highest in the southern portion of the City. In addi-
tion, median and average home values are also higher in the far eastern and northern portions
of the City.$558,998$315,940$662,726$527,000$385,386$522,400$0$476,514$531,827$378,190$519,667$244,240$237
$193
$206
$140
$193
$203
$0
$235 $201
$201
$184 $193
$0
$25
$50
$75
$100
$125
$150
$175
$200
$225
$250
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
$450,000
$500,000
$550,000
$600,000
$650,000
$700,000
Price Per Square FootAverage List PriceHousing Type
Primary Market Area Average Pricing by Housing Type, Aug 2024
Avg. List Price
Avg. List Price PSF
FOR SALE MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 110
Cottage Grove Median Home Value by Block Group, 2023
FOR SALE MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 111
Cottage Grove Average Home Value by Block Group, 2023
FOR-SALE HOUSING ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 112
Owner-Occupied Turnover
Table FS-6 illustrates existing home turnover as a percentage of owner-occupied units in Cot-
tage Grove, the PMA and the Seven County Metro. Resales are based on historic transaction
volume between 2010 and 2024 as obtained from listings through the Greater Minneapolis
Area Association of Realtors. Owned housing units are sourced to the American Community
Survey.
As displayed in the table, an estimated 14.1% of Cottage Grove’s owner-occupied housing stock
is sold annually. The turnover rate in the PMA is 7.0% compared to 5.4% in the Seven County
Metro. Typically, the turnover rate for owned homes ranges from 3% at the low-end to 8% at
the high-end in many communities in the Midwest.
Owner-occupied Resales Turnover
Geography Housing Units1 Annual Avg.2 Pct.
Cottage Grove 4,570 646 14.1%
PMA 35,853 2,514 7.0%
Seven County Metro 860,790 46,180 5.4%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Mpls Area Assoc of Realtors, Maxfield Research and Consulting
TABLE FS-6
OWNER-OCCUPIED TURNOVER
COTTAGE GROVE, PMA, & SEVEN COUNTY METRO
2 Annual average of resales between 2010 and 2023.
1 Owner-occupied housing units in 2022 (based on American Community Survey 5-year
average (2018-2022) adjusted to 2022 by Maxfield Research.
FOR-SALE MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 113
School Districts
School districts have a direct impact on community home values. Nearly all of Cottage Grove is
included in the South Washington County School District (District 833) with a small sliver of
eastern and southeast Cottage Grove in the Hastings School District (District 200). The South
Washington County School District is bordered by the following school districts: Stillwater Area
(District 834), Hastings (District 200), Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan (District 196), Inver Grove
Heights (District 199), South St Paul (District 0006-03), Saint Paul (District 625), and North St.
Paul-Maplewood-Oakdale (District 622). Table FS-9 displays school rankings for high schools in
or near Cottage Grove. A map, following the text of this section, shows the City of Cottage
Grove, as well as nearby districts in Minnesota and Wisconsin.
• The South Washington County School District is home to three high schools, Woodbury High
School, East Ridge High School, and Park High School. Park High School, located in Cottage
Grove, serves most of the city, in addition to the City of City Paul Park. East Ridge High
School, located in Woodbury, serves the far northern portion of Cottage Grove, in addition
to the City of Newport and southern Woodbury. Woodbury High School only serves the City
of Woodbury.
• Of the two high schools in the South Washington County District servicing Cottage Grove
residents, East Ridge High School is ranked the 26th best high school in the state and 25th
best high school in the Metro Area according to the latest data available in an online study
published by US News and World Report. Nationally East Ridge High School is ranked 1,578
across all surveyed schools in the nation. Park High School is ranked the 164th best high
school in the state and 100th best high school in the Metro Area according to the latest data
available in an online study published by US News and World Report. Nationally Park High
School is ranked 8,981 across all surveyed schools in the nation.
• Hastings High School, in Hastings, serves a very small portion of far eastern and southeast-
ern Cottage Grove. Hastings High School is ranked the 69th best high school in the state and
63rd best high school in the Metro Area according to the latest data available in an online
study published by US News and World Report. Nationally Hastings High School is ranked
3,972 across all surveyed schools in the nation.
• Of the three high schools serving parts of Cottage Grove, East Ridge High School has the
highest college readiness score, 43.4, followed by Park High School at 24.3, and Hastings
High School at 22.0. The college readiness score is based on state and Advanced Placement
(AP) Testing.
• East Ridge High School and Hastings High School each had graduation rates of 94% while
Park High School had a graduation rate of 91%. The average graduation rate among the
fourteen schools analyzed was 93%, ranging from a low of 86% at Tartan Senior High School
in Oakdale, Minnesota to a high of 98% at Prescott High School in Prescott, Wisconsin.
FOR-SALE MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 114
• Of the three high schools serving parts of Cottage Grove, East Ridge High School had the
highest enrollment at 2,021 students followed by Park High School with 1,938 students, and
Hastings High School with 1,353 students. The average enrollment was 1,643 students
across the 14 schools.
• The student-teacher ratio of 43 students to every teacher at East Ridge High School and 35
students to every teacher at Park High School have the second and third highest student to
teacher ratios of all 14 surveyed schools. Only Woodbury High School, at 44 students for
every teacher, had a higher student to teacher ratio. Hastings High School had a student to
teacher ratio of 23 students to every teacher, below that of the average 25 to one student
to teacher ratios across all fourteen schools.
• Of the fourteen surveyed schools, Hudson High School, just across the St. Croix River in Wis-
consin was ranked the highest in national rankings at 913 in the nation. In Wisconsin, it was
the 20th best high school and in the Minneapolis Metro Area, the 13th best school.
FOR-SALE MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 115
High School Address National
Rankings
Statewide
Rankings
Minneapolis
Metro
Rankings
Grades
Served Enrollment Student
Teacher Ratio
College
Readiness*
Graduation
Rate
1 Hudson High School 1501 Vine St Hudson St Hudson, WI 913 20 13 9-12 1,783 16:1 55.9 96%
2 Eagan Senior High School 4185 Braddock Tr, Eagan, MN 922 13 14 9-12 2,171 20:1 45.3 95%
3 Woodbury High School 2665 Woodlane Dr Woodbury, MN 1,497 24 24 9-12 1,979 44:1 44.4 94%
4 East Ridge High School 4200 Pioneer Dr Woodbury, MN 1,578 26 25 9-12 2,021 43:1 43.4 94%
5 Two Rivers High School 1897 Delaware Ave, Mendota Heights, MN 1,780 30 28 9-12 1,479 19:1 32 88%
6 Stillwater High School 5701 Stillwater Blvd N, Oak Park Heights, MN 2,601 44 40 9-12 2,647 26:1 38.2 96%
7 Rosemount Senior High School 3335 142nd St W Rosemount, MN 2,743 48 44 9-12 2,425 19:1 41.7 91%
8 River Falls High School 818 Cemetary Rd River Falls, WI 2,767 82 46 9-12 1,112 17:1 22.5 96%
9 Prescott High School 1010 Dexter St Prescott, WI 3,362 108 59 9-12 430 14:1 27.5 98%
10 Hastings High School 200 General Sieben Dr Hastings, MN 3,972 69 63 9-12 1,353 23:1 22.0 94%
11 Tartan Senior High School 828 Greenway Ave N, Oakdale, MN 4,498 80 67 9-12 1,683 20:1 26.8 86%
12 South St. Paul Secondary 7700 N 2nd St South St Paul, MN 4,561 82 68 9-12 923 25:1 28.6 90%
13 Simley Senior High School 2920 80th St E Inver Grove Heights, MN 5,475 101 78 9-12 1,062 22:1 35.3 91%
14 Park High School 8040 80th St S Cottage Grove, MN 55016 8,981 164 100 9-12 1,938 35:1 24.3 91%
Table FS-7
Source: US News and World Report and RTI International utilizing data from The Common Core of Data (U.S. Department of Education), state math and reading assessments, The College Board, and International
Baccalaureate (IB) - 2024 Data.
Note: Analyzed Data is based off 2022-2023, 2021-2022, and 2020-2021 school years. Statewide rankings for MN schools are for MN and statewide rankings for WI schools are for WI schools.
COTTAGE GROVE & NEARBY COMMUNITIES: 2024 HIGH SCHOOL RANKINGS
*:Based on state proficiency and Advanced Placement (AP) tests.
FOR-SALE MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 116
City of Cottage Grove and Area School District Boundaries
FOR-SALE MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 117
Lot Supply
Maxfield Research identified newer subdivisions (developed since 2018) in the PMA along with
available lots. Table FS-8, on the following pages, displays this information. Data was obtained
from the City of Cottage Grove.
• Since 2018 44 new subdivisions have been platted. In those 44 subdivisions are over 2,500
lots (2,504 lots)
• Of the 2,500 lots 22.3% or 559 lots were vacant.
• Average lot sizes ranged from a low of 1.36 acres at Thompson Grove Community Hall to a
high of 54.80 acres at Summers Landing 4th Addition.
FOR-SALE MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 118
No. of Vacant Average Lot
Subdivision Lots/Units Lots Size (Acres)
Graymont Village 2nd Addition 66 66 16.36
Mississippi Landing 1st Addition 110 110 NA
Graymont Village 1st Addition 60 20 3.77
Ravine Crossing 79 65 28.60
Glacial Valley 2nd 76 64 9.58
Settlers Bluff 2nd Addition 77 15 16.70
Hawthorne 2nd Addition 106 69 49.80
Hinton Woods (Townhomes)55 0 10.74
Glacial Valley Estates 1st Addition 24 0 4.06
Woodward Ponds 2nd & 3rd Addition - Townhomes 116 58 16.62
High Pointe 2nd Addition - Townhomes 31 0 4.73
Rolling Meadows 41 14 17.60
Hinton Woods 61 10 19.98
Eastbrooke 3rd Addition 38 25 9.73
Settlers Bluff 1st Addition 78 0 9.73
Calarosa 6th Addition 86 4 29.33
Cardinal Reserve 59 24 22.16
Hawthorne 1st Addition 93 3 68.55
Northwick Park 2nd Addition 24 0 7.11
Summers Landing 5th Addition 79 0 10.17
Calarosa 5th Addition - SF 54 0 7.61
Woodward Ponds 1st Addition - Townhomes 48 0 12.22
--
15.92
2.76
TABLE FS-8
LOT SUPPLY WITHIN NEWER SUBDIVISIONS IN COTTAGE GROVE
SUMMER 2024
Density Per
Acre
4.03
7.93
4.61
2.13
5.12
5.91
6.98
6.55
2.33
3.05
3.91
8.02
2.93
2.66
1.36
3.38
7.77
7.10
3.93
CONTINUED
FOR-SALE MARKET ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 119
No. of Vacant Average Lot
Subdivision Lots/Units Lots Size (Acres)
High Pointe 1st Addition - Townhomes 51 0 14.40
Summers Landing 4th Addition 122 0 54.80
Calarosa 5th Addition - SF 35 0 13.62
Northwick Park 1st Addition 47 0 27.60
Langdon Hills 51 0 25.01
Eastbrooke 2nd Addition 33 5 37.99
Ravine Meadows 26 0 9.85
Calarosa 4th Addition - Quads 24 0 2.72
Bailey Woods 41 0 19.94
Summers Landing 3rd Addition 75 0 25.30
Parkview Pointe 60 0 20.71
Kingston Fields 2nd Addition 34 5 10.60
Young Property by Lennar Homes 10 0 5.00
Calarosa 3rd Addition - MF 16 0 2.13
Calarosa 3rd Addition - SF 70 0 20.50
Kingston Fields 87 0 34.00
Hamlet Heights 24 0 10.35
Calarosa 2nd Addition 49 0 28.37
Eastbrooke (Phase I)50 0 22.27
Mississippi Dunes Estates Fifth 44 0 23.38
Thompson Grove Community Hall 3 0 1.36
Summers Landing 2nd Addition 91 2 36.34
Totals 2,504 559
Sources: City of Cottage Grove & Maxfield Research and Consulting.
2.00
7.51
3.41
2.56
2.32
1.73
2.25
3.54
2.23
TABLE FS-8 (CONTINUED)
LOT SUPPLY WITHIN NEWER SUBDIVISIONS IN COTTAGE GROVE
SUMMER 2024
Density Per
Acre
2.57
1.70
2.04
0.87
2.64
8.82
2.06
2.96
2.90
3.21
1.88
2.21
2.50
4.0119.10
PENDING DEVELOPMENTS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 120
Planned and Proposed Developments
There are a few pending developments in the planning process in the PMA. This section dis-
cusses the developments that have already submitted plans to the City, some of which have re-
ceived preliminary and/or final approvals. Below is a brief discussion of pending rental and sen-
ior developments in Cottage Grove and other PMA communities. Table P-1 lists pending and
under construction rental and senior housing developments.
The pending list breaks down into three categories: under construction, approved and pro-
posed. The number of housing units is separated between affordable and market rate.
Most of the for-sale developments in Cottage Grove and Woodbury consists of developments
already underway and are building out various subdivisions. Many of these that are in process
are nearly sold out or have sold a substantial number of lots.
PLANNED/PENDING DEVELOPMENTS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 121
Project
Project Name/Address City Developer Status Aff.MR Total Type Comments
Vermillion Acres Senior Housing Hastings Headwater Development Under Construction 0 75 75 Assisted Living & Memory Modular buildings
1190 County Rd 47
Red Rock II Newport MWF Properties Under Construction 60 0 60 Affordable General Scheduled to open Nov. 2024
150 Red Rock Crossing
Karen Drive Multifamily Woodbury Real Estate Equities Approved 252 0 252 Affordable 48 (1BR), 126 (2BR) 72 (3BR)S of Hudson Rd and E of Settlers Ridge Pkwy
Manning Avenue Apartments Woodbury LSBD Woodbury Manning, LLC Approved 237 0 237 Affordable 27 (1BR), 111 (2BR), 99 (3BR)
1/4 Mile S of Hudson Rd & Manning Rd
Roer's Cottage Grove Apartments Cottage Grove Roers Approved 37 107 144 Mixed Income GO Rental6850 E Point Douglas Rd S
Bluestem Apartments Cottage Grove Trellis Approved 52 0 52 Affordable Active Adult 55+ 36 units 30% AMI and 16 units 60% AMI7601 79th St S
Norhart Apartments Cottage Grove Norhart Development Approved 0 299 299 Market Rate 45 Std., 21 Alc; 119 1BR, 89 2BR, 25 3BR
Hadley Ave S & 100th St N
Prelude Village of Woodbury Woodbury Emmaus Companies Approved 0 20 20 Senior - IL Cottages - Taking Reservations
10350 Bailey Road
Summer Valley Cottage Grove Summergate Development Approved 0 71 71 Market Rate Single-Family Homes
Jeffrey Ave S. / 63rd Ave S
Sienna Grove Woodbury D. R. Horton Approved 0 172 172 Market Rate Single-Family Homes
10662 Bent Pine Lane
Walden at Hastings Hastings Land Equity LLC Proposed 0 511 511 Lifestyle-All Ages 54 TW, 68 TH, 170 Apts, 60 AA, 55 SF, 104 AL
Hwy 316 and Michael Avenue Need to annex land from Nininger Twp.
Mississippi Landing II Grey Cloud Is Rachel Development Proposed 0 377 377 Market Rate Redevelopment of former golf course
409 Golf Links Drive
Under Construction 60 75 135Approved578 669 1,247Proposed0888 888
NA: Not Assessed or Not Applicable.
Sources: PMA Cities; Maxfield Research and Consulting
107 units (MR); 29 units (50% AMI) 8 units
(60% AMI).
TABLE P-1
RENTAL & SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PIPELINE
PRIMARY MARKET AREA
AUGUST 2024
Units/Lots
Proposed
Under Construction
Approved
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 122
Introduction
Affordable housing is a term that has various definitions according to different people and is a
product of supply and demand. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Devel-
opment (HUD), the definition of affordability is for a household to pay no more than 30% of its
annual income on housing (including utilities). Families who pay more than 30% of their in-
come for housing (either rent or mortgage) are considered cost burdened and may have diffi-
culty affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care.
Generally, housing that is income-restricted to households earning at or below 80% of Area Me-
dian Income (AMI) is considered affordable. However, many individual properties have income
restrictions set anywhere from 30% to 80% of AMI. Rent is not based on income but instead is
a contract amount that is affordable to households within the specific income restriction seg-
ment. Moderate-income housing, often referred to as “workforce housing,” refers to both
rental and ownership housing. Hence the definition is broadly defined as housing that is in-
come-restricted to households earning between 50% and 120% AMI. Figure 1 below summa-
rizes income ranges for the Minneapolis-St Paul-Bloomington Area.
Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (i.e. Unsubsidized Affordable)
Although affordable housing is typically associated with an income-restricted property, there
are other housing units in communities that indirectly provide affordable housing. Housing
units that were not developed or designated with income guidelines (i.e. assisted) yet are more
affordable than other units in a community are considered “naturally occurring” or “unsubsi-
dized affordable” units. This rental supply is available through the private market, versus as-
sisted housing programs through various governmental agencies. Property values on these
units are lower based on a combination of factors, such as: age of structure/housing stock, loca-
tion, condition, size, functionally obsolete, school district, etc. Because of these factors, hous-
ing costs tend to be lower.
Definition
Extremely Low Income 0%-30%
Very Low Income 31%-50%
Low Income 51%-80%
Moderate Income | Workforce Housing 80%-120%
AMI Range
FIGURE 1
AREA MEDIAN INCOME (AMI) DEFINITIONS
Note: Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI HUD Metro FMR Area
4-person AMI = $124,200 (2024)
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 123
According to the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, the privately unsubsi-
dized housing stock supplies three times as many low-cost affordable units than assisted pro-
jects nationwide. Unlike assisted rental developments, most unsubsidized affordable units are
scattered across small properties (one to four-unit structures) or in older multifamily structures.
Many of these older developments may be vulnerable to redevelopment due to their age, mod-
est rents, and deferred maintenance.
Because many of these housing units have affordable rents, project-based and private hous-
ing markets cannot be easily separated. Some households (typically those with household
incomes of 50% to 60% AMI) income-qualify for both market rate and project-based afforda-
ble housing.
Based on the review of Cottage Grove’s housing stock and the inventory of rental properties;
we find a substantial portion of the housing stock would be classified as naturally occurring af-
fordable housing.
Rent and Income Limits
Table HA-1 shows the maximum allowable incomes by household size to qualify for affordable
housing and maximum gross rents that can be charged by bedroom size in the Minnesota-St
Paul-Bloomington Area. These incomes are published and revised annually by the Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and published separately by the Minnesota Housing
Finance Agency based on the date the project was placed into service. Fair market rent is the
amount needed to pay gross monthly rent at modest rental housing in a given area. This table
is used as a basis for determining the payment standard amount used to calculate the maxi-
mum monthly subsidy for families at financially assisted housing.
Table HA-2 shows the maximum rents by household size and AMI based on income limits illus-
trated in Table HA-1. The rents on Table HA-2 are based on HUD’s allocation that monthly rents
should not exceed 30% of income. In addition, the table reflects maximum household size
based on HUD guidelines of number of persons per unit. For each additional bedroom, the
maximum household size increases by two persons.
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 124
1 pph 2 pph 3 pph 4 pph 5 pph 6 pph 7 pph 8 pph
30% of median $26,100 $29,820 $33,540 $37,260 $40,260 $43,230 $46,230 $49,200
50% of median $43,500 $49,700 $55,900 $62,100 $67,100 $72,050 $77,050 $82,000
60% of median $52,200 $59,640 $67,080 $74,520 $80,520 $86,460 $92,460 $98,400
80% of median $69,600 $79,520 $89,440 $99,360 $107,360 $115,280 $123,280 $131,200
100% of median $87,000 $99,400 $111,800 $124,200 $134,200 $144,100 $154,100 $164,000
120% of median $104,400 $119,280 $134,160 $149,040 $161,040 $172,920 $184,920 $196,800
EFF 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR
30% of median $652 $699 $838 $969 $1,080
50% of median $1,087 $1,165 $1,397 $1,615 $1,801
60% of median $1,305 $1,398 $1,677 $1,938 $2,161
80% of median $1,740 $1,864 $2,236 $2,584 $2,882
100% of median $2,172 $2,328 $2,795 $3,228 $3,602
120% of median $2,607 $2,794 $3,354 $3,874 $4,323
EFF 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR
Fair Market Rent $1,174 $1,327 $1,622 $2,188 $2,478
Sources: MHFA; HUD; Maxfield Research and Consulting
TABLE HA-1
MHFA/HUD INCOME AND RENT LIMITS
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MN (EFFECTIVE 4/01/2024)
Income Limits by Household Size
Maximum Gross Rent
Fair Market Rent
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 125
Unit Type1 Min Max Min. Max.Min. Max.Min. Max.Min. Max.Min. Max.Min. Max.
Studio 1 1 $653 -$653 $1,088 -$1,088 $1,305 -$1,305 $1,740 -$1,740 $2,175 -$2,175 $2,610 -$2,610
1BR 1 2 $653 -$746 $1,088 -$1,243 $1,305 -$1,491 $1,740 -$1,988 $2,175 -$2,485 $2,610 -$2,982
2BR 2 4 $746 -$932 $1,243 -$1,553 $1,491 -$1,863 $1,988 -$2,484 $2,485 -$3,105 $2,982 -$3,726
3BR 3 6 $839 -$1,081 $1,398 -$1,801 $1,677 -$2,162 $2,236 -$2,882 $2,795 -$3,603 $3,354 -$4,323
4BR 4 8 $932 -$1,230 $1,553 -$2,050 $1,863 -$2,460 $2,484 -$3,280 $3,105 -$4,100 $3,726 -$4,920
Sources: HUD, MHFA, Novogradac, Maxfield Research and Consulting LLC.
TABLE HA-2
1 One-bedroom plus den and two-bedroom plus den units are classified as 1BR and 2BR units, respectively. To be classified as a bedroom, a den must have a
window and closet.
MAXIMUM RENT BASED ON HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND AREA MEDIAN INCOME
MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL-BLOOMINGTON MN-WI HUD METRO FMR AREA 2024 (EFFECTIVE 4/01/2024)
Note: 4-person Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI HUD Metro FMR Area AMI is $124,200 (2024)
HHD Size
Maximum Rent Based on Household Size (@30% of Income)
30%60%80%100%120%50%
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 126
Housing Cost Burden
Table HA-3 shows the number and percentage of owner and renter households in Cottage
Grove, the PMA Remainder, the PMA and the Seven-County Metro Area that pay 30% or more
of their gross income for housing. This information was compiled from the American Commu-
nity Survey 2022 estimates. This information is different than the 2000 Census which separated
households that paid 35% or more in housing costs. As such, the information presented in the
tables may be overstated in terms of households that may be “cost burdened.” The Federal
standard for affordability is 30% of income for housing costs. Without a separate break out for
households that pay 35% or more, there are likely a number of households that elect to pay
slightly more than 30% of their gross income to select the housing that they choose. Moder-
ately cost-burdened is defined as households paying between 30% and 50% of their income to
housing; while severely cost-burdened is defined as households paying more than 50% of their
income for housing.
Higher-income households that are cost-burdened may have the option of moving to lower
priced housing, but lower-income households often do not. The figures focus on owner house-
holds with incomes below $50,000 and renter households with incomes below $35,000.
Key findings from Table HA-3 follow.
• In Cottage Grove, 15.0% of owner households and 42.1% of renter households are consid-
ered cost burdened. In comparison, 16.8% of owner households and 40.9% of renter
households are considered cost burdened in the PMA Remainer. Throughout the PMA,
16.3% of its owner households and 41.1% of its renter households are cost burdened.
Across the Seven-County Metro Area 34.2% of owner households and 47.5% of renter
households are cost burdened.
• Among owner households earning less than $50,000, 68.7% are cost burdened in Cottage
Grove. By comparison, among owner households earning less than $50,000, 68.1% are cost
burdened in the PMA Remainder. In the PMA, 68.2% of owner households earning less
than $50,000 are cost burdened while in the Seven-County Metro, 56.7% of owner house-
holds earning less than $50,000 are cost-burdened.
• In Cottage Grove, 100% of renter households earning less than $35,000 are cost-burdened
while 89.8% of PMA Remainder renter households earning less than $35,000 are cost-bur-
dened. Throughout the PMA, 90.9% of renter households earning less than $35,000 are
cost burdened. In the Seven County Metro, 86.9% of renter households earning less than
$35,000 are cost burdened.
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 127
No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.No.Pct.
Owner Households
All Owner Households 11,624 32,817 44,441 879,008
Cost Burden 30% or greater 1,739 15.0% 5,479 16.8% 7,218 16.3% 297,746 34.2%
Owner Households w/ incomes <$50,000 1,091 4,896 5,987 317,495
Cost Burden 30% or greater 745 68.7% 3,237 68.1% 3,982 68.2% 175,498 56.7%
Renter Households
All Renter Households 1,570 9,230 10,800 382,486
Cost Burden 30% or greater 626 42.1% 3,587 40.9% 4,213 41.1% 175,109 47.5%
Renter Households w/ incomes <$35,000 267 2,188 2,455 122,489
Cost Burden 30% or greater 260 100.0% 1,827 89.8% 2,087 90.9% 98,983 86.9%
Median Contract Rent 1
1 Median Contract Rent 2022
Note: Calculations exclude households not computed.
NA: Not Assessed. The majority of PMA cities are missing contract rent data.
HOUSING COST BURDEN
PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2022
Cottage Grove PMA Remainder
* Excludes Denmark Township, Grey Cloud Isand Township, and the Washington County portion of Hastings. No data is available for
these geographies.
PMA
$1,467 $1,362*$1,462*$1,255
TABLE HA-3
Sources: American Community Survey 2018-2022 estimates & Maxfield Research and Consulting LLC.
Seven-County Metro
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 128
Housing Vouchers
In addition to subsidized apartments, “tenant-based” subsidies like Housing Choice Vouchers,
can help lower income households afford market-rate rental housing. The tenant-based sub-
sidy is funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and is managed by
the Washington County Community Development Agency. Under the Housing Choice Voucher
program (also referred to as Section 8) qualified households are issued a voucher that can be
used in a rental unit within the private market that has rents in line with payment standards.
Payment standards are set with guidance from the annually published HUD Fair Market Rents.
The household pays approximately 30% of their adjusted gross income for rent and utilities,
and the Federal government pays the remainder of the rent to the landlord. The maximum in-
come limit to be eligible for a Housing Choice Voucher is 50% AMI based on household size, as
shown in Table HA-1. The following are key points about Washington County’s Housing Choice
Voucher Program.
• Washington County is authorized to issue up to 259 vouchers (HCV, VASH, Family Unifica-
tion, and Mainstream).
• Currently, there are 247 people on the waiting list. Those on the wait list can wait up to
three years or more for a voucher.
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 129
Housing Costs as Percentage of Household Income
Housing costs are generally considered affordable at 30% of a households adjusted gross in-
come. Table HA-4 on the following page illustrates key housing metrics based on housing costs
and household incomes in Cottage Grove. The table estimates the percentage of Cottage Grove
householders that can afford rental and for-sale housing based on a 30% allocation of income
to housing. Housing costs are based on the Cottage Grove average.
The housing affordability calculations assume the following:
For-Sale Housing
10% down payment with good credit score
Closing costs rolled into mortgage
30-year mortgage at 7.180% interest rate
Private mortgage insurance (equity of less than 20%)
Homeowners insurance for single-family homes and association dues for townhomes
Owner household income per 2023 ACS adjusted to 2024 by Maxfield Research
Rental Housing
Background check on tenant to ensure credit history
30% allocation of income
Renter household income per 2022 ACS adjusted to 2024 by Maxfield Research
Because of the down payment requirement and strict underwriting criteria for a mortgage, not
all households will meet the income qualifications as outlined above.
• The median income of all Cottage Grove households in 2024 was $114,459. The median in-
come varies by tenure. According to the 2024 American Community Survey, the median in-
come of a homeowner was $125,079, 45.1% higher than that of renters ($68,649).
• An estimated 87% of all households and 73% of owner households could afford to purchase
an entry-level home in Cottage Grove estimated at $250,000. When adjusting for move-up
buyers ($380,000) 63% of all households and 60% of owner households would income qual-
ify.
• Of existing renter households, 72% can afford to rent an older one-bedroom unit in Cottage
Grove ($1,200/month). The percentage of renter income-qualified households decreases to
59% that can afford an existing three-bedroom unit ($1,600/month). After adjusting for
new construction rental housing, the percentage of renters that are income-qualified de-
creases. An estimated 76% of renters can afford a new market rate one-bedroom unit while
39% can afford a new three-bedroom unit.
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 130
Entry-Level Move-Up Executive Entry-Level Move-Up Executive
Price of House $250,000 $385,000 $500,000 $300,000 $450,000 $700,000
Pct. Down Payment 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0%
Total Down Payment Amt.$25,000 $38,500 $50,000 $30,000 $45,000 $70,000
Estimated Closing Costs (rolled into mortgage)$7,500 $11,550 $15,000 $9,000 $13,500 $21,000
Cost of Loan $232,500 $358,050 $465,000 $279,000 $418,500 $651,000
Interest Rate 6.750% 6.750% 6.750% 6.750% 6.750% 6.750%
Number of Pmts.449 449 449 449 449 449
Monthly Payment (P & I)-$1,422 -$2,191 -$2,845 -$1,707 -$2,560 -$3,983
(plus) Prop. Tax -$208 -$321 -$417 -$250 -$375 -$583
(plus) HO Insurance/Assoc. Fee for TH -$83 -$128 -$167 -$100 -$100 -$100
(plus) PMI/MIP (less than 20%)-$101 -$155 -$202 -$121 -$181 -$282
Subtotal monthly costs -$1,815 -$2,795 -$3,630 -$2,178 -$3,217 -$4,948
Housing Costs as % of Income 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30%
Minimum Income Required $72,594 $111,794 $145,187 $87,112 $128,669 $197,929
Pct. of ALL Cottage Grove HHDS who can afford1 86.8% 63.3% 38.2% 64.7% 45.8% 16.7%
No. of Cottage Grove HHDS who can afford1 10,936 7,974 4,818 9,252 6,552 2,385
Pct. of Cottage Grove owner HHDs who can afford2 79.6% 59.7% 39.3% 91.5% 83.6% 66.4%
No. of Cottage Grove owner HHDs who can afford2 10,029 7,519 4,956 11,526 10,537 8,362
No. of Cottage Grove owner HHDS who cannot afford2 2,570 5,080 7,642 1,073 2,061 4,237
1BR 2BR 3BR 1BR 2BR 3BR
Monthly Rent $1,200 $1,450 $1,600 $1,600 $2,000 $2,500
Annual Rent $14,400 $17,400 $19,200 $19,200 $24,000 $30,000
Housing Costs as % of Income 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30%
Minimum Income Required $48,000 $58,000 $64,000 $64,000 $80,000 $100,000
Pct. of ALL Cottage Grove HHDS who can afford1 87.2% 79.0% 78.6% 78.6% 69.7% 58.9%
No. of Cottage Grove HHDS who can afford1 12,475 11,297 11,236 11,236 9,961 8,421
Pct. of Cottage Grove renter HHDs who can afford2 72.6% 59.5% 58.8% 76.3% 47.1% 38.6%
No. of Cottage Grove renter HHDs who can afford2 1,236 1,012 1,001 1,299 801 657
No. of Cottage Grove renter HHDS who cannot afford2 466 690 701 403 901 1,045
1 Based on 2022 household income for ALL households adjusted to 2024 by Maxfield Research.
2 Based on 2022 ACS household income by tenure adjusted to 2024 by Maxfield Research.
Source: Maxfield Research & Consulting
Existing Rental New Rental
TABLE HA-4
PRIMARY MARKET AREA HOUSING AFFORDABILITY - BASED ON HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Single-Family Townhome/Twinhome/Condo
For-Sale (Assumes 10% down payment and good credit)
Rental (Market Rate)
HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 131
Introduction
Maxfield Research and Consulting was engaged to quantify the demand potential for housing
development in Cottage Grove from 2025 to 2035. Earlier sections of this report examined
growth trends and demographic characteristics of the household base, employment trends,
housing characteristics, along current and pending housing options in the Cottage Grove PMA.
This section of the report quantifies demand for general occupancy ownership housing and
rental housing (market rate and affordable) from 2025 to 2035, as well as senior housing de-
mand in 2024 and 2030.
Demographic Profile and Housing Demand
The demographic profile of a community affects housing demand and the types of housing that
are needed. The housing life-cycle stages are:
1. Entry-level householders
• Often prefer to rent basic, inexpensive apartments
• Usually singles or couples in their early 20’s without children
• Will often “double-up” with roommates in apartment setting
2. First-time homebuyers and move-up renters
• Often prefer to purchase modestly priced single-family homes or rent
more upscale apartments
• Usually married or cohabiting couples, in their mid-20's or 30's, some
with children, but most are without children
3. Move-up homebuyers
• Typically prefer to purchase newer, larger, and therefore more expen-
sive single-family homes
• Typically, families with children where householders are in their late
30's to 40's
4. Empty-nesters (persons whose children have grown and left home) and
never-nesters (persons who never have children)
• Prefer owning but will consider renting their housing
• Some will move to alternative lower-maintenance housing products
• Generally, couples in their 50's or 60's
5. Younger independent seniors
• Prefer owning but will consider renting their housing
HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 132
• Will often move (at least part of the year) to retirement havens in the
Sunbelt and desire to reduce their responsibilities for upkeep and
maintenance
• Generally, in their late 60's or 70's
6. Older seniors
• May need to move out of their single-family home due to physical
and/or health constraints or a desire to reduce their responsibilities
for upkeep and maintenance
• Generally single females (widows) in their mid-70's or older
Demand for housing can come from several sources including household growth, changes in
housing preferences, and replacement need. Household growth necessitates building new
housing unless there is enough desirable vacant housing available to absorb the increase in
households. Demand is also affected by shifting demographic factors such as the aging of the
population, which dictates the type of housing preferred. New housing to meet replacement
need is required, even in the absence of household growth, when existing units no longer meet
the needs of the population and when renovation is not feasible because the structure is physi-
cally or functionally obsolete.
The graphic on the following page provides greater detail of various housing types supported
within each housing life cycle. Information on square footage, average bedrooms/bathrooms,
and lot size is provided on the subsequent graphic.
Housing Demand Overview
The previous sections of this assessment focused on demographic and economic factors driving
demand for housing in Cottage Grove. In this section, we utilize findings from the economic
and demographic analysis to calculate demand for new general occupancy housing units in the
Cottage Grove.
Housing markets are driven by a range of supply and demand factors that vary by location and
submarket. The following bullet points outline several of the key variables driving housing de-
mand.
Demographics
Demographics are major influences that drive housing demand. Household growth and for-
mations are critical (natural growth, immigration, etc.), as well as household types, size, age of
householders, incomes, etc.
HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 133
Age Student Rental 1st-time Move-up 2nd Empty Nester/Senior
Cohort Housing Housing Home Buyer Home Buyer Home Buyer Downsizer Housing
18-24 18 - 24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
Source: Maxfield Research & Consulting, LLC
DEMOGRAPHICS & HOUSING DEMAND
18-34
65-79
25-39
30-49
40-64
55-74
55+ & 65+Lifestyle Renters
HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 134
Economy & Job Growth
The economy and housing market are intertwined; the health of the housing market affects the
broader economy and vice versa. Housing market growth depends on job growth (or the pro-
spect of); jobs generate income growth which results in the formation of more households.
Historically low unemployment rates have driven both existing home purchases and new-home
purchases. Lack of job growth leads to slow or diminishing household growth, which in-turn re-
lates to reduced housing demand. Additionally, low-income growth results in fewer move-up
buyers which results in diminished housing turnover across all income brackets.
Consumer Choice/Preferences
A variety of factors contribute to consumer choice and preferences. Many times, a change in
family status is the primary factor for a change in housing type (i.e. growing families, empty-
nest families, etc.). However, housing demand is also generated from the turnover of existing
households who decide to move for a range of reasons. Some households may want to move-
up, downsize, change their tenure status (i.e. owner to renter or vice versa), or simply move to
a new location.
Supply (Existing Housing Stock)
The stock of existing housing plays a crucial component in the demand for new housing. There
are a variety of unique household types and styles, not all of which are desirable to today’s con-
sumers. The age of the housing stock is an important component for housing demand, as com-
munities with aging housing stocks have higher demand for remodeling services, replacement
new construction, or new home construction as the current inventory does not provide the
supply that consumers seek.
Pent-up demand may also exist if supply is unavailable as householders postpone a move until
new housing product becomes available.
Housing Finance
Household income is the fundamental measure that dictates what a householder can afford to
pay for housing costs. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), the definition of affordability is for a household to pay no more than 30% of its annual
income on housing (including utilities). Families who pay more than 30% of their income for
housing (either rent or mortgage) are considered cost burdened and may have difficulty afford-
ing necessities such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care.
Due to the rapid increase of mortgage rates this past year to combat inflation (3% to 7%, back
down to 6.5%), affordability has been hit hard and fewer buyers can afford to purchase in 2024.
HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 135
Mobility
Demand is somewhat fluid between Cottage Grove and the surrounding areas and will be im-
pacted by development activity in nearby areas, including other communities outside of the
community.
Demand Estimate for For-Sale Housing
Table HD-1 presents our demand calculations for general occupancy for-sale housing in the
PMA and Cottage Grove between 2024 and 2030 while Table HD-2 presents demand calcula-
tions between 2030 and 2035.
The 75 and older cohort is typically not a target market for new single-family homes as many of
these households will remain in their single-family homes or may relocate to owned multifamily
or a senior housing option. Households age 65 to 74 are a target market for detached villas
which are usually categorized as single-family detached homes. For the purpose of this calcula-
tion, we include households under age 75. Using household income by age of householder
data, the PMA is expected to add 2,779 households under 75 between 2024 to 2030 and 1,439
households from 2030 to 2035. We estimate, based on land availability, development trends,
building permits and consumer preferences, that 70% would choose to own their housing, re-
sulting in an estimated 2,056 for-sale housing units from 2024 to 2030 and 1,007 units from
2030 to 2035. These figures are based on projected household growth in the under age 75 pop-
ulation from 2024 to 2035. These figures are for the Primary Market Area.
Additional demand is also forecast from existing PMA households through turnover. There are
an estimated 43,057 owner households in the PMA as of 2024. Based on mobility data from
the Census Bureau, an estimated 58.6% of owner households will turn over in the next six
years, resulting in 25,231 existing households projected to turn over. Finally, we estimate 15%
of the existing owner households would seek new for-sale housing, resulting in demand for
3,785 for-sale units to 2030. Combined, demand from projected household growth and existing
owner households equals 5,841 for sale units.
Next, we estimate that 25% of the total demand for new for-sale units in the PMA will come
from people currently living outside of the Market Area. Adding demand from outside the area
to the existing demand potential, results in a total estimated demand for 7,788 for-sale housing
units to 2030.
Based on land availability, building trends, and demographic shifts (increasing older adult popu-
lation), we estimate that 65% of the for-sale owners will prefer traditional single-family product
types while the remaining 35% will prefer a maintenance-free multi-family product (i.e. twin
homes, townhomes, or condominiums). This results in 5,452 single-family lots and 2,336 multi-
family lots/units by 2030.
HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 136
Next platted lots that are under construction or approved are subtracted from the total. After
subtracting platted lots, there is demand remaining for 4,389 single-family lots and 1,976
multifamily lots/units to 2030 in the PMA. Demand in 2035 is projected for 3,254 single-family
lots and 1,803 multifamily lots/units by 2035.
Of the 4,389 single-family lots and 1,976 multifamily lots in the PMA, we estimate that
Cottage Grove can capture 30%, resulting in demand for 1,317 single-family and 593 owned
multifamily lots. By 2035, demand in Cottage Grove is estimated at 1,139 single-family lots
and 631 multifamily lots.
Projected household growth under age 75 in the PMA 2024 to 2030¹
(times) % propensity to own2 x
(equals) Projected demand from new HH growth =
Number of owner households under age 75 in the PMA, 20243
(times) Estimated % of owner turnover age 74 and younger, 2024 to 2030)x
(equals) Total existing households projected to turnover between 2024 and 2030 =
(times) Estimated % desiring new owner housing x
(equals) Demand from existing households
(equals) Total demand from HH growth and existing HHs 2024 to 2030 =
(times) Ownership demand generated from outside the PMA
(equals) Total demand potential for ownership housing, 2024 to 2030
(times) Percent desiring for-sale single-family vs. multifamily5 x 70.0% 30.0%
(equals) Total demand potential for new single-family & multifamily for-sale housing =5,452 2,336
(minus) Units marketing or approved platted lots (undeveloped and developed lots)-1,063 360
(equals) Excess demand for new general occupancy for-sale housing =4,389 1,976
(times) Percent of Market Area demand capturable by Cottage Grove x 30.0% 30.0%
(equals) number of units supportable by Cottage Grove 1,317 593
3 Based on household turnover and mobility data (2022 American Community Survey, Five Year Estimates).
4 Based on new construction sales data, building permit data, and growing projections by age group.
5 Multifamily demand includes demand for townhomes, twinhomes, and condominium units.
25,231
TABLE HD-1
FOR-SALE HOUSING DEMAND
PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2024 to 2030
Demand from Projected Household Growth
2,779
74.0%
2,056
Demand from Existing Owner Households
43,057
58.6%
Source: Maxfield Research and Consulting.
2 Pct. of owner households under the age of 75 (ACS 2024).
15.0%
3,785
5,841
25.0%
7,788
Single
Family
Multi-
family*
1 Estimated household growth of those under 75 based on 2022 American Community Survey, Five Year Estimates with
adjustments by Maxfield Research and Consulting
HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 137
Projected household growth under age 75 in the PMA 2030 to 2035¹
(times) % propensity to own2 x
(equals) Projected demand from new HH growth =
Number of owner households under age 75 in the PMA, 20303
(times) Estimated % of owner turnover age 74 and younger, 2030 to 2035)x
(equals) Total existing households projected to turnover between 2030 and 2035 =
(times) Estimated % desiring new owner housing x
(equals) Demand from existing households
(equals) Total demand from HH growth and existing HHs 2030 to 2035 =
(times) Demand from outside the Primary Market Area
(equals) Total demand potential for ownership housing, 2030 to 2035
(times) Percent desiring for-sale single-family vs. multifamily5 x 65.0% 35.0%
(equals) Total demand potential for new single-family & multifamily for-sale housing =4,054 2,183
(minus) Units marketing or approved platted lots (undeveloped and developed lots)6 -800 380
(equals) Excess demand for new general occupancy for-sale housing =3,254 1,803
(times) Percent of Market Area demand capturable by Cottage Grove x 35.0% 35.0%
(equals) number of units supportable by Cottage Grove 1,139 631
3 Based on household turnover and mobility data (2022 American Community Survey, Five Year Estimates).
4 Based on new construction sales data, building permit data, and growing projections by age group.
5 Multifamily demand includes demand for townhomes, twinhomes, and condominium units.
Source: Maxfield Research and Consulting
2 Pct. of owner households under the age of 75 with adjustments by Maxfield Research.
15.0%
3,671
4,678
25.0%
6,238
Single
Family
Multi-
family*
1 Estimated household growth of those under 75 based on 2022 American Community Survey, Five Year Estimates with adjustments by
Maxfield Research and Consulting
24,472
TABLE HD-2
FOR-SALE HOUSING DEMAND
PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2030 to 2035
Demand from Projected Household Growth
1,439
70.0%
1,007
Demand from Existing Owner Households
43,085
56.8%
HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 138
Demand Estimate for General Occupancy Rental Housing
Table HD-3 presents our calculation of general-occupancy rental housing demand in Cottage
Grove between 2025 and 2030 while Table HD-4 presents demand calculations between 2030
and 2035. The analysis identifies potential demand for rental housing that is generated from
new households and turnover households. A portion of the demand will be drawn from exist-
ing households in Cottage Grove that want to upgrade their housing situations.
Although the 65 and older cohort is not typically a primary target market for new general occu-
pancy rental housing, the rising cost of owned housing and senior options has encouraged more
seniors to move into the general occupancy market before considering age-restricted options.
As such, we include all age groups in the demand calculation. Based on land availability, devel-
opment trends, building permits, and consumer preferences, we estimate a 25% propensity to
rent resulting in projected demand for 456 rental units between 2024 and 2030.
Demand will also occur from existing renter households through turnover. As of 2024, there
are an estimated 11,440 renter households in the Primary Market Area. Based on mobility data
from the Census Bureau, an estimated 72.4% of renter households will turn over resulting in ex-
isting households projected to turn over. Finally, we estimate 25% of the existing renter house-
holds will seek new rental housing, resulting in demand for 2,071 rental units to 2030. Com-
bined demand projected household growth and existing renter households equals 2,526 units.
Next, we estimate that 30% of the total demand for new rental units in Cottage Grove will
come from people currently living outside of the Market Area. Adding demand from outside
the City to the existing demand potential, results in a total estimated demand for 3,368 rental
housing units to 2030.
Based on a review of rental household incomes and sizes and monthly rents at existing projects,
we estimate that 15% of the total demand will be for subsidized housing (50% or less AMI), 25%
will be for affordable housing (51% to 80% AMI) and 60% will be for market rate housing (80%
AMI or above and non-income restricted).
Next, we subtract housing developments under construction or pending, since these projects
will satisfy some of the calculated demand for general occupancy rental housing. There are cur-
rently 406 market rate units, 319 affordable units and 0 deep subsidy units either under con-
struction or recently approved. These units are subtracted at 95% occupancy.
After subtracting pending units either under construction or recently approved results in de-
mand for 505 subsidized units, 523 affordable units and 1,615 market rate units between
2024 and 2030. We estimate that Cottage Grove can capture 35% of the excess demand re-
sulting in demand supportable of 177 subsidized units, 183 affordable units and 565 market
rate units between 2024 and 2030. A similar calculation results in demand for 285 subsidized
units, 285 affordable units and 855 market rate units from 2030 to 2035.
HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 139
Projected HH growth under age 65 in the Primary Market Area 2024 to 2030¹
(times) Estimated % to be renting their housing2 x
(equals) Projected demand from new HH growth =
Number of renter households in the PMA, 20243
(times) Estimated % of renter turnover between 2024 & 20304 x
(equals) Existing Renter Households Projected to Turnover, 2024 to 2030 =
(times) Estimated percent desiring new rental housing5 x
(equals) Demand from existing households
(equals) Total demand from HH growth and existing HHs 2024 to 2030 =
(times) Demand from outside Worthington Market Area
(equals) Total demand potential for rental housing, 2024 to 2030
Subsidized Affordable Market Rate
(times) Percent of rental demand by product type6 x 15.0% 25.0% 60.0%
(equals) Total demand potential for general-occupancy rental housing units =505 842 2,021
(minus) Units under construction or pending7 - 0 319 406
(equals) Excess demand for new general occupancy rental housing =505 523 1,615
(times) Percent of Market Area demand capturable by Cottage Grove x 35.0% 35.0% 35.0%
(equals) number of units supportable by Cottage Grove 177 183 565
1 Projected household growth
2 Renter Households in 2024
3 Renter households age 64 and younger plus 20% of renter households age 65 and older.
4 Based on household turnover and mobility data (2018-2022 American Community Survey).
6 Based on a combination of current rental product, income limits, and household incomes of area renters.
7 Pending competitive units at 95% occupancy.
25.0%
8,283
TABLE HD-3
RENTAL HOUSING DEMAND
PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2024 to 2030
Demand from Projected Household Growth
1,822
25.0%
456
Demand from Existing Renter Households
11,440
72.4%
Source: Maxfield Research and Consulting.
2,071
2,526
30.0%
3,368
5 Source - The Upscale Apartment Market: Trends and Prospects. Prepared by Jack Goodman of Hartrey Advisors for the National
Multi Housing Council.
HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 140
Projected HH growth under age 65 in the Primary Market Area 2030 to 2035¹
(times) Estimated % to be renting their housing2 x
(equals) Projected demand from new HH growth =
Number of renter households in the PMA, 20303
(times) Estimated % of renter turnover between 2030 & 20354 x
(equals) Existing Renter Households Projected to Turnover, 2030 to 2035 =
(times) Estimated percent desiring new rental housing5 x
(equals) Demand from existing households
(equals) Total demand from HH growth and existing HHs 2030 to 2035 =
(times) Demand from outside Primary Market Area
(equals) Total demand potential for rental housing, 2030 to 2035
Subsidized Affordable Market Rate
(times) Percent of rental demand by product type6 x 20.0% 20.0% 60.0%
(equals) Total demand potential for general-occupancy rental housing units =815 815 2,444
(minus) Units under construction or pending7 - 0 0 0
(equals) Excess demand for new general occupancy rental housing =815 815 2,444
(times) Percent of Market Area demand capturable by Cottage Grove x 35.0% 35.0% 35.0%
(equals) number of units supportable by Cottage Grove 285 285 855
1 Projected household growth
2 Renter Households in 2030
3 Renter households age 64 and younger plus 20% of renter households age 65 and older.
4 Based on household turnover and mobility data (2018-2022 American Community Survey).
6 Based on a combination of current rental product, income limits, and household incomes of area renters.
7 Pending competitive units at 95% occupancy.
2,851
30.0%
4,073
Source: Maxfield Research and Consulting.
1,496
5 Source - The Upscale Apartment Market: Trends and Prospects. Prepared by Jack Goodman of Hartrey Advisors for the National
Multi Housing Council.
25.0%
374
Demand from Existing Renter Households
13,684
72.4%
9,907
25.0%
2,477
TABLE HD-4
RENTAL HOUSING DEMAND
PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2030 to 2035
Demand from Projected Household Growth
HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 141
Demand for Active Adult (55+) Housing
Table HD-5 presents our demand calculations for market rate active adult/few services housing
in Cottage Grove for 2024 and 2030.
In order to determine demand for active adult housing, the potential market is reduced to
those households that are both age and income qualified. The age-qualified market is defined
as older adults 55 and older, although most of these properties will primarily attract households
age 65 and older.
We calculate that the minimum income needed to afford monthly rents is $40,000 or more plus
homeowner households with incomes between $30,000 and $39,999 who would be able to
supplement their incomes with the proceeds from a home sale. We estimate the number of
age/income-qualified senior households in Cottage Grove in 2023 to be 7,620 households.
Adjusting to include appropriate long-term capture rates for each age cohort (1.5% of house-
holds age 55 to 64, 7.5% of households age 65 to 74, and 16.5% of households age 75 and over)
results in a market rate demand potential for 1,374 active adult (55+) units in 2024.
Some additional demand will come from outside the PMA. We estimate that 25% of the de-
mand will be generated by seniors currently residing outside the PMA. This demand will consist
primarily of parents of adult children living in the PMA, individuals who live just outside Cottage
Grove and have an orientation to the area, as well as former residents who desire to return.
Demand increases to 1,832 units in 2024 after accounting for outside demand.
Next, demand is apportioned between ownership and rental housing. Based on the age distri-
bution, homeownership rates and current product available in the PMA, we estimate that 45%
of the PMA's demand will be for adult ownership housing (825 units) and 55% will be for rental
housing (1,008 units).
Next, we subtract existing and pending competitive market rate units (minus a vacancy factor
of 5% to allow for sufficient consumer choice and turnover) from the owner and rental demand.
Subtracting the existing competitive market rate units results in total demand potential for 754
adult owned units and 1,004 active adult rental units.
Adjusting for inflation, we estimate that households with incomes of $45,000 or more and
homeowners with incomes of $40,000 to $44,999 would income qualify for market rate inde-
pendent senior housing in 2030. Considering the growth in the older adult base and the income
distribution of the older adult population in 2030, the methodology estimates demand for 805
adult owned units and 1,067 active adult rental units in the PMA. The demand is cumulative,
meaning any additional units developed over the period would reduce the demand in 2030.
Cottage Grove is estimated to be able to capture 25% of the demand in the PMA resulting in
188 owned units and 251 rental units in 2024. Demand for 2030 increases to 201 owned units
and 267 rental units.
HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 142
Demand for Subsidized/Affordable Active Adult Housing
Table HD-6 presents our demand calculations for subsidized/affordable active adult (55+ or
62+) housing in Cottage Grove in 2023 and 2030.
In order to arrive at the potential age and income qualified base for low income and affordable
housing, we include all older adult (55+) households with incomes less than $40,000. We ex-
clude 55+ homeowner households with incomes between $35,000 and $39,999, as these
households are most likely to have additional equity that could be converted to monthly in-
come following the sales of their single-family homes and they would no longer qualify for in-
come-restricted housing. After applying homeownership rates of 85.4% for those 55 to 64,
90.4% for those 65 to 74 and 74.1% for those 75 and older demand totals 4,802 units.
55-64 65-74 75+ 55-64 65-74 75+
# of Households w/ Incomes of >$40,0001 9,521 6,881 3,988 9,714 7,565 4,209
# of Households w/ Incomes of $35,000 to $39,9991 +181 248 312 134 196 310
(times ) Homeownership Rate x 85.4% 90.4% 74.1%x 85.4% 90.4% 74.1%
(equals) Total Potential Market Base =9,676 7,105 4,219 =9,828 7,742 4,439
(times) Potential Capture Rate x 1.5% 7.5% 16.5%x 1.5% 7.5% 16.5%
(equals) Demand Potential =145 533 696 =147 581 732
Potential Demand from Primary Market Area =1,374 =1,460
(plus) Demand from Outside PMA (25%)+458 +487
(equals) Total Demand Potential =1,832 =1,947
Owner-Renter-Owner-Renter-
Occupied Occupied Occupied Occupied
(times) % by Product Type x 45%x 55%x 45%x 55%
(equals) Demand Potential by Product Type =825 =1,008 =876 =1,071
(minus) Existing and Pending MR Active Adult Units2 -71 - 4 -71 - 4
(equals) Excess Demand for MR Active Adult Units =754 =1,004 =805 =1,067
(times) Percent that could be captured in Cottage Grove x
(equals) Excess market rate AA demand in Cottage Grove =188 251 201 267
Source: Maxfield Research and Consulting.
25%25%
² Existing and pending are deducted at market equilibrium (95% occupancy).
TABLE HD-5
MARKET RATE ACTIVE ADULT HOUSING DEMAND
PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2024 & 2030
2030
Age of Householder Age of Householder
1 2030 calculations define income-qualified households as all households with incomes greater than $45,000 and homeowner
households with incomes between $40,000 and $44,999.
2024
HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 143
Capture rates are applied to each age cohort, 5% for those 55 to 64, 15% for those 65 to 74 and
30% for those 75 years and older. Additional demand is added for those coming from outside
the Primary Market Area at 40%, increasing demand to 1,536 units.
Next, demand is apportioned between deep subsidy and shallow subsidy affordable housing.
We estimate that 65% of the PMA’s demand will be for shallow subsidy active adult housing
(998 units) and 35% will be for deep subsidy active adult housing (537 units).
Next, we subtract existing and pending competitive units from the overall demand. There are
578 existing/pending shallow subsidy units and 128 existing/pending deep subsidy units in the
Market Area - minus a vacancy factor of 3% to allow for sufficient consumer choice and turno-
ver). After subtracting these units, demand remains for 409 deep subsidy and 420 shallow sub-
sidy age-restricted units in 2024. Demand capturable by Cottage Grove is estimated at 25% of
the excess demand in the PMA as of 2024, which results in 116 deep-subsidy units and 131
shallow-subsidy units.
55-64 65-74 75+ 55-64 65-74 75+
# of Households w/ Incomes of <$40,000 1,297 1,486 2,481 1,028 1,472 2,823
Less Households w/ Incomes of $35,000 to $39,9991 -181 248 312 -134 196 310
(times ) Homeownership Rate x 85.4% 90.4% 74.1%x 85.4% 90.4% 74.1%
(equals) Total Potential Market Base =1,142 1,262 2,250 =914 1,295 2,593
(times) Potential Capture Rate x 5.0% 15.0% 30.0%x 5.0% 15.0% 30.0%
(equals) Demand Potential =57 189 675 =46 194 778
(equals) Potential Demand from Primary Market Area =921 1,018
+614 +679
=1,536 =1,696
Subsidized Affordable Subsidized Affordable
(times) % by Product Type x 35.0%x 65.0%x 35.0%x 65.0%
(equals) Demand Potential by Product Type =537 =998 =594 =1,103
(minus) Existing and Pending Aff Active Adult Units2 -128 -578 -128 -578
(equals) Excess Demand for Aff/Sub Units =409 =420 =466 =525
(times) Percent that could be captured in Cottage Grove x
(equals) Excess sub/aff independent demand in Cottage Grove =102 105 116 131
Source: Maxfield Research and Consulting.
25.0%25.0%
² Existing units are deducted at market equilibrium, or 97% occupancy.
TABLE HD-6
SUBSIDIZED/AFFORDABLE ACTIVE ADULT HOUSING DEMAND
PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2024 & 2030
2030
Age of Householder Age of Householder
(plus) Demand from Outside PMA (40%)
(equals) Total Demand Potential
¹ 2030 calculations define income-qualified households as all households with incomes less than $47,500. Homeowner households with
incomes between $37,500 and $47,499 are excluded from the market potential for financially-assisted housing.
2024
HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 144
Demand for Independent Living Housing
Table HD-7 presents our demand calculations for independent living housing in Cottage Grove
in 2024 and 2030.
The potential age- and income-qualified base for independent living senior housing includes all
senior (65+) households with incomes of $40,000 or more as well as homeowner households
with incomes between $35,000 and $39,999 who would qualify with the proceeds from the
sales of their homes. The proportion of income-qualified homeowners is based on the esti-
mated 2024 homeownership rates of PMA seniors. The number of age, income and asset-quali-
fied households in the PMA is estimated to be 11,324 households in 2024.
Demand for independent living housing is need-driven, which reduces the qualified market to
only the portion of seniors who need some assistance. Adjusting to include appropriate cap-
ture rates for each age cohort (1.0% of households age 65 to 74 and 16.5% of households age
75 and older) results in a local demand potential for 767 independent living units in 2024.
# of Householders w/ Incomes of $40,000
(plus) HHs w/ Incomes of $35,000 to $39,999
(times) Homeownership Rate x x
(equals) Potential Market ==
(equals) Total Potential Market Base ==
(times) Potential Capture Rate of Independent Living Demand1 x x
(equals) Potential Demand = + = +
Total Local Demand Potential ==
(plus) Demand from Outside the PMA (25%)++
(equals) Total Demand Potential ==
(minus) Existing & Pending Competitive Units2 --
(equals) Total Independent Living Demand Potential
(times) Percent of PMA demand capturable in Cottage Grove x x
(equals) number of units supportable in Cottage Grove ==
TABLE HD-7
INDEPENDENT LIVING DEMAND
PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2024 & 2030
6,881 3,988 7,565 4,209
2024 2030
Age of
Householder
Age of
Householder
65-74 75+65-74 75+
447
248 312 196 310
270
224 231 177 230
696 77 732
2 Competitive existing and pending units at 95% occupancy (market equilibrium).
25.0%25.0%
144 158
1 The potential capture rate is derived from data from the Summary Health Statistics for the U.S. Population: National Health Interview
Survey, 2018 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The capture rate used is the percentage of seniors needing
assistance with IADLs, but not ADLs (seniors needing assistance with ADLs typcially need assistance with multiple IADLs and are
primary candidates for service-intensive assisted living.).
Source: Maxfield Research and Consulting
Note: 2030 income-qualified equals HH's with incomes of $45,000 or greater and owner households with incomes of $40,000-
$44,999.
90.4%74.1%90.4%74.1%
1.0%16.5%1.0%16.5%
7,105 4,219 7,742 4,439
576 633
71
767 810
256
1,023 1,080
447
HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 145
We estimate that seniors currently residing outside of the PMA will generate 25% of the de-
mand. Together, the demand from PMA seniors and demand from seniors who are willing to
locate to the PMA totals 1,023 independent living units in 2024. Next, we subtract exist-
ing/pending independent living units in the PMA leaving demand for 576 units.
Adjusting for inflation, we estimate that households with incomes of $45,000 or more and sen-
ior homeowners with incomes between $40,000 and $44,999 would qualify for independent
living housing in 2030. Following the same methodology, leaves demand at 633 units in 2030.
We estimate that Cottage Grove can capture 25% of the excess demand identified in the PMA.
This results in demand for 144 units in 2024 and 158 units in 2030.
Demand for Assisted Living Housing
Table HD-8 presents our demand calculations for assisted living senior housing in Cottage Grove
in 2024 and 2030. This analysis focuses on the potential private pay/market rate demand for
assisted living units.
The availability of more intensive support services such as meals, housekeeping and personal
care at assisted living facilities usually attracts older, frailer seniors. According to the 2009
Overview of Assisted Living (which is a collaborative research project by the American Associa-
tion of Homes and Services for the Aging, the American Seniors Housing Association, National
Center for Assisted Living, and National Investment Center for the Seniors Housing and Care In-
dustry), the average age of residents in freestanding assisted living facilities was 87 years in
2018. Therefore, the age-qualified market for assisted living is defined as seniors ages 75 and
over, as we estimate that of the half of demand from seniors under age 87, almost all would be
over age 75. In 2024, there are an estimated 10,080 seniors ages 75 and over in the Market
Area. The number is projected to increase to 12,599 people by 2030.
Demand for assisted living housing is need-driven, which reduces the qualified market to only
the portion of seniors who need assistance. According to a study completed by the CDC and
National Center for Health Statistics (Health, United States, 2018 Health and Aging Chartbook),
25.5% of 75-to-79-year-olds, 33.6% of 80-to-84-year-olds and 51.6% of 85+ year olds are unable
to perform or need help with ADLs. Applying these percentages to the senior population yields
a potential assisted living market of an estimated 3,462 seniors in the Market Area in 2024 and
4,386 seniors in 2030.
HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 146
Due to the supportive nature of assisted living housing, most daily essentials are included in
monthly rental fees which allow seniors to spend a higher proportion of their incomes on hous-
ing with basic services. Therefore, the second step in determining the potential demand for as-
sisted living housing in the PMA is to identify the income-qualified market based on a senior’s
ability to pay the monthly rent. We consider seniors in households with incomes of 40,000 or
greater to be income-qualified for assisted living senior housing in the PMA. Households with
incomes of $45,000 could afford monthly assisted living fees of approximately $2,667 by allo-
cating a high proportion of their income toward the fees (about 80%).
According to the 2009 Overview of Assisted Living, the average arrival income of assisted living
residents in 2008 was $27,260, while the average annual assisted living fee was $37,281
($3,107/month). This data highlights that seniors are spending down assets to live in assisted
Percent Percent
Needing Needing
Age group People Assistance¹People Assistance¹
75 - 79 4,725 25.5%5,495 25.5%
80 - 84 2,835 33.6%3,813 33.6%
85+2,520 51.6%3,291 51.6%
Total 10,080 12,599
(times) Percent Income-Qualified2 x x
Total potential market
(times) Percent living alone (2010 Census of 75+)x x
(equals) Age/income-qualified singles needing assistance ==
(plus) Proportion of demand from couples (12%)³++
(equals) Total age/income-qualified market needing assistance ==
(times) Potential penetration rate4 x x
(equals) Potential demand from PMA residents ==
(plus) Proportion from outside the PMA (25%)++
(equals) Total potential assisted living demand ==
(minus) Existing market rate assisted living units5 --
(equals) Total excess market rate assisted living demand
(times) Percent of Market Area demand capturable in Cottage Grove
(equals) Number of units supportable in Cottage Grove ==
Source: Maxfield Research and Consulting.
4 We estimate that 60% of the qualified market needing assistance with ADLs could either remain in their homes or reside at less
advanced senior housing with the assistance of a family member or home health care, or would need greater care provided in a skilled
care facility.
5 Existing and pending units at 93% occupancy. We exclude 20.0% of units to account for seniors utilizing public subsidy.
1 The percentage of seniors unable to perform or having difficulting with ADLs, based on the publication Health, United States, 2018
Health and Aging Chartbook, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Center for Health Statistics.
2 Includes households with incomes of $45,000 or more ($50,000 in 2035) plus 40% of the estimated owner households with incomes
below these levels who will spend down assets, including home-equity, in order to live in assisted living housing).
3 The 2018 Overview of Assisted Living (a collaborative project of AAHSA, ASHA, ALFA, NCAL & NIC) found that 12% of assisted living
residents are couples.
40 78
381 381
25.0%25.0%
159 311
135 173
540 692
40.0%40.0%
405 519
118 150
1,013 1,297
Number Number
Needing Needing
3,462 4,386
Assistance¹Assistance¹
1,207 1,403
954 1,283
45.6%
TABLE HD-8
MARKET RATE ASSISTED LIVING DEMAND
PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2024 & 2030
2024 2030
45.6%
896 1,147
1,301 1,699
1,966 2,517
56.8%57.4%
HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 147
living and avoid institutional care. Thus, in addition to households with incomes of $45,000 or
greater, there is a substantial base of senior households with lower incomes who would in-
come-qualify based on assets – their homes, in particular.
We estimate the income-qualified percentage to be all seniors in households with incomes at or
above $45,000 plus 40% of the estimated seniors in owner households with incomes below
$45,000 (who will spend down assets, including home-equity, in order to live in assisted living
housing). This results in a total potential market of 1,966 seniors from the Market Area in 2024.
Because most assisted living residents are single (88% according to the 2009 Overview of
Assisted Living), our demand methodology multiplies the total potential market by the
percentage of seniors age 65+ in the PMA living alone, or 45.6%, based on 2022 American
Community Survey 5-year estimates data. This results in a total base of 896 age/income-
qualified singles in 2024.
The 2009 Overview of Assisted Living found that 12% of residents in assisted living were cou-
ples. Including couples results in a total of 1,023 age/income-qualified seniors needing assis-
tance in the Market Area in 2024.
We estimate that 60% of the qualified market needing significant assistance with ADLs could
either remain in their homes or less service-intensive senior housing with the assistance of a
family member or home health care or would need greater care provided in a skilled care facil-
ity. The remaining 40% could be served by assisted living housing. Applying this market pene-
tration rate of 40% results in demand for 405 assisted living units in 2024.
We estimate that a portion of demand for assisted living units in the PMA (25%) will come from
outside the area. This secondary demand will include seniors currently living just outside the
area, former residents, and parents of adult children who desire supportive housing near their
adult children. Applying this figure increases the total potential demand to 540 assisted living
units in 2024.
Next, existing/pending assisted living units at a 93% occupancy rate are subtracted from overall
demand. An additional 20% of units are subtracted from existing and pending assisted living
units to account for units occupied by Elderly Waiver residents. After subtracting 20% for EW
units and the 93% occupancy rate, a total of 381 units are deducted as competitive giving a to-
tal excess demand of 159 assisted living units in 2024 and increasing to 311 units in 2030.
Most assisted living developments require residents to have lived in their facility for a certain
amount of time before they can use a waiver, and most limit the number of waivers accepted
within the community to no more than 15% to 20%. Some small facilities may accept higher
amounts of residents on waivers and some new facilities will not accept waivers from first-time
residents.
We estimate that Cottage Grove can capture 25% of the excess demand in the PMA for assisted
living resulting in 40 units in 2024, increasing to 78 units by 2030.
HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 148
Demand for Memory Care Housing
Table HD-9 presents our demand calculations for market rate memory care senior housing in
Cottage Grove in 2024 and 2030.
Demand is calculated by starting with the estimated Market Area senior (age 65+) population in
2024 and multiplying by the incidence rate of Alzheimer’s/dementia among this population’s
age cohorts. According to the Alzheimer’s Association (Alzheimer’s Disease Facts and Figures,
2021), 5.0% of seniors ages 65 to 74 years, 13.1% of seniors ages 75 to 84, and 33.0% of seniors
ages 85+ are afflicted with Alzheimer’s Disease. This yields a potential market of 2,598 seniors
in the Primary Market Area in 2024.
According to data from the National Institute of Aging, about 20% of all individuals with
memory care impairments comprise the market for memory care housing units. This figure
considers that seniors in the early stages of dementia will be able to live independently with the
care of a spouse or other family member, while those in the later stages of dementia will re-
quire intensive medical care that would only be available in skilled care facilities. Applying this
figure to the estimated population with memory impairments yields a potential market of 520
seniors in the PMA.
Because of the staff-intensive nature of dementia care, typical monthly fees for this type of
housing start at about $4,000 or more. A portion of the seniors in the Market Area will have
high incomes that they can use to cover the costs of private pay memory care housing
($60,000+), but many other seniors (or family member of seniors) will be willing to spend down
assets and/or would receive financial assistance to afford memory care housing. Based on our
review of senior household incomes in the Market Area, homeownership rates, and home sale
data, we estimate that 60.1% of all seniors in the Market Area have incomes and/or assets to
sufficiently cover the costs for memory care housing in 2024. This figure accounts for married
couple households where one spouse may have memory care needs and allows for a sufficient
income for the other spouse to live independently. Multiplying the potential market by 60.1%
results in a total of 312 income-qualified seniors with Alzheimer’s or dementia in the Market
Area in 2024. By 2030, the proportion of income-qualified seniors is project to increase to
67.8%.
We estimate that 25% of the overall demand for memory care housing would come from out-
side of Cottage Grove. As a result, demand increases by 104 units in 2024 to 416 units.
We reduce the demand potential by accounting for the existing/pending memory care product
in the PMA. There are 372 units; however, we reduce the competitive units to include memory
care units at a 7% vacancy rate and a portion of units occupied by residents utilizing Elderly
Waiver. Subtracting these competitive units results in demand for 139 units as of 2024. Poten-
tial demand for market rate memory care units in the PMA is expected to increase to 287 units
by 2030.
HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 149
We estimate that Cottage Grove can capture 25% of the excess demand for memory care in the
PMA, resulting in demand for 35 units in 2024, increasing to 72 units by 2030.
65 to 74 Population
(times) Dementia Incidence Rate1 x x
(equals) Estimated Senior Pop. with Dementia ==
75 to 84 Population
(times) Dementia Incidence Rate1 x x
(equals) Estimated Senior Pop. with Dementia ==
85+ Population
(times) Dementia Incidence Rate1 x x
(equals) Estimated Senior Pop. with Dementia ==
(equals) Total Population with Dementia
(times) Percent Needing Specialized Memory Care Assistance x
(equals) Total Need for Dementia Care ==
(times) Percent Income/Asset-Qualified2 x x
(equals) Total Income-Qualified Market Base in the PMA ==
(plus) Demand from Outside the Study Area (25%)++
Total Demand for Memory Care Units
(minus) Existing and Pending Memory Care Units3 --
(equals) Excess Demand Potential ==
(times) Percent of Market Area demand capturable in Cottage Grove x x
(equals) Number of Units Supportable in Cottage Grove ==
7,404
970
2,774
33.1%
564
¹ Alzheimer's Association: Alzheimer's Disease Facts & Figures (2021)
3 Existing and pending units at 93% occupancy. We exclude 20% of units to account for seniors utilizing public subsidy.
918
2024
14,203
5.0%
710
2,598
60.1%
13.1%
141
TABLE HD-9
MEMORY CARE DEMAND
PRIMARY MARKET AREA
2024 & 2030
67.8%
3,122
20.0%
624
20.0%
520
312
13.1%
1,219
3,291
2030
16,272
5.0%
814
33.1%
1,089
9,308
423
7235
277277
139
104
416
Source: Maxfield Research and Consulting
287
25.0%25.0%
2 Includes seniors with incomes at $60,000 or above ($65,000 in 2030) plus 25% of homeowners with incomes below this threshold (who will
spend down assets, including home-equity, in order to live in memory care housing.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 150
Introduction/Overall Housing Recommendations
This section summarizes demand calculated for specific housing products in Cottage Grove and
recommends development concepts to meet the housing needs forecast for the City. All rec-
ommendations are based on findings of the Comprehensive Housing Market Analysis. Please
note: Demand subtracts housing projects under construction and projects with approvals (see
Table P-1). The following table and charts illustrate calculated demand by product type.
Based on the finding of our analysis and demand calculations, Table CR-2 provides a summary
of the recommended development concepts by product type for the Cottage Grove. These pro-
posed concepts are intended to function as a development guide to meet the housing needs of
2024-2030 2030-2035
For-Sale Units (After vacant lot supply absorbed)1,910 1,770
Detached Single-Family*1,317 1,139
Other Owned General Occupancy Units**593 631
General Occupancy Rental Units 933 1,425
Market Rate 570 855
Shallow-Subsidy^185 285
Deep-Subsidy^178 285
Total General Occupancy Housing Units 2,843 3,195
2024 2030 2035
Market Rate Active Adult 439 468 599
Owner-Occupied 188 201 260
Renter-Occupied 251 267 339
Affordable Active Adult 207 247 378
Deep-Subsidy^102 116 162
Shallow-Subsidy^105 131 216
Service-Enhanced Senior Housing 219 308 462
Independent Living w/ Services 144 158 243
Assisted Living 40 78 84
Memory Care 35 72 135
Total Senior Housing Units 865 1,023 1,439
2024 - 2035
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE
TABLE CR-1
HOUSING DEMAND SUMMARY
General Occupancy Housing Demand
Senior Demand
Source: Maxfield Research and Consulting
^Shallow-subsidy = affordable to households at 50% to 60% AMI
^Deep-subsidy = affordable to households at 50% AMI or less
* After single family lots have been absorbed.
** Attached single-family (i.e. townhomes, twin homes), condominiums, etc.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 151
existing and future households most effectively in the City. Table CR-2 identifies short-term tar-
geted development, which may not match demand due to other market factors such as pent-up
demand, development costs, labor market dynamics (senior housing), etc.
631
1,139
285
285
855
593
1,317
178
185
570
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
For-Sale - MF
For-Sale - SF
Rental - Subsidized
Rental - Affordable
Rental - Market
UnitsTypeGeneral Occupancy Demand by Type, City of Cottage Grove
2024 - 2030
2030 - 2035
260
339
243
84
135
162
216
201
267
158
78
72
116
131
188
251
144
40
35
102
105
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375
Adult - Owner
Adult - Renter
Independent Living
Assisted Living
Memory Care
Deep-Subsidy
Shallow-Subsidy
UnitsTypeSenior Demand By Service Level, City of Cottage Grove
2024
2030
2035
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 152
Purchase Price/Development
Monthly Rent Range¹Timing
Owned Homes
Single Family 2
Entry-level $300,000 - $350,000 300 -400 2025+
Move-up $450,000 - $699,999 400 -500 2025+
Executive $700,000+100 -150 2025+
Total 800 -1,050
Townhomes/Twinhomes/Villas 2
Attached Townhomes-Entry-level $250,000 - $325,000 200 -200 2025+
Attached Townhomes-Move-Up $400,000 - $500,000 100 -200 2025+
Twinhomes / Detached Townhomes/Villas $500,000+100 -200 2025+
Total 400 -600
Total MF Style For-Sale 400 -600
Total Owned 1,200 -1,650
General Occupancy Rental Housing
Market Rate Rental Housing
Apartment-style (moderate)$1,050/Eff - $2,300/3BR 300 -350 2025+
Apartment-style (luxury)$1,500/1BR - $2,600/3BR 300 -400 2026+
Rental Townhomes $2,500/2BR - $2,800/3BR 60 -80 2025+
Total 660 -830
Affordable Rental Housing
Apartment-style Moderate Income3 120 -130 2025+
Townhomes Moderate Income3 50 -60 2025+
Subsidized 30% of Income4 50 -65 2025+
Total 220 -255
Total Renter-Occupied 880 -1,085
Senior Housing (i.e. Age Restricted)
Active Adult Ownership / Co-op4 $200,000+80 -120 2025+
Active Adult Market Rate Rental5 $1,600/1BR - $2,300/2BR 80 -100 2025+
Active Adult Affordable Rental5 Moderate Income3 125 -150 2027+
Independent Living $2,400+ per month 100 -125 2025+
Assisted Living $3,000/EFF - $5,000/2BR 40 -45 2027+
Memory Care $5,000/EFF - $6,000/2BR 30 -35 2027+
Subsidized Senior 30% of Income4 70 -90 2025+
Total 525 -665
Total - All Units 2,605 -3,400
TABLE CR-2
RECOMMENDED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
COTTAGE GROVE
2024 TO 2030
No. of
Units
Source: Maxfield Research and Consulting
¹ Pricing in 2024 dollars. Pricing can be adjusted to account for inflation.
2 Replacement need, infill, and redevelopment. Development of single-family homes and townhomes/twinhomes will hinge on land availability.
3 Affordablity subject to income guidelines per Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). See Table HA-1 for Metro Area (Twin Cities) Income limits.
4 Subsized housing will be difficult to develop financially
5 Alternative development concept is to combine active adult affordable and market rate active adult into mixed-income senior community
Note - Recommended development does not coincide with total demand. Cottage Grove may not be able to accommodate all recommended housing types based
on land availability and development constraints.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 153
0
1,910
933
1,023
Cottage Grove Hsg. Demand -'24 to '30
Owned Rented Senior
1,770
1,425
1,439
Cottage Grove Hsg. Demand -'30 to '35
Owned Rented Senior
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 154
Recommended Housing Product Types
For-Sale Housing
Single-Family Housing
Table HD-1 identified demand for 1,317 single-family homes in Cottage Grove to 2030. Another
1,139 single-family units are supportable from 2030 to 2035.
Most of the housing stock in Cottage Grove is newer and housing units built in the 2000s and
2010s are primarily at a price range targeted to move-up and executive buyers. Entry-level
homes, which are currently classified as homes priced under $350,000 are primarily satisfied by
existing single-family homes as residents of these homes move into newer housing, such as
move-up single-family homes, rental housing and senior housing. A move-up buyer or step-up
buyer is typically one who is selling one house and purchasing another one, usually a larger and
more expensive home. Usually, the move is desired because of a lifestyle change, such as a
new job or a growing family. Based on our interviews with real estate professionals, new con-
struction move-up homes are generally priced at $430,000 or higher. Existing move-up homes
are priced at $385,000 or higher. The challenge in today’s market is that many existing owners
in affordable or even more recently built move-up homes are not relocating and are staying put
because of higher mortgage interest rates. This has severely curtailed the availability of existing
homes in the market that could be occupied by entry-level buyers. As such, serving this market
segment has become one of the most challenging objectives in the Twin Cities and across the
nation.
The new construction market in Cottage Grove has been active as an average of 266 new single-
family homes and 78 new owned multifamily homes have been constructed annually. Demand
in Table HD-1 is modestly higher than historical construction trends, signaling continued pent-
up demand for new owned homes.
Much of the new single-family construction in Cottage Grove and the surrounding cities has tar-
geted move-up and executive buyers (pricing $430,000+). High land and infrastructure costs as
well as increasing construction, material and labor costs have resulted in escalating home
prices. Despite this, our research and housing experience identifies demand for a variety of
price points of new single-family homes.
There is significant demand for new single-family homes priced under $400,000. This would
however, require additional efforts to bring units at this price point to the market including
smaller lot sizes, alternative construction formats, creative design/layouts and lower infrastruc-
ture costs.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 155
In the short-term, new construction starts will be dampened given persistent higher mortgage
rates and continued high costs for land and infrastructure. The upcoming change in Federal
government administration and potential changes to Federal policies may result in persistent
higher mortgage interest rates for longer than previously anticipated. Therefore, new construc-
tion may be constrained to a greater degree until interest rates decrease further.
For-Sale Multifamily Housing
A growing number of households desire and/or are considering owned multifamily products
such as townhouses, twinhomes and detached villas. Typically, the target market for for-sale
multifamily housing is empty-nesters and retirees seeking to downsize from their single-family
homes, although a growing number of singles and couples without children are also looking for
this product as a way to enter the for-sale market. In some housing markets, younger house-
holds also find purchasing multifamily units to be generally more affordable than purchasing
new single-family homes.
Our analysis of the Cottage Grove for-sale housing stock identified townhomes, twinhomes and
some detached villas (although this is a new product in the community). There are older units
as well as new construction. Demand remains strong for all lower-maintenance products.
Given the aging of the population and the growth rate in the 65+ population, Cottage Grove
would benefit from continuing to increase this component of the housing stock. Based on the
changing demographics and the need for alternative housing types, demand was calculated for
970 new multifamily for-sale units in Cottage Grove to 2030. Like single-family, it will be diffi-
cult to achieve this level of development given land acquisition costs and the lack of new con-
dominium construction in the marketplace.
These attached units could be developed as twinhomes, detached townhomes or villas, cot-
tages, townhomes/row homes, condominiums, or any combination. Because the primary tar-
get market for many low maintenance housing products is empty-nesters and young seniors,
most townhomes should be one-level or at least have an owner’s suite on the main level if a
unit is two-stories. The following provides additional detail into attached and detached low
maintenance concepts.
• Twinhomes– By definition, a twinhome is basically two units with a shared wall with each
owner owning half of the lot the home is on. Some one-level living units are designed in
three-, four-, or even six-unit buildings in a variety of configurations. The swell of support
for twinhome and one-level living units is generated by the aging baby boomer generation,
which is increasing the numbers of older adults and seniors who desire low-maintenance
housing alternatives to their single-family homes but are not ready to move to service-en-
hanced rental housing (i.e. downsizing or right sizing).
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 156
Traditionally most twinhome developments have been designed with the garage being the
prominent feature of the home; however, today’s newer twinhomes have much more archi-
tectural detail. Many higher end twin home developments feature designs where one gar-
age faces the street and the other to the side yard. This design helps reduce the promi-
nence of the garage domination with two separate entrances. Housing products designed
to meet the needs of these aging Cottage Grove residents, many of whom desire to stay in
their current community if housing is available to meet their needs, will be needed into the
near future.
Twinhomes are also a preferred for-sale product by builders as units can be developed as
demand warrants. Because twinhomes bring higher density and economies of scale to the
construction process, the price point can be lower than stand-alone single-family housing.
We recommend a broad range of pricing for twinhomes; pricing however, should start at
around $480,000 per side.
Many older adults and seniors will move to this housing product with substantial equity in
their existing single-family home and will be willing to purchase a maintenance-free home
that is priced similar to their existing single-family home. The twinhomes should be associa-
tion-maintained with 40’- to 50’-wide lots on average. Given lot acreage needed, this prod-
uct will be challenging to develop in Cottage Grove.
• Detached Townhomes/Villas – An alternative to the twinhome is the one-level villa product
and/or rambler. This product also appeals mainly to baby boomers and empty nesters seek-
ing a product similar to a single-family living on a smaller scale while receiving the benefits
of maintenance-free living. Many of these units are designed with a walk-out or lookout
lower level if the topography warrants. We recommend lot widths ranging from 45 to 55
feet with main level living areas between 1,600 and 1,800 square feet. The main level living
area usually features a master bedroom, great room, dining room, kitchen, and laundry
room while offering a “flex room” that could be another bedroom, office, media room, or
exercise room. However, owners should also be able to purchase the home with the option
to finish the lower level (i.e. additional bedrooms, game room, storage, den/study, etc.) and
some owners may want a slab-on-grade product for affordability reasons. Finally, builders
could also provide the option to build a two-story detached product that could be mixed
with the villa product.
Pricing for a detached townhome/villa will vary based on a slab-on-grade home versus a
home with a basement. Base pricing should start at $550,000 and will fluctuate based on
custom finishes, upgrades, etc.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 157
• Side-by-Side and Back-to-Back Townhomes – This housing product is designed with three or
four or more separate living units in one building and can be built in a variety of configura-
tions. With the relative affordability of these units and multi-level living, side-by-side and
back-to-back townhomes have the greatest appeal among entry-level households without
children, young families, and singles and/or roommates across the age span. However, two-
story townhomes would also be attractive to middle-market, move-up, and empty-nester
buyers. Many of these buyers want to downsize from a single-family home into mainte-
nance-free housing, many of which will have equity from the sale of their single-family
home.
New attached housing products have taken off since the pandemic as builders try to allevi-
ate high prices through increased density. Side-by-side concepts targeting entry-level buy-
ers should have base prices around $375,000 and range to about $450,000.
• Cottage-style Quad Homes – Prior to 2010, several companies in the Twin Cities were de-
veloping attached single-level homes that had at least two attached walls. The units in-
clude a single- or double-car attached garage. This product was very popular and some of
the developments were age-restricted (55+), while others were not. Pricing was moderate,
higher than attached townhomes, but less than a twinhome. In many situations, these
units sold more rapidly than the traditional attached townhomes or rowhomes. This style
of development is found both in for-sale and rental formats and both remain very popular,
with resales and in the turnover of rental units. Cottages of Cottage Grove is an example of
a rental format. While that product is affordable, the for-sale developments of this type
were market rate. We suggest that pricing be similar to attached townhome product as
listed in the previous paragraph. Unit sizes were somewhat smaller than the attached
townhome product beginning at about 1,300 square feet and extending to 1,500 square
feet although sizes can be adjusted accordingly with the targeted pricing.
Demand is strong for multifamily for-sale in Cottage Grove for 593 units between 2024 and
2030 and another 631 units from 2030 to 2035. We recommend development with pricing
ranging from $350,000 to $450,000 or slightly higher if unit sizes exceed 1,500 square feet.
This product is intended to focus on the middle market.
General Occupancy Multifamily Rental Housing
Table R-2 identifies an overall vacancy rate of 2.7% among stabilized market rate rental units
and 0.3% among affordable rental units. These vacancy rates are well below the equilibrium
rate for rental housing (5% vacancy) indicting continued pent-up demand. Maxfield Research
found demand for 925 units of rental housing to 2030 (565 market rate, 183 affordable and 177
subsidized units). From 2030 to 2035, demand is identified for 1,425 units.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 158
• Market Rate Rental – Cottage Grove has lagged Woodbury in the development of new
rental housing and developers have continued to target Woodbury for large scale mar-
ket rate and affordable rental properties. Woodbury’s market area includes demand
from east St. Paul, Lake Elmo, Oakdale and the southern portion of Maplewood in addi-
tion to competing with Cottage Grove. Cottage Grove has less competition in the sur-
rounding communities, except for Woodbury. Despite the addition of new supply, the
overall vacancy rate including properties in lease-up is only 5.7%, just slightly above the
equilibrium rate. There are additional units in the pipeline, with 443 market rate units
approved in Cottage Grove. These were accounted for in the demand calculation.
Given the elevated construction in the short-term, vacancy rates are expected to in-
crease somewhat as new supply is delivered. New developments will likely offer con-
cessions to new tenants to accelerate the lease-up period as units open. Despite de-
mand, the high costs of developing multifamily are likely to result in some local assis-
tance to be able to bring new supply to the market.
Demand is expected to remain strong through this decade and the next and new prod-
uct is still absorbing well, despite a modest slackening in the market. Would-be buyers
wanted to move into the for-sale market have had to remain in the rental arena for
longer periods, supporting rental demand. With new units coming into the market in
the short-term, we recommend holding on placing more units into the market until mid-
decade (2027 and later). We anticipate that Cottage Grove will continue to increase in
popularity for new market rate rental units.
• Market Rate General Occupancy Rental Townhomes– In addition to traditional multifam-
ily structures, demand exists for larger townhome units for families – including those
new to Cottage Grove who want to rent until they find a home for purchase. A portion
of the overall market rate demand may be developed as a traditional townhome and/or
townhome-style development (this is already occurring in Woodbury). Estimated rent
levels for this type of product should range from $2,600 for two-bedroom units to
$3,200 for three-bedroom units. Units should feature contemporary amenities (i.e. in-
unit washer/dryer, high ceilings, etc.) and an attached two car garage. Because of high
land acquisition costs, these would be denser rowhome style apartments and more ver-
tically integrated.
• Affordable and Subsidized Rental Housing– Subsidized housing receives financial assis-
tance (i.e. operating subsidies, tax credits, rent payments, bond funding, etc.) from gov-
ernmental agencies to make the rent affordable to low-to-moderate income house-
holds. Demand is identified at 177 subsidized units from 2024 to 2030 and 183 afforda-
ble units over the same period. This product almost always requires some type of addi-
tional private or public assistance to make units financially feasible. There is moderate
demand for subsidized and affordable rental housing. Therefore, formats could range
from townhome-style to apartment-style units.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 159
Senior Housing
As illustrated in Table CR-1, demand exists for all types of senior housing product types in Cot-
tage Grove to 2030. Over the course of this decade, there is demand for 1,023 new age-re-
stricted and senior units by 2030. Additional senior housing is recommended to provide hous-
ing opportunity to aging residents in their stages of later life. The development of additional
active adult and service-enriched senior housing serves a two-fold purpose: older adult and
senior residents can relocate to new age-restricted housing in Cottage Grove and existing
homes and rental units previously occupied by seniors become available to other new house-
holds. Therefore, development of additional senior housing does not mean the housing needs
of younger households are neglected; it simply means that a greater percentage of housing
need is satisfied by housing unit turnover. The types of housing products needed to accommo-
date the aging population base are discussed in the following section.
• Active Adult Senior Cooperative – There is one senior age-restricted for-sale develop-
ment in the Primary Market Area – Applewood Point of Woodbury (73) and no units
available for sale. Maxfield Research projects demand for 188 active adult ownership
units as of 2024, increasing to 2030. Construction of a new stand-alone cooperative fa-
cility would satisfy most adult ownership demand this decade.
Maxfield Research recommends a cooperative development with a mix of one-bedroom
plus den, two- and three-bedroom units with share costs beginning at starting around
$200,000. The cooperative model, in particular, appeals to a larger base of potential
residents in that it has characteristics of both rental and ownership housing. Coopera-
tive developments allow prospective residents an ownership option and homestead tax
benefits without a substantial upfront investment as would be true in a condominium
development or life care option. Maxfield Research has found the cooperative model to
be very well-accepted in rural communities across the Midwest.
• Active Adult Rental - There is one active adult rental community in Cottage Grove, Cot-
tages of Cottage Grove, a mixed income property with only four market rate units and
55 affordable units. We estimate demand for market rate active adult rental units in
Cottage Grove at 251 as of 2024, increasing to 267 by 2030. Many seniors who would
consider an active adult product are presently residing in their single-family homes or in
general occupancy rental properties. Development of this product could be in separate
stand-alone facilities or in a mixed-income facility.
Although we find strong demand for this product type; since this product is not need-
driven and development costs are expected to be high in the short-term; this product
may be best if developed after inflationary pressures subside and mortgage interest
rates decrease further. We recommend a product with base rents from primarily from
$1,600 to $2,500.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 160
Because of the hot real estate market since the pandemic, seniors who would sell their
homes today will receive top dollar and can capitalize on the strong housing market and
reallocate funds to maintenance-free housing products.
• Affordable and Subsidized Rental – Demand for affordable senior housing in Cottage
Grove by 2030 is estimated at 131 units while demand for subsidized housing is 116
units. Affordable senior housing products can also be incorporated into a mixed income
building, which may increase the affordable units’ feasibility. Most current programs
are funded through the LIHTC program or through special bond funding. Financing sub-
sidized senior housing is difficult as federal funds have been shrinking. A new subsidized
development would likely rely on numerous funding sources; from low-income tax cred-
its (LIHTC), state bond funding, tax-exempt bonds, Section 202 program, etc. among oth-
ers.
• Independent Living – There are six existing independent living properties in the PMA
with 471 units. Maxfield Research found demand for 158 units by 2030, as seniors age
and need more services. In the short-term, there are very few vacancies in this product
type. New units could be introduced to the market as early as 2025, although planning
is such that the earliest there could be new supply in this segment is likely late 2026.
• Assisted Living and Memory Care Senior Housing – Based on demand calculations, de-
mand is estimated for 78 assisted living and 72 memory care units in Cottage Grove by
2030. The COVID pandemic severely impacted service-based senior housing and as-
sisted living occupancies are still recovering from the downturn in 2020. As such, we
recommend waiting on new serviced-based senior housing until 2026 or later. Senior
housing vacancies across the Twin Cities are still elevated and likely need at least an-
other one to-two years to reach stabilization.
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 161
Challenges and Opportunities
The following were identified as the greatest challenges and opportunities for developing the
recommended housing types (in no particular order – sorted alphabetically).
• Accessory Dwelling Units (“ADU”): Accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) go by several differ-
ent names such as: In-law suites, garage apartments, backyard cottages, granny flats, guest
houses, etc. An ADU is simply a small, stand-alone residential dwelling unit located on the
same property as a detached single-family home. However, in some cases an ADU could in-
clude an addition on an existing home, apartment over a garage, or be locating within an
attic or basement within the home. Legally, however, an ADU is still a part of the original
parcels PID number and title is with the property owner. The most common reason for
building an ADU is generating rental income for the homeowner or housing a family mem-
ber (often for free).
Because of increased density on the property and smaller sized units, ADUs have the poten-
tial to increase housing affordability and create a wider range of housing options. Many
communities that permit ADUs in their zoning code limit the number of accessory structures
to just one; however, some cities have recently revised their zoning code to allow up to two
accessory structures. Some communities monitor ADU construction by limiting new con-
struction to only owner-occupied housing units (main structure is owned), minimum lot
size, setbacks, and number of occupants or bedrooms in the accessory structure.
Maxfield Research recommends that local planning departments review their existing zon-
ing code and if not already permitted, revise zoning codes to ensure ADUs can be a permit-
ted use. Demand for ADUs has increased significantly since the COVID-19 pandemic as
homeowners sought to move family members together in a multi-generational environ-
ment. Also, many homeowners will design the ADU as a multifunctional space as a home
office and living space away from the main home. Finally, ADUs offer another solution for
meeting rental housing demand and/or short-term housing needs.
• Affordable Housing/Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing. Table HA-1 identified Twin
Cities Median Incomes (“AMI”) and the fair market rents by bedroom type (i.e. $1,327/one-
bedroom unit). The average market rate rent for a one-bedroom unit in the PMA is
$1,418/month and the average rent per square foot for a one-bedroom unit is $2.01. The
influx of new market rate rentals in the Primary Market Area has driven up the average cost
of a one-bedroom unit that is higher than fair market rents. At 60% AMI, the maximum
gross rent for a one-bedroom is $1,398. According to the market rate rental inventory for
Cottage Grove for larger properties, 3% of the market rate units and 100% of the afforda-
ble/subsidized units in Cottage Grove are affordable at the 60% AMI level.
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 162
Because of the higher proportion of new rental product and higher rent structures at new
market rental buildings in Cottage Grove and the PMA, the minimum income needed to af-
ford new rental units is significantly higher than older existing rentals in Cottage Grove.
New rental housing development targets “lifestyle renters” or those with higher incomes
who have enough money to buy a house but choose to rent for the convenience and life-
style. Many of these renters may be cost burdened, but they choose so for the location or
amenities and the option to live adjacent to transit and lose car ownership expenses.
• Age of Existing Housing Stock. As illustrated in the Housing Characteristics Section of the
report (Table HC-3), most single-family homes in Cottage Grove were built after 1990.
Much of the single-family housing stock in Cottage Grove is comprised of split-level homes,
characteristics of the 1980s and 1990s on larger lots. Although there is a rental housing
boom underway over the past decade, there is limited new rental housing in Cottage Grove.
Given Cottage Grove’s location and age of housing stock, demand for new construction
housing across the board will continue to increase. Today’s home buyers, especially those
buyers with children, are demanding larger home sizes and modern amenities.
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 163
• Aging Population. As illustrated in Table D-2, there is growth in the senior population, es-
pecially among ages 75 to 84 (82% growth between 2010 and 2020). Table D-7 shows
high homeownership rates among seniors 65+. Cottage Grove seniors hownership rates
are higher than Washington County and the Twin Cities Metro Area. High homeowner-
ship rates among seniors indicate there could be lack of senior housing options, or simply
that many seniors prefer to live in their home and age in place. Because of the rising pop-
ulation of older adults, demand for alternative maintenance-free housing products should
be rising. In addition, demand for home health care services and home remodeling pro-
grams to assist seniors with retrofitting their existing homes should also increase.
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 164
• Construction & Development Costs. The cost to build and develop new single-family hous-
ing has increased significantly over the past decade and since the Great Recession in all
markets across the U.S., as seen in the chart below. New construction pricing peaked be-
tween 2005 and 2007 before falling during the Recession. Pricing in nearly every market
across the United States decreased between 2008 and 2011 before rebounding beginning in
2012. Since the Great Recession, however, it has become increasingly difficult for builders
to construct entry-level new homes due to a number of constraints – rising land costs, rising
material and labor costs, lack of construction labor and increasing regulation and entitle-
ment fees. As a result, affordable new construction homes have become rare as builders
are unable to pencil-out modestly priced new construction. New construction pricing is at
an all-time high coming out of the pandemic due to strong demand and supply and labor
constraints for builders that are driving up housing costs. As interest rates continue to de-
cline, a certain level of affordability will increase, but the challenge will continue to be sup-
plying sufficient housing for the entry-level buyer.
Despite the pandemic over the past three years, the local real estate market has performed
above expectations and strong demand remains for housing. Demand for housing in Cot-
tage Grove remains strong and supply remains very low. The pandemic has shifted buyer
preferences to a degree as buyers overall have a greater desire for outdoor features, green
space, more square footage, flexible spaces for home offices, and healthy living conditions.
Buyers are also trading location for more home and are more likely now to be able to reside
further from their place of employment.
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
2000 2005 2010 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Median Sales Price of New SF Homes: 2000 to 2021
U.S.A.Midwest
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 165
On the rental side, social distancing initially had an impact on common corridor apartment
buildings as all communal areas were shut down and tenants could not utilize amenities.
Since the pandemic, the demand for smaller unit sizes has waned as renters desire larger
spaces as they work from home, utilize for fitness, etc. With telecommuting and work from
home being the norm tenants are seeking a separation of work and live spaces as well as
access to balconies and patios to provide fresh air and extra space. These trends and pref-
erences have continued, albeit lessened as the pandemic has waned.
• Housing Programs. Cottage Grove offers some programs through 3rd party referrals such as
the Washington County CDA and MN Housing to promote and preserve the existing housing
stock. Cottage Grove offers fewer programs than many other communities of similar size.
Improving referrals to available programs that residents can access can improve the existing
housing stock, increase the value of homes and assist existing owners to be able to remain
in their homes longer or be able to relocate to other housing. Housing improvement pro-
grams offered through Washington County include Rehab Loan Program, Emergency Loan
Program, Weatherization, Home Improvement Program, Fix Up Loan. Many of these pro-
grams are targeted to low and moderate households and have income restrictions. Other
direct assistance programs include first-time homebuyer assistance, renter assistance,
emergency housing assistance and affordable housing. Many of these programs have wait
lists. Washington County also works with Housing Link in the Twin Cities Metro Area to as-
sist renter households with finding affordable housing. Cottage Grove can assist residents
with information and referrals to third-party providers for better access and information re-
lated to housing improvement and other direct housing resources.
• Job Growth/Employment. The Covid-19 pandemic created a number of new challenges for
businesses, workers, and government. As depicted earlier, the unemployment rate in Cot-
tage Grove has historically been under 4.0% before shortly rising to 5.7% during the peak
shutdowns in spring 2020. These unprecedented challenges had an economic ripple effect
across the country as thousands of Americans found themselves out of work with increases
in unemployment. However, Cottage Grove employers weathered the pandemic much bet-
ter than most of the country as the unemployment rate has stayed low and the area
brought back lost jobs from the initial shutdowns earlier in 2020.
The Cottage Grove unemployment rate declined to a low of 2.2% in 2022 and although the
labor force expanded, employment did not expand at the same or higher rate resulting in an
increase in the unemployment rate. Although a low unemployment rate is generally consid-
ered positive news, an extremely low unemployment rate can be challenging for employers
looking to add additional staff. Although additional job creation supports the need for
housing, a lack of housing and especially, affordable housing, places pressure on attracting
and retaining workers.
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 166
• Lifestyle Renters. Historically, householders rented because they could not afford to buy or
did not have the credit to qualify for a mortgage. Today that is no longer the case, and
many householders are renting by choice. High-income renters (those earning $55,000 or
more annually) represent the fastest growing market segment of the rental market today;
having grown 48% over the past decade. Demand is being driven by the Millennials, would-
be buyers on the side-line, and empty nesters. As a result, rental housing is one of the pre-
ferred real estate asset classes today across country. Lifestyle renters are attracted to de-
velopments offering excellent finishing quality, extensive common area facilities, and typi-
cally focus on an environment providing a more social experience. Most of the new market
rate rental construction in the PMA targets the lifestyle renter.
• Modular Housing. Modular housing, often referred to as manufactured or pre-fabricated
housing, is the construction of housing units in a controlled factory-like setting or on a man-
ufacturers site or lumber yard. Modular housing is gaining steam from developers and in-
vestors to combat high construction costs, labor shortages and speed-up the construction
timeline. The biggest advantage modular housing provides is shaving months of holding
costs off the consumer’s bottom line. Originally modular housing was mostly single-family
oriented; however, developers are now constructing entire apartment buildings, hotels,
senior living, man camps and college dorms. Historically the biggest challenge of modular
housing is transportation, shipping costs and “perception.” Modular housing has signifi-
cantly increased in quality and in architectural design. Many buildings and units are con-
structed on concrete foundations and/or include basements. The industry continues to bat-
tle a stigma of older mobile homes and the appraisal community continually mis-appraises
modular homes due to biases or lack of education on the product. Locally, there is a new
manufacturer in Owatonna and future modular plants are in the works along the Interstate
94 corridor and potentially in North Minneapolis. Maxfield Research believes there is con-
siderable opportunity in the modular construction sector that can be utilized in Cottage
Grove, providing a win-win scenario by providing housing production and passing cost sav-
ings along to consumers.
If not already, we recommend Cottage Grove revise zoning codes to allow for this type of
housing if it is not permitted. Design standards however should be enforced to ensure com-
patibility with existing neighborhoods.
• Single-Family Rental Demand. Table HC-4 showed that 26% of the rental housing inventory
in Cottage Grove in 2022 was single-family detached units. Another 7.4% of units were
within an attached structure such a townhome or twinhome. Nationwide, it is estimate
that 25 million of the 43 million rental households in the United States (58%) reside in sin-
gle-family rentals, townhomes, duplexes, triplexes and quads. Single-family units, town-
homes and condos make-up about 34% of all rental units in the country, 27% in Minnesota,
and 21% in the Twin Cities Metro Area. Compared to the Twin Cities and Minnesota aver-
ages, Cottage Grove has a higher proportion of single-family and townhome rentals than
the Twin Cities Metro and Minnesota.
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 167
A recent study by Freddie Mac identified the market share of single-family rentals
(“SFR”) by ownership type across the country. The study found that 88% of SFR are owned
by investors with between 1 and 10 homes. Institutional investors make-up only 1% of the
market share today; even though they are they have the financial backing and are able to
acquire larger portfolios.
Demand is strong for SFR by providing renter lifestyle choice and the ability to reside in a
detached unit without having to obtain the funds for a down payment on a mortgage. Es-
pecially today with mortgage rates that have doubled in the past year there is even stronger
demand for single-family rentals. Many SF renters may consider purchasing; however, the
rising costs of real estate and the down payment requirements hinder some renters from
making the leap to homeownership. The COVID-19 pandemic increased demand for SFR as
renters desire more square footage, green space/yards, separate entrances, and more pri-
vacy than traditional multifamily structures.
Single-family rental communities have been one of the hottest real estate products to come
out of the pandemic over the past few years. Although the Twin Cities is behind the rest of
the country, there are several developments that have recently been completed, including
two in Woodbury. We recommend considering purpose-built single-family or a townhome
rental community in Cottage Grove.
APPENDIX
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 168
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 169
Definitions
Absorption Period – The period of time necessary for newly constructed or renovated proper-
ties to achieve the stabilized level of occupancy. The absorption period begins when the first
certificate of occupancy is issued and ends when the last unit to reach the stabilized level of oc-
cupancy has signed a lease.
Absorption Rate – The average number of units rented each month during the absorption pe-
riod.
Active adult (or independent living without services available) – Active Adult properties are
similar to a general-occupancy apartment building, in that they offer virtually no services but
have age-restrictions (typically 55 or 62 or older). Organized activities and occasionally a trans-
portation program are usually all that are available at these properties. Because of the lack of
services, active adult properties typically do not command the rent premiums of more service-
enriched senior housing.
Adjusted Gross Income “AGI” – Income from taxable sources (including wages, interest, capital
gains, income from retirement accounts, etc.) adjusted to account for specific deductions (i.e.
contributions to retirement accounts, unreimbursed business and medical expenses, alimony,
etc.).
Affordable housing – Housing that is income-restricted to households earning at or below 80%
AMI, though individual properties can have income-restrictions set at 40%, 50%, 60% or 80%
AMI. Rent is not based on income but instead is a contract amount that is affordable to house-
holds within the specific income restriction segment. It is essentially housing affordable to low
or very low-income tenants.
Amenity – Tangible or intangible benefits offered to a tenant in the form of common area
amenities or in-unit amenities. Typical in-unit amenities include dishwashers, washer/dryers,
walk-in showers, and closets and upgraded kitchen finishes. Typical common area amenities
include detached or attached garage parking, community room, fitness center and an outdoor
patio or grill/picnic area.
Area Median Income “AMI” – AMI is the midpoint in the income distribution within a specific
geographic area. By definition, 50% of households earn less than the median income and 50%
earn more. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) calculates AMI an-
nually and adjustments are made for family size.
APPENDIX
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 170
Assisted Living – Assisted Living properties come in a variety of forms, but the target market for
most is generally the same: very frail seniors, typically age 80 or older (but can be much
younger, depending on their particular health situation), who need extensive support services
and personal care assistance. Absent an assisted living option, these seniors would otherwise
need to move to a nursing facility. At a minimum, assisted living properties include two meals
per day and weekly housekeeping in the monthly fee, with the availability of a third meal and
personal care (either included in the monthly fee or for an additional cost). Assisted living
properties also have either staff on duty 24 hours per day or at least 24-hour emergency re-
sponse.
Building Permit – Building permits track housing starts, and the number of housing units au-
thorized to be built by the local governing authority. Most jurisdictions require building permits
for new construction, major renovations, as well as other building improvements. Building per-
mits ensure that all the work meets applicable building and safety rules and is typically required
to be completed by a licensed professional. Once the building is complete and meets the in-
spector’s satisfaction, the jurisdiction will issue a “CO” or “Certificate of Occupancy.” Building
permits are a key barometer for the health of the housing market and are often a leading indi-
cator in the rest of the economy as it has a major impact on consumer spending.
Capture Rate – The percentage of age, size, and income-qualified renter households in a given
area or “Market Area” that the property must capture to fill the units. The capture rate is cal-
culated by dividing the total number of units at the property by the total number of age, size,
and income-qualified renter households in the designated area.
Comparable Property – A property that is representative of the rental housing choices of the
designated area or “Market Area” that is similar in construction, size, amenities, location and/or
age.
Concession – Discount or incentives given to a prospective tenant to induce signature of a
lease. Concessions typically are in the form of reduced rent or free rent for a specific lease
term, or free amenities, which are normally charged separately, such as parking.
Independent living with services available – Independent living properties offer support ser-
vices such as meals and/or housekeeping, either on an optional basis or a limited amount in-
cluded in the rents. These properties typically dedicate a larger share of the overall building
area to common areas, in part, because the units are smaller than in adult housing and in part
to encourage socialization among residents. Independent living properties attract a slightly
older target market than adult housing, typically seniors 75 and older. Rents are also above
those of the active adult buildings, even excluding the services.
Contract Rent – The actual monthly rent payable by the tenant, including any rent subsidy paid
on behalf of the tenant, to the owner, inclusive of all terms of the lease.
APPENDIX
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 171
Cost-Burdened – The proportion of income as defined by HUD that is considered as appropriate
for a household to spend on housing costs. The HUD proportion is 30% of a household’s ad-
justed gross income. Households spending more than 30% of their adjusted gross income on
housing costs are considered “cost-burdened.” Households spending 50% or more of their ad-
justed gross income are considered as “severely cost-burdened.”
Demand – The total number of households that would potentially move into a proposed new or
renovated housing project. These households must be of appropriate age, income, tenure, and
size for a specific proposed development. Components vary and can include, but are not lim-
ited to turnover, people living in substandard conditions, rent over-burdened households, in-
come-qualified households, and age of householder. Demand is project specific.
Density – Number of units in a given area. Density is typically measured in dwelling units (DU)
per acre – the larger the number of units permitted per acre the higher the density; the fewer
units permitted results in lower density. Density is often presented in a gross and net format:
• Gross Density – The number of dwelling units per acre based on the gross site acreage.
Gross Density = Total residential units/total development area
• Net Density - The number of dwelling units per acre located on the site, but excludes
public rights-of-way (ROW) such as streets, alleys, easements, open spaces, etc.
Net Density = Total residential units/total residential land area (excluding ROWs)
Detached housing – a freestanding dwelling unit, most often single-family homes, situated on
its own lot.
Effective Rents – Contract rent less applicable concessions.
Elderly or Senior Housing – Housing where all the units in the property are restricted for occu-
pancy by persons 62 years or older, or at least 80% of the units in each building are restricted
for occupancy by households where at least one household member is 55 years of age or better
and the housing is designed with amenities, facilities, and services to meet the needs of senior
citizens.
Extremely low-income – person or household with incomes below 30% of Area Median In-
come, adjusted for respective household size.
Fair Market Rent – Estimates established by HUD of the Gross Rents needed to obtain modest
rental units in acceptable conditions in a specific geographic area. The amount of rental income
a given property would command if it were open for leasing at any given moment and/or the
amount derived based on market conditions that is needed to pay gross monthly rent at mod-
est rental housing in a given area. This figure is used as a basis for determining the payment
standard amount used to calculate the maximum monthly subsidy for families on at financially
assisted housing.
APPENDIX
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 172
Minneapolis-St Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI HUD FMR Area – 2024
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Ratio of the floor area of a building to area of the lot on which the build-
ing is located.
Foreclosure – A legal process in which a lender or financial institute attempts to recover the
balance of a loan from a borrower who has stopped making payments to the lender by using
the sale of the house as collateral for the loan.
Gross Rent – The monthly housing cost to a tenant which equals the Contract Rent provided for
in the lease, plus the estimated cost of all utilities paid by tenants. Maximum Gross Rents for
Minneapolis-St Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI HUD FMR Area -2024 are as follows:
Gross Rent
Minneapolis-St Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI HUD FMR Area – 2024
Household – All persons who occupy a housing unit, including occupants of a single-family, one
person living alone, two or more families living together, or any other group of related or unre-
lated persons who share living arrangements.
Household Trends – Changes in the number of households for any particular areas over a
measurable period of time, which is a function of new household’s formations, changes in aver-
age household size, and met migration.
Housing Choice Voucher Program – The federal government's major program for assisting very
low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing
in the private market. A family that is issued a housing voucher is responsible for finding a suit-
able housing unit of the family's choice where the owner agrees to rent under the program.
Housing choice vouchers are administered locally by public housing agencies. They receive fed-
eral funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to administer
EFF 1BR 2BR 3 BR 4BR
Fair Market Rent $722 $811 $1,065 $1,300 $1,418
Fair Market Rent
EFF 1BR 2BR 3 BR 4BR
30% of median $423 $484 $544 $605 $654
50% of median $706 $807 $907 $1,008 $1,090
60% of median $847 $969 $1,089 $1,210 $1,308
80% of median $1,130 $1,292 $1,452 $1,614 $1,744
100% of median $1,412 $1,615 $1,815 $2,017 $2,180
120% of median $1,695 $1,938 $2,178 $2,421 $2,616
Maximum Gross Rent
APPENDIX
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 173
the voucher program. A housing subsidy is paid to the landlord directly by the public housing
agency on behalf of the participating family. The family then pays the difference between the
actual rent charged by the landlord and the amount subsidized by the program.
Housing unit – House, apartment, mobile home, or group of rooms used as a separate living
quarters by a single household.
HUD Project-Based Section 8 – A federal government program that provides rental housing for
very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled in privately owned and managed rental
units. The owner reserves some or all of the units in a building in return for a Federal govern-
ment guarantee to make up the difference between the tenant's contribution and the rent. A
tenant who leaves a subsidized project will lose access to the project-based subsidy.
HUD Section 202 Program – Federal program that provides direct capital assistance and operat-
ing or rental assistance to finance housing designed for occupancy by elder household who
have incomes not exceeding 50% of Area Median Income.
HUD Section 811 Program – Federal program that provides direct capital assistance and operat-
ing or rental assistance to finance housing designed for occupancy of persons with disabilities
who have incomes not exceeding 50% Area Median Income.
HUD Section 236 Program – Federal program that provides interest reduction payments for
loans which finance housing targeted to households with income not exceeding 80% Area Me-
dian Income who pay rent equal to the greater or market rate or 30% of their adjusted income.
Income limits – Maximum household’s income by a designed geographic area, adjusted for
household size and expressed as a percentage of the Area Median Income, for the purpose of
establishing an upper limit for eligibility for a specific housing program.
Income Limits
Minneapolis-St Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI HUD FMR Area – 2024
1 pph 2 pph 3 pph 4 pph 5 pph 6 pph 7 pph 8 pph
30% of median $26,100 $29,820 $33,540 $37,260 $40,260 $43,230 $46,230 $49,200
50% of median $43,500 $49,700 $55,900 $62,100 $67,100 $72,050 $77,050 $82,000
60% of median $52,200 $59,640 $67,080 $74,520 $80,520 $86,460 $92,460 $98,400
80% of median $69,600 $79,520 $89,440 $99,360 $107,360 $115,280 $123,280 $131,200
100% of median $87,000 $99,400 $111,800 $124,200 $134,200 $144,100 $154,100 $164,000
120% of median $104,400 $119,280 $134,160 $149,040 $161,040 $172,920 $184,920 $196,800
Income Limits by Household Size
APPENDIX
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 174
Inflow/Outflow – The Inflow/Outflow Analysis generates results showing the count and charac-
teristics of worker flows in to, out of, and within the defined geographic area.
Low-Income – Person or household with gross household incomes below 80% of Area Median
Income, adjusted for household size.
Low-Income Housing Tax Credit – A program aimed to generate equity for investment in af-
fordable rental housing authorized pursuant to Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code. The
program requires that a certain percentage of units built be restricted for occupancy to house-
holds earning 60% or less of Area Median Income, and rents on these units be restricted ac-
cordingly.
Market analysis – The study of real estate market conditions for a specific type of property, ge-
ographic area or proposed (re)development.
Market equilibrium – The rate of vacancy that promotes a balanced rental market and provides
enough supply for sufficient consumer choice and to accommodate regular turnover. The
rental market equilibrium rates are considered to be 2% for deeply subsidized rental, 5% for af-
fordable (50% to 80% AMI) and 5% for market rate.
Market equilibrium (senior) – The rate of vacancy which promotes a balanced rental market
and provide enough supply for sufficient consumer choice and to accommodate regular turno-
ver, which rates are 3% for deep-subsidy, 5% for shallow-subsidy, market rate and independent
living and 7% for assisted living and memory care).
Market rent – The rent that an apartment, without rent or income restrictions or rent subsi-
dies, would command in a given area or “Market Area” considering its location, features, and
amenities.
Market study – A comprehensive study of a specific proposal including a review of the housing
market in a defined market or geography. Project specific market studies are often used by de-
velopers, property managers or government entities to determine the appropriateness of a pro-
posed development, whereas market specific market studies are used to determine what house
needs, if any, existing within a specific geography.
Market rate rental housing – Housing that does not have any income-restrictions. Some prop-
erties will have income guidelines, which are minimum annual incomes required in order to re-
side at the property.
Memory Care – Memory Care properties, designed specifically for persons suffering from Alz-
heimer’s disease or other dementias, is one of the newest trends in senior housing. Properties
consist mostly of suite-style or studio units or occasionally one-bedroom apartment-style units,
and large amounts of communal areas for activities and programming. In addition, staff typi-
cally undergoes specialized training in the care of this population. Because of the greater
APPENDIX
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 175
amount of individualized personal care required by residents, staffing ratios are much higher
than traditional assisted living and thus, the costs of care are also higher. Unlike conventional
assisted living, however, which deals almost exclusively with widows or widowers, a higher pro-
portion of persons afflicted with Alzheimer’s disease are in two-person households. That
means the decision to move a spouse into a memory care facility involves the caregiver’s con-
cern of incurring the costs of health care at a special facility while continuing to maintain their
home.
Migration – The movement of households and/or people into or out of an area.
Mixed-income property – An apartment property contained either both income-restricted and
unrestricted units or units restricted at two or more income limits.
Mobility – The ease at which people move from one location to another.
Moderate Income – Person or household with gross household income between 80% and 120%
of the Area Median Income, adjusted for household size.
Multifamily – Properties and structures that contain more than two housing units.
Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing – Although affordable housing is typically associated
with an income-restricted property, there are other housing units in communities that indi-
rectly provide affordable housing. Housing units that were not developed or designated with
income guidelines (i.e. assisted) yet are more affordable than other units in a community are
considered “naturally-occurring” or “unsubsidized affordable” units. This rental supply is avail-
able through the private market, versus assisted housing programs through various governmen-
tal agencies. Property values on these units are lower based on a combination of factors, such
as: age of structure/housing stock, location, condition, size, functionally obsolete, school dis-
trict, etc.
Net Income – Income earned after payroll withholdings such as state and federal income taxes,
social security, as well as retirement savings and health insurance.
Net Worth – The difference between assets and liabilities, or the total value of assets after the
debt is subtracted.
Pent-up demand – A market in which there is a scarcity of supply and as such, vacancy rates are
extremely low or non-existent.
Population – All people living in a geographic area.
Population Density – The population of an area divided by the number of square miles of land
area.
APPENDIX
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 176
Population Trends – Changes in population levels for a particular geographic area over a spe-
cific period of time – a function of the level of births, deaths, and in/out migration.
Project-Based rent assistance – Rental assistance from any source that is allocated to the prop-
erty or a specific number of units in the property and is available to each income eligible tenant
of the property or an assisted unit.
Redevelopment – The redesign, rehabilitation, or expansion of existing properties.
Rent burden – gross rent divided by adjusted monthly household income.
Restricted rent – The rent charged under the restriction of a specific housing program or sub-
sidy.
Saturation – The point at which there is no longer demand to support additional market rate,
affordable/subsidized, rental, for-sale, or senior housing units. Saturation usually refers to a
particular segment of a specific market.
Senior Housing – The term “senior housing” refers to any housing development that is re-
stricted to people 55 and older. Today, senior housing includes an entire spectrum of housing
alternatives. Maxfield Research Inc. classifies senior housing into four categories based on the
level of support services. The four categories are: Active Adult, Independent Living, Assisted
Living and Memory Care.
Short Sale – A sale of real estate in which the net proceeds from selling the property do not
cover the sellers’ mortgage obligations. The difference is forgiven by the lender, or other ar-
rangements are made with the lender to settle the remainder of the debt.
Single-family home – A dwelling unit, either attached or detached, designed for use by one
household and with direct street access. It does not share heating facilities or other essential
electrical, mechanical, or building facilities with another dwelling.
Stabilized level of occupancy – The underwritten or actual number of occupied units that a
property is expected to maintain after the initial lease-up period.
Subsidized housing – Housing that is income-restricted to households earning at or below 30%
AMI. Rent is generally based on income, with the household contributing 30% of their adjusted
gross income toward rent. Also referred to as extremely low-income housing.
Subsidy – Monthly income received by a tenant or by an owner on behalf of a tenant to pay the
difference between the apartment’s contract/market rate rent and the amount paid by the ten-
ant toward rent.
APPENDIX
MAXFIELD RESEARCH AND CONSULTING 177
Substandard conditions – Housing conditions that are conventionally considered unacceptable
and can be defined in terms of lacking plumbing facilities, one or more major mechanical or
electrical system malfunctions, or overcrowded conditions.
Target population – The market segment or segments of the given population a development
would appeal or cater to.
Tenant – One who rents real property from another individual or rental company.
Tenant-paid utilities – The cost of utilities, excluding cable, telephone, or internet necessary for
the habitation of a dwelling unit, which are paid by said tenant.
Tenure – The distinction between owner-occupied and renter-occupied housing units.
Turnover – A measure of movement of residents into and out of a geographic location.
Turnover period – An estimate of the number of housing units in a geographic location as a per-
centage of the total house units that will likely change occupants in any one year.
Unrestricted units – Units that are not subject to any income or rent restrictions.
Vacancy period – The amount of time an apartment remains vacant and is available on the
market for rent.
Workforce housing – Housing that is income-restricted to households earning between 80%
and 120% AMI. Also referred to as moderate-income housing.
Zoning – Classification and regulation of land use by local governments according to use catego-
ries (zones); often also includes density designations and limitations.
1
City Council Action Request
7.O.
Meeting Date 4/16/2025
Department Community Development
Agenda Category Action Item
Title Prairie Dunes – Revised Final Plat and Development Agreement
Staff Recommendation 1) Adopt Resolution 2025-060 approving the amended Final Plat
for Prairie Dunes. 2) Approve the First Amendment to the Prairie
Dunes Development Agreement with Pulte Homes of Minnesota
LLC and DRP Multistate P, LLC, with minor modifications as
approved by the City Attorney.
Budget Implication N/A
Attachments 1. Prairie Dunes CC Memo
2. Prairie Dunes Revised Final Plat
3. Prairie Dunes Resolution - Revised Final Plat
4. Prairie Dunes First Amendment to Dev Agree
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator
FROM: Samantha Pierret, Senior Planner
DATE: April 9, 2025
RE: Prairie Dunes – Revised Final Plat and Development Agreement
Proposal
The City Council is requested to take the following actions:
1. Adopt the resolution approving the amended Final Plat for Prairie Dunes.
2. Approve the first amendment to the Prairie Dunes Development Agreement with Pulte Homes
of Minnesota LLC and DRP Multistate P, LLC.
Location Map
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt
Prairie Dunes –Revised Final Plat and Development Agreement
April 9, 2025
Page 2 of 4
Background
At its February 5, 2025, meeting, the City Council approved Pulte Homes of Minnesota LLC’s
Final Plat, Development Agreement, and Construction Plans and Specifications for Prairie Dunes.
After the Council meeting, the Developer informed staff that area was needed for a monument
sign. Staff worked with the Developer to determine the best solution , and the Developer decided
to add another outlot (Outlot F) to their final plat for monument signage and irrigation box to serve
as the monument sign outlot. With the addition of a new outlot, the amended Final Plat and
Development Agreement require review by Council.
Revised Final Plat
Final Plat Amendment
The Developer has added Outlot F for monument signage and an irrigation box. The outlot was
created from Outlot D, which will be deeded to the City for a recreation trail. The rear property line
of Lot 1, Block 6 was shifted to ensure the City would retain the same amount of acreage for
Outlot D. These property line changes do not affect the City’s ability to use Outlot D as intended
as a recreation trail.
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt
Prairie Dunes –Revised Final Plat and Development Agreement
April 9, 2025
Page 3 of 4
February 2025 Plat
Revised Final Plat – March 2025
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt
Prairie Dunes –Revised Final Plat and Development Agreement
April 9, 2025
Page 4 of 4
Homeowner’s Association
The February Development Agreement did not contain provisions for a Homeowner’s Association.
With the addition of Outlot F for a monument sign and irrigation box , a Homeowner’s Association
must be established to maintain Outlot F landscaping, monument signage, irrigation system, and
boulevard trees. There will be eleven trees planted in the right of way east of Lot 1 , Block 6.
Development Agreement
The Development Agreement must be updated to include the revised Final Plat, Outlot F, and
language for the Homeowner’s Association.
Recommendation
The City Council is recommended to take the following actions:
1. Adopt Resolution 2025-060 approving the amended Final Plat for Prairie Dunes.
2. Approve the First Amendment to the Prairie Dunes Development Agreement with Pulte Homes
of Minnesota LLC and DRP Multistate P, LLC, with minor modifications as approved by the
City Attorney.
Sheet 1 of 5 SheetsPRAIRIE DUNESCITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTAThis plat was approved by the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota this day of , 20 , and hereby certifiescompliance with all requirements as set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subdivision 2.By By Mayor ClerkCOUNTY SURVEYORPursuant to Chapter 820, Laws of Minnesota, 1971, and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.021, Subd. 11, this plat has been reviewed and approved this day of , 20.By By Washington County Surveyor COUNTY AUDITOR/TREASURERPursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.021, Subd. 9, taxes payable in the year 20 on the land hereinbefore described have been paid. Also, pursuant to MinnesotaStatutes, Section 272.12, there are no delinquent taxes and transfer has been entered on this day of , 20.By By Washington County Auditor/Treasurer DeputyCOUNTY RECORDERDocument Number I hereby certify that this instrument was recorded in the Office of the County Recorder for record on this day of , 20,at o'clock .M., and was duly recorded in Washington County Records.By By Washington County Recorder DeputyKNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: that DRP Multistate P, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, owner of the following described property situated in the Countyof Washington, State of Minnesota, to wit:Outlot A, PRESERVE AT PRAIRIE DUNES, according to the recorded plat thereof, Washington County, MinnesotaHas caused the same to be surveyed and platted as PRAIRIE DUNES and does hereby donate and dedicate the public ways, as shown on this plat and also dedicate the easementsas created by this plat for drainage and utility purposes only.In witness whereof said DRP Multistate P, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officer this day of , 20 .DRP MULTISTATE P, LLCBy: DW General Partner, LLC, a Delaware limited liability companyIts: ManagerBy: Name: Houdin HonarvarTitle: Authorized SignatorySTATE OF COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of , 20 , by Houdin Honarvar, as authorized signor of DWGeneral Partner LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, manager of DRP Multistate P LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, on behalf of the company. (Signature)(Name Printed)Notary Public, County, My Commission Expires I hereby certify that I have surveyed and platted or directly supervised the survey and platting of the property described on this plat as PRAIRIE DUNES that I am a duly LicensedLand Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on theplat; that all monuments depicted on the plat have been or will be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section505.01, Subd. 3 existing as of the date of this certification are shown and labeled on the plat; and that all public ways are shown and labeled on the plat.Dated this , day of , 20Mathew J. Welinski, Licensed Land SurveyorMinnesota License No. 53596STATE OF MINNESOTACOUNTY OF The foregoing Surveyor's Certificate was acknowledged before me on this day of , 20 , by Mathew J. Welinski, a Licensed LandSurveyor, Minnesota License No. 53596. (Signature)(Name Printed)Notary Public, County, MinnesotaMy Commission Expires
12345678910111213141512345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728291234567891011121314151234567891012345678910123456789101112123221918171615141312111222435566OUTLOT COUTLOT BOUTLOT D30333132212011OUTLOT A161716171823243412OUTLOT D7OUTLOT EOUTLOT D100
100603333S00°43'43"W 3927.06N16°07'38"W 4084.09
N89°51'07"E 1260.35
N89°55'06"W75.972139.522066.96S78°02'57"W 283.16N89°16'17"W 331.05 N00°43'43"E99.03N89°51'07"E
68.01 357.171430.361185.35 75.00N00°43'43"E 1320.24S89°56'25"W
108.49N00°03'35"W110.00S89°56'25"W34.99517.85699.04103.34631.32701.04684.77
S89°51'07"W 304.07
S83°45'16"W 278.94N89°16'17"W 260.00 N89°16'17"W80.00N85°13'24"W30.08N73°52'22"E140.00S37°55'35"W37.06∆=15°58'45"L=139.44R=500.00S73°52'22"W15.94S89°16'17"E105.13S85°59'45"W155.61N83°45'16"E143.49N81°41'12"W31.49N73°03'28"E30.00S83°45'16"W60.00Found 1/2 Inch Solid PipeFound 5/8Inch RebarFound MonumentInscribed License No. 43055Found MonumentInscribed License No. 43055Found MonumentInscribed License No. 43055SE Corner of the SW 1/4 ofSection 29, Twp. 27, Rge. 21Found Washington County Cast Iron MonumentN00°43'43"E
33.00 Easement for Electric Transmission in favor ofNorthern States Power Company perDocument No. 202442 (Book 222, Page 280N89°56'25"E
110.00
37.537.537.5 37.5
Easement for Electric Transmission in favor ofNorthern States Power Company perDocument No. 202442 (Book 222, Page 280Drainage & Utility Easementover all of Outlot EHADLEY AVENUE SOUTHGROSPOINT AVENUE SOUTH103RD STREET SOUTH104TH STREET SOUTHGRIFFIN AVENUE SOUTHGRIFFIN AVENUE SOUTH
HADLEY COURT SOUTH OUTLOT F0150300450Sheet 2 of 5 SheetsPRAIRIE DUNESSET 1/2 INCH BY 14 INCH IRON PIPEWITH CAP INSCRIBED #53596FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED ON PLATSCALE IN FEETSCALE: 1 INCH = 150 FEET(NOT TO SCALE)CITY OF COTTAGE GROVESECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 27, RANGE 21VICINITY MAPSITE29100TH STREET S
110TH STREET S IDEAL AVENUE SHADLEY AVE S105TH STREET S
THE ORIENTATION OF THIS BEARING SYSTEM IS BASED ONTHE NORTH LINE OF OUTLOT A, PRESERVE AT PRAIRIEDUNES, WHICH IS ASSUMED TO BEAR N 89°51'07" EFOUND WASHINGTON COUNTY CAST IRON MONUMENTHADLEY AVE S.INSET A(SEE SHEET 3 OF 5 SHEETS)INSET B(SEE SHEET 4 OF 5 SHEETS)INSET C(SEE SHEET 5 OF 5 SHEETS)
123456789101112131415123456789123456789101112131415123456221912452120OUTLOT A16171617182324OUTLOT DN16°07'38"W 631.32N89°51'07"E 1185.35S89°51'07"W 792.84N00°43'43"E 517.23
S00°43'43"W 330.04S89°51'07"W 304.07S20°14'58"E 126.36∆=10°52'02"R=300.00L=56.90∆=9°14'03"R=600.00L=96.70∆=4°07'20"R=600.00L=43.17∆=15°58'45"R=500.00L=139.44S11°00'55"E 201.08S89°16'17"E80.00180.02337.21 40.0040.0040.0040.00462.80330.04S85°13'24"E30.08S37°55'35"W37.06 S73°52'22"W15.94S16°07'38"E9.7679.34121.74S78°59'05"W43.73N78°59'05"E2.67N41°43'02"E60.00 S65°33'04"E57.81S73°52'22"W20.00303030303030303030303030303030304040404062.6246.1846.1946.1846.1946.1846.1946.1846.1946.1846.1946.1846.1946.1846.1944.10∆=0°21'40"L=2.08∆=10°30'22"L=60.5113.732.31∆=33°59'06"R=100.00L=59.32 ∆=101°05'36"L=105.86110.5046.1846.1946.1846.1946.1846.1946.1846.1946.1846.1946.1846.1946.1846.1946.1864.92150.02 N00°08'53"W15.88S00°08'53"E 150.00
S00°08'53"E 150.00
S00°08'53"E 150.00
S00°08'53"E 150.00
S00°08'53"E 150.00
S00°08'53"E 150.00
S00°08'53"E 150.00
S00°08'53"E 150.00
S00°08'53"E 150.00
S00°08'53"E 150.00
S00°08'53"E 150.00
S00°08'53"E 150.00
S00°08'53"E 150.00
S00°08'53"E 150.00
S00°08'53"E 150.00
S00°08'53"E 150.01 ∆=19°12'20"L=20.1120.00N00°08'53"W15.04∆=67°26'55"L=70.63∆=63°30'18"L=66.50∆=1°34'40"L=2.75∆=35°41'23"L=62.295.7465.7632.69∆=3°00'06"L=33.01∆=6°13'57"L=68.5367.6958.67∆=0°42'13"L=7.00∆=3°25'07"L=34.0131.5165.5065.5067.5168.4965.5065.5065.5065.5096.59N73°52'22"E 138.99N73°52'22"E 134.31N73°52'22"E 128.24N73°52'22"E 133.23N73°52'22"E 139.09N73°52'22"E 126.09N73°52'22"E 124.22N73°52'22"E 129.44N73°52'22"E 140.00196.3613.73∆=10°52'02"L=51.2118.0946.3046.3046.3046.3046.3046.30136.4766.4646.3246.3246.3264.61132.3445.0045.0045.007.18∆=3°53'52"L=36.06∆=4°38'46"L=42.98∆=5°56'58"L=55.03∆=2°17'50"L=25.26126.36∆=9°14'03"L=91.8749.3466.64 46.32 46.32 46.32 64.38
S89°16'17"E 133.34S89°16'17"E 134.05S89°16'17"E 134.76S89°16'17"E 135.47N00°08'53"W 135.00
N00°08'53"W 135.00
N00°08'53"W 135.00
N00°08'53"W 135.00
N00°08'53"W 135.00
N00°08'53"W 138.94
S08°41'32"E 142.46S04°02'46"E 136.54N00°08'53"W 135.00
N00°08'53"W 135.00
N00°08'53"W 135.00
N00°08'53"W 135.00 N00°08'53"W 135.0048.9735.9010.6146.3046.3046.3046.3046.30S83°32'53"W 84.8854.6052.5045.0045.0045.00N89°51'07"E 242.09130.0262.1246.5050.5050.5046.5046.50
46.50 46.50 50.50 50.50 46.50 66.10 130.0264.1146.5050.5050.5046.5046.50N89°16'17"W 130.00N89°16'17"W 130.00N89°16'17"W 130.00N89°16'17"W 130.00N89°16'17"W 130.00N89°16'17"W 130.00N89°16'17"W 130.00N89°16'17"W 130.00N89°16'17"W 130.00N89°16'17"W 130.00N89°16'17"W 130.00N89°16'17"W 130.00N00°43'43"E 304.61 S16°07'38"E 625.5920.80∆=37°16'03"R=100.00L=65.04∆=251°15'09"R=60.00L=263.11
10
10
10
10
10
10
Drainage& UtilityEasementDrainage& UtilityEasementDrainage& UtilityEasement20101010101010Drainage & UtilityEasementDrainage & UtilityEasement101010101010101010Drainage& UtilityEasementDrainage& UtilityEasementDrainage& UtilityEasement1010101010101010 10
1010
Drainage& UtilityEasementDrainage& UtilityEasementDrainage& UtilityEasementIngress & Egress Easement perDoc Nos. 3079455 & 302059010202020201010101515110.11114.56117.68120.79Drainage & Utility Easementover all of Outlot ADrainage & Utility Easementover all of Outlot D103RD STREET SOUTH103RD STREET SOUTHGROSPOINT AVENUE SOUTH104TH STREET SOUTHGRIFFIN AVENUE SOUTHGRIFFINAVENUESOUTHHADLEY AVENUE SOUTHDrainage & UtilityEasement04080120Sheet 3 of 5 SheetsPRAIRIE DUNESSET 1/2 INCH BY 14 INCH IRON PIPEWITH CAP INSCRIBED #53596FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED ON PLATSCALE IN FEETSCALE: 1 INCH = 40 FEETTHE ORIENTATION OF THIS BEARING SYSTEM IS BASED ONTHE NORTH LINE OF OUTLOT A, PRESERVE AT PRAIRIEDUNES, WHICH IS ASSUMED TO BEAR N 89°51'07" EINSET A(FROM SHEET 2 OF 5 SHEETS)
10111213141516171819202122272829123456789107891018171615141312112235OUTLOT C30333132113412OUTLOT DS89°51'07"W 304.07∆=15°58'45"R=500.00L=139.44S73°52'22"W15.94S16°07'38"E 167.84∆=74°01'15"R=200.00L=258.38S89°51'07"W 543.55S00°43'43"W 411.88
N00°43'43"E 522.86∆=15°10'06
"
L=176.58
R=667.00
CB=N8°18'
4
6
"
E
CL=176.06 S16°56'32"E 207.59∆=17°40'15"R=330.00L=101.78S37°55'35"W37.06
S85°13'24"E30.08S89°16'17"E 80.0040.0040.00S89°16'17"E 105.1341.4463.69S83°45'16"W 278.94258.7420.20N83°45'16"E 60.00N73°03'28"E30.00S81°41'12"E31.49330.0481.84
200.00 322.86 30303030303030303030303030304040404040213.51330.04S73°52'22"W20.00N16°07'38"W 701.0422.8551.77∆=11°16'34"L=45.26∆=14°38'14"L=58.76∆=14°38'14"L=58.76∆=14°38'14"L=58.76∆=14°38'14"L=58.76∆=4°11'47"L=16.85131.2751.38∆=5°30'36"L=34.62∆=11°11'15"L=70.29∆=0°58'23"L=6.1165.1144.50∆=30°34'10"L=26.68∆=32°23'42"L=28.2770.67 70.67 20.50 79.6580.2349.98 100.0220.49107.70N83°45'16"E 184.29N83°45'16"E 168.43N83°45'16"E 145.55N83°45'16"E 132.37N00°08'53"W 150.00
N04°02'54"E 151.02
N18°41'07"E 166.95N33°19'21"E 193.29 N47°57'35"E 181.36 N62°35'48"E 147.28N73°52'22"E 140.00N73°52'22"E 140.00N73°52'22"E 140.00S16°07'38"E 343.77S32°36'46"E47.13S63°25'06"E47.62N78°02'00"W 128.20N89°51'07"E 159.88S01°39'03"W 161.84S07°08'08"E70.01106.0088.8565.5065.5065.5065.5015.0817.92∆=52°
1
6
'
0
4
"
C
B
=
S
1
9
°
5
3
'
1
8
"
W
CL=
5
2
.
8
6
R=6
0
.
0
0
L=5
4
.
7
3N83°45'16"E 143.4974.0745.5018.06∆=21°13'47"L=62.99∆=35°18'57"L=104.78∆=17°28'31"L=51.8550.0050.0061.12135.02 135.02 65.2550.0050.0087.8920.47∆=14°15'53"L=117.0263.1850.0050.0033.8645.5650.55S73°52'22"W 132.44S73°52'22"W 130.13S52°38'35"W 135.00
S17°1
9
'
3
8
"
W
1
3
3
.
3
1
S00°08'53"E 135.00
S00°08'53"E 135.00 S00°08'53"E 135.00
S00°08'53"E 135.00
S00°08'53"E 135.00 N13°13'20"W 96.11S00°08'53"E 135.00 N29°23'41"W31.57N50°46'15"W21.81S89°51'07"W 197.052N89°16'17"W 130.00N89°16'17"W 130.00N89°16'17"W 130.00N89°16'17"W 130.00N89°16'17"W 130.00N89°16'17"W 130.00N89°16'17"W 130.00N89°16'17"W 130.00N89°16'17"W 130.00N89°16'17"W 130.00N89°16'17"W 130.00N89°16'17"W 130.0046.5046.5046.5046.5046.5064.95
130.02130.0260.97 46.50 46.50 46.50 46.50 46.50
46.5046.5046.5046.5046.5062.96
N00°43'43"E 295.46
62.4545.1945.1945.1962.0052.30
∆=15°28'35"L=81.03∆=2°11'41"L=11.4987.1268.8251.658.9327.94 132.5253.1545.1945.1945.1960.43N00°08'53"W 132.50
N00°08'53"W 132.50
N00°08'53"W 132.50
N00°08'53"W 132.50S73°03'28"W 204
.87S73°03'28"W 230
.27
∆=5°53'27"
L=64.47
∆=9°16'3
9
"
L=101.5
2 S89°51'07"W 249.15S85°59'45"W 155.61CL=13.52CB=N10°28'23"W∆=12°56'17"R=60.00L=13.55N15°53'49"E12.56N78°02'00"W 197.14N89°51'07"E 137.18S00°02'35"E 146.88S07°22'47"E67.05407.44293.60N00°43'43"E 699.04 10101010101010101010Drainage &Utility EasementDrainage& UtilityEasementDrainage& UtilityEasement1010
10Drainage& UtilityEasementDrainage& UtilityEasementDrainage& UtilityEasementDrainage& UtilityEasement10101010Drainage& UtilityEasementDrainage& UtilityEasementDrainage& UtilityEasement101010101010Drainage& UtilityEasementDrainage& UtilityEasement1010Drainage& UtilityEasement1010101010Drainage & Utility Easementover all of Outlot DDrainage & Utility Easementover all of Outlot C202020252525
151510101041.6659.4265.65GROSPOINT AVENUE SOUTH 104TH STREET SOUTHGRIFFIN AVENUE SOUTHHADLEY AVENUE SOUTHGRIFFIN AVENUE SOUTHGROSPOINT AVENUE SOUTH∆=62°5
7
'
5
2
"
R=50.
0
0
L=54.9
5
N15°53'49"E1.7204080120Sheet 4 of 5 SheetsPRAIRIE DUNESSET 1/2 INCH BY 14 INCH IRON PIPEWITH CAP INSCRIBED #53596FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED ON PLATSCALE IN FEETSCALE: 1 INCH = 40 FEETTHE ORIENTATION OF THIS BEARING SYSTEM IS BASED ONTHE NORTH LINE OF OUTLOT A, PRESERVE AT PRAIRIEDUNES, WHICH IS ASSUMED TO BEAR N 89°51'07" EINSET B(FROM SHEET 2 OF 5 SHEETS)
2324252612345678910111212366OUTLOT D7N16°07'38"W 684.77S00°43'43"W 357.17N89°51'07"E 351.24S00°43'43"W 113.73
N00°08'53"W30.00N63°06'45"W 60.00N00°08'53"W30.00 S83°45'16"W 278.94S89°16'17"E 105.13N83°45'16"E 60.00S81°41'12"E31.49N73°03'28"E30.00CL=119.98CB=N84°52'30"E∆=177°45'30"R=60.00L=186.15∆=44°45'51"L=46.88∆=44°45'51"L=46.88∆=44°45
'51
"L=46.88
∆=43°
2
7
'
5
8
"
L=45
.
5
2N83°45'16"E 143.49S85°59'45"W 155.61N38
°
5
9
'
2
5
"
E
1
4
3
.
3
8
N50°32'17"W 145.23N05°46'26"W 144.89S28°37'40"E 70.48S50°44'48"E 89.01S73°23'31"E 71.89N86°42'16"E 164.9645.0044.0145.67119.29N07°08'08"W45.95
S2
6
°
1
6
'
4
4
"
W
8
6
.
8
8
S00°41'37"W 243.37
N15°
5
3
'
4
9
"
E
40.55N89°56'25"E11.51∆=7°52'2
2
"
CB=S11
°
5
7
'
3
7
"
W
CL=67.
2
8
R=490.
0
2
L=67.3
3
45.
3
5
41.
5
3
29.32364.80N46°18'57"E 225.85 N89°51'07"E 190.22S50°44'48"E 96.93S28°37'40"E 78.14S07°22'47"E50.10S73°23'31"E 82.0220.20258.7430.08319.98N16°07'38"W 270.80N25°00'46"E 94.73 N46°18'57"E 124.78
N89°51'07"E 343.68S78°02'57"W 283.16N00°43'43"E 99.03N89°51'07"E68.01140.0277.3865.2565.2561.13∆=4°37'13"L=4.84∆=43°35'13"L=45.64∆=42°16'38"L=44.27∆=42°16'38"L=44.27∆=42°16'38"L=44.27∆=67°55'33"L=71.13∆=1
1
°
3
3
'
4
0
"
L=
1
0
.
0
9
∆=51°24
'12
"L=44.8626.4765.26131.0783.2764.0675.97113.0492.88146.7731.1623.72 101.06 56.4477.2965.2565.2581.26
S00°08'53"E 140.00
S00°08'53"E 140.00
S00°08'53"E 140.00S48°21'19"E 135.65N89°22'03"E 134.77N47°05'26"E 150.24N04°48'48"E 149.70
N00°43'43"E 174.58
N00°43'43"E 180.29
N00°43'43"E 180.29 S04°46'06"E 140.65131.05140.00S89°16'17"E 331.0530.0030.00S00°24'35"E
19.05
65.50 65.50 33.60
65.5065.50 156.21 69.97N89°16'17"W 140.00N89°16'17"W 140.00N58°26
'32
"E18.09CL=78.91CB=S69°49'10"W∆=22°45'15"R=200.00L=79.43S89°56'25"W 108.49N00°03'35"W 110.00
N00°43'43"E 103.35S89°56'25"W34.99∆=62°57
'52
"R=50.00
L=54
.95∆=242°57'52"R=60.00L=254.4330
30
30
30
3030OUTLOT C21010
10101010101010101010107.57.5131010101010102525Drainage & UtilityEasementDrainage & UtilityEasementDrainage & UtilityEasementDrainage & UtilityEasementDrainage & UtilityEasementDrainage & UtilityEasementS89°16'17"E10.00S00°43'43"W10.39∆=5
7
°
4
2
'
4
9
"
R=
8
8
.
0
0
L=
8
8
.
6
42044.7527.3723.4116.501010Drainage & Utility Easementover all of Outlot CDrainage & Utility Easementover all of Outlot DHADLEY AVENUE SOUTH GROSPOINTAVENUESOUTHHADLEY AVENUE SOUTH HADLEY COURT SOUTH65.262.75101052.549.0179.441041.98 32.05S89°18'28"E24.12S00°01'31"W
30.35
24.53OUTLOT FDrainage & Utility Easementover all of Outlot F140.4304080120Sheet 5 of 5 SheetsPRAIRIE DUNESSET 1/2 INCH BY 14 INCH IRON PIPEWITH CAP INSCRIBED #53596FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED ON PLATSCALE IN FEETSCALE: 1 INCH = 40 FEETTHE ORIENTATION OF THIS BEARING SYSTEM IS BASED ONTHE NORTH LINE OF OUTLOT A, PRESERVE AT PRAIRIEDUNES, WHICH IS ASSUMED TO BEAR N 89°51'07" EINSET C(FROM SHEET 2 OF 5 SHEETS)
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2025-060
RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDED FINAL PLAT NAMED
PRAIRIE DUNES
WHEREAS, Pulte Group has amended the Final Plat to develop a residential
subdivision named Prairie Dunes that consists of 120 detached single-family homes and
6 Outlots, and is located on the 60.2-acre property legally described as:
Lot A Subdivision Cd 3570 Subdivision Name Preserve at Prairie Dunes,
Washington County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the final plat for a residential subdivision plat
named “Prairie Dunes” on February 5, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the Developer has revised the final plat, adding Outlot F for monument
signage; and
WHEREAS, approval of the Final Plat must be amended to include Outlot F.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota, hereby approves the amended final plat
for a residential subdivision plat named “Prairie Dunes.” This plat consists of 120 detached
single-family homes and 6 Outlots, and is located on the property legally described above.
Passed this 16th day of April 2025.
Myron Bailey, Mayor
Attest:
Tamara Anderson, City Clerk
1
FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE PLAT OF
PRAIRIE DUNES
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE PLAT OF
PRAIRIE DUNES (this “First Amendment”) made and entered into on the day of
, 2025, by and between the City of Cottage Grove, a Minnesota municipal corporation
(“CITY”), DRP MULTISTATE P, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“OWNER”), and
Pulte Homes of Minnesota LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (“DEVELOPER”).
RECITALS
Recital No. 1. City, Owner and Developer entered into a Development Agreement for the
Plat of Prairie Dunes by and between the City of Cottage Grove, Pulte Homes of Minnesota LLC
and DRP Multistate P, LLC, on February 5, 2025 (“Development Agreement”), for the
development of the Plat of Prairie Dunes.
Recital No. 2. The parties mutually agree to modify the Development Agreement to change
certain terms and conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants of each to
the other contained in this First Amendment and other good and valuable consideration, receipt of
which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto do covenant and agree as follows:
1. The entire Development Agreement is hereby incorporated into the First Amendment,
except as modified below.
2. Section 4.9 of the Development Agreement shall be removed in its entirety and replaced
with the following:
2
4.9 SOD. The DEVELOPER agrees that the BUILDER must pay for and install
cultured sod from the street curb to the rear lot line(s) of each lot in the entire FINAL
PLAT. For a lot where the Certificate of Occupancy is issued between October 2 and
June 30 of the following year, completion of the work described in this paragraph shall
be completed by the BUILDER by July 15; for a lot where the Certificate of
Occupancy is issued between July 1 and October 1, completion of the work described
in this paragraph shall be completed by the BUILDER by October 15.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT,
it is agreed that in lieu of the BUILDER installing sod on each lot, the BUILDER may
provide to a lot owner a certificate that entitles the lot owner to have sod delivered to
that lot at the owner’s request for installation by the lot owner. All pond access routes
shall be sodded by the DEVELOPER.
3. Section 4.14(b)(iii) of the Development Agreement shall be removed in its entirety and
replaced with the following:
iii. No temporary certificate of occupancy for any lot shall be issued from
July 1 through October 1 unless the Residential Temporary Certificate of
Occupancy Fee is paid, pursuant to the City’s Fee Table;
4. Section 4.17 of the Development Agreement shall be removed in its entirety and replaced
with the following:
4.17 LANDSCAPING. The responsibility for landscaping requirements are as follows:
a) The DEVELOPER is responsible for:
i. Installing all landscaping improvements within the lots shown on the
DEVELOPER’s approved landscape plan.
ii. Installing all landscaping improvements as depicted on the
DEVELOPER’s landscape plan. Landscaping for individual lots shall be
installed during the construction of each lot.
iii. Installing irrigation in lots that contain HOA Common Elements.
iv. Ensuring that irrigation box and pressurized mains are not located within
the rights of way. City is not responsible for damage to any part of the
irrigation systems that are located within the rights of way.
v. Planting of trees in the ROW adjacent to Lot 1, Block 6, in a quantity and
location approved by the CITY Forester.
b) Single-family lots shall meet the following standards:
i. Property owners shall maintain their yards all the way to the curb or
shoulder of the abutting roadways, sidewalks and trail for each parcel,
including any landscaping in the boulevards.
ii. Property owners shall maintain their yards to the edge of any abutting
CITY trail.
3
5. Article 7 of the Development Agreement shall be removed in its entirety and replaced with
the following:
ARTICLE 7
OTHER DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS
7.1. MISCELLANEOUS REQUIREMENTS. Any additional requirements to approval
of the FINAL PLAT and DEVELOPMENT PLANS as specified by the COUNCIL are incorporated
herein and identified on Exhibit D.
7.2. OUTLOT F. DEVELOPER shall include in the Homeowners Association (“HOA”)
documents that the HOA is responsible for the maintenance of Outlot F, including all signage,
irrigation, lighting, landscaping and trees, including any landscaping and trees located in the right-of-
way.
6. Section 10.1(i) of the Development Agreement shall be removed in its entirety and replaced
with the following:
i) HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION. DEVELOPER shall create a Homeowners’
Association within 180 days of the Effective Date of this DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT that governs the rights and responsibilities of the HOA as it relates to
Outlot F and the trees in the right-of-way, as outlined in 4.17(a)(v).
7. Exhibit A of the Development Agreement shall be removed in its entirety and replaced
with the following:
EXHIBIT A
DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY
Real property situated in the City of Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota,
legally described as:
Lots 1-17, inclusive, Block 1, Prairie Dunes
Lots 1-34, inclusive, Block 2, Prairie Dunes
Lots 1-12, inclusive, Block 3, Prairie Dunes
Lots 1-18, inclusive, Block 4, Prairie Dunes
Lots 1-24, inclusive, Block 5, Prairie Dunes
Lots 1-12, inclusive, Block 6, Prairie Dunes
Lots 1-3, inclusive, Block 7, Prairie Dunes
Outlots A-F, inclusive, Prairie Dunes
8. Exhibit B of the Development Agreement shall be removed in its entirety and replaced
with the following:
4
EXHIBIT B
FINAL PLAT
5
EXHIBIT B
FINAL PLAT
CONT.
6
EXHIBIT B
FINAL PLAT
CONT.
7
EXHIBIT B
FINAL PLAT
CONT.
8
EXHIBIT B
FINAL PLAT
CONT.
9
9. Exhibit D of the Development Agreement shall be removed in its entirety and replaced
with the following:
EXHIBIT D
MISCELLANEOUS REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS
IMPOSED BY THE CITY
1) CONDITIONS TO BE SATISFIED BEFORE CITY RELEASES THE FINAL PLAT
TO BE RECORDED.
a) Letter of Credit. DEVELOPER must provide the LOC required in this
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
b) All Cash Deposits. DEVELOPER must pay all cash deposits required in this
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
c) Planning Fees. DEVELOPER must pay the CITY all planning, engineering review
and legal fees that have been incurred up to the date of approval of this
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
d) Stormwater Ponding. DEVELOPER must execute a Warranty Deed to the CITY for
Outlot C for stormwater ponding.
e) Trail Corridor. DEVELOPER must execute a Warranty Deed to the CITY for Outlot
A and Outlot D for the trail corridor.
f) Assessment. Payment of the deferred assessment for the South District Street and
Utility Improvements in the amount of $1,343,122.18, per recorded Document Number
4432539 has been received by the CITY.
g) Outlot B. DEVELOPER must provide a fully executed Warranty Deed to NP BGO
Cottage Grove Logistics Park, LLC for Outlot B.
h) Outlot F. DEVELOPER must provide a fully executed Warranty Deed to the HOA for
Outlot F.
2) BUILDING PERMITS. Other than the model home building permits as provided in Section
4.14, no building permits may be obtained for Phase 1A or Phase 1B as identified on Exhibit
I, until:
a) All the conditions in Paragraph 1 of this Exhibit D have been met;
b) All stormwater ponds and associated drainage features, including storm sewer and
drainage swales have been satisfactorily installed as determined by the CITY
ENGINEER that support Phase 1A or Phase 1B, whichever is applicable;
10
c) All sanitary sewer and water main, including services, have been installed, tested,
televised as necessary, and reviewed and approved by the CITY ENGINEER and are
available for use for Phase 1A or Phase 1B, whichever is applicable;
d) DEVELOPER has constructed a temporary bituminous roadway that is acceptable in
design and approved by the CITY for Phase 1A or Phase 1B, whichever is applicable;
e) The documents below have been recorded:
• Final Plat
• Development Agreement
• Warranty Deed to the City for Outlots A, C, and D
• Warranty Deed to NP BGO Cottage Grove Logistics Park, LLC for Outlot B
• Warranty Deed to the HOA for Outlot F
3) CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY. Prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy, all
the following conditions must be satisfied:
a) All the conditions listed in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Exhibit D must be satisfied.
b) As built surveys have been received by the CITY.
4) SUBDIVISION EROSION CONTROL. DEVELOPER is responsible for erosion control
throughout the FINAL PLAT pursuant to the NPDES permit until all lots in the FINAL PLAT
are built upon and until turf is established in each of the individual lots in the FINAL PLAT.
5) CLEAN UP OF CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS ON STREETS AND ADJOINING
PROPERTY. The escrow amount stated on Exhibit G shall include an appropriate amount
as determined by the Director of Public Works to ensure that the DEVELOPER removes any
construction debris from streets adjoining the FINAL PLAT and from private properties that
adjoint the FINAL PLAT. During the construction of the residences and other improvements
within the FINAL PLAT, the DEVELOPER is responsible for removing any construction
debris (including roofing materials, paper wrappings, construction material and other waste
products resulting from construction) that may be blown from the construction site into
adjoining private properties or into CITY streets or that may fall from delivery trucks onto
adjoining private properties or CITY streets. Further, during construction, the DEVELOPER
must clear the CITY streets of any dirt or other earthen material that may fall onto the CITY
streets from the delivery trucks that are being used in the excavation and grading of the site.
6) MAILBOXES. The DEVELOPER is responsible for the placement of a mailbox for all the
lots within the DEVELOPMENT PROJECT and must comply with the United States Postal
Service’s mailbox design and placement requirements. The mailboxes must all be of similar
design and color within the DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
7) SIDEWALK SNOW REMOVAL AND TRAIL MAINTENANCE. The CITY shall
provide snow removal of transportation trails and sidewalks. If the CITY does not provide
11
snow removal on a trail or sidewalk within the DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, the property
owner abutting the trail or sidewalk must remove the snow and/or ice.
ii) Except as provided for above, the terms and provisions of the Development Agreement
shall remain in full force and effect.
iii) This First Amendment and all disputes or controversies arising out of or relating to this
First Amendment, or the transactions contemplated hereby shall be governed by, and
construed in accordance with, the internal laws of the State of Minnesota, without
regard to the laws of any other jurisdiction that might be applied because of the conflicts
of laws principles of the State of Minnesota.
iv) Nothing contained herein shall be deemed a waiver by the City of any governmental
immunity defenses, statutory or otherwise. Further, any and all claims brought by
Owner or Developer or their successors or assigns, shall be subject to any governmental
immunity defenses of the City and the maximum liability limits provided by Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 466.
v) This First Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, all of which shall
be considered one and the same instrument and shall become effective when one or
more counterparts have been signed by the parties and delivered to the other parties.
vi) This First Amendment shall not be amended, modified or supplemented, except by a
written instrument signed by an authorized representative of each party.
[The remainder of this page was intentionally left blank.]
12
IN AGREEMENT, the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands as of the Effective
Date.
CITY:
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE
By:
Myron Bailey
Its Mayor
By:
Tamara Anderson
Its City Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON )
On this day of , 2025, before me a Notary Public within and
for said County, personally appeared Myron Bailey and Tamara Anderson to me personally known,
who being each by me duly sworn, each did say that they are respectively the Mayor and City Clerk
of the City of Cottage Grove, the municipality named in the foregoing instrument, and that the said
instrument was signed in behalf of said municipality by authority of its City Council and said Mayor
and City Clerk acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said municipality.
Notary Public
1
City Council Action Request
7.P.
Meeting Date 4/16/2025
Department Community Development
Agenda Category Action Item
Title Ordinance Amendments - Zoning Code, Sign Code, and Mining,
Sand, and Gravel Operations Code
Staff Recommendation 1) Adopt Ordinance No. 1100 amending Title 11, Zoning
Regulations. 2) Adopt Ordinance No. 1098 amending Title 12, Sign
Regulations. 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 1099 amending Title 3,
Business and License Regulations.
Budget Implication N/A
Attachments 1. Code Amendments Memo 2025-4-16
2. Ordinance No. 1100 - Amendments - Zoning
3. Ordinance No 1098 - Amendments - Sign Code
4. Ordinance No. 1099 - Amendments - Mining
TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council
Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator
FROM:Samantha Pierret, Senior Planner
Max Erickson, Planner
DATE:April 7, 2025
RE:Zoning Code, Sign Code, and Mining, Sand, and Gravel Operations Code
Introduction
The City of Cottage Grove is requesting to amend sections of City Code Title 11, Zoning Regu-
lations; Title 12, Signs; Title 3-9 Mining, Sand, and Gravel Operations; and Title 7-4, Planting
Trees on Boulevard.
Background
The City of Cottage Grove previously adopted an entirely revised zoning code in December 2022.
Since its implementation, city staff has identified sections of the code that required minor correc-
tions and clarifying language to ensure clarity in interpretation. Staff is also proposing to amend
Title 12, Signs, with clarifying language for shopping complex signage; Title 3 to allow annual
mining permits to be administratively issued; and Title 7 to match proposed language in Title 11
regarding boulevard trees.
Planning Commission
At its March 24, 2025, meeting the Planning Commission reviewed this request and held a public
hearing. The Planning Commission had the following inquiries:
•Clarification was asked for the reasoning of changing landscape calculation based on
disturbed site rather than site area.
o Staff clarified that because disturbance can occur on a very small proportion of a
lot, the required amount of landscaping may not be practical. Sites have other
checks and balances such as impervious surface and open space calculations.
•Clarification was asked regarding changes for the removal of boulevard tree language for
individual lots.
o Staff explained that the change would remove required boulevard trees but keep
required front yard trees per lot. Staff explained that impervious surface standards
would still hold and promote the vegetative state of properties.
•There were multiple inquiries regarding amending Title 11-2-10 to remove formal
consideration of EAW, EIS, and AUARs from the Planning Commission.
o Staff explained that state law does not require the Planning Commission to take
action on these environmental documents and that City Council is the Responsible
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt
Zoning Code, Sign Code, and Mining, Sand, and Gravel Operations
April 9, 2024
Page 2 of 7
Governmental Unit (RGU) outlined in state statute. Staff further explained that all
regulations and due process including public meetings will continue to be followed
as part of the requirements of Minnesota state statutes.
•An inquiry for allowing fuel pumps to count as additional parking spaces was asked if
electric vehicle (EV) charging stations were considered additional parking spaces since
EVs will remain stationary for longer periods of time.
o Staff explained that charging stations were not considered as fuel pump parking
spaces and charging stations could be considered a surface parking stall.
One resident participated in the public hearing and provided a letter that asked for clarification on
the change of review on environmental documents. The Planning Commission Chair moved to
add the written letter request into the official record and staff has provided written response to the
resident’s inquiries. After hearing the testimony and discussion, the Planning Commission voted
unanimously (7-to-0 vote) to recommend approval of the zoning code amendments.
Zoning Code Update
The majority of the proposed amendments are administrative and formatting; however, the more
substantial amendments with findings of support are listed below:
1. Remove Planning Commission review for environmental documents.
11-2-10: Replace all references to Planning Commission with City Council. City Council
will hold a public meeting to consider environmental documents.
Finding: When considering EISs, EAWs, and AUARs, the City Council is the Respon-
sible Government Unit and is actively involved in the preparation of the document,
holding public hearings, and is the decision-making authority. Requiring a meeting to
be held with the Planning Commission is not required by state rules.
2. Remove Fee Table from 11-2-17: Zoning Application Fees; Deposits.
The Fee Table is not required to be in the Zoning Code. Each year the city updates its
official fees which require council review and approval. Keeping the Fee Table in the
zoning code would then require an additional update to the zoning code. The City fee
table is published on the City’s website.
3. Clarify requirements for off-street driveways and parking areas when behind the principal
structure but accessing an adjacent right of way (corner lots). Amend parking standards to
include specific standards for libraries.
11-3-4H(4): Add language to clarify that surfacing for parking areas and driveways in
side yards abutting a public right of way must also be paved. Driveways and parking
areas behind the front plane of the principal structure may be class 5 gravel if the
driveway or parking area is not accessing a public right of way.
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt
Zoning Code, Sign Code, and Mining, Sand, and Gravel Operations
April 9, 2024
Page 3 of 7
11-3-4H(4)(a): Clarify that all parking surfaces in front of the principal structure and side
yards abutting a public right-of-way must not exceed 40 percent of the required yard
area. Parking areas or driveways may not encroach on any drainage and utility
easement except for easements running adjacent and parallel to the street which the
parking or driveway is accessing.
11-3-4H(4)(b): Parking or driveways behind the principal structure on interior lots must
be constructed of one of the allowed materials.
11-3-4I: Library parking calculations are currently included with calculations for com-
munity centers, commercial recreation facilities, and museums, which are calculated
based on maximum capacity of patrons. The separation of uses is particularly important
for the Park Grove Library where parking space is important to support the activity.
Finding: There are several properties in the City that have a driveway or parking access
from a right-of-way that is not in front of their principal structure. When the Code only rec-
ognizes driveways and parking areas in front of the principal dwelling or behind the prin-
cipal dwelling, the same requirements for driveway construction materials and standards
are difficult for staff to enforce.
Examples of driveways/parking areas on different right of way compared to dwelling
4. Rearrange language of primary garage maximum areas.
Update 11-3-5C to read:
“Number and Size. The number and size of accessory structures or accessory garages
permitted on any lot shall be determined by the following table. On a residential lot, the
primary garage, attached or detached up to 1,200 square feet, one (1) accessory
structure up to two hundred (200) square feet, and swimming pools shall not count
towards the number of accessory structures or total square footage calculations.”
Remove 11-3-5G because the language is being added to 11-3-5C.
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt
Zoning Code, Sign Code, and Mining, Sand, and Gravel Operations
April 9, 2024
Page 4 of 7
Finding: Staff is proposing to remove Section G, which describes the maximum square
footage for attached and detached primary garages, and add this language to the initial
paragraph for Section C. This would allow for Title 11-3-5 to be more organized by not
allowing separation of language concerning a similar topic by multiple subsections. This
change would make it easier for the public to find information regarding maximum size
requirements.
5. Clarify distinctions for single family attached and single family detached accessory
structure maximum square footages in the R-4, Transitional Residential District.
Amend table in 11-3-5 C to read:
Property
Classification Number Total Size
AG-1 2 2,500 sq. ft.
AG-2 2 2,500 sq. ft.
R-1 2 2,500 sq. ft.
R-2 2 2,000 sq. ft.
R-3 1 1,000 sq. ft.
R-4 (Single
Family Detached)1 1,000 sq. ft.
R-4 (Single
Family Attached)1 500 sq. ft. per unit
R-5 1 500 sq. ft. per unit
R-6 1 500 sq. ft. per unit
Business
1 – Site plan
review over 1,000
sq. ft.
Site plan review over
1,000 sq. ft.
Industrial
2 – Site Plan
review over 1,000
sq. ft.
Site plan review over
1,000 sq. ft.
Finding: This change would honor the nature of the purpose of the R-4 district by providing
a distinction between uses on R-4 zoned lots. This will further align the transition between
higher density residential districts and other zones.
6. Move structure setback from public street rights-of-way on corner lots from Title 11-3-11,
Architectural Standards, to Title 11-3-4D, Accessory Structures.
The setback will remain 20 feet; however, moving the language to the Accessory Struc-
tures section will ensure that setbacks are in the same section of the Code for the public
to view. Principal structure setbacks are at least 20 feet on corner lots in all zoning
districts.
7. Amend requirements for street trees and instead require front yard trees in Title 11-3-12.
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt
Zoning Code, Sign Code, and Mining, Sand, and Gravel Operations
April 9, 2024
Page 5 of 7
Remove requirements for street trees on each single-family lot and instead require a
front yard tree for each single-family lot.
Lots under 60 feet wide must have two trees, one of which is in the front yard.
The front yard trees on lots under 60 feet wide must have a maximum canopy spread
of 30 feet and maximum height of 30 feet.
Lots 60 feet wide or greater must have three yard trees, one of which is in the front
yard. The front yard tree on these lots would be a traditional overstory tree.
Townhome developments will be required to have one tree in between each building
group as front yard trees.
Clarify the required planting location of front yard trees a minimum of five feet from all
public street pavement, curbs, sidewalks, and trails.
Properties that had a preliminary plat approved before January 1, 2025, must adhere
to the former boulevard tree rules.
Finding: As the City continues to grow and add residential developments, the City’s Public
Works Department and City Forester have added responsibility with each tree that is added
in public rights of way. This responsibility comes with a cost for maintenance of street trees.
As lots also become narrower to facilitate a more affordable and diverse housing product,
the area to place a tree in the public right of way decreases. Placing trees in a way that
avoids public utilities in the right of way is a challenge on narrower lots, and once a tree is
planted in the right of way, snow storage may become an issue when trees are close in
proximity to each other. Front yard trees will maintain community aesthetics and ensure
the trees are properly spaced from other trees and public utilities and paved areas.
8. Better define site area as it relates to calculating landscape requirements for commercial
and industrial uses.
11-3-12E(3): Calculate tree and shrub requirements by multiplying the disturbed site
area (area impacted by development including structures, grading, parking, and drive
lanes) by the coefficients in the existing table. A clarification should be added that de-
velopment on existing sites including additions and site redevelopment shall be calcu-
lated using only the square footage of newly disturbed areas.
Finding: When tree and shrub calculations are based on an entire site area for building
additions or remodeling on a developed site, the amount of trees and shrubs required can
be very cost and space prohibitive. Calculating trees and shrubs based on the area to be
disturbed would better offset the amount of space being taken up. When a vacant site is
proposed to be developed but will leave a large amount of space untouched (for example,
the Kwik Trip site on 95th Street), requiring a developer to calculate the amount of trees
and shrubs to plant based on the entire site area can also be cost and space prohibitive.
The amount of space the applicant is disturbing does not correlate to the number of trees
and shrubs that must be planted when using the entire property area as a multiplier.
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt
Zoning Code, Sign Code, and Mining, Sand, and Gravel Operations
April 9, 2024
Page 6 of 7
Kwik Trip Site Plan with Unused Area
9. Clarify gas station canopy column materials and that each fuel service pump may count as
one parking space.
Amend 11-4-5 B 4 to clarify canopy columns shall be constructed of a Class 1 material.
This standard aligns with the majority of existing and proposed gas station canopies.
Add a provision that each fuel service pump may count as a parking space towards
minimum off street parking requirements due to the high turnover rate of vehicles at gas
pumps and the amount of space that is taken up on site by fuel canopies and gas
pumps.
10. Amend purpose of R-4, Transitional Residential Zoning District, by removing “two-family
dwellings” and adding “single-family detached and single family attached.”
Finding: Dwelling Units are defined in Title 11-1-3 and the term “two-family dwelling” is not
defined. The term “Single-family attached” is used for duplexes, townhouses, and
quadplexes, all of which would be allowed in the R-4 District.
Sign Code Update
In 2024, the Sign Code was moved to Title 12 of the City Code. With that, the Planning
Commission does not need to make a recommendation on Sign Code updates; however, the
clarification to shopping complex signage was presented to the Planning Commission on March
24, 2025 for informational purposes.
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt
Zoning Code, Sign Code, and Mining, Sand, and Gravel Operations
April 9, 2024
Page 7 of 7
12-1-10B Add clarification that shopping complexes may have both an individual and joint
monument signs.
Amend 12-1-10B to read: “Properties or businesses within a commercial building com-
plex may request one (1) individual and one (1) joint monument sign if they meet the
standards in this section and 11-2-7.”
Mining Code Update
The City Council may amend Title 3, Business and License Regulations, without Planning
Commission recommendation. Staff is proposing to amend Title 3-9 to allow annual mining
permits to be administratively approved when there are no changes to the type or amount of
material to be mined.
Amend 3-9-3 to read: “The annual mining permit shall be reviewed by the Community
Development Director and the permit issued within sixty (60) days after the completed
application has been accepted by the City. Increases in the amount of material or changes
in the type of material to be mined shall require review by the Planning Commission and
approval by the City Council.”
Finding: If a mining operation is not proposing to make major changes to its operations, a
more streamlined permit process should be used to issue an annual mining permit
administratively. If an operation proposes to make changes from the previous year, the
Planning Commission and City Council should consider the item. Mining permits do not
require a public hearing.
Public Hearing Notices
The public hearing notice was published in the Pioneer Press on March 12, 2025.
Recommendation
The City Council is recommended to:
1) Adopt Ordinance No. 1100 amending Title 11, Zoning Regulations.
2) Adopt Ordinance No. 1098 amending Title 12, Sign Regulations.
3) Adopt Ordinance No. 1099 amending Title 3, Business and License Regulations.
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 1100
AN ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING
VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE,
TITLE 11, ZONING REGULATIONS
The City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota,
does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. The Code of the City of Cottage Grove, County of
Washington, State of Minnesota, Title 11, Chapter 2, Section 11-2-10 C. shall be
amended as follows:
§ 11-2-10: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEETS AND IMPACT
STATEMENTS:
C. Upon completion of the environmental document for distribution, the Community
Development Director shall provide mailed notice of the availability of the environmental
document, and date of the meeting at which the City Council Planning Commission will
consider the matter, to all property owners within five hundred feet (500') of the
boundaries of the property that is the subject of the environmental document. Said
notice shall be mailed at least ten (10) days before the City Council Planning
Commission meeting. Failure of a property owner to receive notice shall not invalidate
any such proceedings as set forth in this Chapter. The Planning Commission shall
provide its recommendations to the City Council.
SECTION 2. AMENDMENT. The Code of the City of Cottage Grove, County of
Washington, State of Minnesota, Title 11, Chapter 2, Section 17 C. shall be removed:
§ 11-2-17: ZONING APPLICATION FEES; DEPOSITS:
C. Fee Schedule:
Item Fee
Agricultural Preservation
Documentation Processing
$150.00
Business Subsidy Application $10,000.00 Escrow (Unused escrow amount returned)
Comprehensive Plan $50.00 per Paper Copy / $10 Digital Format
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, Map or Text
$670.00 + $55.00 GIS Fee + $2,500.00 Escrow
Concept Plan Review $1,080.00 plus $20.00 per Acre; $1,000.00 Escrow
Conditional Use Permit,
Commercial
$565.00 plus $5,000.00 Escrow
Conditional Use Permit, Interim $565.00 plus $5,000.00 escrow
Conditional Use Permit,
Residential
$565.00 plus $5,000.00 escrow
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
Ordinance No. 1100
Page 2 of 11
Administrative Use Permit,
Commercial
$565.00 plus $5,000.00 escrow
Administrative Use Permit,
Residential
$565.00 plus $5,000.00 escrow
Sketch Plan Review $155.00 plus $500.00 Escrow
Business Park AUAR $111.00 per Acre
East Ravine AUAR Charge $120.00 per Acre
Environmental Assessment
Worksheet
$620.00 plus Actual Costs
Financial Guarantee, Escrow for
Subdivision Improvements
Public Improvements - 125% of Estimated Cost.
Boulevard, Landscaping Improvements - 150% of
Estimated Cost.
Historic Preservation Delisting $515.00
Historic Preservation
Designation
$515.00
Lot Grading and Corner Lot Pin
Compliance Escrow
$1,000.00 per Lot
Metropolitan Council SAC
Charge
$2,485.00 per Unit for Applicable 2023 Permits
Mining, Annual Inspection and
Review
$2,060.00
Mining, Permit Removal per
Occurrence
Under 100,000 tons $250.00. Over 100,000 tons
$500.00
Natural Resources Inventory $70.00 per Paper Copy
Park Land Dedication,
Commercial
Estimated $7,800.00 Per Acre or 4% of the Fair
Market Value, based on individualized determination.
Park Land Dedication, Industrial Based on individualized determination.
Park Land Dedication,
Residential
Estimated $4,400.00 Per Unit or 10% of the Fair
Market Value, based on individualized determination.
Plat, Final $310.00 + $100.00/acre + $5,000.00 Escrow
Plat, Preliminary $515.00 + $50.00 per Lot/Unit + $5,000.00 Escrow
Public ROW and Easement
Vacations
$310.00
Re-addressing $100.00
Signs, Illegal, Return of $10.00 per Sign
Site Plan $415.00 plus $5,000.00 Escrow
Sketch Plan Review $155.00 plus $500.00 Escrow
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
Ordinance No. 1100
Page 3 of 11
Street Lighting - New
Developments
$2.83/Lot/Month for 24 Months
Street Renaming $200.00 plus sign material and labor for installation
Subdivision, Minor $310.00 plus $2,000 Escrow
Tree Mitigation See Title 11-3-13
Variance, Post-Construction $875.00
Variance, Pre-Construction $255.00
Zoning Amendment, Text or
Map
$615.00 plus $2,000.00 Escrow
Zoning Appeal $260.00
Zoning Letter $75.00
Zoning Ordinance $30.00 per Paper Copy / $10 Digital Format
City Maps, Urban or Rural $5.00 Each
SECTION 3. AMENDMENT. The Code of the City of Cottage Grove, County of
Washington, State of Minnesota, Title 11, Chapter 2, Section 11-3-4. shall be amended
as follows:
§ 11-3-4: OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING:
H. Design and maintenance of off-street parking areas.
1. General Requirements. Access and parking areas shall be designed so as to
provide an adequate means of access to a public alley or street. Such driveway access
shall not exceed the driveway dimensions of this Code and shall be so limited so as to
cause the least interference with the traffic movement.
a. Except for single-family, two-family, and townhouse dwellings, head in parking,
directly off of and adjacent to a public street, with each stall having its own direct access
to the public street, shall be prohibited. All parking spaces shall have access from
driveways and not directly on a public street.
2. Parking Spaces Striped. All parking spaces shall be striped with suitable paint in
accordance with approved plans, except for single-family residences.
3. Calculating Space. When the determination of the number of required off street
parking spaces results in a fraction, each fraction up to and including one -half (1/2) shall
be disregarded; fractions over one-half (1/2) shall count as one (1) additional space.
4. Surfacing. All parking areas and driveways in the front yard and side yards
accessing a public right of way of property in the MUSA must be paved with asphalt,
paver bricks, or concrete.
a. All parking surfaces in front of the principal structure and in side yards
accessing a public right of way must be in conformance with this code and must not
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
Ordinance No. 1100
Page 4 of 11
exceed forty percent (40%) of the front required yard area. A maximum width of two feet
(2') of landscape rock or similar landscaping material may additionally be permitted to
border such parking or driveway area. The parking or driveway surface may not
encroach on any drainage and utility easement, exce pt the front yard drainage and
utility easement running adjacent and parallel to the street the parking or driveway
surface is accessing.
b. Any parking or driveway surface behind the principal structure must be one (1)
of the following: concrete, asphalt, class V gravel (minimum six inches (6") compacted),
landscape rock (minimum six inches (6") compacted), landscape paver blocks, or brick.
All parking surfaces must be contained within a solid edging or other border. The
setback for parking surfaces behind the front of the principal structure is the same as
the setbacks for accessory structures in the zoning district. Such parking or driveway
surface cannot encroach on any drainage and utility easements.
c. All development in non-MUSA areas must have an asphalt or concrete
driveway between the roadway edge and the minimum front yard setback line. The City,
at its discretion, can require the entire or a greater portion of the driveway to be paved if
erosion or drainage problems are experienced on public or private land. This
requirement applies to open sales lots in or out of the MUSA.
I. Required Off-Street Parking. The following minimum areas shall be provided and
maintained by ownership, easement or lease, for and during the life of the respective
uses set forth below.
Community, activity, and cultural centers, post
offices, commercial recreation facilities (indoor and
outdoor), libraries, museums and art galleries
1 space per maximum
capacity of patrons, plus 1
space for every employee
Libraries 1 space for each 300 square
feet of floor area
SECTION 4. AMENDMENT. The Code of the City of Cottage Grove, County of
Washington, State of Minnesota, Title 11, Chapter 3, Section 11-3-5 shall be amended
as follows:
§ 11-3-5: ACCESSORY STRUCTURES:
C. Number and Size. The number and size of accessory structures or accessory
garages are permitted on any lot shall be determined by the following table. On a
residential lot, the primary garage, attached or detached up to 1,200 square feet, one
(1) accessory structure up to two hundred (200) square feet, and swimming pools shall
not count towards the number of accessory structures or total square footage
calculations.
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
Ordinance No. 1100
Page 5 of 11
Property
Classification
Number Total Size
AG-1 2 2,500 sq. ft.
AG-2 2 2,500 sq. ft.
R-1 2 2,500 sq. ft.
R-2 2 2,000 sq. ft.
R-3 1 1,000 sq. ft.
R-4 (Single Family
Detached)
1 1,000 sq. ft. 500 sq. ft.
per unit
R-4 (Single Family
Attached)R-5
1 500 sq. ft. per unit
R-6 R-5 1 500 sq. ft. per unit
R-6 1 500 sq. ft. per unit
Business 1 - Site plan review over 1,000
sq. ft.
Site plan review over
1,000 sq. ft.
Industrial 2 - Site plan review over 1,000
sq. ft.
Site plan review over
1,000 sq. ft
D. Setbacks. Setbacks for accessory structures, primary and accessory garages
shall be determined by the following table. No structure of any kind shall be placed
within twenty feet (20’) of a public street right-of-way on a corner lot.
Property Classification Side Yard Rear Yard Front Yard
AG-1 25 feet 50 feet Behind principal
structure
AG-2 25 feet 50 feet Behind principal
structure
R-1 20 feet 50 feet Behind principal
structure
R-2 20 feet 20 feet Behind principal
structure
R-3 6 feet 10 feet Behind principal
structure
R-4 6 feet 10 feet Behind principal
structure
R-5 6 feet 10 feet Behind principal
structure
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
Ordinance No. 1100
Page 6 of 11
R-6 6 feet 10 feet Behind principal
structure
Business Not permitted in
side-yard
Follow building
setbacks
Behind principal
structure
Industrial adjacent to
Residential
Not permitted in
side-yard
100 feet Behind principal
structure
Industrial not adjacent to
Residential
Follow building
setbacks
Follow building
setbacks
Behind principal
structure
G. Primary Attached or Detached Garage Requirements in Residential Districts: The
garage total floor area in any residential district must not exceed one thousand two
hundred (1,200) square feet. (amd. Ord. 1081, 5 -1-2024)
SECTION 5. AMENDMENT. The Code of the City of Cottage Grove, County of
Washington, State of Minnesota, Title 11, Chapter 3, Section 11-3-9 A. shall be
amended as follows:
§ 11-3-9: MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCREENING REQUIREMENTS:
A. Screening Required.
1. Rooftop mechanical equipment as viewed from ground level at a variety of the
centerline of all adjacent right of ways and from property lines of all adjacent residential
properties locations must be screened by a raised parapet; or with comparable and
compatible exterior building materials.
2. Standards for mechanical equipment screening:
a. Incidental rooftop equipment deemed unnecessary to be screened by City
Staff must be of a color to match the roof or the sky, whichever is more effective.
b. Metal cabinets used to enclose and protect rooftop mechanical equipment
must not substitute as screening.
3. All ground mounted mechanical equipment accessory to the principal structure
thirty inches (30") or greater than twelve (12) cubic feet shall be screened from public
views with landscaping, berming, or screen wall, except single dwelling unit and double
dwelling unit buildings.
SECTION 6. AMENDMENT. The Code of the City of Cottage Grove, County of
Washington, State of Minnesota, Title 11, Chapter 3, Section 11-3-11 C. shall be
removed:
§ 11-3-11: ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS:
C. Building location. No structure of any kind shall be placed within twenty feet (20') of a
public street right-of-way on a corner lot.
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
Ordinance No. 1100
Page 7 of 11
SECTION 7. AMENDMENT. The Code of the City of Cottage Grove, County of
Washington, State of Minnesota, Title 11, Chapter 2, Section 11 -3-12 shall be amended
as follows:
§ 11-3-12: LANDSCAPING:
D. Residential developments. The minimum required tree and shrub requirements for
all residential developments are as follows:
Vegetation
Type
Minimum
Size
Single-Family
Dwellings
Townhouse
Developments
Multiple-Family
Dwellings
Coniferous
trees
6 feet May be
substituted for
any of the
overstory
deciduous trees
except for front
yard tree
(maximum of 2)
1 per unit, but may
be substituted on a
1 for 1 basis for the
overstory deciduous
trees except for front
yard trees
Minimum of 30%
of required
overstory trees
must be
coniferous
Ornamental
deciduous
trees
1.5 inch
(caliper)
2 may be
substituted for 1
overstory (maximum
substitution equals
25% of required
overstory trees)
2 may be
substituted for 1
overstory
(maximum
substitution
equals 50% of
required
overstory trees)
Overstory
deciduous
trees
2.5 inch
(caliper)
On lots less than
60 feet wide or
less: 2 per
lot(one in front
yard)
On lots greater
than 60 feet
wide or greater:
3 per lot (one in
the front yard),
no less than 2
different species
1 per 40 linear feet
of site perimeter.
One in the front yard
between each
building group.
1 per 40 linear
feet of site
perimeter, not
including the
street tree
Shrubs 18 inch
height
10 per unit 5 per unit 1 per 5 linear
feet of site
perimeter
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
Ordinance No. 1100
Page 8 of 11
Street tree 2.5 inch
(caliper)
1 per adjacent
street
1 per unit Not required
1. All non-residential uses in a Residential District shall meet the Business and
Industrial Development landscaping standards in section 11 -3-12 (F).
2. Front Yard Trees.
a. On lots less than 60 feet wide the front yard tree shall have a maximum canopy
spread of thirty (30) feet and maximum height of thirty (30) feet.
b. Front yard trees shall be planted at least five (5) feet from the nearest public
street pavement, curb, sidewalk, or trail.
3. Street Trees
a. One (1) tree must be planted in the front yard right -of-way of every subdivided
lot in a manner determined by the City Forester. Street trees may be planted in the
street boulevard or in the front yard of the lot in a manner determined by the City
Forester and in accordance with City Code Title 7-4-3. as determined by City Staff. On
corner or double fronted lots, one (1) street tree must be planted on each side of the lot
adjacent to a street. Trees planted in the boulevard do not count toward required yard
trees.
b. The location, size and type or species of trees planted shall be of mixed
varieties and shall be approved by the City Forester and shall include those with root
structures unlikely to interfere with utility lines or sidewalks or otherwise cau se nuisance
or damage.
c. The minimum size of trees to be planted as street trees or right-of-way
replacement trees shall be two and one-half inches (2 ½”) caliper.
d. The City Forester shall review and approve proposed street tree locations per
the approved landscape plan.
e. On streets having sidewalks, street trees will generally be planted between the
curb and the sidewalk.
4.3. Residential district landscape buffer along major roadways.
a. Purpose. The City recognizes the need to protect new and existing
developments in R-2 through R-5 residentially zoned districts from the adverse impacts
of being located adjacent to principal arterials, minor expander, major and minor
collectors as defined in the City's comprehensive plan ("Major Roadways"), including
concerns for safety, noise, light, glare and emissions. In the interest of the health,
safety, and welfare of residents, new developments adjacent to Major Roadways must
provide for landscaping and screening lying outside and parallel to the road right-of-
way.
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
Ordinance No. 1100
Page 9 of 11
b. Requirements. For all residential and nonresidential developments within the
R-2 through R-5 residentially zoned districts include frontage along a Major Roadway,
the landscape plan must provide an average of a fifty-foot (50') buffer, but not less than
a thirty-foot (30') buffer, running parallel to the rear lot line for the purposes of creating a
barrier to the Major Roadway. The buffer shall be a combination of trees, fences and
shrubs that create a minimum of fifty percent (50%) year-round opacity at maturity.
c. Maintenance. The proposed developments shall also include a plan to protect
and maintain the tree buffer. This could include a homeowners association or some
other form of protection as approved by City Staff, which incorporates the buffer in to
rear yard landscaping.
E. Business and industrial developments.
3. Tree and Shrub Calculations. The number of trees and shrubs required shall be
calculated by multiplying the disturbed site area (area impacted by development
including structures, grading, parking, and drive lanes) in square feet by the coefficients
in the following table for each landscape material:. Development on existing sites
including additions and redevelopment shall be calculated using only the square
footage of any newly disturbed areas:
Zoning District Overstory
Deciduous
Coniferous Shrubs
All nonresidential uses in all AG and R
districts, B-1, Mixed Use, and (site area minus
stormwater basins)
0.0002786 0.0002600 0.0006
B-2, B-3 and P-B (site area minus stormwater
basins)
0.0001858 0.0001733 0.0004
Industrial (site area minus stormwater basins) 0.0001392 0.0001300 0.00039
SECTION 8. AMENDMENT. The Code of the City of Cottage Grove, County of
Washington, State of Minnesota, Title 11, Chapter 4, Section 11-4-5 shall be amended
as follows:
§ 11-4-5: MOTOR FUEL STATIONS:
B. Canopies.
1. The setback of any overhead canopy or weather protection, freestanding or
projecting from the station structure, shall be not less than ten feet (10') from the street
right-of-way line, nor less than twenty feet (20') from an adjacent property line.
2. The total height of any overhead canopy or weather protection shall not exceed
twenty feet (20').
3. No light banding around the exterior of the canopy.
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
Ordinance No. 1100
Page 10 of 11
4. Canopy columns shall be constructed of a Class 1 material primary material that
matches and compliments the principal building.
C. Architectural Design. Each motor fuel station shall be so architecturally designed
as to be as compatible as possible with the general architectural intent of the area in
which it is located.
D. Landscaping. A minimum twenty (20) foot landscaped yard shall be planted and
maintained behind all property lines adjacent to public streets, except at driveway
entrances.
E. Screening. Whenever a motor fuel station abuts a residential district, a fence or
landscape hedge not less than fifty percent (50%) opaque nor less than six feet (6') high
shall be erected and maintained along the property line(s) that abuts the re sidential
district. Application of this provision shall not require a fence within fifteen feet (15') of
any street right-of-way line.
F. Each fuel service pump may count as one parking space toward minimum off street
parking standards.
SECTION 9. AMENDMENT. The Code of the City of Cottage Grove, County of
Washington, State of Minnesota, Title 11, Chapter 7, Section 11-7-4 A. shall be
amended as follows:
§ 11-7-4: R-4 TRANSITIONAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT:
A. Purpose: The purpose of the R-4 District is to provide transitional areas that will
allow a mixing of two-family dwellings and/or single-family detached and single
family attached dwellings on smaller lots where property is adjacent to a minor or
major collector street and/or where property is adjacent to higher intensity
development or land use. Directly related, complementary uses are also
appropriate. A full range of public services and facilities shall be available to R-4
areas.
SECTION 10. AMENDMENT. The Code of the City of Cottage Grove, County of
Washington, State of Minnesota, Title 11, Chapter 7, Section 11-7-6 F. shall be
amended as follows:
§ 11-7-6: R-6 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT:
F. Development Standards: The following minimum requirements shall be observed,
subject to the additional requirements, exceptions and modifications as set forth in this
Title, however exceptions to rigid lot area, width and depth requirements shall be
granted for attached units subject to approval of a site plan pursuant to City Code
Section 11-2-4 in compliance with the development standards of this District.
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
Ordinance No. 1100
Page 11 of 11
Front yard 15 feet
Rear yard 15 feet
Side yard 15 feet
Maximum structure height 55 feet
Setbacks between buildings 15 feet
Setbacks from other districts 30 feet abutting R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, and R-5
districts
Parking 2 1.6 paved off-street parking spaces per
dwelling unit
Maximum impervious surface
coverage
65% total impervious
SECTION 11. SUMMARY PUBLICATION. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
Section 412.191, in the case of a lengthy ordinance, a summary may be published. While
a copy of the entire ordinance is available without cost at the office of the City Clerk, the
following summary is approved by the City Council and shall be published in lieu of
publishing the entire ordinance:
The City of Cottage Grove previously adopted an entirely revised zoning code in
December 2022. Since its implementation city staff has identified sections of the
code that required minor corrections and clarifying language to ensure clarity in
interpretation. Staff is also proposing to amend requirements for street trees and
instead require front yard trees, clarify off street parking and driveway materials
for corner lots, better define site area used to calculate landscaping
requirements, and amend the purpose of the R-4, Transitional Residential Zoning
District to include single-family attached dwellings.
SECTION 12. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect
from and after its passage and publication according to law.
Passed this 16th day of April 2025.
Myron Bailey, Mayor
Attest:
Tamara Anderson, City Clerk
Published in the Pioneer Press on _______.
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 1098
AN ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING
SECTIONS OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE,
TITLE 12, SIGN REGULATIONS
The City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota,
does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. The Code of the City of Cottage Grove, County of
Washington, State of Minnesota, Title 12, Chapter 1, Section 12-1-10. shall be amended
as follows:
§ 12-1-10: SIGNS IN BUSINESS DISTRICTS:
B. Properties or businesses within a commercial building complex may request an one
(1) individual or and one (1) joint monument sign if they meet the standards in this section
and 11-2-7.
SECTION 2. SUMMARY PUBLICATION. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section
412.191, in the case of a lengthy ordinance, a summary may be published. While a copy
of the entire ordinance is available without cost at the office of the City Clerk, the following
summary is approved by the City Council and shall be published in lieu of publishing the
entire ordinance:
Sign Regulations were removed from Title 11 (Zoning Regulations) in 2024 and
relocated to Title 12 of the City Code. City staff has identified sections of the
code that require minor corrections and clarifying language to ensure clarity in
interpretation including provisions for shopping complex signage allowances.
SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon
enactment and publication according to law.
Passed this 16th day of April, 2025.
Myron Bailey, Mayor
Attest:
Tamara Anderson, City Clerk
Published in the Saint Paul Pioneer Press on [Date].
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 1099
AN ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA,
AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE,
TITLE 3, BUSINESS AND LICENSE REGULATIONS, SECTION 9, MINING,
SAND AND GRAVEL OPERATIONS
The City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota,
does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. The Code of the City of Cottage Grove, County of
Washington, State of Minnesota, Title 3, Chapter 9, Section 3-9-3 shall be amended as
follows:
§ 3-9-3: PERMIT REQUIRED; REVIEW AND ACTION:
It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in mining within the City or for a property
owner to permit a person to mine on their property without first having obtained an annual
mining permit. The annual mining permit shall be reviewed by the Community
Development Director Planning Commission and the permit issued within sixty (60) days
after the completed application has been accepted by the City. The Commission’s
recommendation shall be forwarded to the City Council for formal action within thirty (30)
days after this review. Increases in the amount of material or changes in the type of
material to be mined shall require review by the Planning Commission and approval by
the City Council.
SECTION 2. SUMMARY PUBLICATION. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section
412.191, in the case of a lengthy ordinance, a summary may be published. While a copy
of the entire ordinance is available without cost at the office of the City Clerk, the following
summary is approved by the City Council and shall be published in lieu of publishing the
entire ordinance:
Title 3-9 of the City Code details provisions for Mining, Sand, and Gravel
Operations. City staff has proposed to allow the Community Development Director to
administratively approve annual mining permits unless the amount of material mined
increases or the type of material mined changes. This would streamline the review
process when the activity is not changing on-site.
SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect
from and after its passage and publication according to law.
Passed this 16th day of April 2025.
Myron Bailey, Mayor
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
Ordinance No. 1099
Page 2 of 2
Attest:
Tamara Anderson, City Clerk
Published in the Pioneer Press on _______.
1
City Council Action Request
7.Q.
Meeting Date 4/16/2025
Department Parks and Recreation
Agenda Category Action Item
Title Belden and Hardwood Park Playground Surplus Declaration and
Disposal
Staff Recommendation Declare surplus for fixed assets Belden Park (#100778) and
Hardwood Park (#100781) and authorize disposal services
agreement with Kids Around the World.
Budget Implication N/A
Attachments 1. 1-Memo-Kids Around the World Agreement
2. 2-Playground Equipment Donation Agreement_
3. 3-Playground equpment Belden and Hardwood
To:Honorable Mayor and City Council
Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator
From:Zac Dockter, Parks and Recreation Director
Date:April 8, 2025
Subject:Belden and Hardwood Park Playground Surplus Declaration and Disposal
Introduction
Playgrounds at Belden and Hardwood Parks are scheduled for replacement in 2025. Cottage Grove
maintains a 20-year life expectancy for playgrounds to assure the safety and playability of these public
structures are not compromised. The playgrounds are now fully depreciated and need to be removed
prior to the installation of the new structures approved for purchase by City Council this past winter.
Disposal Options
Staff has considered three disposal options:
1. Park maintenance labor and equipment to demolish playground and properly dispose of the
playground into roll-off dumpsters provided and removed by Tennis Sanitation.
Cost = $3,000
2. Accept quote from Rumpca Excavating to demolish and dispose of playground equipment.
Cost - $3,000
3. Enter into agreement with Kids Around the World to remove the playground and reuse in
another location.
Cost - $0
Kids Around the World
Kids Around the World’s mission is to share hope through food, play and story. Their vision is to
empower future generations to live a hope-filled, Christ-centered life by impacting the wholeness of a
child to help feed the body, fill the soul, and fuel the spirit.
Through their “PLAY” initiative, they utilize passionate volunteers to upcycle playgrounds to be used
around the globe to bring joy and laughter to kids living in difficult circumstances. By transforming
playgrounds through upcycling into impoverished communities, they aim to ensure every child has
access to play; an essential component for children’s physical, emotional and social growth. Since the
launch of this play initiative, Kids Around the World has successfully upcycled 1,252 playgrounds in 87
countries. This includes the Lake Elmo Regional Park playground (owned by Washington County)
which was completed last fall. Staff has collaborated with Washington County staff on their approach
and experience with this organization and understands the process to be manageable and a good
reuse of the product. As such, staff is recommending entering into an agreement with Kids Around the
World for disposal of playground equipment at Belden and Hardwood Parks.
Staff Recommendation
Declare surplus for fixed assets Belden Park (#100778) and Hardwood Park (#100781) and authorize
disposal services agreement with Kids Around the World.
PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT DONATION AGREEMENT
This agreement is entered this date between Kids Around The World, Inc., 5245 28th Ave., Rockford, I
61109 (hereinafter referred to as “KIDS”) and ________________________________________
(hereafter referred to as “Donating Organization”).
KIDS, an Illinois not-for-profit corporation, registered in Illinois at the above address performing
charitable programs including building playgrounds for children in underprivileged locations, desires to
Acquire as a donation, the below identified used playground equipment from the Donating Organization
(hereafter referred to as the “Equipment”).
In consideration for the donation of the Equipment from the Donating Organization, KIDS agrees to the
following:
DISCLAIMER: KIDS acknowledges and agrees that the Donating Organization is neither a
manufacturer nor a vendor of the Equipment, that KIDS takes the Equipment and each part thereof
“as-is” and that the Donating Organization has not made, and does not hereby make, any
representation, warranty, or covenant, express or implied, with respect to compliance with any and
all applicable guidelines or regulations, including, but not limited to ASTM and CPSC, the
merchantability, condition, quality, durability, design, operation, fitness for use, or suitability of the
Equipment in any respect whatsoever or in connection with or for the purposes and uses of KIDS, or
as to the absence of latent or other defects whether or not discoverable, or as to the absence of any
infringement of any patent, trademark or copyright, or as to any obligation based on strict liability
in tort or any other representation, warranty, or covenant of any kind or character, express or
implied, with respect thereto, it being agreed that all risk incidents thereto are to be borne by KIDS
and the Donating Organization shall not be obligated or liable for actual, incidental, consequential,
or other damages of or to buyer or other person or entity arising out of or in connection with the use
or performance of the Equipment and the maintenance thereof. KIDS acknowledges that KIDS has
selected the Equipment KIDS is acquiring from the Donating Organization based on KIDS’ own
judgment and the Donating Organization hereby affirmatively disclaims reliance on any oral
representation concerning the Equipment made to KIDS.
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: KIDS shall maintain insurance of the types and in the amounts listed
below.
A. Commercial General Liability Insurance
KIDS shall maintain commercial general liability (CGL) insurance with a limit of not less than $1,000,000
each occurrence and a $2,000,000 aggregate limit.
CGL insurance shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) occurrence form CG 00 01 10 93, or a
substitute form providing equivalent coverage, and shall cover liability arising from premises, operations,
independent contractors, products-completed operations, personal injury and advertising injury, and
liability assumed under an insured contract.
The Donating Organization shall be included as an additional insured under the CGL insurance form.
B. Business Auto Liability Insurance
If applicable, KIDS shall maintain business auto liability insurance with a limit of not less than $1,000,000
each accident. Such insurance shall cover liability arising out of any auto including owned, hired, and non-
owned autos.
C. Workers Compensation Insurance
Kids will maintain a worker’s compensation insurance policy to cover all of the Kids employees with a
minimum employer’s liability limit of $100,000 / $500,000 / $100,000.
D. General Insurance Provisions
1. Evidence of Insurance
Prior to removal of the Equipment, KIDS shall furnish the Donating Organization with a certificate(s) of
valid insurance meeting the above noted requirements.
The donated equipment included in this agreement includes:
.
Representative of KIDS AROUND THE WORLD, INC. Representative of the DONATING ORGANIZATION
DATE DATE
kids around the world l 5245 28th Ave., Rockford, IL 61109 l 815-229-8731
Department
4/8/2025 8:14:26 AM Page 1 of 5
Asset Master Report
Cottage Grove By Asset ID
As of 04/08/2025
100778
BELDEN PARK
PARKS
Asset ID:
Serial Number:
Tag Number:
Primary Location:
Sec. Location:
41 - PARK MANTDepartment:
O - OTHERClass:
910 - CAPITAL ASSETSCategory:
1.00Units:
NormalType:
PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT
Description:
Depreciable:
38,919.20Original Cost:
0.00Improvements:
0.00Partial Disposals:
Adjusted Cost:
38,919.20Accum. Depreciation:
Net Asset Value:
910-00-9910-1580Asset Control Acct:
910-00-9910-1581Accumulated Acct:
PURCHASED ASSETSAcquisit. Method:
7/1/2005Date Acquired:
Original Life:
Improved Life:
Asset Life:
Depr. Method:
0.00Salvage Value:
0.00Replacement Cost:
12/31/2020Date Last Depr.:
Vendor:
Invoice Number:
180.00 Months0.00
38,919.20
180.00 Months
0.00 Months
Y
Disposed Life:0.00 Months
910-00-9910-2670Expense Acct:PO Number:
Straight Line
Description:
Depreciable:
Depr. Method:
100781
HARDWOOD PARK
PARKS
Asset ID:
Serial Number:
Tag Number:
Primary Location:
Sec. Location:
41 - PARK MANTDepartment:
O - OTHERClass:
910 - CAPITAL ASSETSCategory:
1.00Units:
NormalType:
HARDWOOD PARK PLAYGROUND
EQUIPMENT
Description:
Depreciable:
29,731.52Original Cost:
0.00Improvements:
0.00Partial Disposals:
Adjusted Cost:
29,731.52Accum. Depreciation:
Net Asset Value:
910-00-9910-1580Asset Control Acct:
910-00-9910-1581Accumulated Acct:
PURCHASED ASSETSAcquisit. Method:
7/1/2005Date Acquired:
Original Life:
Improved Life:
Asset Life:
Depr. Method:
0.00Salvage Value:
0.00Replacement Cost:
12/31/2020Date Last Depr.:
Vendor:
Invoice Number:
180.00 Months0.00
29,731.52
180.00 Months
0.00 Months
Y
Disposed Life:0.00 Months
910-00-9910-2670Expense Acct:PO Number:
Straight Line
Description:
Depreciable:
Depr. Method:
Asset Master Report As Of Date: 4/8/2025
4/8/2025 8:14:26 AM Page 2 of 5
Department Summary
Department Depreciation Net ValueNumberOriginal Cost Adjusted Cost
Active Assets: 2
41 - PARK MANT 2 68,650.72 68,650.72 68,650.72 0.00
68,650.72 68,650.72 68,650.72 0.002Grand Totals:
Asset Master Report
4/8/2025 8:14:26 AM Page 3 of 5
Class Totals
Depreciation Net ValueNumberOriginal Cost Adjusted Cost
Active Assets: 2
Class
Department: 41 - PARK MANT
2 68,650.72 68,650.72 68,650.72 0.00O - OTHER
68,650.72 68,650.72 68,650.72 0.002Totals:
68,650.72 68,650.72 68,650.72 0.002Grand Totals:
Asset Master Report
4/8/2025 8:14:26 AM Page 4 of 5
Location Summary
Primary Location Number Original Cost Adjusted Cost Depreciation Net Value
Active Assets: 2
PARKS 2 68,650.72 68,650.72 68,650.72 0.00
68,650.72 68,650.72 68,650.72 0.002Grand Totals:
Asset Master Report
4/8/2025 8:14:26 AM Page 5 of 5
Control Account Summary
Asset Control
Account Asset ID Original Cost Adjusted Cost Depreciation Net Value
Active Assets: 2
910-00-9910-1580
100778 38,919.20 38,919.20 38,919.20 0.00
100781 29,731.52 29,731.52 29,731.52 0.00
68,650.72 68,650.72 68,650.72 0.002Totals:
68,650.72 68,650.72 68,650.72 0.002Grand Totals:
1
City Council Action Request
7.R.
Meeting Date 4/16/2025
Department Engineering
Agenda Category Action Item
Title Oltman Park Project – Approve Plans and Specifications and
Authorize Bidding
Staff Recommendation Adopt Resolution 2025-064 approving the plans and specifications
and authorize bidding for the Oltman Park Project.
Budget Implication $3,000,000 Total:
$2,300,000 - Bond Proceeds
$350,000 - Park Trust Fund
$350,000 - Federal Land and Water Conservation Funds and/or the State’s Legislative Citizens
Commission on Minnesota Resources – Parks and Trails Fund Allocation
Attachments 1. Oltman Park Approve P&S Memo
2. Oltman Park Approve P&S Resolution
3. Oltman Park Council Plans
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator
From:
Zac Dockter, Parks and Recreation Director
Genevieve Tester, EIT, Graduate Engineer
Date: March 19, 2025
Subject: Oltman Park Project – Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize Bidding
Background/Discussion
The Oltman Park Project is located at the corner of 66 th Street and Geneva Avenue. It is an
approximately 14-acre site just west of Oltman Middle School. The master plan includes multi-
purpose turf fields (lacrosse-focused), a parking lot, trail, shelter, playground, training walls,
scoreboards, electrical service, and irrigation. At the time Oltman Middle School was
constructed in 2018, a concept plan was laid out for Oltman Park along with storm sewer install
and site rough grading.
The 2025-2029 Capital Improvements Plan allocates $3,000,000 in funding from bond
proceeds and the Park Trust Fund for the Oltman Park Project over the next two years—2025
and 2026. The estimate for the work proposed in 2025 is $2,750,000 including 25% indirect
costs. This cost estimate does not include the park shelter, playground, scoreboards, training
walls, or monument sign as those are future items under separate contracts —the total of these
items will be less than $250,000.
The city has received a $350,000 grant from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’
Outdoor Recreation Program which are monies sourced from the Federal Land and Water
Conservation Funds and/or the State’s Legislative Citizens Commission on Minnesota
Resources – Parks and Trails Fund Allocation.
Construction of the project will take place starting the sp ring of 2025 and must be substantially
complete by June 30, 2026 to acquire the grant funds. Plans and specifications have been
prepared in accordance with city standards. The engineer’s estimate for construction is
$2,200,000.
Recommendation
It is recommended the City Council adopt Resolution 2025-064 approving the plans and
specifications and authorize bidding for the Oltman Park Project.
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2025-064
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING BIDDING FOR THE
OLTMAN PARK PROJECT
WHEREAS, plans and specifications have been prepared in accordance with
the City Standards and Specifications for the Oltman Park Project; and
WHEREAS, a bid date will be set by City staff; and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Director has presented such plans and
specifications to the City Council for approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, approves the plans and
specifications and authorizes bidding, for the Oltman Park Project.
Passed this 16th day of April 2025.
Myron Bailey, Mayor
Attest:
Tamara Anderson, City Clerk
70th St.
80th St.
100th St.
90th St.
U
S
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
s
1
0
&
6
1Keats Ave.Kimbro Ave.65th St.Hadley Ave.Jamaica Ave.CITY HALL
PROJECT AREA
Jamaica Ave.St
a
t
e
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
s
1
0
&
6
1Hinton Ave.SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878G001.dwg 4/9/2025 10:25:52 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
ANDREW N OLSON
59327 04/09/2025
MAJ
ADR
ANO
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
MYRON BAILEY
KORINE LAND
RYAN BURFEIND
JENNIFER LEVITT
MONIQUE GARZA
COUNCIL MEMBER
COUNCIL MEMBER
COUNCIL MEMBERDAVE THIEDE
JUSTIN OLSEN
ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
OLTMAN PARK
PARK IMPROVEMENTS
2025
SHEET NO.DESCRIPTION
G0.01 TITLE SHEET
G0.02 LEGEND
G2.01 LOCATION PLAN
C0.01 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND REMOVALS
C0.02 GEOMETRIC PLAN
C1.00 FINISHING PLAN
C1.01 - C1.04 DETAILS
C1.05 - C1.07 ELECTRICAL DETAILS
C1.08 - C1.13 MNDOT PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP DETAILS
C2.01 EROSION CONTROL AND TURF ESTABLISHMENT
C2.02 - C2.04 STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
C3.01 - C3.04 GRADING PLAN
C5.01 STORM SEWER PLAN
C6.01 - C6.04 TRAIL PLAN & PROFILE
C6.05 - C6.06 PARKING LOT PLAN AND PROFILE
C7.01 SIGNAGE AND STRIPING PLAN
C8.01 CROSS SECTIONS
E1.01 - E1.02 ELECTRICAL PLAN
L1.01 LANDSCAPE PLAN
I1.01 - I1.04 IRRIGATION PLAN
I2.01 - I2.04 IRRIGATION DETAILS
THIS PLAN SET CONTAINS 47 SHEETS.
MAYOR
COUNCIL MEMBERDAVID CLAUSEN
G0.01
TITLE SHEET
SHEET INDEX
MAP OF THE
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MN
R
PROJECT CONTROL NOTES:
1.ALL COORDINATES ARE WASHINGTON COUNTY COORDINATE SYSTEM
2.HORIZONTAL COORDINATES ARE BASED ON GEODETIC POSITION
NAD83, 1986 ADJUSTMENT
3.VERTICAL ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON MNDOT NAVD 88
FEETSCALE
0 2000 4000
HORZ.
CONCRETE
GRAVEL
HATCH PATTERNS
GRADING INFORMATION
952
950
952
950
1:4
BITUMINOUS
F F F F
E E E E
G G G G
XXXXXXSTORM SEWER RECTANGULAR CASTING
STORM SEWER CIRCULAR CASTING
STORM SEWER FLARED END / APRON
CURB BOX
FIRE HYDRANT
MANHOLE
WATER REDUCER
WATER BEND
PROPOSED TOPOGRAPHIC SYMBOLS
CLEANOUT
LIFT STATION
RIP RAP
OE OE OE OE
C C C C
DRAINAGE FLOW
ABBREVIATIONS
A ALGEBRAIC DIFFERENCE
ADJ ADJUST
ALT ALTERNATE
B-B BACK TO BACK
BIT BITUMINOUS
BLDG BUILDING
BMP BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
BR BEGIN RADIUS
BV BUTTERFLY VALVE
CB CATCH BASIN
C&G CURB AND GUTTER
CIP CAST IRON PIPE
CIPP CURED-IN-PLACE PIPE
CL CENTER LINE
CL.CLASS
CLVT CULVERT
CMP CORRUGATED METAL PIPE
C.O.CHANGE ORDER
COMM COMMUNICATION
CON CONCRETE
CSP CORRUGATED STEEL PIPE
DIA DIAMETER
DIP DUCTILE IRON PIPE
DWY DRIVEWAY
E EXTERNAL CURVE DISTANCE
ELEC ELECTRIC
ELEV ELEVATION
EOF EMERGENCY OVERFLOW
ER END RADIUS
ESMT EASEMENT
EX EXISTING
FES FLARED END SECTION
F-F FACE TO FACE
FF FINISHED FLOOR
F&I FURNISH AND INSTALL
FM FORCEMAIN
FO FIBER OPTIC
F.O.FIELD ORDER
GRAN GRANULAR
GRAV GRAVEL
GU GUTTER
GV GATE VALVE
HDPE HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE
HH HANDHOLE
HP HIGH POINT
HWL HIGH WATER LEVEL
HYD HYDRANT
I INVERT
K CURVE COEFFICIENT
L LENGTH
LO LOWEST OPENING
LP LOW POINT
LT LEFT
MAX MAXIMUM
MH MANHOLE
MIN MINIMUM
MR MID RADIUS
NIC NOT IN CONTRACT
NMC NON-METALLIC CONDUIT
NTS NOT TO SCALE
NWL NORMAL WATER LEVEL
OHW ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL
PC POINT OF CURVE
PCC POINT OF COMPOUND CURVE
PE PERMANENT EASEMENT
PED PEDESTRIAN, PEDESTAL
PERF PERFORATED PIPE
PERM PERMANENT
PI POINT OF INTERSECTION
PL PROPERTY LINE
PRC POINT OF REVERSE CURVE
PT POINT OF TANGENT
PVC POLYVINYL CHLORIDE PIPE
PVMT PAVEMENT
R RADIUS
R/W RIGHT-OF-WAY
RCP REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE
RET RETAINING
RSC RIGID STEEL CONDUIT
RT RIGHT
SAN SANITARY SEWER
SCH SCHEDULE
SERV SERVICE
SHLD SHOULDER
STA STATION
STD STANDARD
STM STORM SEWER
TC TOP OF CURB
TE TEMPORARY EASEMENT
TEMP TEMPORARY
TNH TOP NUT HYDRANT
TP TOP OF PIPE
TYP TYPICAL
VCP VITRIFIED CLAY PIPE
VERT VERTICAL
VPC VERTICAL POINT OF CURVE
VPI VERTICAL POINT OF INTERSECTION
VPT VERTICAL POINT OF TANGENT
WM WATERMAIN
AC ACRES
CF CUBIC FEET
CV COMPACTED VOLUME
CY CUBIC YARD
EA EACH
EV EXCAVATED VOLUME
LB POUND
LF LINEAR FEET
LS LUMP SUM
LV LOOSE VOLUME
SF SQUARE FEET
SV STOCKPILE VOLUME
SY SQUARE YARD
UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
UNDERGROUND GAS
UNDERGROUND COMMUNICATION
OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
OVERHEAD COMMUNICATION
OVERHEAD UTILITY
953.53
EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR
EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR
PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR
PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR
PROPOSED GRADING LIMITS / SLOPE LIMITS
PROJECT LIMITS
PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION
RISE:RUN (SLOPE)
OC OC OC OC
OU OU OU OU
STORM SEWER OUTLET STRUCTURE
STORM SEWER OVERFLOW STRUCTURE
STA:5+67.19
980.87
NOTE:
EXISTING UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS PLAN HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE UTILITY OWNER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY
EXACT LOCATIONS PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW. NOTIFY GOPHER STATE ONE CALL, 1-800-252-1166 OR
651-454-0002.
THE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION IN THIS PLAN IS UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL D UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. THIS UTILITY LEVEL WAS
DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF CI/ASCE 38-22, ENTITLED "STANDARD GUIDELINE FOR INVESTIGATING AND DOCUMENTING
EXISTING UTILITIES".
UTILITIES IDENTIFIED WITH A QUALITY LEVEL :
LINE TYPES FOLLOW THE FORMAT: UTILITY TYPE - QUALITY LEVEL
EXAMPLE: UNDERGROUND GAS, QUALITY LEVEL A
UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL (A,B,C,D) DEFINITIONS CAN BE FOUND IN CI/ASCE 38-22.
UTILITY QUALITY LEVELS:
QUALITY LEVEL D: PROVIDES THE MOST BASIC LEVEL OF INFORMATION. IT INVOLVES COLLECTING DATA FROM EXISTING UTILITY RECORDS.
RECORDS MAY INCLUDE AS-BUILT DRAWINGS, DISTRIBUTION AND SERVICES MAPS, EXISTING GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM DATABASES,
CONSTRUCTION PLANS, ETC.
QUALITY LEVEL C: INVOLVES SURVEYING VISIBLE SUBSURFACE UTILITY STRUCTURES SUCH AS MANHOLES, HAND-HOLES, UTILITY VALVES AND
METERS, FIRE HYDRANTS, PEDESTALS AND UTILITY MARKERS, AND THEN CORRELATING THE INFORMATION WITH EXISTING UTILITY RECORDS TO
CREATE COMPOSITE DRAWINGS. INCLUDES QUALITY LEVEL D ACTIVITIES.
QUALITY LEVEL B: INVOLVES DESIGNATING THE HORIZONTAL POSITION OF SUBSURFACE UTILITIES THROUGH SURFACE DETECTION METHODS AND
COLLECTING THE INFORMATION THROUGH A SURVEY METHOD. INCLUDES QUALITY LEVEL C AND D TASKS.
QUALITY LEVEL A: PROVIDES THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF ACCURACY. IT INVOLVES LOCATING OR POTHOLING UTILITIES AS WELL AS ACTIVITIES IN
QUALITY LEVELS B, C, AND D. THE LOCATED FACILITY INFORMATION IS SURVEYED AND MAPPED AND THE DATA PROVIDES PRECISE PLAN AND
PROFILE INFORMATION.
G-A G-A
EXISTING UTILITY LINES
l l l l l l l l l l
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l
PROPOSED UTILITY LINES
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
BENCHMARK LOCATION
MONUMENT FOUND
CAST IRON MONUMENT
CONTROL POINT
SURVEY LINES
o o o CONTROLLED ACCESS
BOUNDARY
CENTERLINE
EXISTING EASEMENT LINE
PROPOSED EASEMENT LINE
EXISTING LOT LINE
PROPOSED LOT LINE
EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY
PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY
SETBACK LINE
SECTION LINE
BUSH LINE
TREE LINE
GUARD RAIL
FENCE-DECORATIVE
FENCE
RETAINING WALL
WATER SERVICE
WATERMAIN
STORM SEWER DRAIN TILE
STORM SEWER
SANITARY SERVICE
SANITARY SEWER
FORCEMAIN
PIPE CASING
WATER SERVICE
WATERMAIN
STORM SEWER DRAIN TILE
STORM SEWER
SANITARY SERVICE
SANITARY SEWER
FORCEMAIN
WATER TEE
WATER CROSS
WATER SLEEVE
WATER CAP / PLUG
WATER VALVE
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC LINES
QUARTER LINE
SIXTEENTH LINE
TRAFFIC SIGNS
TEMPORARY EASEMENT
STONE MONUMENT
TRENCHLESS PIPE (PLAN VIEW)
TRENCHLESS PIPE (PROFILE VIEW)
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC SYMBOLS EXISTING PRIVATE UTILITY LINES
BENCH
BUSH
CATCH BASIN CIRCULAR CASTING
CURB STOP
CATCH BASIN RECTANGULAR CASTING
SIGNAL CONTROL CABINET
CLEAN OUT
DRINKING FOUNTAIN
FLARED END / APRON
FLAG POLE
FUEL PUMP
GRILL
HANDICAP SPACE
HANDHOLE
FIRE HYDRANT
MAILBOX
MANHOLE-HEAT
MANHOLE-ELECTRIC
MANHOLE-GAS
MANHOLE-SANITARY SEWER
MANHOLE-STORM SEWER
MANHOLE-COMMUNICATION
MANHOLE-UTILITY
PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON
PEDESTAL-ELECTRIC
PEDESTAL-COMMUNICATION
VALVE POST INDICATOR
PARKING METER
LIGHT POLE
POLE-UTILITY
POST
PICNIC TABLE
RAILROAD SIGNAL POLE
REGULATION STATION GAS
TREE-DECIDUOUS
SATELLITE DISH
SIGN TRAFFIC
WATER SPIGOT
IRRIGATION SPRINKLER HEAD
IRRIGATION VALVE BOX
TREE STUMP
TELEPHONE BOOTH
TRANSFORMER-ELECTRIC
TREE-DEAD
TRASH CAN
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
VALVE
WETLAND
WELL
TREE-CONIFEROUS
GUY WIRE ANCHOR
LIFT STATION
LIFT STATION CONTROL PANEL
MANHOLE-WATER
BASKETBALL POST
CULVERT END
SOIL BORING
TRAFFIC ARM BARRIER
VENT PIPE
TILE INLET
TILE RISER
SIREN
DRIVE-THRU MICROPHONE
METER
ACCESS GRATE
FILL PIPE
DOWN SPOUT
BIRD FEEDER
ANTENNA
AIR CONDITION UNIT
UTILITY MARKER
VALVE VAULT
WET WELL
YARD HYDRANTY
BARRICADE PERMANENT
TILE OUTLET
SURVEY SYMBOLS
PAVEMENT MARKING
AUTO SPRINKLER CONNECTION
WETLAND DELINEATED MARKER
BOLLARD
VAULT
WW
ELECTRIC CAR CHARGE STATIONEV
H
F
CLVT
CO
B
B
AC
CP
L
C
E
G
H
U
S
D
W
MANHOLE-RECLAIMED WATERW
M
C
E
P
Y
WW
WS
V
V
U
TRASH
TILE
G
RECLAIMED WATER
||||||||||||
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
l l l l l l
l l l l l l l l l l l l
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
WR WR WR WR WR
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878G002.dwg 4/9/2025 10:25:59 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
ANDREW N OLSON
59327 04/09/2025
MAJ
ADR
ANO
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
G0.02
G0 - GENERAL
H
C
S
S
>>>>D
S
>>>>H >>>>>S
H
S
S
C
C
G
B>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
B
B
B
BB
BOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOU
OUOUOU>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>l l l l
l
l lll lllllllllllllllllll l l l l ll
lll66th Street
Geneva AvenueFUTURE
PLAYGROUND
PARKING
LOT
FUTURE
SHELTER
LACROSSE
FIELD
LACROSSE
FIELD
LACROSSE
FIELD
OLTMAN
MIDDLE
SCHOOLGoodviewAvenueOakridge Drive
CITY OFNEWPORTENTRY MONUMENT
(BY OTHERS)Pr
i
v
a
te
Road
RIGHT OF WAY
(TYP.)
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878G201.dwg 4/9/2025 10:26:09 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
ANDREW N OLSON
59327 04/09/2025
MAJ
ADR
ANO
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
R
G2.01FEETSCALE
0 50 100
LOCATION PLAN
LEGEND
STAGING AREA
H
C
S
S
>>>>D
S
>>>>H >>>>>S
H
S
S
C
C
G
B>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
B
B
B
BB
BOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOU
OUOUOU>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>
>>>l l l l lll lllllllllllllllllllll l l l l ll
lllPROTECT EXISTING
TREES ALONG SITE
BOUNDARY (TYP.)
REMOVE BARRICADE - (2 EA)
REMOVE BARRICADE - (2 EA)
PROTECT EXISTING
UTILITES ALONG SITE
BOUNDARY (TYP.)
66th Street
Geneva AvenuePROTECT EXISTING
PEDESTRIAN RAMPS
AND SIDEWALK
PROTECT EXISTING
PEDESTRIAN RAMPS
AND SIDEWALK
REMOVE TREE
(TYP.)
OLTMAN
MIDDLE
SCHOOLGoodviewAvenueOakridge Drive
CITY OFNEWPORTSAWCUT 23 LF
(FULL DEPTH)
SAWCUT 29 LF
(FULL DEPTH)Pr
i
va
te
Ro
ad
PROTECT EXISTING
STORM SEWER
(TYP.)
SITE BOUNDARY
REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE
REMOVE 80 LF STORM SEWER PIPE
SALVAGE AND REINSTALL 30 LF STORM SEWER PIPE
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878C001.dwg 4/9/2025 10:26:15 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
ANDREW N OLSON
59327 04/09/2025
MAJ
ADR
ANO
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
R
C0.01
EXISTING CONDITIONS & REMOVALSFEETSCALE
0 50 100
NOTES:
1.MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE TO SITE AND PROTECT EXISTING
VEGETATION AND SITE FEATURES (CURBS, WALKS, PAVEMENTS,
OVERHEAD AND UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, SIGNAGE, FENCING,
ROADWAYS, ETC.) WHICH ARE TO REMAIN.
2.REPAIR OR REPLACE EXISTING PROPERTY AND SITE FEATURES,
INCLUDING GRASS AND VEGETATION, WHICH IS TO REMAIN THAT IS
DAMAGED BY THE WORK, TO OWNER'S SATISFACTION AND AT NO
ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER.
3.VISIT THE SITE PRIOR TO BIDDING; BE FAMILIAR WITH ACTUAL
CONDITIONS IN THE FIELD. EXTRA COMPENSATION WILL NOT BE
ALLOWED FOR CONDITIONS WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN DETERMINED
OR ANTICIPATED BY EXAMINATION OF THE SITE, THE CONTRACT
DRAWINGS AND THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE PERTAINING TO
EXISTING SOILS, UTILITIES AND OTHER SITE CHARACTERISTICS.
4.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HIRE THE SERVICES OF A UTILITY
LOCATOR COMPANY TO LOCATE ALL PRIVATELY OWNED UTILITIES
THAT MAY BE DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS.
H
C
S
S
D
S
H
S
H
S
S
C
C
G
B
>>
>>
B
B
B
BB
B
66th Street
Geneva AvenueR48.25'R30'R10'
R3'R5'R5'8'8'
120'360'120'120'30'30'
120'
180'
R9
'
30'
30'45'39.25'28.25'11.75'
8'
R3'R3'R3
'R3'R3
'R10'
R
5
'
R5'25'25'24'8'
24'
24'
8'
OLTMAN
MIDDLE
SCHOOLGoodviewAvenueR5'R5'Oakridge Drive
CITY OFNEWPORT60'R
3
5
.
3
3
'15'R5.75'R20'Pr
i
va
te
Ro
ad
30' (TYP.)37' (TYP.)10'10'10'SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878C002.dwg 4/9/2025 10:26:27 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
ANDREW N OLSON
59327 04/09/2025
MAJ
ADR
ANO
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
R
C0.02
GEOMETRIC PLANFEETSCALE
0 50 100
NOTES:
1.REFER TO LAYOUT PLANS & GRADING AND DRAINAGE
PLANS FOR GENERAL NOTES.
2.CHECK ALL PLAN AND DETAIL DIMENSIONS AND VERIFY
SAME BEFORE FIELD LAYOUT.
H
C
S
S
D
S
H
S
H
S
S
C
C
G
B
>>
>>
B
B
B
BB
B
66th Street
Geneva AvenueSEE SHEET C6.05 FOR
PARKING LOT LAYOUT
LACROSSE FIELD
360' X 180'
LACROSSE FIELD
360' X 180'
LACROSSE FIELD
360' X 180'
SHELTER
(FUTURE)
PLAYGROUND
(FUTURE)
OLTMAN
MIDDLE
SCHOOLGoodviewAvenueOakridge Drive
CITY OFNEWPORTH
H
H HH
H
H
H
3
C1.01
3
C1.01
3
C1.01
3
C1.01
3
C1.01
3
C1.01
BITUMINOUS TRAIL PER
DETAIL STR-9/C1.04
21' PLAYER BENCH
TRASH CAN PER
SPECIAL - 3/C1.03
CONCRETE PAD
27' BLEACHERS
TRASH CAN PER
SPECIAL - 3/C1.03
CONCRETE PAD
PARK BENCH (CITY SUPPLIED)
CONCRETE PAD
PER SPECIAL - 2/C1.03
PARK BENCH (CITY SUPPLIED)
CONCRETE PAD
PER SPECIAL - 2/C1.03
PARK BENCH (CITY SUPPLIED)
CONCRETE PAD
PER SPECIAL - 2/C1.03
27' BLEACHERS
TRASH CAN PER
SPECIAL - 3/C1.03
CONCRETE PAD
27' BLEACHERS
TRASH CAN PER
SPECIAL - 3/C1.03
CONCRETE PAD
21' PLAYER BENCH
TRASH CAN PER
SPECIAL - 3/C1.03
CONCRETE PAD
21' PLAYER BENCH
TRASH CAN PER
SPECIAL - 3/C1.03
CONCRETE PAD Pr
i
va
te
Ro
ad
BACKSTOP NETTING
TRASH CAN PER
SPECIAL - 3/C1.03
CONCRETE PADTRASH CAN PER
SPECIAL - 3/C1.03
CONCRETE PAD
CONCRETE PAD FOR FUTURE
MONUMENT SIGN
PARK BENCH (2 EA - CITY
SUPPLIED)
CONCRETE PAD
PER SPECIAL - 2/C1.03
FUTURE FIELD LIGHTING - (TYP.)
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878C100.dwg 4/9/2025 10:26:39 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
ANDREW N OLSON
59327 04/09/2025
MAJ
ADR
ANO
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
R
C1.00
FINISHING PLANFEETSCALE
0 50 100
NOTES:
LEGEND
REFERENCE KEY TO SITE DETAILS
DETAIL I.D NUMBER (TOP)
DETAIL SHEET NUMBER (BOTTOM)
1.REFER TO SHEET C3.01, GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN, FOR GENERAL NOTES.
2.CHECK ALL PLAN AND DETAIL DIMENSIONS AND VERIFY SAME BEFORE FIELD
LAYOUT.
3.ALL DISTURBED AREAS WHICH ARE NOT DESIGNATED TO BE PAVED SHALL
RECEIVE AT LEAST 6" OF TOPSOIL AND SHALL BE SEEDED.
4.FAILURE OF TURF DEVELOPMENT: IN THE EVENT THE CONTRACTOR FAILS TO
PROVIDE AN ACCEPTABLE TURF, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RE-SEED ALL
APPLICABLE AREAS, AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER, TO THE
SATISFACTION OF THE ENGINEER.
1
C1.07
2.0" TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE
MIXTURE (3,F) - [SPWEA330F]
TACK COAT
1.5" TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE
MIXTURE (3,F) - [SPWEA330F]
8" AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5
12" AGGREGATE BACKFILL11.5"3 PARKING LOT
SCALE: n.t.s.
5 ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN POST WITH BREAKAWAY BASE2"66" TO BOTTOM OF SIGN(MEASURED FROM PARKING SURFACE)12"18"SIGN: WHITE LEGEND AND
BORDER ON BLUE
BACKGROUND FULLY
REFLECTORIZED
POST TOP
METAL SIGN ACCORDING
TO MN STATE STATUTE
169.346 (MNMUTCD
R7-8m)
2" X 2" 12 GAUGE
SQUARE POST PER
Mn/DOT 3402
PROVIDE "VAN-ACCESSIBLE"
LABELING (MNMUTCD R7-8bP)
PROVIDE AT ONE STALL
NOTE:
SIGN SHALL BE PLACED NOT MORE THAN 96" FROM FACE
OR EDGE OF PAVEMENT AT THE ACCESSIBLE STALL.
BREAKAWAY SIGN BASE BOLTED TO
CONCRETE SURFACE - REFER TO
SPECIFICATIONS60" TO BOTTOM OF"VAN-ACCESSIBLE"SIGN WHENPRESENTSCALE: n.t.s.1
4" ALUMINUM POST
POST DEBRIS COLLAR
STOP BOLT
ALUMINUM GROUND
SLEEVE
8" DIAMETER X 60" DEEP10' NET HEIGHT (REFER TO PLAN)6"CRUSHEDSTONEPOURED CONCRETE FOOTING
NOTES:
1. POST SPACING IS 20' O.C. MAX.
CONCRETE MAINTENANCE STRIP
PER DETAIL 5/C1.05
TURF
REFER TO
PLAN FOR
FINISH
GRADE
SCALE: n.t.s.
EXTENDED PROTECTIVE NETTING SYSTEM4
2.375" O.D.
ALUMINUM POST
2.425" I.D., 2.625" O.D.
X 60" DEEP
2
C1.01
DETAILS
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878C102.dwg 4/9/2025 10:26:54 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
ANDREW N OLSON
59327 04/09/2025
MAJ
ADR
ANO
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
PVC AND POLYPROPYLENE PIPE FOUNDATION & BEDDING
IN GOOD SOILS
PLATE NO.
BED-1
STANDARD DETAILS
PIPE FOUNDATION & BEDDING METHOD FOR
PVC & POLYPROPYLENE PIPE
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 2025
COMPACTED BACKFILL
PIPE BEDDING
MATERIAL PER
SECTION 33 05 06.
DIA = OUTSIDE DIAMETER OF PIPE
DIA+24" MIN.
6" MIN.
12"
DIA
**
** = BEDDING DIA/3 WIDE.
LOOSELY PLACED /
UNCOMPACTED MATERIAL.
PIPE FOUNDATION & BEDDING
METHODS FOR RCP & DIP
BED-2
PLATE NO.
STANDARD DETAILS
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
DIA/24 BUT
NOT LESS THAN 3"
DIA
DIA+24" MIN.
COMPACTED BACKFILL
PIPE BEDDING MATERIAL
PER SECTION 33 05 06.
INSTALLATION TYPE 1
DIA+24" MIN.
DIA COMPACTED BACKFILL
INSTALLATION TYPE 3
DIA
DIA+24" MIN.
COMPACTED BACKFILL
PIPE BEDDING MATERIAL
PER SECTION 33 05 06.
INSTALLATION TYPE 2
DIA = OUTSIDE DIAMETER OF PIPE
**
** = BEDDING DIA/3 WIDE.
LOOSELY PLACED /
UNCOMPACTED MATERIAL.
0.5 DIA
**
DIA/24 BUT
NOT LESS THAN 3"
DIA = OUTSIDE DIAMETER OF PIPE
** = BEDDING DIA/3 WIDE.
LOOSELY PLACED / UNCOMPACTED
NATIVE TRENCH MATERIAL.
DIA/24 BUT
NOT LESS THAN 3"
**
DIA = OUTSIDE DIAMETER OF PIPE
** = BEDDING DIA/3 WIDE.
LOOSELY PLACED /
UNCOMPACTED MATERIAL.
JANUARY 2025
MACHINE SLICE
8"-12" DEPTH (PLUS 6" FLAP)
TRENCH MUST BE COMPACTED BY
LIGHT EQUIPMENT PRIOR TO
PLACEMENT OF STEEL POSTS.
NOTE:
HEAVY-DUTY SILT FENCE INSTALLATION METHODS SHOULD BE USED
WHEN DIRECTED BY THE CITY.
POST NOTCHES
TO FACE AWAY
FROM FABRIC.
ERO-1
MACHINE SLICED SILT FENCE
STEEL FENCE POST (T-POST),
MINIMUM 5' LONG,
6' MAXIMUM SPACING.
DIRECTION OF SU
R
F
A
C
E
F
L
O
W
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
ATTACH FABRIC TO POSTS
WITH MINIMUM 4
FASTENERS PER POST IN
TOP 8" OF FABRIC.
24" MINIMUM
POST EMBEDMENT
PLATE NO.
STANDARD DETAILS
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 2025
OVERFLOW IS HALF OF
THE CURB BOX HEIGHT
OVERFLOW AT TOP
OF FILTER ASSEMBLY
OVERFLOW IS HALF OF
THE CURB BOX HEIGHT
DEFLECTOR PLATE
HIGH-FLOW FABRIC
FILTER ASSEMBLY
DIAMETER,
6" ON-GRADE
10" AT LOW POINT
NOTE: USE WIMCO ROAD DRAIN CG-23 OR
CG-3290-VB (DEPENDING ON CASTING TYPE)
HIGH FLOW INLET PROTECTION CURB AND
GUTTER MODELS, OR CITY APPROVED EQUAL.
ERO-9
INLET PROTECTION CATCH
BASIN INSERT
EXISTING
CURB
CURB
PLATE NO.
STANDARD DETAILS
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 2025
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
NOTES:
CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSTRUCT SILT BOX TO FIT
AROUND THE INLET STRUCTURE WITH 6" MINIMUM
CLEARANCE TO EDGES OF STRUCTURE. SILT BOX
TO BE PLACED ON AN EVEN SURFACE 6" BELOW
STRUCTURE OPENING. TOP OF SILT BOX TO
EXTEND 18" MINIMUM ABOVE EXISTING GRADE.
INLET PROTECTION SILT BOX
FOR BEEHIVE CASTING
ERO-10
WOODEN LATH SHALL BE
NAILED SECURELY TO THE
POST MEMBER TO SECURE
FILTER FABRIC.
2" X 4" X 2.5' LONG
WOOD POSTS,
8 REQ'D.
2" X 4" HORIZONTAL
MEMBERS CONTINUOUS
AROUND TOP AND BOTTOM.
FASTENED TO EACH POST
USING 2-20D COMMON NAILS
2'-6"8-10" FABRIC FLAP EXTENDING
BEYOND BOTTOM 2X4 -
BURY UNDER ROCK TO
PREVENT UNDERWASHING
1 1/2" WASHED ROCK
1' DEEP X 1' WIDE
PLATE NO.
STANDARD DETAILS
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 2025
WASHED ROCK OR
WOODCHIPS PER
SPECIFICATIONS
18" MINIMUM CUT OFF BERM
TO MINIMIZE RUNOFF FROM
SITE
NOTES:
1. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED UNDER ROCK
OR WOODCHIPS TO STOP MUD MIGRATION
THROUGH ROCK.
2. ENTRANCE MUST BE MAINTAINED REGULARLY TO
PREVENT SEDIMENTATION TRACKING.
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
ROCK AND WOODCHIP
ERO-12
PAVED
S
U
R
F
A
C
E
50'
M
I
N
I
M
U
M
LE
N
G
T
H
20' MI
N
I
M
U
M
WIDTH
ROCK-6" MINIMUM DEPTH
WOODCHIPS-18" MINIMUM DEPTH
PLATE NO.
STANDARD DETAILS
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 2025
TYPICAL DECIDUOUS TREE
PLANTING
LAN-2
NOTES:
1. STAKE TREES ONLY AS SPECIFIED AT THE DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
2. SET TOP OF ROOT BALL FLUSH TO GRADE OR 1-2 IN. HIGHER IN SLOWLY DRAINING
SOILS.
EACH TREE MUST BE PLANTED
SUCH THAT THE ROOT FLARE
IS VISIBLE AT THE TOP OF THE
ROOT BALL.
MULCH AS SPECIFIED, DO NOT
PLACE MULCH IN CONTACT
WITH TREE TRUNK.
PRUNE BRANCHES
TO A MINIMUM OF
5' TO ALLOW FOR
A CLEAR SIGHT
DISTANCE.
SET TREE PLUMB AND
MAINTAIN THROUGHOUT
WARRANTY PERIOD.
REMOVAL ALL FLAGGING
AND LABELS.
TAMP SOIL AROUND
BASE OF ROOT BALL
FIRMLY WITH FOOT
PRESSURE SO THAT
ROOT BALL DOES NOT
SHIFT. PLACE ROOT BALL
ON FIRM UNEXCAVATED
OR TAMPED SOIL.
PLATE NO.
STANDARD DETAILS
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 2025
C1.02
STANDARD DETAILS
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878C102.dwg 4/9/2025 10:26:58 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
ANDREW N OLSON
59327 04/09/2025
MAJ
ADR
ANO
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
PLATE NO.
STANDARD DETAILS
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA SPECIAL-2
6" CONCRETE
4" AGGREGATE BASE
6"
12"
72"
Description Pattern Weight Concrete
6' Bench with back Rod (O)254 lb.6' x 10'
PARK BENCH
36"
17 7/8"
25 1/8"
26 5/8"
34 7/8"
17"
72"
69 3/4"
10'
6'
JANUARY 2025
PLATE NO.
STANDARD DETAILS
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA SPECIAL-3
4" AGGREGATE BASE
6" CONCRETE
8"8"
Description Pattern Weight Concrete
32-Gallon Flat Top Lid Rod (O)177 lb.3.5' x 3.5'
TRASH CAN
26 1/4"
2 3/4"
33"10 1/4"
3.5'3.5'
JANUARY 2025
PLATE NO.
STANDARD DETAILS
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA SPECIAL-5
8" CONCRETE
4" AGGREGATE BASE
PARK MONUMENT SIGN
CONCRETE SLAB
10'3'
2'
0.7'
4"
1"KEYWAYS
JANUARY 2025
SAN-1
ALL DOG HOUSES SHALL BE MORTARED
ON INSIDE AND OUTSIDE.
SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
SECTION
PLAN
136878C102.dwg
PLATE NO.
STANDARD DETAILS
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
MANHOLE STEPS SHALL BE PLACED
SO THAT OFFSET VERTICAL PORTION
OF CONE IS FACING DOWNSTREAM.
PRECAST INVERT MUST BE 1/2 DIAMETER
OF THE PIPE AND BENCHES SLOPED
2" TOWARD THE INVERT.
CASTING AND ADJUSTMENT RINGS AS
SPECIFIED. PER DETAIL PLATE STR-23.
MANHOLE STEPS 16" MAX ON CENTER.
27"
VARIES *
PIPE SHALL BE CUT TO BE 2"-4" INSIDE
MANHOLE WALL AND HAVE A WATER
TIGHT SEAL. SEE SPECIFICATION.
VARIES
36" - 48"
VARIES
12" - 24"
VARIES
* DETERMINED BY PIPE SIZE
JANUARY 2025
VARIABLE (SEE PLAN)
L DRAINAGE
& UTILITY
EASEMENT
RESIDENTIAL SEWER AND WATER SERVICE
CONNECTIONS
SER-1
VARIABLE (SEE PLAN)
R/WC
10'
15'4"X4"X8' WOOD FENCE POST
4' ABOVE GRADE
CURB STOP AND BOX
4"X4" MARKER1'-0"WATER SERVICE
TYPE "K" COPPER
CORPORATION STOP
VARIABLESEE PLANVARIABLESEE PLANWATER
MAIN
SANITARY
SEWER
PVC SEWER SERVICE
SCHEDULE 40 MIN.
SLOPE-1/4" PER FT.
SUPPORT FOR CORPORATION AND
GOOSENECK SHALL CONSIST OF A
MINIMUM 0.5 C.Y. OF AGGREGATE
EQUAL TO MN/DOT 3149.2.H,
(MOD.) THROUGHLY COMPACTED
WOOD 2"X2" MARKER TO
BE CONTINUOUS FROM 6"
BELOW SERVICE TO 12"
ABOVE THE GROUND
APPROVED PLUG
AT END OF COPPER
SEGMENTAL MANHOLE BLOCK
PLACE STAMP IN
NEW CONCRETE
CURB AND GUTTER
PER STR-11
NOTES:
1 REF. SER-11 FOR CURB STOP AND BOX THAT FALL WITHIN
BITUMINOUS OR CONCRETE.
2 *EXTEND CURB STOP 1' BEYOND R/W WHEN SIDEWALK IS PRESENT.
*SIDEWALK
PLATE NO.
STANDARD DETAILS
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
45° BEND WITH
3' PVC SCHEDULE 40 RISER
3' - 6" DIA. PERFORATED
FLEXIBLE POLYETHYLENE
SLEEVE (INCIDENTAL)
STATIONARY ROD
JANUARY 2025
PVC SERVICE LINE CLEANOUTS
SER-10
HUB WITH THREADED PVC PLUG
- DO NOT GLUE.
LID AND CASTING AS
SPECIFIED
FINISH GRADE
FINISH GRADE
ONE PIECE PVC
CLEANOUT RISER
VARIES VARIES
LONG TURN
TEE WYE
ENCASE PVC BEND IN CONCRETE
MIN. 1/3 CU. YDS.ENCASE PVC WYE IN CONCRETE
MIN. 1/3 CU. YDS.
END OF LINE CLEANOUT IN LINE CLEANOUT
PVC LONG SWEEP
BEND
PLATE NO.
STANDARD DETAILS
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 2025
FLOW
STO-1
STORM SEWER MANHOLE
136878C102.dwg
PLATE NO.
STANDARD DETAILS
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
PLAN
MORTAR BOTTOM OF MANHOLE TO 1/2
DIAMETER AT PIPE AND SLOPE MORTAR
2" TOWARD INVERT.
MANHOLE STEPS SHALL BE PLACED
SO THAT OFFSET VERTICAL PORTION
OF CONE IS FACING DOWNSTREAM.
CASTING AND ADJUSTMENT RINGS AS
SPECIFIED. PER DETAIL PLATE STR-23.
MANHOLE STEPS 16" MAX ON CENTER.
SECTION
3"
VARIES ** DETERMINED BY PIPE SIZE
PIPE SHALL BE CUT TO BE 2"-4" INSIDE
MANHOLE WALL.
27"
VARIES
36" - 48"
VARIES
12" - 24"
VARIES MORTARED
INVERT
PLACE 2 BEADS OF RAMNEK OR EQUAL,
BETWEEN BOTTOM SLAB AND BARREL SECTION
DOGHOUSES SHALL BE MORTARED BOTH
INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF MANHOLE.
WATERSTOP GASKET REQUIRED FOR
POLYPROPYLENE PIPE.
JANUARY 2025
DIMENSION FROM BACK OF CURB TO
CENTER OF PIPE:
4' DIA. MH - 9" IN FROM BACK OF CURB
5' DIA. MH - 3" IN FROM BACK OF CURB
6' DIA. MH - 3" BEHIND BACK OF CURB
7' DIA. MH - 9" BEHIND BACK OF CURB
8' DIA. MH - 15" BEHIND BACK OF CURB
CATCH BASIN MANHOLE
STO-5
24"X36" SLAB OPENING FOR
CASTING SPECIFIED
CASTING AND ADJUSTMENT RINGS AS
SPECIFIED. PER DETAIL PLATE STR-23.
PLAN
TOP OF BARREL SECTION BELOW TOP
SLAB TO HAVE FLAT TOP EDGE SEALED
WITH 2 BEADS OF RAMNEK OR EQUAL.
MANHOLE STEPS 16" MAX ON CENTER.
VARIES
SECTION
MORTAR BOTTOM
VARIES
12" - 24"
VARIES
3"
PIPE
DIA
PLACE 2 BEADS OF RAMNEK OR
EQUAL BETWEEN BOTTOM SLAB
AND BARREL SECTION.
136878C102.dwg
PLATE NO.
STANDARD DETAILS
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 2025
DOGHOUSES SHALL BE MORTARED BOTH
INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF MANHOLE.
WATERSTOP GASKET REQUIRED FOR
POLYPROPYLENE PIPE.
C1.03
STANDARD DETAILS
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878C102.dwg 4/9/2025 10:27:03 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
ANDREW N OLSON
59327 04/09/2025
MAJ
ADR
ANO
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
VARIES
42"
33.5"
24"
OFF STREET CATCH BASIN
WITH CONCRETE STOOL GRATE FRAME
STO-9
TOP VIEW - GRATE FRAME
RCP
MORTAR BOTTOM OF MANHOLE TO
1/2 DIAMETER AT PIPE AND SLOPE
MORTAR 2" TOWARD INVERT.
PLAN
4.75"
4.25"
CASTING AS
SPECIFIED.
MANHOLE STEPS 16" MAX ON CENTER.
3"
SECTION
PIPE SHALL BE CUT TO BE 2"-4" INSIDE
MANHOLE WALL.
VARIES
27"
PLACE 2 BEADS OF RAMNEK OR
EQUAL BETWEEN BOTTOM SLAB
AND BARREL SECTION.
CONCRETE STOOL GRATE
FRAME AS SPECIFIED.
TOP OF BARREL SECTION BELOW TOP
SLAB TO HAVE FLAT TOP EDGE SEALED
WITH 2 BEADS OF RAMNEK OR EQUAL.
ADJUSTING RINGS AS SPECIFIED.
8"
VARIES
12" - 24"
136878C102.dwg
PLATE NO.
STANDARD DETAILS
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 2025
DOGHOUSES SHALL BE MORTARED BOTH
INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF MANHOLE.
WATERSTOP GASKET REQUIRED FOR
POLYPROPYLENE PIPE.
PVC PERFORATED PIPE
STO-14
DRAIN TILE AGGREGATE PER SECTION 33 46 00
WRAPPED IN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
4" OR 6" PVC PERFORATED PIPE
6"
DIA.
6"
3'-0"
STREET
SUBGRADE
AGGREGATE
BACKFILL
TRENCH DETAIL
1/4"Ø HOLE
TYPICAL
90°
160°
PIPE DETAIL
PLATE NO.
STANDARD DETAILS
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 2025
STR-9
TYPICAL BITUMINOUS TRAIL AND
CONCRETE SIDEWALK SECTIONS
PLATE NO.
STANDARD DETAILS
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
3" TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,C) (SPWEA230C)
6" CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE (VIRGIN)
EXCAVATION AND ADDITIONAL AGGREGATE BACKFILL
(AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER)
8'
0.5'
0.5'
MINIMUM 2' WIDE
SHOULDER
BITUMINOUS TRAIL
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
6" TYPE 3F52A CONCRETE
4" CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE (VIRGIN)
EXCAVATION AND ADDITIONAL AGGREGATE BACKFILL
(AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER)
MINIMUM 2' WIDE
SHOULDER
0.5'
0.5'
5'
SEE TYP. SECTION
1.5% TYP
2% MAX
1 : 3
M
A
X
1 : 50
M
I
N
1 : 3
M
A
X
1 : 50
M
I
N
1 : 50
M
I
N
1 : 3
M
A
X
MINIMUM 5' WIDE
SHOULDER
1 : 3
M
A
X
1 : 50
M
I
N
MINIMUM 5' WIDE
SHOULDER
NOTE:
ALL CONCRETE SIDEWALK
JOINTS SHALL BE TOOLED
JANUARY 2025
1.5% TYP
2% MAX 7"1
14
CURB AND GUTTER
STR-10
FACE OF CURB
DISTANCE TO L VARIABLE6"
1/2"R
13 1/2"6"8"18"
SLOPE 3/4"
PER FT
1/2"R
3"R
C
FACE OF CURB
SLOPE 3/4"
PER FT
3 1
13
1/2"R
4"10 3/4"12"12"
12"
FACE OF CURB
16"6"14
1
1/2"R
10 1/2"68"R28"R12"R4"1/2"R
10 1/2"17 1/2"11"
14
1 7"1/2"R
3/4"SURMOUNTABLE
D-428 MOD
SURMOUNTABLE
D-412 MOD
MNDOT B618 MOD7"1
14
FACE OF CURB
DISTANCE TO L VARIABLE6"
1/2"R
11 1/2"4"8"18"
SLOPE 3/4"
PER FT
1/2"R
3"R
C
MNDOT B418 MOD
PLATE NO.
STANDARD DETAILS
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 2025
STR-12
CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
TRANSITION
CATCH BASIN AT P.C. OR P.T.
CATCH BASIN IN RADIUS
DOUBLE CATCH BASIN
SECTION A-A
SURMOUNTABLE C & G
M.H.D. B618 CONC. C & G
7"
6"
10'2"4"
6"
10'
TRANSITION
8'5'P.C.SURMOUNTABLE
CURB & GUTTERRADIUS VARIESB618 CURB
& GUTTER
B618 CURB
& GUTTER
A RADIUS VARIESP.C.10'
TRANSITION SURMOUNTABLE
CURB & GUTTER
A
SURMOUNTABLE
CURB & GUTTER
10'
TRANSITION
5'P.C.RADIUS VARIESB618 CURB
& GUTTER
PLATE NO.
STANDARD DETAILS
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 2025
STR-36
TYPICAL TRAFFIC SIGN
INSTALLATION MEDIAN
PLATE NO.
STANDARD DETAILS
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
SIGN PANELS AS SPECIFIED OR AS SHOWN
ON THE PLANS OR SIGN LEGEND.
STREET SIGNS
CONCRETE
2" x 2" x 12 ga. TELESPAR
GALVANIZED SIGN POST
1 3 4" x 3' x 12 ga.
INTERIOR SLEEVE
SURFACE MOUNT
ANCHOR BASE
JANUARY 2025
WAT-1
HYDRANT DETAIL
HYDRANT FLAG AS SPECIFIED.BOTTOM FLANGE OF
HYDRANT TO BE
ABOVE GROUND A
MINIMUM DISTANCE
OF 2".
CL
7.5' MIN.3'
BACKFILL TO
BE TAMPED
COARSE FILTER
AGGREGATE PER
MNDOT SPEC 3149.2.H.
COVER WITH TWO
LAYERS
POLYETHYLENE.
CONCRETE THRUST
BLOCK
8" CONCRETE BLOCK
PROVIDE CONDUCTIVITY STRAP
(TYP.). MINIMUM 1/16"X3/4"
WIDE FLAT COPPER STRIP.
TIE ALL FITTINGS WITH MIN. OF
TWO, 3/4" DIAM. GALVANIZED
RODS & MEGALUGS
5'
MEGALUGS (TYP.)
PLATE NO.
STANDARD DETAILS
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 2025
WAT-3
GATE VALVE AND BOX
INSTALLATION
7.5' MINIMUM COVER REQUIRED
OVER TOP OF WATER MAIN.
GRADE
BASE
PROVIDE CONDUCTIVITY
STRAP (TYP.). MINIMUM
1/16"X3/4" WIDE FLAT
COPPER STRIP.
8" CONC. BLOCK
ADJUST TOP TO 1/2" BELOW
GRADE. BOX TO BE SET TO
PROVIDE 12" OF ADJUSTMENT.
COARSE FILTER AGGREGATE
PER MNDOT SPEC. 3149.2.H.
COVER WITH TWO LAYERS
POLYETHYLENE.
MEGALUGS (TYP.)
GATE VALVE ADAPTER: 1/4" STEEL
WITH PROTECTIVE COATING, 1/2"
RUBBER GASKET INSTALLED
BETWEEN THE GATE VALVE AND
GATE VALVE ADAPTER.
DROP LID
TOP
EXTENSION
BOTTOM
PLATE NO.
STANDARD DETAILS
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 2025
C1.04
STANDARD DETAILS
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878C102.dwg 4/9/2025 10:27:08 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
ANDREW N OLSON
59327 04/09/2025
MAJ
ADR
ANO
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
12" HEIGHT HANDHOLE AS SPECIFIED
CONDUIT
COARSE FILTER AGG.
MNDOT SPEC. 3149.2.H MOD.
HAND
HOLE
18" MIN6"12"VARIES
3"
LIGHTING HANDHOLE
LGT-1
PLATE NO.
STANDARD DETAILS
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
3"
HAND
HOLE
12"12"VARIES
3"3"
24" HEIGHT HANDHOLE AS SPECIFIED
JANUARY 2025
CONDUIT TO EXTEND MIN 3"
MAX 6" ABOVE BOTTOM
EDGE OF HANDHOLE
A A
NO SCALE
SECTIONA
5/8" X 10'-0"
GROUND ROD
ANCHOR
BOLTS
ANCHOR BOLT LOCATION
& PROJECTION TO BE AS
RECOMMENDED BY
MANUFACTURER
CONDUIT
36"24" MINGROUND LEVEL
ANCHOR BOLT6"12"NOTES:1. A SECOND GROUNDING ROD IS TO BE LOCATED 6' AWAY FROM THE BASE
WITH A #6 GROUNDING CONDUCTOR RUNNING TO IT WITHIN A 3
4" CONDUIT
3
4"CONDUIT TO
GROUND ROD
6"
14"6"52"6"6"6"33"33"12"
14"DOORDOOR
45"
FUTURE CONCRETE BASE CABINET C
FUTURE CABINET C -
TERMINATE ALL CONDUITS
FOR CABINET C IN THIS AREA
CONCRETE BASE DETAIL
CABINET A & B COMBINED
(NOT TO SCALE)
20" MIN.
A A
NO SCALE
SECTIONA
CONCRETE LIGHT BASE TYPE A
LGT-2
136878C102.dwg
PLATE NO.
STANDARD DETAILS
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
5/8" X 10'-0"
GROUND ROD
ANCHOR
BOLTS
BOLT DIAMETER &
PROJECTION TO BE
AS RECOMMENDED
BY MANUFACTURER
4 - #6 REINFORCING BARS
FULL DEPTH
CONDUIT
51"24" MIN.GROUND LEVEL
IN-LINE
FUSING
LUMINAIRE
CABLE
GROUND WIRE TO
LUMINAIRE BALLAST
HANDHOLE
CONNECTION LUG
BASE COVER
LEVELING NUTS
TOP OF BASE @
3" ABOVE GRADE6"JANUARY 2025
LGT-7
HOLOPHANE LUMINAIRE
LIGHT POLE TYPE A
RESIDENTIAL 2'-2"TYPE A CONCRETE
LIGHT BASE15'-6"HOLOPHANE STANDARD POLE
STREET CURB
3"X5" HAND HOLE,
NO TENON, BOLT
COVER SKIRT3'-0"
TYP.3" ABOVE
FINISHED GRADE
PLATE NO.
STANDARD DETAILS
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
NOTE: POLE ACCESS COVER LOCATED OPPOSITE CURB SIDE OF POLE
JANUARY 2025
C1.05
ELECTRICAL DETAILS
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878C102.dwg 4/9/2025 10:27:12 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
ANDREW N OLSON
59327 04/09/2025
MAJ
ADR
ANO
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878C107.dwg 4/9/2025 10:27:20 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
ANDREW N OLSON
59327 04/09/2025
MAJ
ADR
ANO
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
C1.06
DETAILS
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878C107.dwg 4/9/2025 10:27:21 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
ANDREW N OLSON
59327 04/09/2025
MAJ
ADR
ANO
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878C110.dwg 4/9/2025 10:27:30 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
ANDREW N OLSON
59327 04/09/2025
MAJ
ADR
ANO
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
C1.08
MNDOT PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP DETAILS
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878C110.dwg 4/9/2025 10:27:31 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
ANDREW N OLSON
59327 04/09/2025
MAJ
ADR
ANO
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
C1.09
MNDOT PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP DETAILS
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878C110.dwg 4/9/2025 10:27:37 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
ANDREW N OLSON
59327 04/09/2025
MAJ
ADR
ANO
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
C1.10
MNDOT PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP DETAILS
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878C110.dwg 4/9/2025 10:27:42 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
ANDREW N OLSON
59327 04/09/2025
MAJ
ADR
ANO
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
C1.11
MNDOT PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP DETAILS
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878C110.dwg 4/9/2025 10:27:46 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
ANDREW N OLSON
59327 04/09/2025
MAJ
ADR
ANO
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
C1.12
MNDOT PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP DETAILS
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878C110.dwg 4/9/2025 10:27:52 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
ANDREW N OLSON
59327 04/09/2025
MAJ
ADR
ANO
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
C1.13
MNDOT PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP DETAILS
66th Street
Geneva AvenueH
C
S
S
>>>>D
S
>>>>H >>>>>S
H
S
S
C
C
G
B>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
B
B
B
BB
BOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOU
OUOUOU>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
l l l l ll llllllllllllllllllllll l l l l ll
lll>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>MSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMS MS MS MS MS MS
MS
MS
MS
MS MS MS MS MS
MS
MS MS MS MS MSMSMSMSMS
MS
MS MS
MS
MS
MS MS
MS MS MS MS MS GoodviewAvenueOLTMAN
MIDDLE
SCHOOL
INSTALL ROCK ENTRANCE AS DIRECTED BY
ENGINEER PER CITY STD. DETAIL ERO-12
MACHINE SLICED SILT FENCE
PER CITY STD. DETAIL ERO-1
STAGING AREA
1.39 ACRES
Pr
i
va
te
Road
Oakridge Drive
CITY OFNEWPORTSHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878C201.dwg 4/9/2025 10:28:05 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
ANDREW N OLSON
59327 04/09/2025
MAJ
ADR
ANO
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
R
C2.01FEETSCALE
0 50 100
EROSION CONTROL AND TURF ESTABLISHMENT
1.REFER TO SHEET C3.01, GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN, FOR GENERAL NOTES.
2.REFER TO SWPPP NARRATIVE (SECTION 01 89 13) FOR CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING
AND EROSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS.
3.MAINTAIN ADJACENT PROPERTY AND PUBLIC STREETS CLEAN FROM CONSTRUCTION
CAUSED DIRT AND DEBRIS ON A DAILY BASIS. PROTECT DRAINAGE SYSTEMS FROM
SEDIMENTATION AS A RESULT OF CONSTRUCTION RELATED DIRT AND DEBRIS.
4.MAINTAIN DUST CONTROL DURING GRADING OPERATIONS.
5.ALL EROSION CONTROL METHODS SHALL COMPLY WITH MPCA AND OTHER LOCAL
REGULATIONS.
6.IF EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES TAKEN ARE NOT ADEQUATE AND
RESULT IN DOWNSTREAM SEDIMENT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
CLEANING OUT DOWNSTREAM STORM SEWERS AS NECESSARY, INCLUDING
ASSOCIATED RESTORATION.
8.NO CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC, EQUIPMENT OR MATERIALS SHALL BE PERMITTED TO
UTILIZE, ACCESS, OR OTHERWISE ENTER THE AREAS DESIGNATED NOT TO BE
DISTURBED. MINIMIZE SOIL COMPACTION AND DISRUPTION OF TOPSOIL IN AREAS
OUTSIDE THE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS TO COMPLY WITH MN CONSTRUCTION
STORMWATER GENERAL PERMIT.
NOTESLEGEND
PROPOSED ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
PROPOSED SILT FENCE
INLET PROTECTION DEVICE AT STORM SEWER INLET
MS
JRK 80-20 WORLD CLASS SPORTS FIELD SEED MIX (ATHLETIC
FIELDS) WITH - FERT TYPE 3 (22-5-10) AND HYDRAULIC MULCH
MATRIX
SEED MIX RT, FERTILIZER, AND
HYDRAULIC MULCH MATRIX
SEED MIX NSR, FERTILIZER, AND EROSION
CONTROL BLANKET CAT 25
WEED KILLER, SEED MIX RT, FERTILIZER,
AND HYDRAULIC MULCH MATRIX
STORMWATER
POLLUTION PREVENTION
PLAN (SWPPP)
PERMANENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM:
Type of storm water management used if more than 1 acre of new impervious surface is created:
PROJECT
LOCATION
1-MILE
BOUNDARY
RECEIVING
WATERS
OLTMAN PARK - PARK IMPROVEMENTS
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PROJECT LOCATION:
RECEIVING WATERS:
Receiving waters, including surface water, wetlands, Public Waters, and stormwater ponds, within 1-mile of the project boundary are identified on the
USGS 7.5 min quad map above. Receiving waters that are impaired, the impairment, and WLA are listed as follows. All specific BMPs relative to
construction activities listed in the permit for special, prohibited, restricted, or impaired have been incorporated into this plan. All specific BMPs listed in
approved TMDLs and those BMPs listed for construction related waste load allocations have also been incorporated.
DESCRIPTION OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT:
Construction activities include: Site grading, temporary erosion and sediment control, and permanent
stabilization.
Stormwater currently sheet flows across a grass field before entering into a stormwater pond.
After construction is complete stormwater runoff will largely remain unchanged.
This project includes the following stormwater management BMPs, project is utilizing existing BMP's on
site that have accounted for new impervious surface.IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE AND PHASING: The Contractor is required to provide an updated schedule and site management plan
meeting the minimum requirements of Section 1717 of the Minnesota Standard Specifications for Construction.
1)Submit SWPPP Updates to Engineer. Submittal shall include any requested changes to the SWPPP, including but not limited to:
Trained Personnel, Locations for Stockpiles, Concrete Washout, Sanitation Facilities, Types and Locations of Erosion &
Sediment Control. Failure to submit updates shall be considered acceptance of the SWPPP as designed with no changes.
2)Install perimeter sediment control, inlet protection, and construction exit.
3)Grade site for lacrosse fields and parking lot
4)Pave parking lot with curb/gutter and bituminous walking trail
5)Seed and Blanket disturbed areas
6)Add additional temporary BMPs as necessary during construction based on inspection reports.
7)Ensure final stabilization measures are complete.
8)Provide digital copy of all Field SWPPP Documentation including Inspection Reports and SWPPP Revisions to the Owner.
9)Submit Notice of Termination (NOT) to MPCA. NOTE: The NOT must be submitted to MPCA before Final Stabilization is
considered complete.
The SWPPP Designer, Construction SWPPP Manager, and BMP Installer must have appropriate training. Documentation showing
training commensurate with the job duties and responsibilities is required to be included in the SWPPP prior to any work beginning on
the site. Training documentation for the SWPPP Designer is included on the Narrative sheet. The Contractor shall attach training
documentation to this SWPPP for the Construction SWPPP Manager and BMP Installer prior to the start of construction. This
information shall be kept up to date until the project NOT is filed.
RESPONSIBLE PARTIES:
The Contractor and Owner will be joint applicants under the MPCA's General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity as required
by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II program.
The Contractor shall provide one or more trained Construction SWPPP Manager(s) knowledgeable and experienced in the application
of erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs that will oversee the implementation of the SWPPP, and the installation, inspection
and maintenance of the erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs.
A Construction SWPPP Manager must be available for an on-site inspection within 72 hours upon request by the MPCA.
ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION
Payment for all work associated with Erosion and Sediment Control shall be as described in the Project Manual. Unless otherwise
authorized by the Owner no additional payment shall be made for any work required to administer and maintain the site erosion and
sediment control in compliance with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) - General Stormwater Permit for Construction
Activity (MN R100001) including but not limited to inspection, maintenance, and removal of BMPs or addition of BMPs to
accommodate Contractor phasing.
DOCUMENT RETENTION
Permittees must make the SWPPP, including all inspection reports, maintenance records, training records and other information
required by this permit, available to federal, state, and local officials within three (3) days upon request for the duration of the permit
and for three (3) years following the NOT.
GENERAL STORMWATER DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS
All requirements listed in Section 5.1 of the Permit for the design of the permanent stormwater management system and discharge
have been included in the preparation of this SWPPP. These include but are not limited to:
1.The expected amount, frequency, intensity, and duration of precipitation.
2.The nature of stormwater runoff and run-on at the site
3.Peak flow rates and stormwater volumes to minimize erosion at outlets and downstream channel and stream bank erosion.
4.The range of soil particle sizes expected to be present on the site.
Permanent stormwater treatment systems for this project have been designed in accordance with the guidance in the MN Stormwater
Manual in place at the time of bidding. Copies of the design information and calculations are part of this SWPPP and will be provided in
digital format upon written request to the Engineer.
FEETSCALE
0 1500 3000
X Wet Sedimentation Basin
Infiltration/Filtration
Regional Pond
Permanent Stormwater Management Not Required
COUNTY TOWNSHIP RANGE SECTION LATITUDE LONGITUDE
Washington County T27N R21W 6 44.852653°-92.982018°
BMP SUMMARY QUANTITY UNIT
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 50 CU YD
INLET PROTECTION (ERO-10)10 EACH
INLET PROTECTION (ERO-9)17 EACH
SILT FENCE TYPE MACHINE SLICED 2,170 LIN FT
SANDY CLAY LOAM TOPSOIL BORROW 6,040 CU YD
SEEDING 9.6 ACRE
SEED MIXTURE JRK 80-20 1,740 POUND
SEED MIXTURE RT 710 POUND
FERTILIZER TYPE 3 3,530 POUND
HYDRAULIC SOIL STABILIZER TYPE 8 28,360 POUND
EROSION CONTROL BLANKET 2,790 SQ YD
NAME OF WATER BODY TYPE (ditch, pond,
wetland, lake, etc.)
Special, Prohibited,
Restricted Water 1
Flows to Impaired
Water Within 1-Mile 2
USEPA Approved
Construction Related
TMDL 3
UNNAMED POND POND NOT LISTED NOT LISTED NO
UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TRIBUTARY NOT LISTED NOT LISTED NO
HAMLET PARK POND POND NOT LISTED NOT LISTED NO
COMPANY CONTACT PERSON PHONE
OWNER:City of Cottage Grove Zac Dockter 651-458-2808
SWPPP DESIGNER:Bolton & Menk, Inc.BRIAN RUCKER 952-256-3523
CONTRACTOR:TBD TBD TBD
CONSTRUCTION SWPPP MANAGER:TBD TBD TBD
PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR LONG TERM O&M:City of Cottage Grove Zac Dockter 651-458-2808
Total Project Size (disturbed area) =9.6 ACRES
Existing area of impervious surface =0.0 ACRES
Post construction area of impervious surface =1.2 ACRES
Total new impervious surface area created =1.2 ACRES
Planned Construction Start Date:07/01/2025
Estimated Construction Completion Date:10/31/2025
PROJECT AREAS:
PROJECT BOUNDARY
NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY
IMPAIRED, SPECIAL OR PROTECTED WATERSOR
1-MILE BOUNDARY
LEGEND
RECEIVING WATERS
R
1 Special, prohibited, and restricted waters are listed in Section 23 of the MN Construction Stormwater General Permit (MNR100001).
2 Identified as impaired under section 303 (d) of the federal Clean Water Act for phosphorus, turbidity, TSS, dissolved oxygen, and/or aquatic biota.
3 Construction Related TMDLs include those related to: phosphorus, turbidity, TSS, dissolved oxygen, and/or aquatic biota.
PROJECT LOCATION
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878C202.dwg 4/9/2025 10:28:13 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
ANDREW N OLSON
59327 04/09/2025
MAJ
ADR
ANO
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
C2.02
STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
Information contained in this SWPPP narrative sheet summarizes requirements of the GENERAL PERMIT AUTHORIZATION TO
DISCHARGE STORMWATER ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION SYSTEM/STATE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PROGRAM - Permit No: MN Rl0000l (Permit) as they apply to this project. All
provisions of the Permit including those not specifically cited herein shall apply to this project. The Contractor is responsible to be
familiar with and comply with all conditions of the permit. The full text of the Permit is available at:
https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/wq-strm2-80a.pdf
SWPPP AMENDMENTS AND SUBMITTALS
Contractor must prepare and submit to the Engineer a SWPPP amendment as necessary to include additional Best Management
Practices (BMPs) to correct problems identified or address the following situations.
1.Contact information and training documentation for Construction SWPPP Manager and BMP Installer,
2.There is a change in construction method of phasing, operation, maintenance, weather or seasonal conditions not
anticipated during the design of the SWPPP including but not limited to:
a.Types and/or Locations of BMPs
b.Material Storage and Spill Response
c.Fueling Plans
d.Locations for Stockpiles, Concrete Washout, and Sanitation Facilities and
e.Project Phasing
3.It is determined that the SWPPP is not achieving objectives of minimizing pollutants in stormwater discharges associated with
construction activity, or
4.The SWPPP is not consistent with the terms and conditions of the permit.
The Contractor may implement SWPPP amendments immediately and is not required to wait for Engineer review of the submittal.
The responsibility for completeness of SWPPP amendments and compliance with the Permit lies with the Contractor. Review,
comment, or lack of comment by the Engineer on a SWPPP amendment shall not absolve the responsibilities of the Contractor in
any way.
If a change order is issued for a design change the SWPPP amendment will be prepared by the Engineer and included in the
change order.
In addition to SWPPP amendments, the Contractor shall submit to the Engineer Weekly Erosion and Sediment Control Schedule
meeting the requirements of MnDOT 1717.
The Contractor shall keep copies of all SWPPP amendments, Weekly Erosion and Sediment Control Schedules, inspection logs, and
maintenance logs with the field copy of the SWPPP. A PDF copy of these documents will be provided along with a copy of the
final Field Copy of the SWPPP to the Engineer along with the signed Notice of Termination when final stabilization is complete.
EROSION PREVENTION PRACTICES
Stormwater conveyance channels shall be routed around unstabilized areas. Erosion controls and velocity dissipation devices
shall be used at outlets within and along the length of any constructed conveyance channel.
The normal wetted perimeter of all ditches or swales, including storm water management pond slopes, that drain waters from the
site must be stabilized within 200' of any property edge or discharge point, including storm sewer inlets, within 24 hours of
connection.
Temporary or permanent ditches or swales used as sediment containment during construction do not need to be stabilized during
temporary period of use and shall be stabilized within 24 hours after no longer used as sediment containment.
Mulch, hydromulch, tackifier, or similar practice shall not be used in any portion of the wetted perimeter of a temporary or
permanent drainage ditch or swale section with a continuous slope of greater than 2 percent.
Energy dissipation shall be installed at all temporary or permanent pipe outlets within 24 hours of connection to a surface water
or permanent stormwater treatment system.
The Contractor shall phase construction and use construction methods to the extent practical to minimize exposed soils. The
project phasing shall be documented in the Weekly Erosion and Sediment Control Schedule.
SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES
Down gradient BMPs including perimeter BMPs must be in place before up gradient land- disturbing activities begin and shall
remain in place until final stabilization.
All BMPs that have been adjusted or removed to accommodate short-term activities shall be re-installed or replaced the earlier of
the end of the work day or before the next precipitation event even if the activity is not complete.
Inlet BMPs may be removed for specific safety concerns. The BMPs shall be replaced as soon as the safety concern is resolved.
The removal shall be documented in the SWPPP as a SWPPP amendment.
Temporary stockpiles must have sediment control BMPs. The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the Engineer a SWPPP
amendment showing the location of temporary stockpiles and the BMPs for each stockpile. The SWPPP amendment must meet
the minimum requirements of Section 9 of the Permit.
Soil compaction shall be minimized and topsoil shall be preserved, unless infeasible or if construction activities dictate soil
compaction or topsoil stripping.
The use of polymers, flocculants, or other sedimentation treatment chemicals are not proposed as part of this SWPPP as designed
by the Engineer. If methods or phasing of construction require the use of any of these chemicals, the Contractor shall prepare and
submit to the Engineer a SWPPP amendment that meets the minimum requirements of Section 9 of the Permit.
TEMPORARY SEDIMENTATION BASINS
A temporary sedimentation basin has not been included in this SWPPP as designed by the Engineer. If a basin is later determined
to be desirable or necessary the Contractor shall prepare and submit to the Engineer a SWPPP amendment. Temporary
sedimentation basins shall meet or exceed the minimum requirements of Section 14 of the Permit and shall include a basin
draining plan meeting or exceeding the minimum requirements of Section 10 of the Permit. Where the site discharges to Special
and/or Impaired Waters the SWPPP amendment shall also meet or exceed the minimum requirements of Section 23 of the
permit.
DEWATERING
A dewatering plan has not been included in this SWPPP as designed by the Engineer. If dewatering is required for this project, the
Contractor shall prepare and submit to the Engineer a SWPPP amendment. All dewatering shall meet or exceed the minimum
requirements of Section 10 of the Permit.
POLLUTION PREVENTION
Products and materials that have the potential to leach pollutants that are stored on the site must be stored in a manner designed
to minimize contact with stormwater. Materials that are not a source of potential contamination to stormwater or that are
designed for exposure to stormwater are not required to be covered.
Hazardous materials including but not limited to pesticides, fertilizer, petroleum products, curing compounds and toxic waste
must be properly stored and protected from stormwater exposure as recommended by the manufacturer in an access restricted
area.
Solid waste must be stored, collected and disposed of in compliance with Minnesota Administrative Rules Chapter 7035.
Portable toilets must be positioned so that they are secure and will not be tipped or knocked over. Sanitary waste must be
disposed of properly in accordance with Minn. R. CH 7041.
Exterior vehicle or equipment washing on the project site shall be limited to a defined area of the site. No engine degreasing is
allowed on site. A sign must be installed adjacent to each washout facility that requires site personnel to utilize the proper
facilities for disposal of concrete and other washout wastes.
The Contractor shall prepare and submit a SWPPP amendment detailing the location and BMPs proposed for storage of materials,
solid waste, portable toilets, and exterior vehicle or equipment washing on the site. The SWPPP amendment shall include a spill
prevention and response plan that is appropriate for the materials proposed to be on the site. The SWPPP amendment shall meet
or exceed the minimum requirements of Section 12 of the Permit.
INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE
A trained person shall routinely inspect the entire construction site at the time interval indicated on this sheet of the SWPPP
during active construction and within 24-hours after a rainfall event greater than 0.5 inches in 24 hours. Following an inspection
that occurs within 24-hours after a rainfall event, the next inspection must be conducted at the time interval indicated in the
Receiving Waters Table found on the SITE PLAN AND INFORMATION SHEET of the SWPPP.
All inspections and maintenance conducted during construction must be recorded on the day it is completed and must be retained
with the SWPPP. Inspection report forms are available in the Project Specifications. Inspection report forms other than those
provided shall be approved by the engineer.
The Contractor may request a change in inspection schedule for the following conditions:
a.Inspections of areas with permanent cover to be reduced to once per month,
b.Inspections of areas that have permanent cover and have had no construction activity for 12 months to be suspended
until construction resumes,
c.Inspections of areas where construction is suspended due to frozen ground conditions, inspections to be suspended until
the earlier of within 24 hours of runoff occurring, or upon resuming construction.
No change in inspection schedule shall occur until authorized by the Engineer.
Inspections must include:
1.All erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs and Pollution Prevention Management Measures to ensure integrity and
effectiveness.
2.Surface waters, including drainage ditches and conveyance systems for evidence of erosion and sediment deposition.
3.Construction site vehicle exit locations, streets and curb and gutter systems within and adjacent to the project for
sedimentation from erosion or tracked sediment from vehicles.
4.Infiltration areas to ensure that no sediment from ongoing construction activity is reaching the infiltration area and that
equipment is not being driven across the infiltration area.
All non-functioning BMPs and those BMPs where sediment reaches one-half (1/2) of the depth of the BMP, or in the case of
sediment basins one-half (1/2) of the storage volume, must be repaired, replaced, or supplemented by the end of the next
business day after discovery, or as soon as field conditions allow.
Permittees must repair, replace or supplement all nonfunctional BMPs with functional BMPs by the end of the next business day
after discovery, or as soon as field conditions allow.
Any sediment that escapes the site must be removed and the area stabilized within 7 calendar days of discovery unless precluded
by legal, regulatory, or physical access in which case the work shall be completed within 7 calendar days of authorization. Paved
surfaces such as streets shall have any escaped or tracked sediment removed by the end of the day that it is discovered.
Sediment release, other than paved surfaces that can be cleaned up with street sweeping shall be reported immediately upon
discovery to the Engineer.
PUBLIC WATER RESTRICTIONS:
For public waters that have been promulgated "work in water restrictions" during fish spawning time frames, all exposed soil
areas that are within 200 feet of the water's edge, and drain to these waters must complete stabilization within 24-hours during
the time period. MN DNR permits are not valid for work in waters that are designated as infested waters unless accompanied by
an Infested Waters Permit or written notification has been obtained from MN DNR stating that such permit is not required. There
is no exception for pre-existing permits. If a MN DNR Permit has been issued for the project and the water is later designated as
infested, the Contractor shall halt all work covered by the MN DNR Permit until an Infested Waters Permit is obtained or that
written notification is obtained stating that such permit is not required.
FINAL STABILIZATION
Final Stabilization is not complete until all the following requirements have been met:
1.Substantial Completion has been reached and no ground disturbing activities are anticipated.
2.Permanent cover has been installed with an established minimum uniform perennial vegetation density of 70 percent of its
expected final growth. Vegetation is not required in areas where no vegetation is proposed by this project such as
impervious surfaces or the base of a sand filter.
3.Accumulated sediment has been removed from all permanent stormwater treatment systems as necessary to ensure the
system is operating as designed.
4.All sediment has been removed from conveyance systems
5.All temporary synthetic erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs have been removed. BMPs designated on the SWPPP
to remain to decompose on-site may remain.
6.For residential construction only, permit coverage terminates on individual lots if the structures are finished and temporary
erosion prevention and downgradient perimeter control is complete, the residence sells to the homeowner, and the
permittee distributes the MPCA's "Homeowner Fact Sheet" to the homeowner.
7.For agricultural land only (e.g., pipelines across cropland), the disturbed land must be returned to its preconstruction
agricultural use prior to submitting the NOT.
SITE STABILIZATION COMPLETION:
SITE INSPECTION INTERVAL:
SPECIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND PERMITS:
TYPE OF PERMIT PERMITTING AGENCY PERMIT STATUS AND CONDITIONS
Construction Stormwater NPDES MPCA In Progress
1)Was an environmental review required for this project or any part of a common plan of development
or sale that includes all or any portion of this project?NO
2)Does any portion of the site have the potential to affect threatened or endangered species or their
critical habitat?NO
3)Does any portion of this site discharge to a Calcareous fen.NO
4)Will any portion of the site potentially affect properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places
or a known or discovered archeological site?NO
5)Have any Karst features have been identified in the project vicinity?NO
6)Is compliance with temporary or permanent stormwater management design requirements infeasible
for this project?NO
7)Has the MN DNR promulgated "work in water restrictions" for any Public Water this site disharges to
during fish spawning?NO
A trained person shall routinely inspect the entire construction
site during active construction at an interval of no more than:7 calendar days
SWPPP DESIGNER TRAINING DOCUMENTATION:
Stabilization of exposed soils shall begin immediately and shall be
completed after the construction activity has temporarily or
permanently ceased no later than:
14 calendar days
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878C202.dwg 4/9/2025 10:28:16 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
ANDREW N OLSON
59327 04/09/2025
MAJ
ADR
ANO
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
C2.03
STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
155D
298
367B
411B
2B
298B
411
155D
LEGEND
PROJECT BOUNDARY
SOIL TYPE
NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY
DWSMA, LOW VULNERABILITY
STEEP SLOPES (>33.3%)
RECEIVING WATERS
IMPAIRED, SPECIAL OR PROTECTED WATERS
SOIL TYPE SUMMARY
Map Unit
Symbol Soil Name Hyd. Soil
Group
155D CHETEK SANDY LOAM, 12 TO 25 PERCENT SLOPES A
298 RICHWOOD SILT LOAM, 0 TO 2 PERCENT SLOPES B
298B RICHWOOD SILT LOAM, 2 TO 6 PERCENT SLOPES B
2B OSTRANDER SILT LOAM, 2 TO 6 PERCENT SLOPES B
367B CRYSTAL LAKE SILT LOAM, 1 TO 6 PERCENT SLOPES C
411 WAUKEGAN SILT LOAM, 0 TO 2 PERCENT SLOPES B
411B WAUKEGAN SILT LOAM, 2 TO 6 PERCENT SLOPES B
FEETSCALE
0 100 200
R
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878C204.dwg 4/9/2025 10:28:31 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
ANDREW N OLSON
59327 04/09/2025
MAJ
ADR
ANO
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
C2.04
STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
H
C
S
S
>>>>S
>>>>H >>>>>S
H
S
S
C
C
G
B>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
B
B
B
BB
BOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOU
OUOUOU>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>
>
>>>l l l l ll llllllllllllllllllllll l l l l ll
ll66th Street
Geneva Avenue66th Street
Geneva AvenueOLTMAN
MIDDLE
SCHOOL
Pr
i
v
a
te
Ro
ad
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878C301.dwg 4/9/2025 11:15:29 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
ANDREW N OLSON
59327 04/09/2025
MAJ
ADR
ANO
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
R
C3.01FEETSCALE
0 50 100
SITE GRADING - OVERALL
1.ALL CONSTRUCTION MUST COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE STATE AND LOCAL ORDINANCES.
2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN AND PAY FOR ALL RELATED CONSTRUCTION PERMITS, INCLUDING THE NPDES PERMIT FROM THE MPCA. SUBMIT A COPY OF
ALL PERMITS TO THE CITY.
3.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAGE (CONSTRUCTION ZONES) NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS.
ALL SIGNAGE LAYOUTS MUST BE DESIGNED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND APPROVED BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
4.INSTALL CONTROL FENCING AND BARRICADING AS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC.
5.INSPECT SITE AND REVIEW TEST PITS TO DETERMINE EXTENT OF WORK AND NATURE OF MATERIALS TO BE HANDLED.
6.CHECK ALL PLAN AND DETAIL DIMENSIONS AND VERIFY SAME BEFORE FIELD LAYOUT.
7.PROPOSED CONTOURS AND SPOT ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN TO FINISH GRADE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
8.PROPOSED ELEVATIONS SHOWN TYPICALLY AS 17.1 OR 17 SHALL BE UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN 917.1 OR 917.
9.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING QUANTITIES OF CUT, FILL AND WASTE MATERIALS TO BE HANDLED, AND FOR AMOUNT
OF GRADING TO BE DONE IN ORDER TO COMPLETELY PERFORM ALL WORK INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS. IMPORT SUITABLE MATERIAL AND EXPORT
UNSUITABLE / EXCESS / WASTE MATERIAL AS REQUIRED. ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH IMPORTING AND EXPORTING MATERIALS SHALL BE INCIDENTAL TO
THE CONTRACT.
10.NO FINISHED SLOPES SHALL EXCEED 3' HORIZONTAL TO 1' VERTICAL (3:1), UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
11.ANY MANHOLE, CATCH BASIN, STORM SEWER, SANITARY SEWER, DRAINTILE OR OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCE FOR CONTAMINATION SHALL BE INSTALLED AT
LEAST 10 FEET HORIZONTALLY FROM ANY WATERMAIN PER MINNESOTA PLUMBING CODE. THIS ISOLATION DISTANCE SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE
OUTER EDGE OF THE PIPE TO THE OUTER EDGE OF THE CONTAMINATION SOURCE (OUTER EDGE OF STRUCTURES OR PIPING OR SIMILAR).
12.LOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES, VERIFY LOCATION, SIZE AND INVERT ELEVATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. VERIFY LOCATIONS, SIZES AND ELEVATIONS OF
SAME BEFORE BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION.
13.ALL DISTURBED AREAS WHICH ARE NOT DESIGNATED TO BE PAVED SHALL RECEIVE AT LEAST 6" OF TOPSOIL AND SHALL BE SEEDED OR SODDED.
FIELDS SHALL RECEIVE AT LEAST 6" BORROW WITH 6" TOPSOIL.
REFER TO SHEET L1.01.
GENERAL NOTES
H
C
S
S
>>>>>>>>D
S
>>>>>>>>H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>OUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOU>>>>l l l l l l l l llllll
l
l
l
l llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll66th Street
Geneva AvenuePT: 957.80
PC: 9
5
7.
7
3
PT: 957.69PC: 9
5
7.
8
7
PC: 960.05
PC: 960.32PC: 9
6
0.
0
8 PC: 959.38PC: 957.72
PC: 958.
5
0
PC: 965.98
PC: 965.70PC:
9
6
6
.
8
0
PC: 964.86PT: 9
5
8.
6
3
PT:
9
5
7
.
9
3
PT: 966.28PT: 964.34
PT: 959.73
PT: 960
.
8
6
PT:
9
6
5
.
8
9
PT: 966.35
PT: 959.95
PT: 959.37 BOC - LP 956.71SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878C301.dwg 4/9/2025 11:15:34 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
ANDREW N OLSON
59327 04/09/2025
MAJ
ADR
ANO
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
R
C3.02FEETSCALE
0 25 50
SITE GRADING - PARKING LOT
C
C >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
B
B
B
BB
BOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOU
OUOU>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>Geneva AvenueGeneva AvenueCITY OFNEWPORTPC: 9
6
0.
0
8
PC: 965.98
PC: 965.70PC:
9
6
6
.
8
0
PC: 964.86PT: 966.28PT: 964.34
PT:
9
6
5
.
8
9
PT: 966.35
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878C301.dwg 4/9/2025 11:15:39 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
ANDREW N OLSON
59327 04/09/2025
MAJ
ADR
ANO
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
R
C3.03FEETSCALE
0 30 60
SITE GRADING - WEST
>>>>>>>>H >>>>>>H
S
S
B>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
B
B >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>lllllllllOLTMAN
MIDDLE
SCHOOL
PT: 957.80
PC: 9
5
7.
7
3
PT: 957.69PC: 9
5
7.
8
7
PC: 957.72
PC: 958
.
5
0
PT: 9
5
8.
6
3
PT:
9
5
7
.
9
3
BOC - LP 956.71Pr
i
v
a
te
Road
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878C301.dwg 4/9/2025 11:15:44 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
ANDREW N OLSON
59327 04/09/2025
MAJ
ADR
ANO
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
R
C3.04FEETSCALE
0 30 60
SITE GRADING - EAST
66th Street
Geneva AvenueH
C
S
S
>>>>D
S
>>>>H >>>>>S
H
S
S
C
C
G
B>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
B
B
B
BB
BOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOU
OUOUOU>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>l l l l
l lll
l lllllllllllllllllll l l l l ll
lll>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>6" PERFORATED PVC DRAIN TILE @ 0.50%6" PERFORATED PVC DRAIN TILE @ 0.50%6" PERFORATED PVC DRAIN TILE @ 0.50%6" PERFORATED PVC DRAIN TILE @ 0.50%6" PERFORATED PVC DRAIN TILE @ 0.50%6" PERFORATED PVC DRAIN TILE @ 0.50%6" PERFORATED PVC DRAIN TILE @ 0.50%6" PERFORATED PVC DRAIN TILE @ 0.50%6" PERFORATED PVC DRAIN TILE @ 0.50%6" CLEAN OUT
I=957.00
6" CLEAN OUT
I=955.96
6" CLEAN OUT
I=954.5
CONNECT TO EXISTING MANHOLE
CONNECT DRAIN TILE TO EXISTING MANHOLE (CORE DRILL)
ADJUST MANHOLE CASTING (STO-9)
ADJUST CATCH BASIN CASTING
6" PVC DRAIN TILE
@ 0.50%
ADD 36" SECTION (48" DIA)
(UNDER EXISTING 12" SECTION)
CONNECT DRAIN TILE TO EXISTING MANHOLE (CORE DRILL - 2 EA)
ADJUST MANHOLE CASTING (STO-9)
6" PVC DRAIN TILE
@ 0.50%
6" PVC DRAIN TILE
@ 0.50%
I=956.45I=956.15
I=955.85
I=957.06I=957.36I=957.66
I=959.17
I=958.87
I=958.57
SEE DETAIL - STO-14/C1.04
6" PVC DRAIN TILE
@ 0.50%
I=958.39
I=956.73
ADD 18" SECTION (48" DIA)
ADJUST CATCH BASIN CASTING
OLTMAN
MIDDLE
SCHOOLGoodviewAvenueADD 18" SECTION (48" DIA)
ADJUST CATCH BASIN CASTING
I=957.96 I=956.96
Oakridge Drive
CITY OFNEWPORTADD 12" AND 36" SECTION (48" DIA)
ADJUST MANHOLE CASTING (STO-9)
ADD 30" SECTION (48" DIA)
(UNDER EXISTING 12" SECTION)
ADJUST MANHOLECASTING (STO-9)Pr
i
v
a
te
Ro
ad
I=954.87
SS - 1
SS - 2
SALVAGE AND REINSTALL STORM
PIPE AT NEW GRADE
ADJUST MANHOLE
CASTING (STO-9)
940
945
950
955
960
965
970
975
499+75 500+00 501+00 501+50957.6957.3960.7962.1962.0957.58957.33960.67962.06962.0073' - 12" RCP @ 2.00%
73' 12" RCP@ 2.00%
31' - EX 12" RCP @ 2.30% 31'
EX 12" RCP
@ 2.30%
I=955.57 12" NE
STA 501+04.2
R=958.50
SS - 2
DIA=4.0'???' X ???'
BLD=3.0'
I=954.10 12" SW
I=954.10 12" E
STA 500+31.0
R=959.92
SS - 1
DIA=4.0'???' X ???'
BLD=5.8'
I=953.39 12" W
I=952.05 18" N
I=951.95 18" E
STA 500+00.0
R=957.12
EXMH - 1
DIA=4.0'???' X ???'
@ 2.30%
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878C501.dwg 4/9/2025 10:29:16 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
ANDREW N OLSON
59327 04/09/2025
MAJ
ADR
ANO
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
R
C5.01FEETSCALE
0 50 100
STORM SEWER PLAN
NOTES:
1.DRAIN TILE MUST BE LAID
WITH A MINIMUM GRADE OF
0.50%
STORM SEWER SCHEDULE
STRUCTURE TYPE STD.
DETAIL CASTING DIAMETER SPECIAL
COMMENTS
SS - 1 CBMH STO-5 R-3067-VB 4'
SS - 2 CBMH STO-9 R-4342 4'
0+00 1+00
2+00
3+00 4+0
0
5+0066th StreetBP: 0+00.00PC: 0+62.34PT: 0+83.25PC: 1+73.92PT: 2+21.96PC: 2+58.57PT: 2+72.59PC: 3+76.90PRC: 4+56.62
8' BITUMINOUS TRAIL
PER STR-9960 9
6
5959961961962
962
962963964950
95
5
9
6
0
965
949 951 952 953
954
95
6
95
7
95
8
95
9
9
6
1
9
6
2
963 964 966
967
968
Geneva Avenue
940
945
950
955
960
965
970
975
980
985
940
945
950
955
960
965
970
975
980
985
-1+25 -1+00 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 6+25957.8957.8957.8957.7957.7957.6957.4957.2957.6957.5957.5957.2957.1957.6957.6958.1960.3965.2964.7964.3963.5962.7962.1961.5960.6959.8960.75961.00961.23961.45961.68961.90962.18962.50962.82963.14963.46963.64963.26962.87962.49962.11961.72961.34960.951.01%0.90%
1.28%-1.54%VPI: 1+64.27EL: 960.64VPI: 2+00.00EL: 961.00VPI: 3+10.96EL: 962.00VPI: 4+45.00EL: 963.72FINISH PROFILE AT TRAIL CENTER LINE
EXISTING PROFILE AT TRAIL CENTERLINE
EXISTING ELEVATION AT TRAIL CENTERLINE
PROPOSED ELEVATION AT TRAIL CENTERLINE
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878C601.dwg 4/9/2025 11:17:27 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
ANDREW N OLSON
59327 04/09/2025
MAJ
ADR
ANO
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R RC6.01FEETSCALE
0 25 50
HORZ.
FEETSCALE
0 5 10
VERT.
TRAIL PLAN AND PROFILE
SEE SHEET C6.02TRAIL A
>>
>>
>>
>>24+0024+32.13
35+0036+0036+01.20
4+005+00
6+00
7+00
8+00 9+00 10+00
11+00
PT: 23+15.
3
4
PC: 23+74.
4
3
MID: 23+91.75
PT: 24+09.06
MATCH EXISTING
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
66th St
r
e
e
t
66th Street
PRC: 4+56.62PCC:
5+84
.27PRC:
6+25
.62PCC: 6+94.22PT: 7+35.15PC: 7+46.89PT: 8+01.11PI: 9+91.07PI: 10+02.52PC: 10+44.25PT: 10+68.25PC: 11+13.1510' BITUMINOUS
TRAIL PER STR-9
8' CONCRETE
SIDEWALK PER STR-9
STATION=35+00.00
=10+10.65
96
0
9659
5
7 9579
5
7
957
9
5
8
9
5
9
961962
9
6
3
964
958
956
956
957
957
958
959
STATION=24+32.13
=9+59.50
MATCH TRAIL WITH
BACK OF CURB
940
945
950
955
960
965
970
975
980
985
940
945
950
955
960
965
970
975
980
985
4+75 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 12+25964.3963.5962.7962.1961.5960.6959.8958.7957.9958.1956.4955.4954.9954.7954.9954.9954.8954.6955.3956.2957.6958.7956.1957.6958.1958.1958.0958.1958.1958.0957.7963.26962.87962.49962.11961.72961.34960.95960.57960.18959.75959.14958.53958.75958.43958.06957.69957.31956.94956.90957.16956.99957.14956.69956.54956.70956.86957.02957.18957.35957.51957.761.37%
-1.80%0.65%-1.49%1.05%
-2.00%
-0.92%-1.00%
-1.70%
-5.89
%1.00%6.00%-0.32%-1.80%
-1.54%
-1.29%-1.01%7.10%
-4.38%VPI: 10+38.00EL: 956.46VPI: 12+13.14EL: 957.59VPI: 9+12.14EL: 956.76VPI: 9+63.46
EL: 957.30
VPI: 7+00.29
EL: 959.75
VPI: 7+44.93
EL: 958.58
VPI: 7+53.69EL: 958.49VPI: 7+17.97EL: 959.45VPI: 9+69.57
EL: 956.94
VPI: 9+77.52
EL: 957.02
VPI: 9+83.52EL: 957.38VPI: 9+87.50
EL: 957.37
VPI: 10+10.64EL: 956.95VPI: 6+90.21EL: 959.95VPI: 8+01.11EL: 958.41VPI: 7+62.60EL: 958.40VPI: 7+68.66EL: 958.83VPI: 7+35.94EL: 958.66FINISH PROFILE AT TRAIL CENTER LINE
EXISTING PROFILE AT TRAIL CENTERLINE
EXISTING ELEVATION AT TRAIL CENTERLINEPROPOSED ELEVATION AT TRAIL CENTERLINE
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878C601.dwg 4/9/2025 11:17:32 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
ANDREW N OLSON
59327 04/09/2025
MAJ
ADR
ANO
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
R
C6.02FEETSCALE
0 25 50
HORZ.
FEETSCALE
0 5 10
VERT.
TRAIL PLAN AND PROFILE
SEE SHEET C6.01 SEE SHEETC6.03SEE SHEET C6.04TRAIL A
24+0035+0016+91.47
10+00
11+0
0
12+00
13+0
0
14+0
0
15+00
16+00
66th St
r
e
e
t
PI
:
9+91
.07PI: 10+02.52PC: 10+44.25P
T
:
10
+
6
8
.
2
5
P
C
:
1
1
+
1
3
.15PT: 13+13.93PC: 13+44.88PT: 13+50.31PC: 14+56.33PT: 16+15.22PC: 16+49.47PT:
1
6
+
7
6
.
9
4
EP
:
1
6
+
9
1
.
4
7
8' BITUMINOUS TRAILTRAIL CSTATION=35+00.00
=10+10.65 95595195295395495695795
7 957958958959
959956956
957
957958959
945950955943944946947948949951952953954956957958
MATCH EXISTING
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
R
o
a
d
8' BITUMINOUS TRAIL
PER STR-9
940
945
950
955
960
965
970
975
980
11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 18+50958.1958.0958.1958.1958.0957.7957.1958.0958.7959.0959.3959.5959.6959.4959.2958.9958.4958.0957.2955.2953.4952.0949.6950.1956.86957.02957.18957.35957.51957.76958.10958.44958.78959.12959.45959.75959.67959.43959.19958.87958.27957.37956.22955.04953.87952.69951.51950.331.37%
0.65%
1.20%-0.97%-1.16%
-4.72%VPI: 13+43.03EL: 959.37VPI: 12+13.14EL: 957.59VPI: 13+82.45EL: 959.84VPI: 14+57.55
EL: 959.12
VPI: 16+76.94EL: 950.24VPI: 14+98.85
EL: 958.64
A = -3.55%
K = 21.10
L=75'VPC: 14+61.35EL: 959.07VPT: 15+36.35EL: 956.87FINISH PROFILE AT TRAIL CENTER LINE
EXISTING PROFILE AT TRAIL CENTERLINE
EXISTING ELEVATION AT TRAIL CENTERLINE
PROPOSED ELEVATION AT TRAIL CENTERLINE
940
945
950
955
960
965
970
975
980
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878C601.dwg 4/9/2025 11:17:38 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
ANDREW N OLSON
59327 04/09/2025
MAJ
ADR
ANO
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
R
C6.03FEETSCALE
0 25 50
HORZ.
FEETSCALE
0 5 10
VERT.
TRAIL PLAN AND PROFILESEE SHEETC6.02TRAIL A
20+00 21+00
22+00 23+00
24+00 24+32.13
35+00 36+0036+01.209+0010+00PC: 21+35.67MID: 21+55.91PT: 21+76.15PC: 21+86.23MID: 22+50.78PT: 23+15.34PC: 23+74.43MID: 23+91.75PT: 24+09.0666th StreetPI: 9+91.07
PI: 10+02.52
PC: 10+44.25
MATCH EXISTING
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
8' BITUMINOUS TRAIL
PER STR-9
TRAIL B
TRAIL C
STATION=35+00.00
=10+10.65 9579
5
7
957958955954956957958958
957958959940945950939941942943944946947948949951952953STATION=24+32.13
=9+59.50
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878C601.dwg 4/9/2025 11:17:43 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
ANDREW N OLSON
59327 04/09/2025
MAJ
ADR
ANO
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R RC6.04FEETSCALE
0 25 50
HORZ.
FEETSCALE
0 5 10
VERT.
TRAIL PLAN AND PROFILE
SEE SHEET C6.03
SEE SHEET C6.02
TRAILS B AND C
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
l
64.78
59.51
63.23
64.61
65.69
60.67
60.05
59.14
61.81
63.17
60.81
62.15
67.82
67.58
60.00 59.84
59.30
59.26
3
.
8
2%
3.
7
6
%
3.
0
3
%64'???
59.7325'24'
8'
8'
1 .8 0 %
2 .0 0 %5.00%5.00%5.00%1 .8 0 %
CONSTRUCT B618 CONCRETE CURB
AND GUTTER PER DETAIL STR-10/C1.04
F
58.5824'59.33
S
START GUTTER OUT
0"0"6"6"
0"0"6"6"
0"6"5.19%2.02%0.90%4.42%
F
1.39%
2 .1 3 %
1 .5 0 %
1.8 2 %2.78%5.19%60.13
60.26
59.30
59.44
66.19
65.22
65.40
1.56%1.00%63.93
62.93
64.02
62.43
61.45
60.77
60.28 58.95
59.04
58.74
59.59
59.66
60.39
60.21
59.62
59.77
66.38
63.92 0.41%S
50+00
51+00
52+00
53+00
955
960
965
970
955
960
965
970
50+00 51+00 52+00 53+00965.2964.2963.3962.6961.8961.1960.6959.6958.5957.4956.5955.9955.5965.20965.20964.90964.27963.67963.09962.56962.02961.41960.81960.20959.58959.10-0.44%
-2.39%
-1.56%VPI: 50+25.00EL: 965.19VPI: 50+40.75
EL: 965.12
A = -1.95%
K = 16.17
L=31.50'
VPI: 52+77.65
EL: 959.46
A = 0.83%
K = 19.75
L=16.34'VPC: 50+25EL: 965.19VPT: 52+85.82EL: 959.33VPT: 50+56.50EL: 964.74VPC: 52+69.48EL: 959.65EXISTING GROUND PROFILE
FINISHED GROUND PROFILE
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878C101.dwg 4/9/2025 10:30:17 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
ANDREW N OLSON
59327 04/09/2025
MAJ
ADR
ANO
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
R
C6.05FEETSCALE
0 10 20
PARKING LOT PLAN AND PROFILE
LEGEND
REFERENCE KEY TO SITE DETAILS
DETAIL I.D NUMBER (TOP)
DETAIL SHEET NUMBER (BOTTOM)
PROPOSED CONCRETE LANDING
PROPOSED RAMP SLOPES
FLAT SLOPES < 5%
STEEP SLOPES 5% - 8.33%
CURB HEIGHT
SPOT ELEVATION (TOP BACK OF CURB
OR EDGE OF SIDEWALK)
S
F
0"
XX.XX
1
C1.07
NOTES:
1.PROPOSED ELEVATIONS SHOWN TYPICALLY AS 63.91 SHALL BE UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN 963.91
2.SPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN INDICATION FINISH GRADE.SEE SHEETC6.06
499+9
0
500+0
0 lllllllllll59.51
60.05
59.14
57.40
58.01
57.58
57.4657.62 56.29
57.4458.51
57.42
???
59.84
59.30 59.26
2.
5
6
%
1.
5
4
%2.33%64'???
59.73
24'25'8'
8'
TRUNCATED DOME
PANELS (32 SF)1.52%2.00%
0.97%2.00%2.00%F
58.58
58.5024'
59.33
57.3757.291.00%
CONSTRUCT B618 CONCRETE
CURB AND GUTTER PER
DETAIL STR-10/C1.04
S
S
S
0"
0"6"
6"
0"0"6"6"
END GUTTER OUT5.19%2.02%0.90%4.42%
1.97%6.00%
1.04%
1 .8 2 %
0.52 %
2 .0 0 %
S2.78%5.19%58.32
58.41
7.19%
60.13
59.30
59.44
TRUNCATED DOME
PANELS (16 SF)
1.51%
0.
2
6
%
57.04
57.1157.396.62%2.74%58.67
59.10
58.02
57.65
57.34
57.00
57.1057.17
57.25
57.29
58.22
57.30
58.95
59.04
58.74
59.59
59.62
59.770.41%S
53+00
54+00 55+00 55+69.98
950
955
960
965
950
955
960
965
52+75 53+00 54+00 55+00 55+75955.9955.5955.2955.1954.9954.6954.5954.4954.4954.6955.9957.7959.58959.10958.70958.33957.94957.55957.36957.29957.22957.15957.03957.34-1.56%
-0.96%
1.00%
3.68%VPI: 54+09.42EL: 957.40VPI: 55+16.84EL: 956.37VPI: 55+24.58EL: 956.45VPI: 55+45.00EL: 957.20VPI: 52+77.65
EL: 959.46
A = 0.83%
K = 19.75
L=16.34'VPT: 52+85.82EL: 959.33EXISTING GROUND PROFILE
FINISHED GROUND PROFILE
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878C101.dwg 4/9/2025 10:30:22 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
ANDREW N OLSON
59327 04/09/2025
MAJ
ADR
ANO
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
R
C6.06FEETSCALE
0 10 20
PARKING LOT PLAN AND PROFILE
LEGEND
REFERENCE KEY TO SITE DETAILS
DETAIL I.D NUMBER (TOP)
DETAIL SHEET NUMBER (BOTTOM)
PROPOSED CONCRETE LANDING
ADA PARKING < 2%
PROPOSED RAMP SLOPES
FLAT SLOPES < 5%
STEEP SLOPES 5% - 8.33%
CURB HEIGHT
SPOT ELEVATION (TOP BACK OF CURB
OR EDGE OF SIDEWALK)
S
F
0"
XX.XX
1
C1.07
NOTES:
1.PROPOSED ELEVATIONS SHOWN TYPICALLY AS 63.91 SHALL BE UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN 963.91
2.SPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN INDICATION FINISH GRADE.SEE SHEETC6.05
499+90
500+00
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
APPLIED TWICE (TYP.)PR8-3A(24 X 24)21
26 24'20'9'
4SW
12SW
4SW
499+9
0
500+0
0 PR8-3A(24 X 24)STR-36
C1.04PARKINGVEHICLE IDREQUIREDUP TO $200 FINEFOR VIOLATIONR7-8A(12 X 18)25
27
STR-36
C1.04
PARKINGVEHICLE IDREQUIREDUP TO $200 FINEFOR VIOLATIONR7-8A(12 X 18)24'20'9'
9'
PAVEMENT MESSAGE
(TYP.)
4SW
4SW
APPLIED TWICE (TYP.)
4SW
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878C701.dwg 4/9/2025 10:30:35 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
ANDREW N OLSON
59327 04/09/2025
MAJ
ADR
ANO
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
R
R
C7.01FEETSCALE
0 10 20
SIGNAGE AND STRIPING PLANSEE ABOVESEE BELOWLEGEND
REFERENCE KEY TO SITE DETAILS
DETAIL I.D NUMBER (TOP)
DETAIL SHEET NUMBER (BOTTOM)
1
C1.07
CROSSWALK BLOCK WHITE
CIRCLE - MULTI COMP
EXAMPLE: = 4" SOLID LINE WHITE - MULTI COMP
SQUARE - PREF THERMO
STRIPING KEY
PAVEMENT MESSAGE (TYP)
TRIANGLE - PAINT
PENTAGON - PREF TAPE
SYMBOLS & MATERIALS LEGEND
1ST DIGIT
WIDTH
4", 8", ETC.
2ND DIGIT
PATTERN
S - SOLID
B - BROKEN
D - DOTTED/DOUBLE
3RD DIGIT
COLOR
W - WHITE
Y - YELLOW
B - BLACK
4SW
G - GROUND IN
2+00
952
954
956
958
960
962
964
966
968
952
954
956
958
960
962
964
966
968
1.50%1.50%
-17.7%1:6
2+50
952
954
956
958
960
962
964
966
968
952
954
956
958
960
962
964
966
968
1.50%1.50%
-24.0%1:4
3+00
952
954
956
958
960
962
964
966
968
952
954
956
958
960
962
964
966
968
1.50%1.50%
-24.9%1:4
3+50
952
954
956
958
960
962
964
966
968
952
954
956
958
960
962
964
966
968
1.50%1.50%
-17.5%1:6
4+00
954
956
958
960
962
964
966
968
954
956
958
960
962
964
966
968
1.50%1.50%-3.3%1:30
4+30
958
960
962
964
966
968
970
958
960
962
964
966
968
970
1.50%1.50%13.9%
1:7
5+00
958
960
962
964
966
968
970
958
960
962
964
966
968
970
1.50%1.50%
5+50
956
958
960
962
964
966
968
956
958
960
962
964
966
968
1.50%1.50%
6+00
954
956
958
960
962
964
966
968
954
956
958
960
962
964
966
968
1.50%1.50%
6+50
952
954
956
958
960
962
964
966
952
954
956
958
960
962
964
966
1.50%1.50%
7+50
950
952
954
956
958
960
962
964
950
952
954
956
958
960
962
964
1.50%1.50%
8+00
950
952
954
956
958
960
962
964
950
952
954
956
958
960
962
964
1.50%1.50%
8+50
950
952
954
956
958
960
962
964
950
952
954
956
958
960
962
964
1.50%1.50%
9+00
948
950
952
954
956
958
960
962
948
950
952
954
956
958
960
962
1.50%1.50%
9+50
950
952
954
956
958
960
962
950
952
954
956
958
960
962
1.50%1.50%
10+50
950
952
954
956
958
960
962
964
950
952
954
956
958
960
962
964
1.50%1.50%0.0%Horizontal
15.0%1:7
11+00
952
954
956
958
960
962
964
952
954
956
958
960
962
964
1.50%1.50%0.0%Horizontal
15.0%1:7
11+50
952
954
956
958
960
962
964
952
954
956
958
960
962
964
1.50%1.50%0.0%Horizontal
15.0%1:7
12+00
952
954
956
958
960
962
964
952
954
956
958
960
962
964
1.50%1.50%0.0%Horizontal
15.0%1:7
12+50
952
954
956
958
960
962
964
952
954
956
958
960
962
964
1.50%1.50%0.0%Horizontal
-15.0%
1:7
13+00
952
954
956
958
960
962
964
952
954
956
958
960
962
964
1.50%1.50%0.0%Horizontal
-15.0%
1:7
13+50
954
956
958
960
962
964
954
956
958
960
962
964
1.50%1.50%0.0%Horizontal
-15.0%
1:7
14+00
954
956
958
960
962
964
954
956
958
960
962
964
10.0%1:10
-10.0%1:10 1.50%1.50%
14+50
954
956
958
960
962
964
954
956
958
960
962
964
10.0%
1:10-10.0%
1:10
1.50%1.50%
15+00
952
954
956
958
960
962
964
952
954
956
958
960
962
964
10.0%1:1010.0%
1:10 1.50%1.50%
15+50
950
952
954
956
958
960
962
950
952
954
956
958
960
962
10.0%1:1010.0%
1:10 1.50%1.50%
16+00
948
950
952
954
956
958
960
948
950
952
954
956
958
960
-10.0%
1:10 1.50%1.50%
16+50
942
944
946
948
950
952
954
956
942
944
946
948
950
952
954
956
-10.0%
1:10
1.50%1.50%
1+64.74
950
952
954
956
958
960
962
964
966
950
952
954
956
958
960
962
964
966
1.50%1.50%
-30.8%1:3
-10 CL +10959.9959.89-10 CL +10960.2960.25-10 CL +10960.7960.70-10 CL +10961.2961.15-10 CL +10961.8961.75-10 CL +10962.4962.39-10 CL +10962.8962.77-10 CL +10962.1962.12-10 CL +10961.4961.36-10 CL +10960.6960.59-10 CL +10959.8959.82-10 CL +10957.8957.78-10 CL +10957.7957.68-10 CL +10956.9956.94-10 CL +10956.2956.19-10 CL +10956.4956.41-10 CL +10955.8955.79-10 CL +10956.1956.11-10 CL +10956.4956.43-10 CL +10956.8956.76-10 CL +10957.3957.35-10 CL +10958.0958.03-10 CL +10958.7958.70-10 CL +10958.9958.92-10 CL +10958.4958.44-10 CL +10957.5957.52-10 CL +10955.5955.47-10 CL +10953.1953.12-10 CL +10950.8950.7616+76.16
944
946
948
950
952
954
956
944
946
948
950
952
954
956
-10.0%
1:10-10.0%1:10 1.50%1.50%
-10 CL +10959.9959.89SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878C801.dwg 4/9/2025 10:30:42 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
ANDREW N OLSON
59327 04/09/2025
MAJ
ADR
ANO
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
C8.01
CROSS SECTIONS - TRAIL A
H
C
S
S
>>>>D
S
>>>>H >>>>>S
H
S
S
C
C
G
B>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
B
B
B
BB
BOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOU
OUOUOU>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>>l l l l
l
l lll lllllllllllllllllll l l l l ll
lll66th Street
Geneva Avenue>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>499+9
0
500+0
0
501+00501+14.24 >>CONNECT TO
EXISTING CONDUIT
FUTURE XCEL
PRIMARY
CONDUCTOR
13.8KV 3 PHASE
SCOREBOARD 2
(FUTURE)
(BY OTHERS)
SCOREBOARD 1
(FUTURE)
(BY OTHERS)
SCOREBOARD 3
(FUTURE)
(BY OTHERS)
FUTURE SPORTS LIGHTING
CONTROL CABINET C
XCEL TRANSFORMER
HH1
PL1
PL2
PL3
PL4
PL5
SL11
SL12
SL8,10
SL7,9
SL5
SL4
SL6
SL3
HH6
SL1
SL2
HH3
H
H
H
E
E
E
E
E E E E E E E EEEE E
E EEEE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EEEEE
E
E
E
E
E
EEEEEEEEEEEE E EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E E E E E E E E
E E E E
EEEEEEEEEE
E
E
E
E
E E
E
E E E E E E E
E
E E E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
EEEEE
EEE E E E E
E E E E E E E E
EEEEEEEEEEEHH
H
H
H GoodviewAvenueOakridge Drive
CITY OFNEWPORTHH4
Pr
i
va
te
Ro
ad
OLTMAN
MIDDLE
SCHOOL
HH7/HH8
HH2
HH5
SC1
SC2
SC3
GROUP CONDUITS IN
THE SAME TRENCH
GROUP CONDUITS IN
THE SAME TRENCH
GROUP CONDUITS IN
THE SAME TRENCH
SERVICE CABINETS A & B
SEE SHEET C1.05 FOR COMBINED BASE DETAIL
SEE SHEETS C1.06 & C1.07 FOR CABINET DETAILS
GROUP CONDUITS IN
THE SAME TRENCH
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878E101.dwg 4/9/2025 10:30:57 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
ANDREW N OLSON
59327 04/09/2025
MAJ
ADR
ANO
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
R
E1.01FEETSCALE
0 50 100
ELECTRICAL PLAN
LEGEND
PROPOSED ELECTRIC LINE
PROPOSED LIGHT POLE
FUTURE FIELD LIGHTING
HANDHOLE
E
ELECTRIC NOTES:
1.UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ALL CONDUIT SHALL BE PVC SCHEDULE 40.
2.ALL CONDUCTOR SIZES ARE AWG
3.ALL WIRE SHALL BE COPPER, STRANDED TYPE XHHW-2.
4.CONDUITS ENTERING BUILDING SHALL ENTER AT THE ELECTRIC/MECHANICAL
ROOM.
5.EACH RECP AND EACH SHELTER SHALL BE ON AN INDIVIDUAL BRANCH
CIRCUIT.
6.SPORT LIGHTING POLES, POLE BASES, CABINETS, AND CABINET BASES ARE BY
OTHERS
7.SEE CONDUIT/WIRE SCHEDULE FOR CONDUIT AND CONDUCTORS SIZES.
8.INSTALL HH7 1 FOOT FROM EDGE OF CABINET A EQUIPMENT PAD. EXTEND
THREE 1-1/2" CONDUITS FROM CABINET TO HH7
9.INSTALL HH8 1 FOOT FROM EDGE OF CABINET B EQUIPMENT PAD. EXTEND
THREE 2" CONDUITS FROM CABINET B TO HH8
10.INSTALL HH2 WITHIN 5 FT OF LIGHTING UNIT PL4. CONDUCTORS FEEDING
SCOREBOARDS SHALL NOT PASS THROUGH LIGHTING UNITS.
11.HANDHOLES HH4 AND HH5 SHALL BE TYPE C. ALL OTHER HANDHOLES SHALL
BE TYPE A.
H
FUTURE SPORTS LIGHTING
CONTROL CABINET C
XCEL TRANSFORMER
H
E E E E E E
EEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEE E E E E E E
EEEE
E
E
E
E
E
E
EEEEEEEEE
E
E
E
E
E
E
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEH
HH7/HH8
SERVICE CABINETS A & B
SEE SHEET C1.05 FOR COMBINED BASE DETAIL
SEE SHEETS C1.06 & C1.07 FOR CABINET DETAILS
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878E101.dwg 4/9/2025 10:31:03 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
ANDREW N OLSON
59327 04/09/2025
MAJ
ADR
ANO
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
E1.02
ELECTRICAL PLAN
COLUMNS "CONDUIT LENGTH", "PHASE COND LENGTH", "EGC LENGTH" ARE ESTIMATES ONLY AND NOT PART OF BIDDING PURPOSES.
SPORTS LIGHTING CONDUIT SCHEDULE
ALL CONDUIT SIZES ARE TRADE SIZES. ALL WIRE SIZES ARE AWG
DESIGNATION START END CONDUIT CONDUIT PHASE COND PHASE COND LOAD SERVED**EGC CONDUIT PHASE COND EGC
SIZE*TYPE QTY QTY/SIZE SIZE LENGTH/FT LENGTH LENGTH
CABINET A CAB C 2"PVC CAB C
CABINET A HH7 3(1-1/2")PVC FUTURE
CAB C HH4 1-1/4"PVC SL1, SL2
CAB C HH4 1-1/2"PVC SL3,SL4,SL5,SL6
HH4 HH5 1-1/4"PVC SL1,SL2
HH4 HH5 1-1/2"PVC SL3,SL4,SL5,SL6
HH5 HH6 1-1/4"PVC SL1,SL2
HH6 SL1 1-1/4"PVC SL1,SL2
SL1 SL2 1"PVC SL2
HH5 SL4 1-1/4"PVC SL4,SL3
SL4 SL3 1"PVC SL3
HH5 SL5 1-1/4"PVC SL5,SL6
SL5 SL6 1"PVC SL6
CABINET C SL8/10 1-1/2"PVC SL8/10, SL7/9
SL8/10 SL7/9 1-1/4"PVC SL7/9
CABINET C SL11 1-1/4"PVC SL11, SL12
SL11 SL12 1"PVC SL12
CABINET B HH1 1-1/4"PVC 2 #10 PL1-PL5 #10
HH1 PL1 1-1/4"PVC 2 #10 PL1-PL3 #10
PL1 PL2 1"PVC 2 #10 PL2, PL3 #10
PL2 PL3 1"PVC 2 #10 PL3 #10
HH1 HH2 1"PVC 2 #10 PL4,PL5 #10
HH2 SC1 3/4"PVC SC1
HH2 SC2 3/4"PVC SC2
HH2 PL4 1"PVC 2 #10 PL4,PL5 #10
PL4 PL5 1"PVC 2 #10 PL5 #10
CABINET B HH8 3(2")PVC FUTURE
CABINET B HH3 2"PVC PAVILLION,SC3
HH3 SC3 3/4"PVC SC3
CABINET A IRR CONTR.PVC BOOSTER PUMP
* UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED THE NUMBER OF CONDUITS IS ONE.
** CABINET C, SPORTS LIGHTING (SL1-SL12) AND SCOREBOARDS BY OTHERS
CABINET AND TRANSFORMER DETAIL
H
C
S
S
>>>>D
S
>>>>H >>>>>S
H
S
S
C
C
G
B>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
B
B
B
BB
B>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>l l l l
l llll lllllllllllllllllll l l l l ll
lll66th Street
Geneva AvenueOLTMAN
MIDDLE
SCHOOLGoodviewAvenueOakridge Drive
CITY OFNEWPORT(3) MS
(2) OV
(3) QA
(2) CO
(1) CO
(2) SR (2) CO
(3) MS (3) QB
(4) MS
(4) QR
(3) QR
(3) QR
(4) CO
(3) QR
(2) QR
(3) QR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>499+9
0
500+0
0
501+00501+14.24 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>499+9
0
500+0
0
501+00501+14.24 >>H
H
H HH
H
H
H
Pr
i
va
te
Ro
ad
R
L1.01
LANDSCAPE PLANFEETSCALE
0 50 100
NOTES:
1.LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MUST INSPECT AND APPROVE FINISH GRADING BEFORE
CONTRACTOR PROCEEDS WITH SODDING OR SEEDING.
2.FAILURE OF TURF DEVELOPMENT: IN THE EVENT THE CONTRACTOR FAILS TO PROVIDE
AN ACCEPTABLE TURF, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RE-SEED OR RE-SOD ALL APPLICABLE
AREAS, AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE
ENGINEER.
3.BEGIN TURF ESTABLISHMENT IMMEDIATELY AFTER SEEDING, REFER TO SPECIFICATION
FOR PROCEDURE.
4.ALL TREES TO BE BALLED AND BURLAPPED.
5.ALL TREES SHALL RECEIVE 4" DEPTH OF CLEAN SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH,
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED.
6.ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE NO. 1 QUALITY, NURSERY GROWN AND SPECIMENS
MUST BE MATCHED. ALL OVERSTORY TREES ADJACENT TO DRIVE AND IN PARKING LOT
SHALL BEGIN BRANCHING NO LOWER THAN 6'.
7.ALL DISTURBED AREAS WHICH ARE NOT DESIGNATED TO BE PAVED SHALL RECEIVE AT
LEAST 6" OF TOPSOIL AND SHALL BE SEEDED OR SODDED.
8.TOPSOIL TO BE 6" DEPTH IN ALL BALLFIELD AREAS.
9.DECIDUOUS TREES SHOULD BE LOCATED A MINIMUM OF 5' OFF ANY UTILITY PIPE.
1.CONIFEROUS TREES SHOULD BE LOCATED A MINIMUM OF 15' OFF ANY UTILITY PIPE.
2.NO TREE SHOULD BE LOCATED WITHIN 10' OF A HYDRANT OR 15' FROM A
STREETLIGHT.
3.NO TREES SHOULD BE LOCATED WITHIN A STORM POND HWL.
4.NO TREES SHOULD BE LOCATED WITHIN A STORM POND'S 20' ACCESS ROUTE, AND NO
CONIFEROUS TREE WITHIN 5' OF THE 20' POND ACCESS ROUTE.
5.NO CONIFEROUS TREES WITHIN 20' OF A PROPOSED SIDEWALK/TRAIL.
6.NO DECIDUOUS TREES WITHIN 5' OF A SIDEWALK/TRAIL.
7.FOR TREES WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OR PUBLIC OUTLOT, TREES SHALL
CONFORM TO THE CURRENT LIST OF APPROVED SPECIES.
PLANTING RESTRICTIONS:
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878L101.dwg 4/9/2025 10:31:17 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
RICHARD W KOECHLEIN
26678 04/09/2025
RWK
RWK
RWK
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
LEGEND
ROCK MULCH
ANNUALS MULCH BED
CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CALIPER CONTAINER SPACING
TREES
CO 5 CELTIS OCCIDENTALIS HACKBERRY 2.5" CAL.B&B PER PLAN
MS 10 MALUS 'SPRING SNOW'SPRING SNOW CRABAPPLE 2" CAL.B&B PER PLAN
QB 3 QUERCUS BICOLOR SWAMP WHITE OAK 2.5" CAL.B&B PER PLAN
QR 18 QUERCUS RUBRA NORTHERN RED OAK 2.5" CAL.B&B PER PLAN
UA 4 ULMUS AMERICANA 'ST. CROIX'ST. CROIX ELM 2.5" CAL.B&B PER PLAN
UD 7 ULMUS DAVIDIANA VAR. JAPONICA 'MORTON'ACCOLADE ELM 2.5" CAL.B&B PER PLAN
PLANT SCHEDULE
H
C
S
S
D
S
H
S
H
S
S
C
C
G
B
B
B
B
BB
BOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOU
OUOUOUl l l l llll llllllllllllllllllll l l l l ll
lllGoodviewAvenueOLTMAN
MIDDLE
SCHOOL
OLTMAN
MIDDLE
SCHOOLGoodviewAvenueOakridge Drive
CITY OFNEWPORTPr
i
va
te
Road
M MV FS
CRS
2"
2"
2"
6"
6"
6"
6"6"
8"
6"
3"
3"
6"
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
2"
2"Pr
i
va
te
Road
OLTMAN
MIDDLE
SCHOOLGoodviewAvenueOakridge Drive
CITY OFNEWPORT66th Street
Geneva AvenueSEE SHEET I1.04
SEE SHEET I1.02
SEE SHEET I1.03
R
I1.01
OVERALL IRRIGATION PLANFEETSCALE
0 50 100
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878I101.dwg 4/9/2025 10:31:31 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
RICHARD W KOECHLEIN
26678 04/09/2025
RWK
RWK
RWK
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
H
C
S
S
S
H
OUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUl l l l l l l
l lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllM MV
11 4"11 4"11 2"
11 4"11 4"11 2"11 4"11 4"112"
11 4"11 4"11 2"1"11 4"
1"11 4"11 4"
1"11 4"11 4"
1"11 4"
11 4"11 4"11 2"
1"11 4"11 4"
1"11 4"11 4"
11 4"11 4"11 2"
11 4"11 4"11 2"
11 4"11 4"11 2"
11 4"11 4"11 2"
11 4"11 4"11 2"
11 4"11 4"112"
11 4"11 4"11 2"
11 4"11 4"11 2"
11 4"11 4"11 2"
11 2"
2"
2"
11 4"11 4"11 4"
2"
2"
2"
2"
11 4"
11 4"
11 4"
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
0.75
0.75 0.75
0.75
1"
11 4"
1"
11 2"
15
15
15
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
15
15
15
15 15
15
11 4"
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0 1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0 1.0
11 4"
11 4"
11 2"
11 2"
2"
RS
0.75
1.5
1
27.2112"
2
34.2112"
4
26.3112"
7
30.8112"9
15.91"
15
29.4112"
16
11.71"
17
33.6112"
18
39.7112"
15
1515
15
1515
15151515
1515
11 2"
2"
1"
2"
2"
3"
3"
6"
6"
1"
112"
112"
212"
6"
3"
6"
3"
6"
6"6"
6"
3"
3"11 4"
11 4"
11 4"
11 2"
2"
1"
2"
1"
11 4"
12
25.2112"
3"
SP
SP
SP
SP
1"1"
1"1"
1"1"
1"
1"
1"
1"
1"
1"
1"
1"
1"
1"
1"
1"
1"1"
1"1"
1"
1"
1"
1"
1"
1"
1"
1"1"
1"
1"
1"
1"
1"
1"
1"1"
1"
1"
1"1"
1"
1"
1"
1"
11 4"
3"
2"
112"
11 2"
11 2"
112"2"
11 2"
11 2"
2"
11 4"
11 4"
21 2"
2"
11 2"
112"
11 2"21 2"
112"
11 2"
11 2"
212"
11 2"
11 2"21 2"
4"
11 2"
11 2"
212"
2"
2"
1"
1"
1"
11 4"
1"11 4"11 4"11 4"
11 2"
1"11 4"
1"
11 4"
11 4"11 4"
2"
2"
10101088881010108888
2"1"
21
54.62"
22
632"
23
50.4112"
24
50.42"
25
50.42"
26
50.42"
27
50.42"
28
50.42"
29
50.42"
30
37.8112"
5
38.7112"
6
37.5112"
3
9.251"
3"
6"
0.75
0.75
51"
8
0.21"
21 2"
1"
2"
2"
11 4"
1"1"
11 4"
19
44.9112"
11 4"
1"
11 2"
2"
11 4"
112"
112"
2"
21 2"
14
37.1112"
1.5
1"
2"
66th S
t
r
e
e
t
Geneva AvenueR
I1.02
IRRIGATION PLAN - NORTHWESTFEETSCALE
0 30 60
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878I101.dwg 4/9/2025 10:31:38 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
RICHARD W KOECHLEIN
26678 04/09/2025
RWK
RWK
RWK
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R SEE SHEETI1.03
S
H
S
H
S
B
B
B llllllllllllllllll l l l l l l l l l ll llllllM MV FS
2"
11 4"11 4"11 2"
2"
11 4"11 2"11 2"
21 2"
11 4"11 4"11 2"
2"
11 4"
2"
15
15
15
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
15
15
15
15 15
15
11 4"11 4"
11 4"
11 2"2"
CRS
9
15.91"
11
44.9112"
18
39.712"
20
32.3112"
11 4"
11 4"
1"
112"
4"
6"
6"
6"6"
8"
11 4"11 2"11 2"
11 4"11 4"11 2"
11 4"11 4"11 2"
11 4"11 4"11 2"
11 4"11 4"11 2"
11 4"11 4"11 2"
11 4"11 4"11 2"
11 4"11 4"11 2"
6"
1"
2"
1"
11 4"
2"
21 2"
2"
3"6"
12
25.2112"
13
32.3112"
112"
11 2"
11 4"
11 4"
11 4"
2"
212"
112"
3"
6"
2"
SP
SP
SP
6"
1"
1"11 4"
1"11 4"11 4"11 2"
1"
11 4"
112"
11 2"
2"
2"
21 2"
1"
21 2"
1"
11 4"
1"
11 4"
11 4"
1"
1"
11 4"
11 4"
112"
1"
1"
1"
1"
1"
1"
1"
2"
11 4"
11 4"
1"
11 4"
1"
2"
11 4"
11 4"
1"
11 4"
1"
11 4"
11 4"
11 4"
2"
11 4"
2"
1"
11 4"
11 2"
112"
2"
1"
2"
1"
112"
212"
3"
3"
4"
1"
1"
1"
1"1"
1"
1"
1"
1"1"
1"
1"
1"
1"
1"
1"
1"
1"
1"
1"
1"
1"
1"
1"1"
1"
1"
1"
1"
1"
11 2"
2"
2"
2"
11 2"
11 2"
11 2"
21 2"
21 2"
11 2"
112"
21 2"
11 2"
11 2"
21 2"
11 2"
11 2"
21 2"
1"
2"
2"
1"
1"
11 4"
11 4"1"
1"
11 4"2"
33
54.62"
34
50.42"
35
50.42"
36
37.8112"
37
50.42"
38
50.42"
39
25.2112"
1"
4"
0.75
0.75
51"
21 2"
1"
2"
2"
11 4"
1"1"
11 4"
19
44.9112"
11 4"
1"
112"
2"
66th Street
Private
Street
R
I1.03
IRRIGATION PLAN - NORTHEASTFEETSCALE
0 30 60
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878I101.dwg 4/9/2025 10:31:42 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
RICHARD W KOECHLEIN
26678 04/09/2025
RWK
RWK
RWK
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
RSEE SHEETI1.02
C
C
G
B
B
B
BB
BOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOU
OUOUOUOUOU1"11 4"11 4"
11 2"
11 4"11 4"11 2"
11 4"11 4"11 2"11 4"11 4"11 2"
11 4"11 4"112"1"11 4"
1"11 4"11 4"11 4"11 2"
2"
2.01.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
11 4"
27.2112"
1"
112"
1"
212"
112"
1"
11 4"11 2"11 2"
11 4"11 4"11 2"
11 4"11 4"11 2"
3"11 4"
1"
11 4"
11 4"
1"
SP
SP
SP
1"
1"
1"
1"1"
1"1"
1"1"
1"
1"
1"
1"
1"
1"
1"
1"
1"
112"
11 2"
2"
11 4"
11 4"
11 2"
11 2"
21 2"
4"
11 2"
11 2"
212"
2"
1"
1"
11 4"
11 2"
112"
21 2"
29
50.42"
30
37.8112"
31
50.42"
32
25.2112"
38
50.42"
39
25.2112"
3"
11 4"Geneva AvenueNUMBER MODEL SIZE TYPE GPM PSI PSI @ POC PRECIP
1 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 1-1/2"TURF ROTOR 27.24 40.6 69.7 0.21 in/h
2 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 1-1/2"TURF ROTOR 34.17 40.5 66.2 0.26 in/h
3 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 1"TURF SPRAY 9.25 32.1 58.2 1.54 in/h
4 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 1-1/2"TURF ROTOR 26.33 39.5 65.7 0.68 in/h
5 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 1-1/2"TURF SPRAY 38.73 42.3 67.9 1.75 in/h
6 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 1-1/2"TURF SPRAY 37.51 41.6 67.1 1.75 in/h
7 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 1-1/2"TURF ROTOR 30.84 39.6 63.3 0.69 in/h
8 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 1"TURF SPRAY 0.2 30.8 52.4 0.49 in/h
9 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 1"TURF SPRAY 15.85 34.7 54.6 1.22 in/h
10 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 1-1/2"TURF SPRAY 44.17 35.4 52.8 1.72 in/h
11 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 1-1/2"TURF ROTOR 44.9 36.3 53.3 0.55 in/h
12 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 1-1/2"TURF ROTOR 25.2 34.8 51.9 0.29 in/h
13 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 1-1/2"TURF ROTOR 32.3 35.1 52.9 0.55 in/h
14 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 1-1/2"TURF ROTOR 37.1 36.5 62.5 0.44 in/h
15 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 1-1/2"TURF ROTOR 29.4 35.7 62.1 0.59 in/h
16 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 1"TURF SPRAY 11.66 32.6 58.6 1.12 in/h
17 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 1-1/2"TURF ROTOR 33.6 36.1 60.5 0.59 in/h
18 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 1-1/2"TURF ROTOR 39.7 36.1 58.4 0.41 in/h
19 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 1-1/2"TURF ROTOR 44.9 36.4 58.3 0.7 in/h
20 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 1-1/2"TURF ROTOR 32.3 35.5 54.6 0.57 in/h
21 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 2"TURF ROTOR 54.6 36.1 62.2 0.27 in/h
22 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 2"TURF ROTOR 63 36.6 62.4 0.26 in/h
23 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 1-1/2"TURF ROTOR 50.4 35.6 61.3 0.26 in/h
24 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 2"TURF ROTOR 50.4 36.5 62.1 0.26 in/h
25 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 2"TURF ROTOR 50.4 35.6 61.2 0.26 in/h
26 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 2"TURF ROTOR 50.4 36.5 62.0 0.26 in/h
27 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 2"TURF ROTOR 50.4 36.8 62.2 0.26 in/h
28 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 2"TURF ROTOR 50.4 36.5 61.9 0.26 in/h
29 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 2"TURF ROTOR 50.4 36.8 62.2 0.26 in/h
30 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 1-1/2"TURF ROTOR 37.8 35.3 61.1 0.26 in/h
31 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 2"TURF ROTOR 50.4 36.7 62.8 0.26 in/h
32 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 1-1/2"TURF ROTOR 25.2 36.5 63.1 0.26 in/h
33 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 2"TURF ROTOR 54.6 36.0 55.1 0.26 in/h
34 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 2"TURF ROTOR 50.4 35.6 55.1 0.26 in/h
35 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 2"TURF ROTOR 50.4 35.6 55.8 0.26 in/h
36 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 1-1/2"TURF ROTOR 37.8 35.6 56.2 0.26 in/h
37 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 2"TURF ROTOR 50.4 35.6 56.7 0.26 in/h
38 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 2"TURF ROTOR 50.4 35.6 58.3 0.26 in/h
39 RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 1-1/2"TURF ROTOR 25.2 36.1 60.1 0.26 in/h
VALVE SCHEDULE
Generated:2025-04-08 16:09
P.O.C. NUMBER: 01
Water Source Information:
FLOW AVAILABLE
Water Meter Size:4"
Flow Available 375 GPM
PRESSURE AVAILABLE
Static Pressure at POC:50 PSI
Elevation Change:5 ft
Service Line Size:6"
Length of Service Line:20 ft
Booster Pump pressure provided:30 PSI
Pressure Available:78 PSI
DESIGN ANALYSIS
Maximum Multi-valve Flow:225 GPM
Flow Available at POC:375 GPM
Residual Flow Available:150 GPM
Critical Station:1
Design Pressure:35 PSI
Friction Loss:1.7 PSI
Fittings Loss:0.17 PSI
Elevation Loss:0 PSI
Loss through Valve:3.68 PSI
Pressure Req. at Critical Station:40.6 PSI
Loss for Fittings:1.15 PSI
Loss for Main Line:11.5 PSI
Loss for POC to Valve Elevation:0 PSI
Loss for Backflow:9 PSI
Loss for Master Valve:3.35 PSI
Loss for Water Meter:4.1 PSI
Critical Station Pressure at POC:69.7 PSI
Pressure Available:78 PSI
Residual Pressure Available:8.3 PSI
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
R
I1.04
IRRIGATION PLAN - SOUTHWESTFEETSCALE
0 30 60
1.FIELD VERIFY SITE CONDITIONS AND LOCATE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO TRENCHING.
2.VERIFY THE LOCATION AND DEPTH OF UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC LINES, FIBER LINES, AND OTHER COMMUNICATION LINES PRIOR
TO IRRIGATION INSTALLATION.
3.LAY OUT WORK IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE DRAWINGS. ADJUST NOZZLES, SPRINKLER ARCS, OR HEAD AND PIPE
LOCATIONS TO COMPLEMENT ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS. MAINTAIN HEAD-TO-HEAD COVERAGE. BALANCE THE PRECIPITATION
RATE AMONG ALL SPRINKLERS WITHIN THE ZONE. ADD SUPPLEMENTAL SPRINKLERS AS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE HEAD-TO-HEAD
COVERAGE.
4.PROVIDE ALL MISCELLANEOUS MATERIALS NECESSARY TO MAKE THE SYSTEM FULLY FUNCTIONAL.
5.WATER PRESSURE AT THE WATER SUPPLY HAS BEEN ASSUMED TO BE +/-55 PSI. NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IF WATER SUPPLY
PRESSURE DIFFERS.
6.WATER SUPPLY IS LOCATED AT THE PROPOSED 6" STUB ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE SITE.
7.FOLLOW MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRODUCT SPECIFIC INSTALLATION.
8.MAIN LINE PIPING SHALL BE PVC CLASS 200 SDR 21.
9.LATERAL PIPING SHALL BE PVC CLASS 160 SDR 26.
10.LATERAL PIPING WITH NO SIZE LABEL INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS SHALL BE 1", PVC CLASS 160 SDR 26.
11.INSTALL LATERAL PIPING A MINIMUM 12 INCHES DEEP AND INSTALL MAIN LINE PIPING A MINIMUM 18 INCHES DEEP. NOTIFY
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT A MINIMUM 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF PIPING INSTALLATION.
12.USE TEFLON TAPE ON ALL THREADED JOINTS.
13.SET SPRINKLER HEADS, QUICK COUPLER VALVES, AND OTHER VALVES WITH STEMS PERPENDICULAR TO FINISHED GRADE.
14.PLACE ALL VALVES IN SERVICE BOXES.
15.ADJUST SPRINKLER HEADS FOR GRADE, AS NECESSARY, AFTER TURFGRASS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED AND ALL SETTLEMENT AT
SPRINKLER HEADS HAS OCCURRED. SET TOP OF SPRINKLER HEAD 1
2" BELOW FINISH GRADE OR 1
2" BELOW THE TURFGRASS ROOT
ZONE. SET TOP OF SPRINKLER HEAD 1" BELOW CONCRETE SURFACES WHEN ADJACENT TO CONCRETE WALKS OR CONCRETE
CURBS.
16.MAIN LINE PIPING 3" AND LARGER SHALL HAVE THRUST BLOCKING AT ALL ELL'S, TEE'S, AND WYE'S.
17.MAIN LINE PIPING 4" AND LARGER SHALL USE JOINT RESTRAINTS.
18.CONDUCT PERFORMANCE TEST IN THE PRESENCE OF OWNER AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF SYSTEM
INSTALLATION. REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.
19.CONDUCT AND DEMONSTRATE TO THE OWNER THE WINTERIZATION AND SPRING START-UP PROCESS IN THE FALL FOLLOWING
IRRIGATION SYSTEM COMPLETION.
NOTES
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878I101.dwg 4/9/2025 10:31:49 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
RICHARD W KOECHLEIN
26678 04/09/2025
RWK
RWK
RWK
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
SEE SHEET I1.02
I2.01
IRRIGATION DETAILS
RAIN SENSOR
IRR-1
PLATE NO.
STANDARD DETAILS
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 2025
EXTERIOR CONTROLLER
IRR-2
PLATE NO.
STANDARD DETAILS
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 2025
GATE VALVE
IRR-3
PLATE NO.
STANDARD DETAILS
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 2025
QUICK COUPLING VALVE
IRR-4
PLATE NO.
STANDARD DETAILS
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 2024
REMOTE CONTROL VALVE
IRR-5
PLATE NO.
STANDARD DETAILS
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 2025
VALVE BOX LAYOUT
IRR-7
PLATE NO.
STANDARD DETAILS
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 2025
TRENCHING
IRR-8
PLATE NO.
STANDARD DETAILS
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 2025
WATERPROOF CONNECTOR
IRR-9
PLATE NO.
STANDARD DETAILS
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 2025
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878I101.dwg 4/9/2025 10:31:52 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
RICHARD W KOECHLEIN
26678 04/09/2025
RWK
RWK
RWK
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
I2.02
IRRIGATION DETAILS
IRRIGATION CABINET
IRR-15
PLATE NO.
STANDARD DETAILS
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 2025
FRONT VIEW
END VIEW
REAR VIEW BA
BBC
NOTE: FRONT OF BOX ALSO AVAILABLE WITH
FULL FACE.VENTED PANELS
EACH END
OPEN BOTTOM
A
A C BOPEN BOTTOM BUILT TO SPECIFICATIONS
HASP & STAPLE
PAINTED: NON-DIRECTIONAL STL. STL.
LENGTH A: SIZE TO FIT
LENGTH B: SIZE TO FIT
LENGTH C: SIZE TO FITISOMETRIC
POP-UP SPRINKLER
IRR-10
PLATE NO.
STANDARD DETAILS
COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 2025
ELL CROSS TEE
45° ELL 45° ELL
WYE
NOTES:
SUPPLY LINES 3-INCHES IN DIAMETER AND
LARGER SHALL RECEIVE CONCRETE THRUST
BLOCKS.
PIPE (TYP.)
REBAR BENT AROUND
FITTING (TYP.)
FITTING (TYP.)
CONCRETE THRUST BLOCK (TYP.)
UNDISTURBED SOIL (TYP.)
THRUST BLOCK3
I2.02
NOT TO SCALE
FITTING TO PIPE JOINT RESTRAINT
SYSTEM
4
I2.02
NOT TO SCALE
NOTES:
1. REVIEW THE MANUFACTURER PIPE PREPARATION DIRECTIONS FOR CUTTING THE PIPE, CLEANING,
MARKING, LUBRICATING, AND ALIGNING AND FITTING.
2. INSERT THE BEVELED SPIGOT PIPE INTO THE FITTING.
3. ASSEMBLE GRIP RING ON PIPE AND TIGHTEN CLAMP BOLTS PER MFG. DIRECTIONS.
4.SLIDE I-BOLTS THROUGH SLOTS IN GRIP RINGS AND TIGHTEN TO MFG. SPECS.
90 DEG BEND 45, 22-1/2, 11-1/4 BEND
TYPICAL DUCTILE IRON GRIP
RING AT PIPE
TYPICAL DUCTILE IRON GRIP
RING AT PIPE
TEE RESTRAINT
TYPICAL DUCTILE IRON FITTING
WITH RESTRAINT LUGS. FITTINGS
SHALL HAVE DEEP BELL PUSH-ON
JOINTS WITH GASKETS
TYPICAL DUCTILE IRON FITTING
WITH RESTRAINT LUGS. FITTINGS
SHALL HAVE DEEP BELL PUSH-ON
JOINTS WITH GASKETS
TYPICAL IPS PVC PIPE, PREPARED
FOR FITTING AS PER NOTES AND
MFG DIRECTIONS
TYPICAL IPS PVC PIPE, PREPARED
FOR FITTING AS PER NOTES AND
MFG DIRECTIONS
REDUCED PIPE AS NECESSARY
SPIGOT END OF REDUCER
INSERTING IN TO THE BELL OF OF
JOINT. "LOCK" REDUCER TO MAIN
FITTING
LIGHTNING ARRESTOR5
I2.02
NOT TO SCALE
FINISHED GRADE
3M DBR/Y -6 SPLICE
DECODER WIRE PATH
SURGE ARRESTOR
SERVICE BOX
GROUND WIRE OF
LIGHTNING ARRESTOR
CONNECTED TO GROUND
ROD USING BRASS CLAMPS
BRASS CLAMPS
5/8" DIA. X8 COPPER CLAD
GROUND ROD DRIVEN INTO
GROUND WITH TOP OF ROD
A MIN OF 6" BELOW GRADE.
50 OLMS OR LESS.
GRAVEL SUMP
THE LIGHTNING ARRESTOR SHOULD BE INSTALLED IN EACH OF THE FOLLOWING SCENARIOS:
1.NEAR THE 2-WIRE IRRIGATION CONTROLLER: THE LIGHTNING ARRESTOR SHOULD BE SPLICED
INTO EACH 2-WIRE PATH IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CONTROLLER IN THE CLOSEST LOCATION
THAT THE LIGHTNING ARRESTOR CAN PROPERLY BE GROUNDED; THIS PROVIDES SURGE
PROTECTION FOR THE 2-WIRE IRRIGATION CONTROLLER.
2.ALONG 2-WIRE PATH: THE LIGHTNING ARRESTOR SHOULD BE SPECIFIED INTO THE 2-WIRE
PATH EVERY 500 FT OR EVERY 5 DECODERS, WHICHEVER IS SMALLER, AND AT THE END OF
ANY 2-WIRE PATH BRANCH LONGER THAN 25 FT.
3.AT THE END OF THE 2-WIRE PATH: THE LIGHTNING ARRESTOR SHOULD BE INSTALLED AT THE
END OF EACH 2-WIRE PATH BRANCH 25 FT OR LONGER WHEN USING A STAR
CONFIGURATION.
NOTES:
1.ALL ASSEMBLY PARTS (THREADED NIPPLES, FITTINGS, ETC.) SHALL BE GALVANIZED OR BRASS PER LOCAL CODES
AND REQUIREMENTS.
2.GALVANIZED NIPPLE SHALL EXTEND 12" PAST THE EDGE OF THE CONCRETE FOOTING.
3.SCH. 80 PVC MALE ADAPTER SHALL BE USED IN CONNECTION FROM COPPER TO THE MAINLINE.
4.BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE SHALL BE LOCATED IN PLANTING AREA UNLESS APPROVED BY
OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE.
5.ALL THREADED CONNECTIONS SHALL BE MADE USING PIPE THREAD SEALANT. ALL SCH. 80 PVC TO COPPER
CONNECTIONS TO BE MADE USING TEFLON TAPE.
MUNICIPAL WATER CONNECTION1
I2.02
NOT TO SCALE
BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE (SEE IRRIGATION PLANS
FOR MAKE AND MODEL). INSTALL DEVICE PER THE LOCAL
WATER PURVEYOR'S STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS
BRASS BALL VALVES LOCATED ON BOTH SIDES
OF THE BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE
COPPER TEE W/ BLOW OUT POINT.
COPPER 90° (DEGREE) ELBOW
CONNECT W/ PVC CLASS 200 SDR 21
4" THICK CONCRETE PAD,
1" ABOVE FINISHED GRADE
MUNICIPAL WATER METER
COPPER TEE W/ BLOW OUT POINT
FLOW
DIRECTION
FROM MUNICIPAL
WATER MAIN
BLOW OUT RISER
CURB STOP
FLOW
NOTE: INLET PIPE ENTERING METER: LENGTH MUST BE A MIN. OF 10 X PIPE DIA.
OUTLET PIPE LEAVING METER: LENGTH MUST BE MIN. OF 5 X PIPE DIA.
INLET AND OUTLET PIPE MUST BE STRAIGHT PIPE WITH NO FITTINGS OR TURNS UNTIL AFTER
THESE SPECIFIED LENGTHS. PIPE AND FITTINGS MAY BE SCH 80 PVC SOLVENT WELD,
THREADED SCH 80 PVC OR BRASS, AS REQUIRED FOR PROJECT.
MASTER VALVE & FLOW SENSOR2
I2.02
NOT TO SCALE
FINISHED GRADE
SPECIFIED RECTANGULAR
SERVICE BOXES WITH
EXTENTIONS AS NEEDED.
PVC SCH 80 NIPPLE.
MASTER VALVE
AS SPECIFIED.
5X
DIAMETER
OF
PIPE
10X
DIAMETER
OF
PIPE
WATER PROOF
CONNECTORS.
2 X 24 PVC SCH
80 TOE PIPING.
FLOW METER AS SPECIFIED
(2 WIRES TO CONTROLLER)
TWO WIRES TO FLOW
SENSOR TERMINALS AT
CONTROLLER. MIN. 18
AWG-UF (2.08 mm2)
SHIELDED WIRE WITH
DIFFERENT COLOR FROM
CONTROL/COMMON WIRE.
PVC SCH 80 PIPING.
PVC MAIN LINE WITH
REDUCING BUSHING.
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878I101.dwg 4/9/2025 10:31:57 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
RICHARD W KOECHLEIN
26678 04/09/2025
RWK
RWK
RWK
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
I2.03
IRRIGATION DETAILS
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878I101.dwg 4/9/2025 11:13:52 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
RICHARD W KOECHLEIN
26678 04/09/2025
RWK
RWK
RWK
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
SYMBOL MANUFACTURER/MODEL/DESCRIPTION QTY PSI
RAIN BIRD 1804-PRS 15 STRIP SERIES
TURF SPRAY 4.0IN. POP-UP SPRINKLER WITH CO-MOLDED
WIPER SEAL. 1/2IN. NPT FEMALE THREADED INLET. PRESSURE
REGULATING.
102 30
RAIN BIRD 1804-PRS 5 SERIES MPR
TURF SPRAY 4.0IN. POP-UP SPRINKLER WITH CO-MOLDED
WIPER SEAL. 1/2IN. NPT FEMALE THREADED INLET. PRESSURE
REGULATING.
1 30
RAIN BIRD 1804-PRS 8 SERIES MPR
TURF SPRAY 4.0IN. POP-UP SPRINKLER WITH CO-MOLDED
WIPER SEAL. 1/2IN. NPT FEMALE THREADED INLET. PRESSURE
REGULATING.
16 30
RAIN BIRD 1804-PRS 10 SERIES MPR
TURF SPRAY 4.0IN. POP-UP SPRINKLER WITH CO-MOLDED
WIPER SEAL. 1/2IN. NPT FEMALE THREADED INLET. PRESSURE
REGULATING.
6 30
RAIN BIRD 1804-PRS 15 SERIES MPR
TURF SPRAY 4.0IN. POP-UP SPRINKLER WITH CO-MOLDED
WIPER SEAL. 1/2IN. NPT FEMALE THREADED INLET. PRESSURE
REGULATING.
21 30
SYMBOL MANUFACTURER/MODEL/DESCRIPTION QTY PSI GPM RADIUS
RAIN BIRD 3504-PC-SAM 0.75
TURF ROTOR, 4IN. POP-UP. ADJUSTABLE AND FULL CIRCLE.
WITH SEAL-A-MATIC CHECK VALVE.
7 35 0.67 17'
RAIN BIRD 3504-PC-SAM 1.5
TURF ROTOR, 4IN. POP-UP. ADJUSTABLE AND FULL CIRCLE.
WITH SEAL-A-MATIC CHECK VALVE.
41 35 1.28 23'
RAIN BIRD 5004-PC-R-LA 1.0
TURF ROTOR, 4IN. POP-UP, PLASTIC RISER. ADJUSTABLE TO
FULL CIRCLE. LOW ANGLE NOZZLE. PRESSURE REGULATING.
36 35 0.87 28'
RAIN BIRD 5004-PC-R-LA 2.0
TURF ROTOR, 4IN. POP-UP, PLASTIC RISER. ADJUSTABLE TO
FULL CIRCLE. LOW ANGLE NOZZLE. PRESSURE REGULATING.
17 35 1.77 31'
RAIN BIRD 6504-PC, FC-SS 04
TURF ROTOR, 4IN. POP-UP, STAINLESS STEEL RISER,
ADJUSTABLE AND FULL CIRCLE. WITH REMOVABLE
SEAL-A-MATIC CHECK VALVE, 1IN. FEMALE THREADED INLET.
16 30 2.9 35'
RAIN BIRD 6504-PC, FC-SS 06
TURF ROTOR, 4IN. POP-UP, STAINLESS STEEL RISER,
ADJUSTABLE AND FULL CIRCLE. WITH REMOVABLE
SEAL-A-MATIC CHECK VALVE, 1IN. FEMALE THREADED INLET.
275 30 4.2 39'
EST CST SSTRCSLCS
Q H F
5 5 5
FHTQ
8 8 8 8
Q T H F
10 10 10 10
Q TQ FHT
15 15 15 15 15
0.75
1.5
1.0
2.0
SYMBOL MANUFACTURER/MODEL/DESCRIPTION QTY PSI
RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 1-1/2"
1-1/2IN. PLASTIC INDUSTRIAL SMART VALVES W/ FACTORY
INSTALLED IVM-SOL. LOW FLOW OPERATING CAPABILITY,
GLOBE CONFIGURATION.
21
RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 1"
1IN. PLASTIC INDUSTRIAL SMART VALVES W/ FACTORY
INSTALLED IVM-SOL. LOW FLOW OPERATING CAPABILITY,
GLOBE CONFIGURATION.
4
RAIN BIRD PEB-IVM 2"
2IN. PLASTIC INDUSTRIAL SMART VALVES W/ FACTORY
INSTALLED IVM-SOL. LOW FLOW OPERATING CAPABILITY,
GLOBE CONFIGURATION.
14
RAIN BIRD 3-RC 3/4"
3/4IN. BRASS QUICK-COUPLING VALVE, WITH
CORROSION-RESISTANT STAINLESS STEEL SPRING,
THERMOPLASTIC RUBBER COVER, AND 1-PIECE BODY.
5
LEEMCO LBT-SS
1IN.-4IN. (FPT X FPT) STAINLESS STEEL BALL VALVE 3
RAIN BIRD PEB-PRS-D 3"
1IN., 1-1/2IN., 2IN., 3IN. PLASTIC INDUSTRIAL MASTER VALVES.
LOW FLOW OPERATING CAPABILITY, GLOBE CONFIGURATION.
WITH PRESSURE REGULATOR MODULE.
1
ZURN 375-BP 4"
REDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW PREVENTER.1
RAIN BIRD ESPLXIVM-LXMM
60 STATION, 2-WIRE CONTROLLER W/ SMART VALVE
TECHNOLOGY. (1) ESPLXIVM 60-STATION, INDOOR/OUTDOOR,
PLASTIC WALL-MOUNT ENCLOSURE. INSTALLED IN LXMM
POWDER COATED, METAL WALL-MOUNTED CABINET. SYSTEM
REQUIREMENTS: RAIN BIRD LXIVM-XXX INTEGRATED VALVE
MODULES & 2-WIRE DEVICES. USE PAIGE ELECTRIC CABLE
P7072D & RAIN BIRD WC20 DRY SPLICES ONLY. GROUND
SYSTEM W/ (X) LXIVMSD SURGE DEVICE IN RAIN BIRD ROUND
VALVE BOXES. INSTALL PER MANUFACTURERS
RECOMMENDATIONS.
1
INTERMATIC AG2401 117 VAC SURGE ARRESTER
EACH SATELLITE OR CLUSTER OF OF SATELLITES SHALL HAVE A
GROUND ROD, 5/8 INCH DIAMETER BY 8 FEET LONG COPPER
CLAD, ATTACHED TO THE GROUNDING LUG INSIDE OF THE
PEDESTAL, USING AN 8 GAUGE BARE COPPER WIRE OR
LARGER.
7
RAIN BIRD RSD-BEX
RAIN SENSOR, WITH METAL LATCHING BRACKET, EXTENSION
WIRE.
1
RAIN BIRD FS-300-P W/ LXIVMSEN
3IN. FLOW SENSOR, PLASTIC PVC MODEL. SUGGESTED
OPERATING RANGE 20.0 GPM TO 300.0 GPM. SIZE FOR FLOW
NOT ACCORDING TO PIPE SIZE. RAIN BIRD COMPATIBLE
CONTROLLERS: ESP-LXIVM(P) | LXD | LXME2(P) | ME3, OR
CONTROLLERS ACCEPTING CUSTOM K-FACTOR AND OFFSET.
INSTALL IN RAIN BIRD VALVE BOX.
1
WATERTRONICS WATERMAX 5000
SINGLE PUMP CENTRIFUGAL SELF-ENCLOSED VFD PUMP
STATION, 3-25HP, FLOWS UP TO 400 GPM, PRESSURES UP TO
100 PSI. UL LISTED PACKAGED PUMP STATION, PRESSURE
DROP, FLOW BASED AND 24 VAC REMOTE START RELAY
STARTING OPTIONS, FLOW SENSOR, TEMP VOLUTE SENSOR
1
WATER METER 4"1
MV
C
SP
RS
FS
M
SYMBOL MANUFACTURER/MODEL/DESCRIPTION QTY PSI
IRRIGATION LATERAL LINE: PVC CLASS 160 SDR 26 837.0 LF
IRRIGATION LATERAL LINE: PVC CLASS 160 SDR 26 1"10,200 LF
IRRIGATION LATERAL LINE: PVC CLASS 160 SDR 26 1 1/4"2,838 LF
IRRIGATION LATERAL LINE: PVC CLASS 160 SDR 26 1 1/2"609.3 LF
IRRIGATION LATERAL LINE: PVC CLASS 160 SDR 26 2"228.5 LF
IRRIGATION LATERAL LINE: PVC CLASS 160 SDR 26 2 1/2"258.7 LF
IRRIGATION LATERAL LINE: PVC CLASS 160 SDR 26 1"18.8 LF
IRRIGATION LATERAL LINE: PVC CLASS 160 SDR 26 1 1/4"1,290 LF
IRRIGATION LATERAL LINE: PVC CLASS 160 SDR 26 1 1/2"1,639 LF
IRRIGATION LATERAL LINE: PVC CLASS 160 SDR 26 2"1,046 LF
IRRIGATION LATERAL LINE: PVC CLASS 160 SDR 26 2 1/2"230.5 LF
IRRIGATION LATERAL LINE: PVC CLASS 160 SDR 26 3"11.8 LF
IRRIGATION MAINLINE: PVC CLASS 200 SDR 21 154.0 LF
IRRIGATION MAINLINE: PVC CLASS 200 SDR 21 1"25.2 LF
IRRIGATION MAINLINE: PVC CLASS 200 SDR 21 3"64.4 LF
IRRIGATION MAINLINE: PVC CLASS 200 SDR 21 6"83.1 LF
IRRIGATION MAINLINE: PVC CLASS 200 SDR 21 1 1/2"370.5 LF
IRRIGATION MAINLINE: PVC CLASS 200 SDR 21 2 1/2"117.3 LF
IRRIGATION MAINLINE: PVC CLASS 200 SDR 21 3"1,660 LF
IRRIGATION MAINLINE: PVC CLASS 200 SDR 21 4"96.5 LF
IRRIGATION MAINLINE: PVC CLASS 200 SDR 21 6"661.9 LF
PIPE SLEEVE: PVC SCHEDULE 40 11.4 LF
PIPE SLEEVE: PVC SCHEDULE 40 2"75.5 LF
PIPE SLEEVE: PVC SCHEDULE 40 3"18.1 LF
PIPE SLEEVE: PVC SCHEDULE 40 6"131.8 LF
PIPE SLEEVE: PVC SCHEDULE 40 8"19.0 LF
IRRIGATION SCHEDULE
I2.04
IRRIGATION DETAILS
SHEET
Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025, All Rights ReservedcH:\COTT\24X136878000\CAD\C3D\136878I101.dwg 4/9/2025 10:41:50 AMDESIGNED
DRAWN
CHECKED
CLIENT PROJ. NO.
ISSUED FOR DATENO.CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
OLTMAN PARK
24X.136878DATELIC. NO.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
RICHARD W KOECHLEIN
26678 04/09/2025
RWK
RWK
RWK
3507 HIGH POINT DRIVE NORTH,
BLDG. 1 SUITE E130
OAKDALE, MN 55128
Phone: (651) 704-9970
Email: Oakdale@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
R
1
City Council Action Request
7.S.
Meeting Date 4/16/2025
Department Engineering
Agenda Category Action Item
Title 2025 Water Conservation Program, SWWD Cooperative
Agreement, and Water in Motion Work Order
Staff Recommendation 1) Approve the Residential Smart Irrigation Controller Program
Cooperative Agreement with SWWD; 2) Approve the work order
from Water in Motion; 3) Approve the expenditures from the Water
Utility Fund of up to $96,000 to supplement the SWWD contribution
of $4,000 for the implementation of the 2025 Water Conservation
Program.
Budget Implication Up to $96,000 - City's Water Utility Fund and $4,000 - SWWD Grant
Attachments 1. 2025 Water Conservation Programs CC Memo
2. 2025 Water Conservation Programs - Agreement with SWWD
3. 2025 Water Conservation Programs - Water In Motion Proposal
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Jennifer Levitt, P.E., City Administrator
From: Joe Fox, P.E., Project Engineer
Date: April 8, 2025
Re: 2025 Water Conservation Program, SWWD Cooperative Agreement, and the Water in
Motion Work Order
Background
In August of 2017, the city received water conservation grant funds from the South Washington
Watershed District (SWWD). The City used a portion of the grant funds to purchase and distribute
36 smart irrigation controllers for $135 each and resold them to the residents for $35 each . The
controllers sold out immediately and feedback from recipients was positive.
In March of 2018, staff contacted SWWD to discuss interest in assisting the City with implemen-
tation of a residential smart irrigation controller program. The SWWD agreed to contribute $15,000
to the city for this purpose. The city entered a Cooperative Agreement with SWWD and contrib-
uted $5,250 for implementation of the program. The city purchased and distributed 200 smart
irrigation controllers to residential users.
In 2019, due to the success and popularity of the Smart Irrigation Controller Program, SWWD
offered $25,000 to continue water efficiency and water conservation activities. With the additional
financial support from SWWD and revenues from the Water Utility Fund, the City expanded water
conservation and efficiency projects. The city purchased 220 smart irrigation controllers for around
$135 and sold them to city residents for $35.
In 2020 through 2023, the SWWD provided $25,000 grants for smart irrigation controllers. The
city purchased 150 controllers in each year and sold them for $35. In 2023, there appeared to be
less interest in the program. In 2024, the city received $15,000 from the SWWD for funding to
purchase 90 controllers for resale. In 2025, the city will receive just under $4,000 for the purchase
of 22 controllers.
In addition to the irrigation controllers, the city’s water efficiency program has in the last few years
offered assessments of irrigation systems at no cost to residents, HOAs, and businesses. Water
in Motion, an experienced irrigation contractor, conducts the assessments. They look for cost-
effective ways to reduce water usage such as fixing broken sprinklers and upgrading to water-
efficient irrigation equipment. The city offers reimbursements to HOAs and businesses to help
cover the costs of upgrading to an irrigation system that uses less water while maintaining a
healthy lawn.
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt
Approve the 2025 Water Conservation Program; SWWD Cooperative Agreement; and the Water in Motion Work
Order
April 8, 2025
Discussion
The City’s 2025 Water Conservation Program consists of the following:
1. Smart Irrigation Controller Program: Total Estimated Cost: $4,000.
Partner with SWWD to purchase and distribute smart irrigation controllers to private residential
property owners (see attached SWWD agreement).
2. Irrigation Assessments: Total Estimated Cost: $15,000.
The city will offer assessments of irrigation systems to HOAs, commercial sites, and single-
family homeowners. Water in Motion will conduct the assessments. The assessments are
provided at no cost to the residents, HOAs, or business owners and with no obligation to follow
through on the recommendations.
3. Irrigation Retrofit Cost-Share: Total Estimated Cost: $72,000.
Staff will partner with HOAs and owners of commercial sites to implement recommendations
made in irrigation assessments. Retrofit and efficiency upgrade opportunities will be funded
with a 50/50 cost share. The city’s cost participation would equate to 50 percent of costs, not
to exceed $12,000, per project. The budget would allow the city to help six properties upgrade
their irrigation systems.
4. Irrigation Conservation Program Administration: Total Estimated Cost: $7,000.
Water in Motion will also review HOA and commercial irrigation retrofit proposals for the cost-
share program.
5. Water Conservation Information Insert into city newsletter: Total Estimated Cost: $2,000
Funding for these water conservation efforts will come from the SWWD grant and the city’s Water
Utility Fund.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council approve:
1) The Residential Smart Irrigation Controller Program Cooperative Agreement with SWWD;
2) The work order from Water in Motion;
3) Expenditures from the Water Utility Fund of up to $96,000 to supplement the SWWD contribu-
tion of $4,000 for implementation of the 2025 Water Conservation Program.
SOUTH WASHINGTON WATERSHED DISTRICT – CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE
RESIDENTIAL IRRIGATION CONTROLLER PROGRAM
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
Page 1 of 5
THIS AGREEMENT, by and between the South Washington Watershed District, a political subdivision
of the State of Minnesota, herein after referred to as the “SWWD”, and the City of Cottage Grove, a
political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the “City.” Hereinafter, SWWD
and City shall collectively be referred to as the “Parties.”
RESIDENTIAL IRRIGATION CONTROLLER PROGRAM COST PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
(“Agreement”), dated _________, 2025, between South Washington Watershed District, 2302 Tower
Drive, Woodbury, MN 55125, and the City of Cottage Grove, 12800 Ravine Parkway South, Cottage
Grove, MN 55016.
RECITALS
A. The City and SWWD have a mutual interest in the management of the groundwater resources in
southern Washington County.
B. The City and SWWD have been included in the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources North
& East Groundwater Management Area (N&EGWMA).
C. The N&EGWMA extends beyond the municipal boundary of the City and the SWWD.
D. A key element of the N&EGWMA plan is groundwater conservation.
E. The City manages its water supply system to provide adequate supply for many users.
F. The City and SWWD have partnered on several water conservation efforts in the past.
G. The City adopted the Cottage Grove Water Conservation Plan on November 2, 2016, and the City
adopted water conservation based policy through new conservation based water rates on
December 20, 2017, and updated on December 19, 2018.
H. The SWWD has established a goal in the SWWD Watershed Management Plan to “implement
conservation efforts to ensure long term viability of groundwater resources in South Washington
County,” adopted October 1, 2016.
I. The Washington County groundwater plan establishes a goal to “manage the quality and quantity
of groundwater in Washington County to protect health and ensure sufficient supplies of clean
water to support human uses and natural ecosystems,” adopted September 23, 2014.
J. The City and SWWD desire to pursue innovative means to achieve greater groundwater
conservation using smart technology developed for residential, commercial, and municipal
irrigation systems.
K. The City and SWWD desire to pursue public outreach and educational opportunities to further
inform the community of best water use practices, water conservation and water efficient
landscapes.
South Washington Watershed District
Agreement #2025-065
SOUTH WASHINGTON WATERSHED DISTRICT – CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE
RESIDENTIAL IRRIGATION CONTROLLER PROGRAM
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
Page 2 of 5
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein and other good and valuable
considerations, the SWWD and the City agree as follows:
I. City of Cottage Grove RESPONSIBILITIES:
A. Program Implementation. The City will implement a residential irrigation controller program by
obtaining smart irrigation controllers, advertise its residential irrigation controller program to
residents in its newsletter, on its website, and on its social media platforms; sell the smart irrigation
controllers at a reduced price to City residents; verify installation as needed; and after distribution
and installation of the controllers, the City will monitor water use and savings.
B. Funding. The City will receive grant funding from the SWWD for the sole purpose of implementing
and maintaining the City’s Residential Irrigation Controller Program. Funding received from the
SWWD may only be used for irrigation systems within the City and SWWD boundary and must be
maintained in a separate fund.
C. Schedule. The City will seek participation in the City’s Residential Irrigation Controller Program
from residents within the City and the SWWD boundaries.
II. South Washington Watershed District RESPONSIBILITIES:
A. Funding. The SWWD will provide funding to the City in the amount of $25,000 during the term of
this Agreement toward the City’s implementation and administration of its Residential Irrigation
Controller Program. The SWWD will provide payment of the funds to the City upon SWWD’s
receipt of an invoice from the City for the amount due. SWWD funds may only be used for
residential irrigation controller systems within the SWWD boundary.
B. Schedule. The SWWD will participate in the implementation and administration of the City’s
Residential Irrigation Controller Program on an as needed basis as determined by the City and
SWWD.
III. MISCELLANEOUS:
A. Relationship of Parties. Nothing contained in this Agreement is intended or shall be construed
in any manner as creating or establishing a joint powers relationship, partnership, joint venture,
or agency relationship between the Parties.
B. Employees. The City and SWWD represents that it has, or will secure at its own expense, all
personnel and/or contractors required for the performance of this Agreement. Any and all
personnel, contractors of the City or SWWD shall not be deemed to have any contractual
relationship with either the non-contracting City or SWWD and shall not be considered
employees of either the non-contracting City or SWWD for any purpose.
C. Liability. Except if arising from or out of SWWD’s fault or negligence, City agrees to indemnify
and defend the SWWD, its successors, and assigns against and will hold harmless the SWWD,
its successors and assigns from any claims, expenses or damages, including attorneys’ fees,
arising from City performance of this Agreement. SWWD agrees to indemnify and defend the
SOUTH WASHINGTON WATERSHED DISTRICT – CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE
RESIDENTIAL IRRIGATION CONTROLLER PROGRAM
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
Page 3 of 5
City, its successors, and assigns against and will hold harmless the City, its successors and
assigns from any claims, expenses or damages, including attorneys’ fees, arising from SWWD’s
performance of this Agreement. In the event claims, losses, damages, or expenses are caused
by the joint or concurrent negligence of SWWD and City, they shall be borne by each party in
proportion to its own negligence.
D. Assignment or Modification. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of
City and the SWWD, and their respective successors and assigns; provided, however, that
neither party may assign this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other. Any
modification, alteration, amendments, deletions, or waivers of the provisions of this Agreement
will be valid only when mutually agreed upon in writing by both parties. Any such waiver shall
not affect the waiving party’s rights with respect to any other or further breach. City’s use of
contracted services to meet its obligations under this contract shall not be construed to be an
assignment.
E. Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date written in the second paragraph
of this Agreement and shall continue until December 31, 2025. This Agreement will be effective
as of the date all of the signatures required below have been provided.
F. Data Practices. All data collected, created, received, maintained, or disseminated for any
purposes by the activities of either party because of this Agreement is governed by the
Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, as amended, the
Minnesota Rules implementing such act now in force or as adopted, as well as federal
regulations on data privacy. Each party to this Agreement shall respond to data requests made
directly to it.
G. Records. Both Parties agree that either of them or any of their duly authorized representatives
at any time during normal business hours and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary,
shall have access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books,
documents, papers, records, etc., which are pertinent to the accounting practices and
procedures of the Parties to this Agreement and invoice transactions relating to this Agreement.
H. Termination.
a. Termination by Either Party. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon
thirty (30) days’ written notice delivered to the other party to the addresses listed in the
second paragraph of this Agreement. Upon termination under this provision, if there is
no default by the City, City shall be reimbursed for any expenses incurred in the
implementation or administration of the City’s Residential Irrigation Controller Program
until the effective date of termination.
b. Termination Due to Default. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon
written notice in the event of substantial failure by the other party to perform in
accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The non-performing party shall have
fifteen (15) calendar days from the date of the termination notice to cure or to submit
a plan for cure that is acceptable to the other party.
SOUTH WASHINGTON WATERSHED DISTRICT – CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE
RESIDENTIAL IRRIGATION CONTROLLER PROGRAM
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
Page 4 of 5
I. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State
of Minnesota and any action must be venued in Washington County District Court.
J. Severability. If any term of this Agreement is found to be void or invalid, such invalidity shall
not affect the remaining terms of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect.
K. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the Parties and
supersedes all prior communications, understandings and agreements relating to the subject
matter hereof, whether oral or written.
[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank]
SOUTH WASHINGTON WATERSHED DISTRICT – CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE
RESIDENTIAL IRRIGATION CONTROLLER PROGRAM
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
Page 5 of 5
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE SOUTH WASHINGTON WATERSHED
DISTRICT
Myron Bailey Date Brian Johnson Date
Mayor President
Tamara Anderson Date John Loomis Date
City Clerk Administrator
Outdoor Water Use, Reuse, Design, Consulting & Water Management
175 James Avenue North, Minneapolis, MN 55405 | 763 -559-1010 | www.watermotion.com
Water in Motion, Inc. proudly employs EPA WaterSense® Partners Page1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROPOSAL
DATE: April 04, 2025
TO: Mr. Joe Fox, Project Engineer joefox@cottagegrovemn.gov
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota desk 651-458-2826
FROM: Tim Malooly, US EPA WaterSense Partner
RE: 2025 Cottage Grove Water-Efficiency Program participation
Background and Work
The City of Cottage Grove chooses to build upon past work in outdoor water use efficiency actions and
education among identified high water users in the City of Cottage Grove. The City continues its
program of outdoor water use (primarily landscape irrigation) system assessments, reporting and
recommendations including incentivized actions on the part of participants to improve water use
efficiency.
2024 Cottage Grove Water Efficiency Program Breakdown
1 Smart irrigation controllers (C Grove) $ 4,000
2 Existing Irrigation System Assessments (HOA, Residential, Commercial) (WiM) $ 15,000
3
Commercial & HOA Irrigation Retrofit cost share (@ $12,000) (C Grove via WiM
admin) $ 72,000
4 Irrigation Efficiency program administrative costs (WiM) $ 7,000
5 May water conservation insert in newsletter (C Grove) $ 2,000
Total $ 100,000
WiM work in 2025 will include Budget Sections:
• 2 - existing landscape irrigation system assessments with reports among interested applicants
• 3 - approval of cost-share applications and improvement verifications at current and previous
participant locations
• 4 – Irrigation efficiency program administration
Budget Section 2 ($15,000) – Existing Irrigation System Assessments
Water in Motion plans to conduct existing system assessments with reports for residential, homeowner
association or commercial/institutional partiipants on a first-come, first-served basis generally as follows:
1. Residential/light commercial - assume $500 per acre, $500 minimum fee if scheduled efficiently*
2. Commercial/Institutional/HOA – assume $1,200 per acre, $2,400 minimum
. * Residential assessments and reports are generally, less intensive to compile than other property types.
Mr. Joe Fox
April 04, 2025
Outdoor Water Use, Reuse, Design, Consulting & Water Management
175 James Avenue North, Minneapolis, MN 55405 | 763 -559-1010 | www.watermotion.com
Water in Motion, Inc. proudly employs EPA WaterSense® Partners Page2
STEP 1 – Refine project process
Water in Motion will work with our Client to:
• finalize project scope, timing and participation parameters
STEP 2 – arrangements among participants
WiM will introduce the program goals and benefits, timing and expectations to new potential
participants. The introduction will introduce Water in Motion as the entity selected by the City to
administer the project and conduct all work. WiM can help interested past HOA and
commercial/institutional report recipients to submit proposals to implement cost-share-worthy
improvements per 2025 program guidelines and available cost-share funding.
STEP 3 - fieldwork
Water in Motion will conduct “Stage One” landscape Irrigation assessments upon the participant
locations. A Stage One assessment includes a walk-through of the subject irrigation system, inventory of
key equipment, observations/evidence of the condition, maintenance and scheduling practices.
Fieldwork will include but, is not necessarily limited to:
• Review of record documentation, if available
• Observation of major system components and performance
• Operation and walk-through of the irrigation system; completly or a representative sample
• Photo evidence where beneficial to the assessment report
A Stage One assessment does not include catch-can data although, the auditor(s) may choose to
complete a representative sample using catch-can data if deemed by the auditor(s) as important to the
assessment report.
Data collection methods will be by US EPA WaterSense® accredited landscape irrigation auditor(s) and
will follow auditing best practices and real-world experiences of the individual assessor(s). Data
collection means will include paper, electronic and photography.
STEP 4 - reports
Following assessments, a summary report will be furnished electronically to participants. The report
will build upon past reporting formats and may include summarized observations, photo evidence and
recommendations including:
o System design observations of:
▪ Sprinkler and nozzle selection
▪ Hydraulics observations
▪ System wiring and controls
o Equipment condition
o Observed effectiveness of irrigation system vs the landscape being served
Mr. Joe Fox
April 04, 2025
Outdoor Water Use, Reuse, Design, Consulting & Water Management
175 James Avenue North, Minneapolis, MN 55405 | 763 -559-1010 | www.watermotion.com
Water in Motion, Inc. proudly employs EPA WaterSense® Partners Page3
o Observed maintenance practice outcomes
o Observed scheduling practices
o Suggested prioritized repairs/updates/retrofits with basic cost/benefit information
o General guidance related to proper system maintenance practices
o General guidance to proper system scheduling practices
o Guidance to apply for available cost-share opportunities to improve system efficiency
based on available funds and approved actions or products
Reports will not include the following:
o Station map
o Specific maintenance guidance
o Specific irrigation scheduling guidance
o Specific budgets for each recommended action
BUDGET SECTION 3 – ($72,000) Commercial & HOA Irrigation Retrofit cost share
Water in Motion will assist interested participants in pursuing cost-share actions, up to $12,000 per
property, to improve outdoor water use efficiency based on assessment report recommendations.
STEP 1 – Cost-Share application review
For homeowner association and commercial/institutional participants, Water in Motion will furnish up to
one hour of consulting time to:
• help participants assemble cost-share applications using existing City approved forms
• review and approve applications or return applications with comments to applicants
• furnish phone-based support related to cost-share actions.
STEP 2 – Verification of approved cost-share installations
All homeowner association and commercial/institutional property cost-share actions will be subject to
verification as a condition of cost-share reimbursement. For approved cost-share projects at
homeowner associations or commercial/institutional properties, Water in Motion will:
• verify proper installation and commissioning/programming of improvements
• process paperwork required by the City to release partnership funding
Not included:
• Water in Motion time and expertise to specify enhancements for system owner(s) or to install or
oversee the installation of enhancements is available to system owners for additional fees but,
not included in this Work scope.
Mr. Joe Fox
April 04, 2025
Outdoor Water Use, Reuse, Design, Consulting & Water Management
175 James Avenue North, Minneapolis, MN 55405 | 763 -559-1010 | www.watermotion.com
Water in Motion, Inc. proudly employs EPA WaterSense® Partners Page4
Budget Section 4 ($7,000) – 2024 Irrigation Efficiency program Administration
Water in Motion estimates this budget element to include:
• List refinement
• Documents updating
• Outreach and appointments/scheduling
• Site verification of approved improvements to authorize (or refuse) partnership payments
• General administrative and recordkeeping
We are pleased to work with you. If you have any questions or comments regarding any part of this
proposal, please contact me at 952-229-1911, or email, timm@watermotion.com.
Best Regards,
Timothy Malooly
Water In Motion, Inc.
2008 US EPA WaterSense Partner of the Year
ACCEPTANCE
By: ___________________________________________ ________________________________
Signature Position
___________________________________________ ________________________________
Printed name Date
Award-Winning Professionals in Outdoor Water Use, Reuse, Consulting & Water Management
175 James Avenue North | Minneapolis, MN 55405 | 763.559.1010 | www.watermotion.com
Water in Motion proudly employs EPA WaterSense® Partners.
2025 Professional Service Rates
Consulting
Principal $213.19 per hour
Senior Consultant Hourly Rate $213.19 per hour
Consultant Hourly Rate $180.00 per hour
Project-based Rates Determined per opportunity. (ex. Master Planning, Central Control/Water
Management technology, etc.) as arranged or generally 8%-10% of budget in
excess of $200K project budget and other considerations
Site Assessment/auditor $180.00 to 213.00 per hour – see also separate WiM assessment rate guidance
where applicable
Driving Travel Rate Consultant rate, 15 minutes minimum
Expenses invoiced as incurred
Design Services
CAD Designer $131.00 per hour
GPS plotting $131.00 per hour plus equipment fee
Plotting 22x34 (color) $60.00 per sheet for plot paper, plotter ink, etc.
Plotting 34x44 (color) $110.00 per sheet for plot paper, plotter ink, etc.
Plotting 22x34 (b/w) $4.50 per sheet for plot paper, plotter ink, etc.
Plotting 34x44 (b/w) $8.25 per sheet for plot paper, plotter ink, etc.
Cad file to disc/flash drive $10.00 per disc/flash drive
Project Support
Sr. Project Manager $213.19 per hour
Project Manager $180.00 per hour
Specification Writer $180.00 per hour
Administrative/clerical $78.19 per hour
Documents
Project-Specific Specifications Varies, plus printing/publishing
RFP’s, RFQ’s, ASI Varies, plus printing/publishing
Report writing Varies, plus printing/publishing
Printing (8.5 x 11) $1.00 per sheet
Presentation & Training Services
Board Presentations Varies, (min 2 hrs.) plus preparation work & travel expenses
Custom Presentation Varies, beginning at $3,000.00 (up to 2 hr. presentation) plus travel expenses
Prepackaged presentation $2,500.00 (up to 2 hr. presentation) plus travel expenses
Training Varies
Service rates listed are intended as guidance, per person plus expenses. Additional rate classifications may be used
depending on project requirements. Reimbursable charges such as permitting fees, subcontractor charges, per
diem costs, printing, etc., are additional. Rates and titles for new work are subject to change without prior notice.
NOTE: All applicable taxes will be added to the rates and are additional charges. Rules are subject to changes
annually to reflect inflation.
M:\1 PROJECT PROPOSALS\1 SALES AND PRICING RESOURCES
1
City Council Action Request
7.T.
Meeting Date 4/16/2025
Department Engineering
Agenda Category Action Item
Title Water Service on 110th St S - Agreement for Contractor Services
and Memorandum of Understanding with Property Owner
Staff Recommendation Approve the Agreement for Contractor Services and the
Memorandum of Understanding and appropriate officials are hereby
authorized to sign all necessary documents to effectuate these
actions.
Budget Implication $15,295 - Assessment
Attachments 1. 110th Street S Water Service - CC Memo
2. 110th Street S Water Service - Agreement for Contractor Services
3. 110th Street S Water Service - Assessment Waiver
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator From: Angela Popenhagen, Interim City Engineer Date: April 8, 2025 Re: Water Service on 110th Street South – Agreement for Contractor Services and Assessment Waiver Agreement with Property Owner Background The lot at 8465 110th Street South has divided into two parcels and a water service is being requested for the newly created lot (see Figure 1 for location of newly created lot). The property owner will be moving the green house currently located on Ideal Avenue South to this lot. Three quotes were received to perform the installation of the water service. Capra’s Utilities Inc. was the lowest quote at $15,295.00. This lot will also incur water area charges, storm sewer area charges, park dedication fee, and water works connection fee totaling $34,792.00. The property owner has asked that the water service installation cost of $15,295.00 be a deferred assessment placed on their tax roll. The area charges and connection fees will be collected prior to the issuance of a building permit per the Assessment Waiver Agreement with the property owner. Figure 1: Location of newly created lot
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt Water Service on 110th Street South | April 8, 2025 Page 2 Discussion Capra’s Utilities Inc. has performed other utility connections within the City of Cottage Grove and are a reputable contractor. They will perform the work as outlined in the quote including the water service installation, restoration of the excavated area within the street and yard, and traffic control. Work will be inspected by City staff in conformance with the City of Cottage Grove Standard Specifications for Utility and Street Construction dated January 2025. The Assessment Waiver Agreement has been prepared by the City Attorney and outlines the costs associated with the water service installation, the deferment of the installation cost over 5 years at 7% interest, and the costs for area charges and connection fee to be paid by the property owner prior to issuance of a building permit. Recommendation It is recommended the City Council approve the Agreement for Contractor Services and the Assessment Waiver Agreement and appropriate officials are hereby authorized to sign all necessary documents to effectuate these actions.
1 AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES 110th Street South Water Service (project name) THIS AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and executed this 16th day of April, 2025, by and between the City of Cottage Grove, 12800 Ravine Parkway South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota 55016, (“City”) and Capra’s Utilities Inc. (name), 2340 Leibel St., White Bear Lake, MN 55110 (address) (“Contractor”). WHEREAS, the City has accepted the proposal of the Contractor for certain services; and WHEREAS, Contractor desires to perform the services for the City under the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual consideration contained herein, it is hereby agreed as follows: 1. SERVICES. a. City agrees to engage Contractor as an independent contractor for the purpose of performing certain Services (“Services”), as defined in the following documents: i. A proposal dated 3/26/2025, incorporated herein as Exhibit A. ii. Other documentation, incorporated herein as Exhibit B. (Hereinafter “Exhibits”). iii. Where the terms and conditions of this Agreement and those terms and conditions included in the Exhibits specifically conflict, the terms of this Agreement shall apply. b. Contractor covenants and agrees to provide the Services to the satisfaction of the City in a timely fashion, as set forth in the Exhibits, subject to Section 9 of this Agreement. c. Contractor agrees to comply with all federal, state, and local laws and ordinances applicable to the Services to be performed under this Agreement, including all safety standards. Contractor shall be solely and completely responsible for conditions of the job site, including the safety of all persons and property during the performance of the Services. Contractor represents and warrants that it has the requisite training, skills, and experience necessary to provide the Services and is appropriately licensed and has obtained all permits from all applicable agencies and governmental entities.
2 2. PAYMENT. a. City agrees to pay Contractor $15,295.00, and Contractor agrees to receive and accept payment for Services as set forth in the Exhibits. b. Any changes in the scope of the work of the Services that may result in an increase to the compensation due the Contractor shall require prior written approval by the authorized representative of the City or by the City Council. The City will not pay additional compensation for Services that do not have prior written authorization. c. Contractor shall submit itemized bills for Services provided to City on a monthly basis. Bills submitted shall be paid in the same manner as other claims made to City. d. Prior to payment, the Contractor will submit evidence that all payrolls, material bills, subcontractors and other indebtedness connected with the Services have been paid as required by the City. 3. TERM. The term of this Agreement is identified in the Exhibits. This Agreement may be extended upon the written mutual consent of the parties for such additional periods as they deem appropriate, and upon the same terms and conditions as herein stated. 4. BONDS. If the Services provided by the Contractor as set forth in the Exhibits and this Agreement exceeds $100,000, Contractor shall furnish performance and payment bonds covering faithful performance of all the Contractor’s obligations, including, without limitation, warranty obligations and of all payment of obligations arising under this Agreement. The bonds shall each be issued in an amount equal to 100% of the stipulated sum identified in Section 2 of this Agreement. 5. TERMINATION AND REMEDIES. a. Termination by Either Party. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon thirty (30) days’ written notice delivered to the other party at the addresses listed in Section 15 of this Agreement. Upon termination under this provision, if there is no default by the Contractor, Contractor shall be paid for Services rendered and reimbursable expenses incurred through the effective date of termination. b. Termination Due to Default. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon written notice in the event of substantial failure by the other party to perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The non-performing party shall have fifteen (15) calendar days from the date of the termination notice to cure or to submit a plan for cure that is acceptable to the other party.
3 c. Remedies. Notwithstanding the above, the Contractor shall not be relieved of liability to the City for damages sustained by the City as a result of any breach of this Agreement by the Contractor. The City may, in such event: i. Withhold payments due to the Contractor for the purpose of set-off until such time as the exact amount of damages due to the City is determined. ii. Perform the Services, in which case, the Contractor shall within thirty (30) days after written billing by the City, reimburse the City for any costs and expenses incurred by the City. The rights or remedies provided for herein shall not limit the City, in case of any default by the Contractor, from asserting any other right or remedy allowed by law, equity, or by statute. d. Upon termination of this Agreement, the Contractor shall furnish to the City copies or duplicate originals of all documents or memoranda prepared for the City not previously furnished. 6. SUBCONTRACTORS. Contractor shall not enter into subcontracts for any of the Services provided for in this Agreement without the express written consent of the City, unless specifically provided for in the Exhibits. Contractor shall pay any subcontractor involved in the performance of this Agreement within the ten (10) days of the Contractor’s receipt of payment by the City for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor. 7. STANDARD OF CARE. In performing its Services, Contractor will use that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable members of its profession in the same locality at the time the Services are provided. 8. INSPECTION OF WORK. All materials and workmanship will be subject to inspection, examination, and testing by the City, who will have the right to reject defective material and workmanship or require its correction. 9. DELAY IN PERFORMANCE. Neither City nor Contractor shall be considered in default of this Agreement for delays in performance caused by circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the nonperforming party. For purposes of this Agreement, such circumstances include, but are not limited to, abnormal weather conditions; floods; earthquakes; fire; epidemics; war, riots, and other civil disturbances; strikes, lockouts, work slowdowns, and other labor disturbances; sabotage; judicial restraint; and inability to procure permits, licenses or authorizations from any local, state, or federal agency for any of the supplies, materials, accesses, or services required to be provided by either City or Contractor under this Agreement. If such circumstances occur, the nonperforming party shall, within a reasonable time of being prevented from performing, give written notice to the other party
4 describing the circumstances preventing continued performance and the efforts being made to resume performance of this Agreement. Contractor will be entitled to payment for its reasonable additional charges, if any, due to the delay. 10. CITY’S REPRESENTATIVE. The City has designated Angela Popenhagen, Interim City Engineer, to act as the City’s representative with respect to the Services to be performed under this Agreement. He or she shall have complete authority to transmit instructions, receive information, interpret, and define the City’s policy and decisions with respect to the Services covered by this Agreement. 11. PROJECT MANAGER AND STAFFING. The Contractor has designated Mike Capra to be the primary contacts for the City in the performance of the Services. They shall be assisted by other staff members as necessary to facilitate the completion of the Services in accordance with the terms established herein. Contractor may not remove or replace these designated staff without the approval of the City. 12. INDEMNIFICATION. a. Contractor and City each agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless each other, its agents and employees, from and against legal liability for all claims, losses, damages, and expenses to the extent such claims, losses, damages, or expenses are caused by its negligent acts, errors, or omissions. In the event claims, losses, damages, or expenses are caused by the joint or concurrent negligence of Contractor and City, they shall be borne by each party in proportion to its own negligence. b. Contractor shall indemnify City against legal liability for damages arising out of claims by Contractor’s employees or subcontractors, including all liens. City shall indemnify Contractor against legal liability for damages arising out of claims by City’s employees or subcontractors. 13. INSURANCE. During the performance of the Services under this Agreement, Contractor shall maintain the following insurance: a. Commercial General Liability Insurance, with a limit of $2,000,000 for any number of claims arising out of a single occurrence. b. Workers’ Compensation Insurance in accordance with statutory requirements. c. Automobile Liability Insurance, with a combined single limit of $2,000,000. Contractor shall furnish the City with certificates of insurance, which shall include a provision that such insurance shall not be canceled without written notice to the City. The City shall be named as an additional insured on the Commercial General Liability Insurance policy.
5 14. WARRANTIES. Contractor warrants and guarantees that title to all work, materials, and equipment covered by any invoice, will pass to City no later than the final completion date of all Services. Contractor warrants that all work will be free from defects and that all materials will be new and of first quality. If within one (1) year after final payment any work or material is found to be defective, Contractor shall promptly, without cost to the City, correct such defect. 15. NOTICES. Notices shall be communicated to the following addresses: If to City: City of Cottage Grove 12800 Ravine Parkway South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Attention: City Administrator, Jennifer Levitt Or emailed: jlevitt@cottagegrovemn.gov If to Contractor: Capra’s Utilities Inc. 2340 Leibel St. White Bear Lake, MN 55110 Or emailed: mike@capras.com 16. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS. All services provided by Contractor, its officers, agents and employees pursuant to this Agreement shall be provided as employees of Contractor or as independent contractors of Contractor and not as employees of the City for any purpose. 17. RESPONSIBLE CONTRACTOR. a. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 16C.285, Contractor is hereby advised that the City cannot award a construction contract in excess of $50,000 unless Contractor is a “responsible contractor” as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 16C.285, subdivision 3. Contractor must complete a Responsible Contractor Certificate verifying compliance with the minimum criteria specified in Minnesota Statutes, Section 16C.285, subdivision 3, to be eligible to provide the Services outlined in this Agreement. A Responsible Contractor Certificate must be signed under oath by an owner or officer of Contractor. Contractor is responsible for obtaining the required verifications of compliance with Minnesota Statute, Section 16C.285, subdivision 3 from all subcontractors, using a form provided by the City. Contractor must submit signed verifications from subcontractors upon the City’s request. b. Contractor or subcontractor who does not meet the minimum criteria established in Minnesota Statutes, Section 16C.285, subdivision 3, or who fails to verify compliance with the minimum requirements of this statute, will not be considered a “responsible contractor” and will be ineligible to provide the Services under this
6 Agreement or otherwise work on the project in any capacity. Contractor and any subcontractor are advised that making any false statements verifying compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 16C.285 will render the Contractor or subcontractor ineligible to perform the Services of this Agreement and may result in termination of this Agreement by the City. c. Contractor shall not sublet, sell, transfer, delegate or assign the Services or any portion of the Services of this Agreement without abiding by the applicable provisions of the Minnesota Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Construction, Section 1801. 18. GENERAL PROVISIONS. a. Assignment. This Agreement is not assignable without the mutual written agreement of the parties. b. Waiver. A waiver by either City or Contractor of any breach of this Agreement shall be in writing. Such a waiver shall not affect the waiving party’s rights with respect to any other or further breach. c. Nondiscrimination. Contractor agrees that in the hiring of employees to perform Services under this Agreement, Contractor shall not discriminate against any person by reason of any characteristic protected by state or federal law. d. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota and any action must be venued in Washington County District Court. e. Amendments. Any modification or amendment to this Agreement shall require a written agreement signed by both parties. f. Severability. If any term of this Agreement is found be void or invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining terms of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect. g. Data Practices Compliance. All data collected by the City pursuant to this Agreement shall be subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. h. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes all prior communications, understandings and agreements relating to the subject matter hereof, whether oral or written.
7 CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE By: Myron A. Bailey, Mayor By: Tamara Anderson, City Clerk Date:
T
xT
T
T
&2175$&725R
T
T
WL@QDWXUKuTT T T T T T
TTTT
UDPKuTTT T T T T T
T
vWVuTT T T T T T T
T
0DWKuTT T T T T T T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Allow access to Microsoft 365 account Your browser settings are preventing an optimal experience with Microsoft 365. Allow access to improve your experience.Give Feedback Allow accessF28
WellQuote
Workbook StatisticsWorkbook Statistics Customize Status BarKeyboard ShortcutsHelp ResourcesHelp Improve OfficeZoom Out100%Zoom LevelZoom InEnter Full Screen
Undo CutCopyFormat PainterClipboard Font Wrap TextAlignment Number ConditionalFormatting Format AsTable CellStylesStyles FormatCells Clear Sort &Filter Find &SelectEditing Add-insAdd-insThere is nothing to redo.Paste SWISS 12 Merge & Center Custom Insert Delete AutoSumFileHomeInsertSharePage Layout Formulas Data Review View Automate Help Draw Comments Catch up Editing Share2025 WtrServ8465_110th St Search for tools, help, and more (Option + Q)MCShowing 1 - 1 (for a total of 1 pages)Printer Print from printers already installedon your device.Page setupPrintPaper sizeOrientationPage marginsScalingFormat options
Center on page
Pages (Print total: 1)
Back to workbookShowing 1 - 1 (for a total of 1 pages)PrintPrint My local printerActive sheetIgnore print areaLetter (8.5"x11")LandscapeNormalFit sheet on one pageGridlines
Row and column headings
Black and white
Horizontally
Vertically3-26-2025
1 ASSESSMENT WAIVER AGREEMENT FOR 8465 110th STREET SOUTH, COTTAGE GROVE THIS AGREEMENT FOR AN ASSESSMENT WAIVER (“Agreement”) is entered into and effective as of the _____ day of _______________, 2025 (“Agreement Date”), by and between the City of Cottage Grove, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”), and Lauren Sirotiak and Brenda Sirotiak, husband and wife (“Owners”). RECITALS A. Owners are the fee owners of two parcels in the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota. Parcel 1 is legally described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein and Parcel 2 is legally described on Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein (collectively, Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 shall be considered “the Property”); and B. The City has found that certain improvements to Parcel 2 are required; and C. The Owners will allow the City to install a water line on Parcel 2 (the “Improvement”) to serve Parcel 2; and D. The Owners have requested that the City assess the costs of the Improvement to Parcel 2; and E. The Owners acknowledge that the Improvement will benefit Parcel 2; and F. The Owners acknowledge that in consideration for the City entering into this Agreement, Owners must pay the following fees prior to the issuance of a building permit: stormwater ponding fee, park dedication fee, and administrative fees, in the amounts to be determined by the City.
2 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants of each to the other contained in this Agreement and other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto do covenant and agree as follows: ARTICLE I THE AGREEMENT Section 1.01 Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to memorialize the covenants and agreements between the Owners and the City with regard to the Property and the Improvement including the Owners’ Assessment Amount which constitutes an estimated benefit of the Improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 in the manner authorized by Minnesota Statutes § 462.3531. Section 1.02 Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Agreement Date and shall terminate upon the expiration of the Assessment Term or repayment of the Assessment Amount. Section 1.03 Survival. Notwithstanding the termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 1.02, the Owners’ Covenants and Agreements contained in Section 3.01 and the City’s Covenants and Agreements contained in Section 3.02 shall survive the termination of this Agreement. ARTICLE II DEFINITIONS Section 2.01 Definitions. The following are terms used in this Agreement. Their meanings as used in this Agreement shall be expressly indicated below, unless the context of this Agreement requires otherwise: (a) Agreement: This Agreement to memorialize the covenants and agreements between the Owners and the City with regard to the Property, Assessment Amount and the Improvement including the assessment appeal waiver provided herein pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 in the manner authorized by Minnesota Statutes § 462.3531. (b) Agreement Date: The date written in the first paragraph of the Agreement. (c) Assessment Amount: The Assessment Amount shall be Fifteen Thousand Two Hundred Ninety-five and 00/100 Dollars ($15,295.00). The Assessment Amount is commensurate with the estimated special benefit of the Improvement to Parcel 2. (d) Assessment Interest Rate: The Assessment Amount shall accrue interest at a rate of seven percent (7%) per year for the Assessment Term beginning from the date of this Agreement. (e) Assessment Term: The term of the special assessment shall be five (5) years after the Assessment Amount is levied against Parcel 2.
3 (f) City: The City of Cottage Grove, a Minnesota municipal corporation. (g) Owners: Lauren Sirotiak and Brenda Sirotiak, husband and wife. ARTICLE III COVENANTS AND AGREEMENTS Section 3.01 Covenants and Agreements of the Owner. The Owners covenant and agree with the City that: (a) Assessment Appeal Waiver: Owners hereby authorize the City to levy the special assessment against Parcel 2 up to the Assessment Amount for the Improvement. The Owners hereby waive all rights to assessment notices, hearings and appeals, and all other rights pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 429.061, § 429.071 and § 429.081 for the special assessment against Parcel 2 up to the Assessment Amount. The Owners hereby waive any and all procedural and substantive objections to the assessment up to the Assessment Amount against Parcel 2, including, but not limited to, notice and hearing requirements and any claim that any or all of the Assessment Amount against Parcel 2 exceeds the benefit to Parcel 2 for the Improvement. The Owners acknowledge and agree that the benefit of the Improvement to Parcel 2 does in fact equal or exceed the Assessment Amount. The City and the Owners acknowledge and agree that the Owners’ waiver of assessment appeal rights pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, is capped at the Assessment Amount by operation of Minn. Stat. § 462.3531. The City and the Owners acknowledge and agree that the Owners may appeal any special assessment above the Assessment Amount. (b) Owners’ Covenant Not to Sue the City: Owners hereby covenant with the City not to appeal or sue the City for a court to set aside, reduce, repeal, or invalidate the assessment, or for other relief from the payment of the City’s assessment up to the Assessment Amount against Parcel 2 for the Improvement. (c) Owners’ Covenant that Owners are the Property Fee Owners: Owners hereby covenant and warrant with the City that Owners are seized in fee of the Property and have good right to enter into this Agreement with the City. (d) Owners’ Agreement to Assessment Amount: Owners understand and agree that the value of the Improvement will increase the market value of Parcel 2 in an amount that equals or exceeds the Assessment Amount. (e) Right of Entry: Owners allow the City, its employees, contractors and assigns to enter onto the Property for purposes of constructing the Improvement. Section 3.02 Covenants and Agreements of the City. The City covenants and agrees with the Owners that:
4 (a) Assessment Amount: The City agrees that it will certify/levy the Assessment Amount against Parcel 2 only up to the Assessment Amount for the Improvement pursuant to this Agreement. (b) City Recording of this Agreement: The City will record this Agreement against Parcel 2. (c) Prepayment of Assessment: The City agrees the Owners may prepay some or all of the City’s Assessment Amount against Parcel 2 for the Improvement with no penalty pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 429.061. (d) City to Construct Improvements: The City agrees to enter the Property for the purpose of constructing the Improvement. The rights of the City include the right of City, its contractors, agents and servants to enter onto the Property as needed in order to construct and maintain the Improvement. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed a waiver by the City of any governmental immunity defenses, statutory or otherwise. Further, any and all claims brought by Owners, or their successors or assigns shall be subject to any governmental immunity defenses of the City and the maximum liability limits provided by Minnesota Statute, Chapter 466. ARTICLE IV DEFAULT Section 4.01 Default. If a party to this Agreement materially defaults in the due and timely performance of any of its covenants, or agreements hereunder, the other party(s) may give notice of default of this Agreement. The notice shall specify with particularity the default or defaults on which the notice is based. The notice shall specify a ten (10) day cure period within which the specified default or defaults must be cured. If the specified defaults are not cured within the cure period, the other party(s) may pursue all remedies and sanctions available at law and in equity, including specific performance. Section 4.02 Attorneys’ Fees, Costs and Expenses. The Owners agree that after execution of this Agreement, if they challenge the validity of the Assessment up to the Assessment Amount in any way, then Owners shall pay the City the amount of the City’s assessment up to the Assessment Amount with accrued interest beginning as stated in Section 2.01(c), together with the City’s attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses to defend the assessment by the City up to the Assessment Amount pursuant to this Agreement. The Owners acknowledge and agree that the Owners would be unjustly enriched if the City’s assessment up to the Assessment Amount pursuant to this Agreement was set aside, reduced, repealed or invalidated by a court with jurisdiction over Parcel 2. The Owners agree that the court with jurisdiction over Parcel 2 shall award the City the assessment up to the Assessment Amount with accrued interest together with the City’s attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses for breach of the Owners’ covenant not to appeal or sue the City pursuant to Article III, Section 3.01(b).
5 ARTICLE V GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 5.01 Notices. All notices, requests, demands or other communications required or permitted by this Agreement shall be in writing and delivery shall be deemed to be sufficient if delivered personally or by registered or certified mail, return receipt accepted, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: If to the City: City of Cottage Grove Attention: City Administrator 12800 Ravine Parkway South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 If to the Owners: Lauren D. Sirotiak and Brenda L. Sirotiak 8465 110th Street South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Section 5.02 Non-Assignability. Neither the City nor the Owners shall assign any interest in this Agreement nor shall either party transfer any interest in the same without the prior written consent of the other party. Section 5.03 Binding Effect. This Agreement and the terms, conditions and covenants contained herein and the transaction contemplated hereunder shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors, heirs, personal representatives, and permitted assigns. This Agreement shall further be binding on subsequent purchasers of the Property and shall run with the Property herein described. Section 5.04 Severability. In the event any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision hereof. Section 5.05 Amendments, Changes and Modifications. This Agreement may be amended or any of its terms modified or changed only by a written amendment authorized and executed by the City and the Owners. Section 5.06 Counterparts. This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. Section 5.07 Entire Agreement. This Agreement shall constitute the entire agreement between the parties and shall supersede all prior oral or written negotiations. Section 5.08 Notice To Buyers. The Owners agree to notify and provide any buyer of the Property with an executed copy of this Agreement if the Owners sell any interest in the Property following the execution of this Agreement by both the Owners and the City, but before the recording of this Agreement with Washington County Recorder and/or Registrar of Titles.
6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Owners have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives. CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE By: Myron Bailey Mayor By: Tamara Anderson City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON ) On this _____ day of _______________, 2025, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared Myron Bailey and Tamara Anderson to me personally known, who being each by me duly sworn, each did say that they are respectively the Mayor and the City Clerk of the City of Cottage Grove, the Minnesota municipal corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that it was signed on behalf of said municipal corporation by authority of its City Council and said Mayor and City Clerk acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said municipal corporation. Notary Public
OWNERS:
N.uo-. S,.**Y,
Lauren Sirotiak
S"*[;b
Brenda Sirotiak
STATE OF MINNESOTA
SS.
COI-INTY OF WASHINGTON
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on
by Lauren Sirotiak and Brenda Sirotiak, husband and wife.
THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY AND
AFTER RECORDING PLEASE RETURN TO:
Korine Land,ll262432
LeVander, Gillen, & Miller, P.A.
1305 Corporate Center Drive Suite 300
Eagan, MN 55121
(6s1)4s1-1831
)
)
)
&aay ot(t!' '(:-,zozs
7
JEANETTE B STANDFIELD
NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA
OOMMISSION EXPIRES O1 i31 /30
A-1 EXHIBIT A PARCEL 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION All that part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33, Township 27, Range 21 West, Village of Cottage Grove, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at an iron stake on the East line of said Northwest 1/4 591.3 feet North of the Northeast corner of Lot 23 of House’s Island View as now on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds, Washington County, Minnesota, thence South 86 degrees 40’ West (assumed bearing) parallel with the North line of Lot 23 of House’s Island View as platted 221 feet to an iron stake; thence North 1 degree 40’ East parallel with the East line of said Northwest 1/4 794.8 feet to the North line of Section 33; thence South 88 degrees 09’ East along the North line of Section 33 a distance of 220 feet to the Northeast corner of said Northwest 1/4; thence South 1 degrees 40’ West along the East line of said Northwest 1/4 775.4 feet to the point of beginning. Subject to the rights of 110th Street South. Subject to easements of record. Containing 4 acres, more or less. According to the United States Government Survey thereof. Abstract Property PID: 33.027.21.21.0004
B-1 EXHIBIT B PARCEL 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION All that part of Government Lot Four (4), and that part of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of Section 33, Township 27 North, Range 21 West, Village (now City) of Cottage Grove, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast (NE) corner of Lot 23 of House’s Island View as platted; then N 1 degree 40’ E (assumed Bearing) on the east line of the Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) of Section 33 at a distance of 591.3 feet to an iron stake; thence S 86 degrees 40’ W parallel with the north line of lot 23 House’s Island View as platted 221 feet to an iron stake; thence S 1 degree 40’ W parallel with the east line of said Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) 591.3 feet to an iron stake at the Northwest corner of lot 23 House’s Island View as platted; then N 86 degrees 40’ E on the north line of lot 23 House’s Island View as platted 221 feet to the point of beginning, according to the United States Government Survey thereof; and containing 3 acres more or less, Washington County. Abstract Property PID: 33.027.21.21.0005
1
City Council Action Request
8.A.
Meeting Date 4/16/2025
Department Finance
Agenda Category Action Item
Title Approve Disbursements
Staff Recommendation Approve disbursements from 03-28-25 through 04-10-25 in the
amount of $2,067,537.18.
Budget Implication N/A
Attachments 1. Expense Approval Report 04-16-2025 Council Meeting
2. Payroll Check Register 04-16-25 Council Meeting
3. UB Check Register 04-16-25 (1)
4. UB Check Register 04-16-25 (2)
1
City Council Action Request
10.A.
Meeting Date 4/16/2025
Department Engineering
Agenda Category Action Item
Title 2025 Denzer Park Project - Reject All Bids
Staff Recommendation Adopt Resolution 2025-063 rejecting all bids submitted for the 2025
Denzer Park Project.
Budget Implication N/A
Attachments 1. Denzer Reject All Bids - CC Memo
2. Denzer Reject All Bids - Resolution
3. Denzer Reject All Bids - Bid Tabulation
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator
From: Genevieve Tester, EIT, Graduate Engineer
Date: April 4, 2025
Re: 2025 Denzer Park Project – Reject All Bids
Background
On March 5, 2025, Council approved the plans and specifications and authorized bidding for the
2025 Denzer Park Project. The project consisted of grading, bituminous trail paving, concrete
sidewalk paving, sport court construction, and concrete pad construction for other park
amenities such as benches and trash cans. A bid alternate was included with the plans for a
portable chain-link fence around the worksite for site security throughout construction.
Discussion
Bids were opened on Tuesday, March 25, 2025; nine bids were received. The bid tabulation has
been included for reference. There was one alternate included in the bid for the site security
fencing; the bid results are tabulated below.
Base Bid Alternate No. 1
Security Fence
Engineer’s Estimate $285,000.00 $10,000.00
D. Benson Excavating, LLC (Low Bid)$257,710.55 $8,232.00
Shoreline Landscaping & Contracting $303,521.82 $13,720.00
Pember Companies, Inc. $311,437.20 $10,080.00
JL Theis, Inc. $312,742.41 $21,000.00
Winberg Companies, LLC $334,477.68 $9,520.00
Parkstone Contracting, LLC $361,145.75 $11,550.00
Urban Companies $382,285.50 $11,200.00
Swan Companies $444,606.83 $28,280.00
Apadana, LLC $835,227.72 $28,000.00
The 2025 Denzer Park Project was proposed to be funded through the Park Trust Fund which is
dependent on development projects in the city. Due to anticipated development projects
withdrawing their planning applications in the nearby south district area, the Park Trust Fund does
not support all the planned upcoming park projects. The delay of the surrounding development
near Denzer Park, consequentially leads to minimal residents within the Park’s service area;
Denzer Park is no longer a construction priority for 2025. As future development occurs,
construction of Denzer Park will be considered. The City Council gave direction to staff regarding
park priorities at their workshop on April 2, 2025.
Recommendation
It is recommended the City Council adopt Resolution 2025-063 rejecting all bids submitted for the
2025 Denzer Park Project.
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2025-063
RESOLUTION REJECTING 2025 DENZER PARK PROJECT BIDS
WHEREAS, the City Council authorized bids on March 5, 2025 pursuant
to Resolution 2025-029 for the 2025 Denzer Park Project;
WHEREAS, the City opened bids on March 25, 2025, and the following bids
were received:
Base Bid Alternate No. 1
Security Fence
Engineers Estimate $285,000.00 $10,000.00
D. Benson Excavating, LLC (Low Bid) $257,710.55 $8,232.00
Shoreline Landscaping & Contracting $303,521.82 $13,720.00
Pember Companies, Inc. $311,437.20 $10,080.00
JL Theis, Inc. $312,742.41 $21,000.00
Winberg Companies, LLC $334,477.68 $9,520.00
Parkstone Contracting, LLC $361,145.75 $11,550.00
Urban Companies $382,285.50 $11,200.00
Swan Companies $444,606.83 $28,280.00
Apadana, LLC $835,227.72 $28,000.00
WHEREAS, the 2025 Denzer Park Project was to be funded with monies
collected during the development of adjacent properties and other park dedication
funds. Due to other park projects being prioritized in 2025 (using available park
dedication funds) and the withdrawal and delay of projects on adjacent properties,
the City is postponing the 2025 Denzer Park Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, that all bids submitted
for the 2025 Denzer Park Project are rejected.
Passed this 16th day of April, 2025.
__________________________
Myron Bailey, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________
Tamara Anderson, City Clerk
Project Name:City Project No.:Stantec Project No.:Bid Opening:Owner:Dave Sanocki, P.E.License No. 40973BID TABULATIONItem NumItem Units Qty Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price TotalBASE BID:PART 1: GENERAL1 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $15,132.21 $15,132.21 $26,789.00 $26,789.00 $20,790.00 $20,790.00 $24,230.00 $24,230.002 STREET SWEEPER WITH OPERATOR HR 5 $292.00 $1,460.00 $135.00 $675.00 $170.00 $850.00 $80.00 $400.003 SKIDSTEER (BOBCAT) WITH OPERATOR HR 5 $188.50 $942.50 $225.00 $1,125.00 $145.00 $725.00 $90.00 $450.00TOTAL PART 1: GENERAL$17,534.71 $28,589.00 $22,365.00 $25,080.00PART 2: STORMWATER - CULVERT UNDER TRAIL4 12” RCP PIPE LF 40 $165.70 $6,628.00 $121.00 $4,840.00 $75.50 $3,020.00 $150.00 $6,000.005 12” FES WITH TRASH GUARD EA 2 $1,802.15 $3,604.30 $2,250.00 $4,500.00 $2,185.00 $4,370.00 $1,250.00 $2,500.00TOTAL PART 2: STORMWATER - CULVERT UNDER TRAIL$10,232.30 $9,340.00 $7,390.00 $8,500.00PART 3: SPORTCOURT BASE6 24" AGGREGATE BACKFILL TN 305 $26.75 $8,158.75 $25.00 $7,625.00 $19.30 $5,886.50 $26.00 $7,930.007 6" AGGREGATE BASE COURSE TN 77 $27.97 $2,153.69 $38.00 $2,926.00 $34.65 $2,668.05 $35.00 $2,695.008 1.5" TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,C) [SPWTN 19 $270.25 $5,134.75 $156.00 $2,964.00 $248.00 $4,712.00 $221.40 $4,206.609 1.5" TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE - SPECIAL (2,C) [SPWEA240C]TN 19 $270.25 $5,134.75 $163.00 $3,097.00 $168.60 $3,203.40 $221.40 $4,206.6010 TACK GAL 10 $23.00 $230.00 $17.00 $170.00 $15.90 $159.00 $21.60 $216.0011 EXCAVATION - COMMON (EV) CY 53 $7.76 $411.28 $48.50 $2,570.50 $40.00 $2,120.00 $75.00 $3,975.00TOTAL PART 3: SPORTCOURT BASE$21,223.22 $19,352.50 $18,748.95 $23,229.20PART 4: CONCRETE WORK12 6 INCH CONCRETE SIDEWALK SY 552 $92.00 $50,784.00 $95.00 $52,440.00 $69.20 $38,198.40 $77.00 $42,504.0013 6 INCH CONCRETE PICNIC SLAB SY 53 $92.00 $4,876.00 $95.00 $5,035.00 $80.50 $4,266.50 $88.00 $4,664.0014 6 INCH CONCRETE BENCH SLABS (5) - 6'X10' SY 34 $92.00 $3,128.00 $120.00 $4,080.00 $80.50 $2,737.00 $88.00 $2,992.0015 6 INCH CONCRETE BENCH SLABS (3) - 6'X14' SY 28 $92.00 $2,576.00 $120.00 $3,360.00 $80.50 $2,254.00 $88.00 $2,464.0016 8 INCH CONCRETE MONUMENT SLAB SY 4 $143.75 $575.00 $140.00 $560.00 $103.50 $414.00 $88.00 $352.0017 EXCAVATION - COMMON (EV) - SIDEWALK CY 173 $7.76 $1,342.48 $20.00 $3,460.00 $40.00 $6,920.00 $65.00 $11,245.0018 EXCAVATION - COMMON (EV) - PICNIC SLAB CY 16 $7.76 $124.16 $60.00 $960.00 $40.00 $640.00 $65.00 $1,040.0019 EXCAVATION - COMMON (EV) - BENCH SLABS (5) - 6'X1CY 10 $7.76 $77.60 $60.00 $600.00 $40.00 $400.00 $65.00 $650.0020 EXCAVATION - COMMON (EV) - BENCH SLABS (3) - 6'X1CY 8 $7.76 $62.08 $60.00 $480.00 $40.00 $320.00 $65.00 $520.0021 EXCAVATION - COMMON (EV) - MONUMENT SLAB CY 2 $7.76 $15.52 $120.00 $240.00 $40.00 $80.00 $65.00 $130.0022 AGGREGATE BASE, VIRGIN CLASS 5 - SIDEWALK TN 151 $27.97 $4,223.47 $38.00 $5,738.00 $34.65 $5,232.15 $33.00 $4,983.0023 AGGREGATE BASE, VIRGIN CLASS 5 - PICNIC SLAB TN 13 $27.97 $363.61 $120.00 $1,560.00 $34.65 $450.45 $33.00 $429.0024 AGGREGATE BASE, VIRGIN CLASS 5 - BENCH SLABS (5) -TN 9 $32.13 $289.17 $120.00 $1,080.00 $34.65 $311.85 $33.00 $297.0025 AGGREGATE BASE, VIRGIN CLASS 5 - BENCH SLABS (3) -TN 7 $16.40 $114.80 $150.00 $1,050.00 $34.65 $242.55 $33.00 $231.00J L Theis, Inc.Bidder No. 3I hereby certify that this is an exactreproduction of bids received.2025 Denzer Park ProjectCottage Grove, MinnesotaTuesday, March 25, 2025 at 10:00 AM CDT193807397Bidder No. 1D. Benson Excavating, LLCShoreline Landscaping & ContractingBidder No. 2 Bidder No. 4Pember Companies, Inc.193807397-Bid Tabs.xlsmBT-1
BID TABULATIONItem NumItem Units Qty Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price TotalJ L Theis, Inc.Bidder No. 3Bidder No. 1D. Benson Excavating, LLCShoreline Landscaping & ContractingBidder No. 2 Bidder No. 4Pember Companies, Inc.26 AGGREGATE BASE, VIRGIN CLASS 5 - MONUMENT SLABTN 1 $156.71 $156.71 $240.00 $240.00 $34.65 $34.65 $33.00 $33.00TOTAL PART 4: CONCRETE WORK$68,708.60 $80,883.00 $62,501.55 $72,534.00PART 5: TETHERBALL COURT27 6 INCH CONCRETE TETHERBALL COURT - 20' DIAMETER SY 35 $92.00 $3,220.00 $138.00 $4,830.00 $80.50 $2,817.50 $88.00 $3,080.0028 EXCAVATION - COMMON (EV) CY 11 $7.76 $85.36 $120.00 $1,320.00 $40.00 $440.00 $65.00 $715.0029 AGGREGATE BASE, VIRGIN CLASS 5 TN 10 $32.14 $321.40 $48.00 $480.00 $34.65 $346.50 $33.00 $330.0030 GARED GLAVA PERMANENT INGROUND TETHERBALL SYLS 1 $3,365.70 $3,365.70 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00TOTAL PART 5: TETHERBALL COURT$6,992.46 $10,130.00 $7,104.00 $7,125.00PART 6: BITUMINOUS TRAIL31 TYPE SP 9.5 BITUMINOUS TRAIL WEARING COURSE MIXT TN 315 $146.05 $46,005.75 $142.00 $44,730.00 $177.80 $56,007.00 $125.28 $39,463.2032 EXCAVATION - COMMON (EV) CY 450 $7.68 $3,456.00 $20.00 $9,000.00 $40.00 $18,000.00 $44.00 $19,800.0033 AGGREGATE BASE, VIRGIN CLASS 5 TN 654 $27.98 $18,298.92 $38.00 $24,852.00 $34.65 $22,661.10 $33.00 $21,582.00TOTAL PART 6: BITUMINOUS TRAIL$67,760.67 $78,582.00 $96,668.10 $80,845.20PART 7: EROSION CONTROL AND FINISH GRADING34 HYDRAULIC MATRIX TYPE MULCH SY 22329 $0.96 $21,435.84 $1.08 $24,115.32 $1.80 $40,192.20 $1.69 $37,736.0135 PREMIUM TOPSOIL BORROW (LV) MODIFIED - INCL. SHACY 1076 $33.25 $35,777.00 $40.00 $43,040.00 $46.15 $49,657.40 $45.00 $48,420.0036 REMOVE STRUCTURE MARKING SIGNS EA 3 $32.50 $97.50 $75.00 $225.00 $50.00 $150.00 $100.00 $300.0037 ADJUST MANHOLE STRUCTURE CASTINGS FLUSH WITH FIEA 3 $613.87 $1,841.61 $875.00 $2,625.00 $670.00 $2,010.00 $500.00 $1,500.0038 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION & MAINTENANCE - EREA 2 $344.64 $689.28 $200.00 $400.00 $135.00 $270.00 $200.00 $400.0039 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION & MAINTENANCE - EREA 1 $1,150.84 $1,150.84 $200.00 $200.00 $145.00 $145.00 $200.00 $200.0040 MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING BIOLOGS AND SILT FENCE LS 1 $807.97 $807.97 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $820.00 $820.00 $2,323.00 $2,323.0041 FURNISH AND INSTALL 8" BIOROLLS LF 20 $43.61 $872.20 $6.00 $120.00 $5.25 $105.00 $15.00 $300.0042 CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE - ERO12 CY 50 $45.18 $2,258.75 $42.00 $2,100.00 $59.00 $2,950.00 $77.00 $3,850.0043 4" PVC CONDUIT FOR POTENTIAL IRRIGATION AND ELECLF 10 $32.76 $327.60 $82.00 $820.00 $36.00 $360.00 $40.00 $400.00TOTAL PART 7: EROSION CONTROL AND FINISH GRADING$65,258.59 $76,645.32 $96,659.60 $95,429.01ALTERNATE - SITE SECURITY44 TEMPORARY FENCING FOR SECURITY LF 1400 $5.88 $8,232.00 $9.80 $13,720.00 $7.20 $10,080.00 $15.00 $21,000.00TOTAL ALTERNATE - SITE SECURITY$8,232.00 $13,720.00 $10,080.00 $21,000.00193807397-Bid Tabs.xlsmBT-2
BID TABULATIONItem NumItem Units Qty Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price TotalJ L Theis, Inc.Bidder No. 3Bidder No. 1D. Benson Excavating, LLCShoreline Landscaping & ContractingBidder No. 2 Bidder No. 4Pember Companies, Inc.BASE BID SUMMARY:TOTAL PART 1: GENERAL$17,534.71 $28,589.00 $22,365.00 $25,080.00TOTAL PART 2: STORMWATER - CULVERT UNDER TRAIL$10,232.30 $9,340.00 $7,390.00 $8,500.00TOTAL PART 3: SPORTCOURT BASE$21,223.22 $19,352.50 $18,748.95 $23,229.20TOTAL PART 4: CONCRETE WORK$68,708.60 $80,883.00 $62,501.55 $72,534.00TOTAL PART 5: TETHERBALL COURT$6,992.46 $10,130.00 $7,104.00 $7,125.00TOTAL PART 6: BITUMINOUS TRAIL$67,760.67 $78,582.00 $96,668.10 $80,845.20TOTAL PART 7: EROSION CONTROL AND FINISH GRADING$65,258.59 $76,645.32 $96,659.60 $95,429.01TOTAL BASE BID$257,710.55 $303,521.82 $311,437.20 $312,742.41TOTAL BASE BID + ALTERNATE$265,942.55 $317,241.82 $321,517.20 $333,742.41Phone:Email:info@bensonexcavating.cominfo@khcconstruction.comsteve@gridor.comrhollatz@dimarconstruction.comSigned By: Drew BensonHarold Theisen Richard HollatzTitle: OwnerPresident CDO PresidentBid Bond Bid Bond Bid Bond Bid BondNone None None NoneContractor Name and Address:D. Benson Excavating, LLC Pember Companies, Inc.W10186 570th Ave.River Falls, WI 54022Shoreline Landscaping & Contracting9455 County Road 15Maple Plain, MN 5535914045 Northdale Blvd.J L Theis, Inc.14000 Veit PlaceRogers, MN 55374Rogers, MN 55374Bid Security:Addenda Acknowledged:(651) 245-3183 763-746-9072 952-474-2202507-532-6768Kim H. Christensen193807397-Bid Tabs.xlsmBT-3
BID TABULATIONItem NumItemUnits QtyBASE BID:PART 1: GENERAL1 MOBILIZATIONLS 12 STREET SWEEPER WITH OPERATORHR 53 SKIDSTEER (BOBCAT) WITH OPERATORHR 5TOTAL PART 1: GENERALPART 2: STORMWATER - CULVERT UNDER TRAIL4 12” RCP PIPELF 405 12” FES WITH TRASH GUARDEA 2TOTAL PART 2: STORMWATER - CULVERT UNDER TRAILPART 3: SPORTCOURT BASE6 24" AGGREGATE BACKFILLTN 3057 6" AGGREGATE BASE COURSETN 778 1.5" TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,C) [SPWTN 199 1.5" TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE - SPECIAL (2,C) [SPWEA240C]TN 1910 TACK GAL 1011 EXCAVATION - COMMON (EV) CY 53TOTAL PART 3: SPORTCOURT BASEPART 4: CONCRETE WORK12 6 INCH CONCRETE SIDEWALK SY 55213 6 INCH CONCRETE PICNIC SLAB SY 5314 6 INCH CONCRETE BENCH SLABS (5) - 6'X10' SY 3415 6 INCH CONCRETE BENCH SLABS (3) - 6'X14' SY 2816 8 INCH CONCRETE MONUMENT SLAB SY 417 EXCAVATION - COMMON (EV) - SIDEWALK CY 17318 EXCAVATION - COMMON (EV) - PICNIC SLAB CY 1619 EXCAVATION - COMMON (EV) - BENCH SLABS (5) - 6'X1CY 1020 EXCAVATION - COMMON (EV) - BENCH SLABS (3) - 6'X1CY 821 EXCAVATION - COMMON (EV) - MONUMENT SLAB CY 222 AGGREGATE BASE, VIRGIN CLASS 5 - SIDEWALK TN 15123 AGGREGATE BASE, VIRGIN CLASS 5 - PICNIC SLAB TN 1324 AGGREGATE BASE, VIRGIN CLASS 5 - BENCH SLABS (5) -TN 925 AGGREGATE BASE, VIRGIN CLASS 5 - BENCH SLABS (3) -TN 7Unit PriceTotalUnit PriceTotalUnit PriceTotalUnit PriceTotal$10,500.00$10,500.00 $18,000.00$18,000.00 $21,000.00$21,000.00 $26,800.00$26,800.00$157.50$787.50 $175.00$875.00 $200.00$1,000.00 $175.00$875.00$141.75$708.75 $160.00$800.00 $200.00$1,000.00 $156.00$780.00$11,996.25$19,675.00$23,000.00$28,455.00$84.00$3,360.00 $100.00$4,000.00 $125.00$5,000.00 $163.33$6,533.20$1,102.50$2,205.00 $2,500.00$5,000.00 $1,500.00$3,000.00 $2,145.00$4,290.00$5,565.00$9,000.00$8,000.00$10,823.20$57.75$17,613.75 $50.00$15,250.00 $25.00$7,625.00 $46.17$14,081.85$52.50$4,042.50 $50.00$3,850.00 $40.00$3,080.00 $62.11$4,782.47$183.75$3,491.25 $275.00$5,225.00 $322.00$6,118.00 $165.88$3,151.72$166.91$3,171.29 $275.00$5,225.00 $357.00$6,783.00 $174.84$3,321.96$15.75$157.50 $20.00$200.00$5.00$50.00 $16.50$165.00$47.25$2,504.25 $50.00$2,650.00 $60.00$3,180.00 $77.33$4,098.49$30,980.54$32,400.00$26,836.00$29,601.49$98.70$54,482.40 $95.00$52,440.00 $96.00$52,992.00 $91.85$50,701.20$110.25$5,843.25 $95.00$5,035.00 $96.00$5,088.00 $91.84$4,867.52$120.75$4,105.50 $110.00$3,740.00 $112.00$3,808.00 $91.85$3,122.90$131.25$3,675.00 $110.00$3,080.00 $112.00$3,136.00 $91.85$2,571.80$315.00$1,260.00 $150.00$600.00 $148.00$592.00 $220.00$880.00$44.10$7,629.30 $50.00$8,650.00 $60.00$10,380.00 $83.87$14,509.51$84.00$1,344.00 $50.00$800.00 $60.00$960.00 $84.06$1,344.96$105.00$1,050.00 $50.00$500.00 $60.00$600.00 $78.00$780.00$105.00$840.00 $50.00$400.00 $60.00$480.00 $97.50$780.00$262.50$525.00 $50.00$100.00 $60.00$120.00 $302.50$605.00$54.60$8,244.60 $50.00$7,550.00 $40.00$6,040.00 $87.74$13,248.74$105.00$1,365.00 $50.00$650.00 $40.00$520.00 $81.32$1,057.16$105.00$945.00 $50.00$450.00 $40.00$360.00 $70.52$634.68$105.00$735.00 $50.00$350.00 $40.00$280.00 $84.17$589.19Bidder No. 5Winberg Companies, LLCBidder No. 5Bidder No. 7Parkstone Contracting, LLCUrban CompaniesBidder No. 8Swan Companies193807397-Bid Tabs.xlsmBT-4
BID TABULATIONItem NumItem Units Qty26 AGGREGATE BASE, VIRGIN CLASS 5 - MONUMENT SLABTN 1TOTAL PART 4: CONCRETE WORKPART 5: TETHERBALL COURT27 6 INCH CONCRETE TETHERBALL COURT - 20' DIAMETER SY 3528 EXCAVATION - COMMON (EV) CY 1129 AGGREGATE BASE, VIRGIN CLASS 5 TN 1030 GARED GLAVA PERMANENT INGROUND TETHERBALL SYLS 1TOTAL PART 5: TETHERBALL COURTPART 6: BITUMINOUS TRAIL31 TYPE SP 9.5 BITUMINOUS TRAIL WEARING COURSE MIXT TN 31532 EXCAVATION - COMMON (EV) CY 45033 AGGREGATE BASE, VIRGIN CLASS 5 TN 654TOTAL PART 6: BITUMINOUS TRAILPART 7: EROSION CONTROL AND FINISH GRADING34 HYDRAULIC MATRIX TYPE MULCH SY 2232935 PREMIUM TOPSOIL BORROW (LV) MODIFIED - INCL. SHACY 107636 REMOVE STRUCTURE MARKING SIGNS EA 337 ADJUST MANHOLE STRUCTURE CASTINGS FLUSH WITH FIEA 338 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION & MAINTENANCE - EREA 239 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION & MAINTENANCE - EREA 140 MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING BIOLOGS AND SILT FENCE LS 141 FURNISH AND INSTALL 8" BIOROLLS LF 2042 CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE - ERO12 CY 5043 4" PVC CONDUIT FOR POTENTIAL IRRIGATION AND ELECLF 10TOTAL PART 7: EROSION CONTROL AND FINISH GRADINGALTERNATE - SITE SECURITY44 TEMPORARY FENCING FOR SECURITY LF 1400TOTAL ALTERNATE - SITE SECURITYUnit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price TotalBidder No. 5Winberg Companies, LLCBidder No. 5 Bidder No. 7Parkstone Contracting, LLC Urban CompaniesBidder No. 8Swan Companies$262.50 $262.50 $50.00 $50.00 $40.00 $40.00 $452.74 $452.74$92,306.55 $84,395.00 $85,396.00 $96,145.40$152.25 $5,328.75 $110.00 $3,850.00 $112.00 $3,920.00 $114.29 $4,000.15$105.00 $1,155.00 $50.00 $550.00 $75.00 $825.00 $110.00 $1,210.00$63.00 $630.00 $50.00 $500.00 $40.00 $400.00 $112.74 $1,127.40$3,570.00 $3,570.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $3,712.50 $3,712.50$10,683.75 $7,900.00 $15,145.00 $10,050.05$161.70 $50,935.50 $140.00 $44,100.00 $173.00 $54,495.00 $145.79 $45,923.85$37.80 $17,010.00 $50.00 $22,500.00 $60.00 $27,000.00 $57.39 $25,825.50$46.20 $30,214.80 $50.00 $32,700.00 $40.00 $26,160.00 $64.39 $42,111.06$98,160.30 $99,300.00 $107,655.00 $113,860.41$1.26 $28,134.54 $1.75 $39,075.75 $1.50 $33,493.50 $1.56 $34,833.24$45.15 $48,581.40 $50.00 $53,800.00 $60.00 $64,560.00 $100.29 $107,912.04$105.00 $315.00 $50.00 $150.00 $100.00 $300.00 $100.00 $300.00$288.75 $866.25 $1,500.00 $4,500.00 $1,250.00 $3,750.00 $502.00 $1,506.00$525.00 $1,050.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $400.00 $800.00 $100.00 $200.00$262.50 $262.50 $500.00 $500.00 $400.00 $400.00 $450.00 $450.00$2,520.00 $2,520.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $7,270.00 $7,270.00$11.03 $220.60 $10.00 $200.00 $10.00 $200.00 $7.50 $150.00$48.30 $2,415.00 $80.00 $4,000.00 $50.00 $2,500.00 $50.00 $2,500.00$42.00 $420.00 $25.00 $250.00 $25.00 $250.00 $55.00 $550.00$84,785.29 $108,475.75 $116,253.50 $155,671.28$6.80 $9,520.00 $8.25 $11,550.00 $8.00 $11,200.00 $20.20 $28,280.00$9,520.00 $11,550.00 $11,200.00 $28,280.00193807397-Bid Tabs.xlsmBT-5
BID TABULATIONItem NumItem Units QtyBASE BID SUMMARY:TOTAL PART 1: GENERALTOTAL PART 2: STORMWATER - CULVERT UNDER TRAILTOTAL PART 3: SPORTCOURT BASETOTAL PART 4: CONCRETE WORKTOTAL PART 5: TETHERBALL COURTTOTAL PART 6: BITUMINOUS TRAILTOTAL PART 7: EROSION CONTROL AND FINISH GRADINGTOTAL BASE BIDTOTAL BASE BID + ALTERNATEPhone:Email:Signed By:Title:Contractor Name and Address:Bid Security:Addenda Acknowledged:Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price TotalBidder No. 5Winberg Companies, LLCBidder No. 5 Bidder No. 7Parkstone Contracting, LLC Urban CompaniesBidder No. 8Swan Companies$11,996.25 $19,675.00 $23,000.00 $28,455.00$5,565.00 $9,000.00 $8,000.00 $10,823.20$30,980.54 $32,400.00 $26,836.00 $29,601.49$92,306.55 $84,395.00 $85,396.00 $96,145.40$10,683.75 $7,900.00 $15,145.00 $10,050.05$98,160.30 $99,300.00 $107,655.00 $113,860.41$84,785.29 $108,475.75 $116,253.50 $155,671.28$334,477.68 $361,145.75 $382,285.50 $444,606.83$343,997.68 $372,695.75 $393,485.50 $472,886.83info@ricelake.orginfo@ricelake.orginfo@ricelake.orginfo@ricelake.orgWade Leonard Wade Leonard Wade Leonard Wade LeonardPresident President President PresidentBid Bond Bid Bond Bid Bond Bid BondNone None None NoneWinberg Companies, LLC9760 71st. St. NEAlbertville, MN 55301Parkstone Contracting, LLC Urban Companies9760 71st. St. NE 9760 71st. St. NEAlbertville, MN 55301 Albertville, MN 55301218-546-5519Swan Companies9760 71st. St. NEAlbertville, MN 55301218-546-5519 218-546-5519218-546-5519193807397-Bid Tabs.xlsmBT-6
BID TABULATIONItem NumItemUnits QtyBASE BID:PART 1: GENERAL1 MOBILIZATIONLS 12 STREET SWEEPER WITH OPERATORHR 53 SKIDSTEER (BOBCAT) WITH OPERATORHR 5TOTAL PART 1: GENERALPART 2: STORMWATER - CULVERT UNDER TRAIL4 12” RCP PIPELF 405 12” FES WITH TRASH GUARDEA 2TOTAL PART 2: STORMWATER - CULVERT UNDER TRAILPART 3: SPORTCOURT BASE6 24" AGGREGATE BACKFILLTN 3057 6" AGGREGATE BASE COURSETN 778 1.5" TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,C) [SPWTN 199 1.5" TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE - SPECIAL (2,C) [SPWEA240C]TN 1910 TACK GAL 1011 EXCAVATION - COMMON (EV) CY 53TOTAL PART 3: SPORTCOURT BASEPART 4: CONCRETE WORK12 6 INCH CONCRETE SIDEWALK SY 55213 6 INCH CONCRETE PICNIC SLAB SY 5314 6 INCH CONCRETE BENCH SLABS (5) - 6'X10' SY 3415 6 INCH CONCRETE BENCH SLABS (3) - 6'X14' SY 2816 8 INCH CONCRETE MONUMENT SLAB SY 417 EXCAVATION - COMMON (EV) - SIDEWALK CY 17318 EXCAVATION - COMMON (EV) - PICNIC SLAB CY 1619 EXCAVATION - COMMON (EV) - BENCH SLABS (5) - 6'X1CY 1020 EXCAVATION - COMMON (EV) - BENCH SLABS (3) - 6'X1CY 821 EXCAVATION - COMMON (EV) - MONUMENT SLAB CY 222 AGGREGATE BASE, VIRGIN CLASS 5 - SIDEWALK TN 15123 AGGREGATE BASE, VIRGIN CLASS 5 - PICNIC SLAB TN 1324 AGGREGATE BASE, VIRGIN CLASS 5 - BENCH SLABS (5) -TN 925 AGGREGATE BASE, VIRGIN CLASS 5 - BENCH SLABS (3) -TN 7Unit PriceTotal$85,499.00$85,499.00$448.00$2,240.00$3,360.00$16,800.00$104,539.00$201.50$8,060.00$528.00$1,056.00$9,116.00$58.36$17,799.80$288.90$22,245.30$488.43$9,280.17$608.43$11,560.17$136.00$1,360.00$113.40$6,010.20$68,255.64$250.00 $138,000.00$250.00$13,250.00$250.00$8,500.00$250.00$7,000.00$300.00$1,200.00$590.40 $102,139.20$97.50$1,560.00$108.00$1,080.00$115.00$920.00$220.00$440.00$115.00$17,365.00$174.23$2,264.99$169.45$1,525.05$205.00$1,435.00Bidder No. 9Apadana, LLC193807397-Bid Tabs.xlsmBT-7
BID TABULATIONItem NumItem Units Qty26 AGGREGATE BASE, VIRGIN CLASS 5 - MONUMENT SLABTN 1TOTAL PART 4: CONCRETE WORKPART 5: TETHERBALL COURT27 6 INCH CONCRETE TETHERBALL COURT - 20' DIAMETER SY 3528 EXCAVATION - COMMON (EV) CY 1129 AGGREGATE BASE, VIRGIN CLASS 5 TN 1030 GARED GLAVA PERMANENT INGROUND TETHERBALL SYLS 1TOTAL PART 5: TETHERBALL COURTPART 6: BITUMINOUS TRAIL31 TYPE SP 9.5 BITUMINOUS TRAIL WEARING COURSE MIXT TN 31532 EXCAVATION - COMMON (EV) CY 45033 AGGREGATE BASE, VIRGIN CLASS 5 TN 654TOTAL PART 6: BITUMINOUS TRAILPART 7: EROSION CONTROL AND FINISH GRADING34 HYDRAULIC MATRIX TYPE MULCH SY 2232935 PREMIUM TOPSOIL BORROW (LV) MODIFIED - INCL. SHACY 107636 REMOVE STRUCTURE MARKING SIGNS EA 337 ADJUST MANHOLE STRUCTURE CASTINGS FLUSH WITH FIEA 338 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION & MAINTENANCE - EREA 239 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION & MAINTENANCE - EREA 140 MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING BIOLOGS AND SILT FENCE LS 141 FURNISH AND INSTALL 8" BIOROLLS LF 2042 CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE - ERO12 CY 5043 4" PVC CONDUIT FOR POTENTIAL IRRIGATION AND ELECLF 10TOTAL PART 7: EROSION CONTROL AND FINISH GRADINGALTERNATE - SITE SECURITY44 TEMPORARY FENCING FOR SECURITY LF 1400TOTAL ALTERNATE - SITE SECURITYUnit Price TotalBidder No. 9Apadana, LLC$605.00 $605.00$297,284.24$78.00 $2,730.00$113.82 $1,252.02$157.00 $1,570.00$1,500.00 $1,500.00$7,052.02$293.00 $92,295.00$68.45 $30,802.50$138.00 $90,252.00$213,349.50$1.78 $39,745.62$47.18 $50,765.68$473.34 $1,420.02$1,320.00 $3,960.00$920.00 $1,840.00$920.00 $920.00$24,890.00 $24,890.00$53.00 $1,060.00$194.00 $9,700.00$133.00 $1,330.00$135,631.32$20.00 $28,000.00$28,000.00193807397-Bid Tabs.xlsmBT-8
BID TABULATIONItem NumItem Units QtyBASE BID SUMMARY:TOTAL PART 1: GENERALTOTAL PART 2: STORMWATER - CULVERT UNDER TRAILTOTAL PART 3: SPORTCOURT BASETOTAL PART 4: CONCRETE WORKTOTAL PART 5: TETHERBALL COURTTOTAL PART 6: BITUMINOUS TRAILTOTAL PART 7: EROSION CONTROL AND FINISH GRADINGTOTAL BASE BIDTOTAL BASE BID + ALTERNATEPhone:Email:Signed By:Title:Contractor Name and Address:Bid Security:Addenda Acknowledged:Unit Price TotalBidder No. 9Apadana, LLC$104,539.00$9,116.00$68,255.64$297,284.24$7,052.02$213,349.50$135,631.32$835,227.72$863,227.72info@ricelake.orgWade LeonardPresidentBid BondNone218-546-5519Apadana, LLC9760 71st. St. NEAlbertville, MN 55301193807397-Bid Tabs.xlsmBT-9
1
City Council Action Request
10.B.
Meeting Date 4/16/2025
Department Public Works
Agenda Category Action Item
Title Public Works Shop Remodel
Staff Recommendation Adopt resolution 2025-054 awarding the Public Works Facility
Mechanics Shop Remodel to Rochon Construction for the base bid
amount plus the alternate for a total of $298,915.
Budget Implication $298,915 out of the municipal building.
Attachments 1. Bid Award Memo Shop Remodel
2. Resolution for Shop Remodel
3. Client Bid Results Ltr_20250410
4. 193807340-Bid Tab_20250410
To:Honorable Mayor and City Council
Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator
From:Ryan Burfeind, Public Works Director
Adam Moshier, Fleet and Facilities Manager
Date:April 10th, 2025
Re:Public Works Facility Mechanics Shop Remodel – Bid Award
Background
In the 2025 budget, City Council authorized the addition of a 5th mechanic to the shop. With the
additional mechanic, staff needed more space. Also in the 2025 budget, City Council authorized
$500,000 out of the municipal building fund to remodel the mechanic shop and add a portable
hoist. This memo outlines approving the bid award for the Public Works Facility Mechanics Shop
Remodel. The Engineer’s estimate was $301,190 for the construction of the project which includes
the base bid and the alternate.
Discussion
Bids were opened on Thursday April 10th, 2025; eight bids were received. The project award
recommendation letter and bid tab have been included for reference. There was one alternate
included in the bid for the removal and replacement of the lights in the mechanics bay and
mezzanine; the bid results are tabulated below.
Base Bid Alternate
Engineer’s Estimate $301,190
Rochon Corporation $284,000 $14,915
Schreiber Mullaney Const. Co. Inc $285,000 $15,000
Brennan Const. of MN, Inc $311,100 $16,031
Versacon, Inc $317,000 $16,000
Derau Construction $319,200 $16,900
Shaw-Lunquist Associates, Inc $328,000 $15,000
Meisinger Construction Company $358,900 $13,500
CJC Construction, LLC $417,000 $15,000
Recommendation
It is recommended the City Council adopt resolution 2025-054 awarding the Public Works Facility
Mechanics Shop Remodel to Rochon Construction for the base bid amount plus the alternate for
a total of $298,915.
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2025-054
RESOLUTION AWARDING THE BID FOR THE
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY MECHANICS SHOP REMODEL PROJECT
IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $298,915.00, INCLUDING THE BASE BID PLUS THE
ALTERNATE
WHEREAS, plans and specifications for the Public Works Facility Mechanics
Shop Remodel Project were completed according to City standards; and
WHEREAS, bids were requested to provide the necessary work; and
WHEREAS, eight firms submitted bids; and
WHEREAS, it appears that Rochon Corporation provided the lowest
responsible bid; and
WHEREAS, it is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the bid
be awarded to Rochon Corporation in the total amount of $298,915.00, which includes
the base bid plus the alternate.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, the bid for the Public Works
Facility Mechanics Shop Remodel Project is awarded to Rochon Corporation in the
total amount of $298,915.00, which includes the base bid plus the alternate.
Passed this 16th day of April 2025.
Myron Bailey, Mayor
Attest:
Tamara Anderson, City Clerk
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1000 Minneapolis, MN 55402
April 10, 2025
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Cottage Grove
City Hall
12800 Ravine Pkwy. S.
Cottage Grove, MN 55016
Re: Public Works Facility Mechanics Shop Remodel
Stantec Project No. 193807340
Bid Results
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council:
Bids were opened for the Project stated above on April 10, 2025. Transmitted herewith is a copy of
the Bid Tabulation for your information and file. A copy will also be distributed to the Bidders once
the Project has been awarded.
There were a total of 8 Bids. The following summarizes the results of the Bids received:
Contractor Total Base Bid Alternate No. 1
Low Rochon Corporation $284,000.00 $14,915.00
#2 Schreiber Mullaney Const. Co., Inc. $285,000.00 $15,000.00
#3 Brennan Const. of MN, Inc. $311,100.00 $16,031.00
#4 Versacon, Inc. $317,000.00 $16,000.00
#5 Derau construction $319,200.00 $16,900.00
#6 Shaw-Lundquist Associates, Inc. $328,000.00 $15,000.00
#7 Meisinger Construction Company $358,900.00 $13,500.00
#8 CJC Construction, LLC $417,000.00 $15,000.00
The low Bidder on the Project was Rochon Corporation with a Total Base Bid Amount of
$284,000.00. These Bids have been reviewed and found to be in order.
If the City Council wishes to award the Project to the low Bidder, then Rochon Corporation should
be awarded the Project on the Total Base Bid and Alternate No. 1 in the Amount of $298,915.00.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (612) 712-2108.
Sincerely,
STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC.
Bruce Paulson, P.E.
Enclosure
Project Name:
Stantec Project No.:
Bid Opening:Owner:
Bruce P. Paulson, RA
License No. 20910
BID TABULATION
Item
Num Item Units Qty Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total
BASE BID:
1-1.MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, AND LABOR NECESSARY TO
COMPLETE THE WORK AS DEFINED ON THE
DRAWINGS AND IN THE PROJECT MANUAL
LS 1 $284,000.00 $284,000.00 $285,000.00 $285,000.00 $311,100.00 $311,100.00 $317,000.00 $317,000.00 $319,200.00 $319,200.00 $328,000.00 $328,000.00 $358,900.00 $358,900.00 $417,000.00 $417,000.00
TOTAL BASE BID $284,000.00 $285,000.00 $311,100.00 $317,000.00 $319,200.00 $328,000.00 $358,900.00 $417,000.00
PART 2 - ALTERNATES:
2-1.ALTERNATE NO. 1: MATERIALS, LABOR, AND
EQUIPMENT NECESSARY TO REMOVE THE EXISTING
FLUORESCENT LIGHT FIXTURES IN MECHANICS 102
AND MEZZANINE 201 AS SHOWN ON SHEET E203 AND
INSTALL NEW LED REPLACEMENT LIGHT FIXTURES AS
SHOWN ON SHEET E204. NOTE: THIS ALTERNATE DOES
NOT INCLUDE THE TWO NEW LED LIGHT FIXTURES IN
THE NEW EXPANDED MECHANICS 102 SHOWN ON
SHEET E204 WHICH ARE BASE BID.
LS 1 $14,915.00 $14,915.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $16,031.00 $16,031.00 $16,000.00 $16,000.00 $16,900.00 $16,900.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $13,500.00 $13,500.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00
$14,915.00 $15,000.00 $16,031.00 $16,000.00 $16,900.00 $15,000.00 $13,500.00 $15,000.00
Phone:
Email:paulbraton@rochoncorp.com bruce@schreibermullaney.com brennan@bcofmn.com czierhut@versaconinc.com pat.r@derauconstruction.com tmeyers@shawlundquist.com tom@meisingerconstruction.com cjcconstructionllc1@gmail.com
Signed By:Paul Braton Joe Brennan Charles Zierhut Patrick Rauch Thomas J. Meyers Thomas M. Meisinger Jeff S.
Title:President Vice President President President President Vice President President Office Manager
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3
Versacon, Inc.
Bidder No. 3 Bidder No. 6
Shaw-Lundquist Associates,
Inc.
Bidder No. 8Bidder No. 7
Meisinger Construction
Company CJC Construciton, LLC
Contractor Name and Address:
I hereby certify that this is an exact
reproduction of bids received.
Bidder No. 5
Derau Construction
Rochon Corporation Brennan Construction of MN,
Inc.
Public Works Facility Mechanics Shop Remodel
Cottage Grove, MinnesotaThursday, April 10, 2025 at 10:00 AM CDT
193807340
Bidder No. 1
Rochon Corporation Schreiber Mullaney
Construction Co., Inc.
Bidder No. 2 Bidder No. 4
Brennan Construction of MN,
Inc.
28 2nd Street NW #200
Osseo, MN 55369
Schreiber Mullaney
Construction Co., Inc.
1286 Hudson Road
St. Paul, MN 55106
(952) 697-5131 (651) 454-0670
3255 Garfield Avenue, Suite
Versacon, Inc.
9443 Science Center Drive
New Hope, MN 55428Minneapolis, MN 55408
Shaw-Lundquist Associates,
Inc.
2757 West Service Road
St. Paul, MN 55121
Derau Construction
1407 East Cliff Road
Burnsville, MN 55337
Bid Security:
Addenda Acknowledged:
(763) 559-9393 (507) 625-5417 (763) 391-5610(651) 774-9440
Bruce Schreiber
Responsible Contractor Form:
(651) 452-4778
CJC Construciton, LLC
11686 Eighth Streeet NE
Hanover, MN 55341
(612) 203-6322
Meisinger Construction
Company
121 Bridge point Way
South St. Paul, MN 55075
193807340-Bid Tabs.xlsm BT-1
1
City Council Action Request
11.A.
Meeting Date 4/16/2025
Department Community Development
Agenda Category Action Item
Title Leafline Labs – Conditional Use Permit
Staff Recommendation Adopt Resolution 2025-061 rescinding prior conditional use permit
and site plan resolutions and approving the Conditional Use Permit
for a Medical Cannabis Combination Business at 8235 97th Street
South.
Budget Implication N/A
Attachments 1. Leafline Labs CC Memo
2. Leafline Labs Applicant Narrative
3. Leafline Labs Security Plans Summary Letter
4. Leafline Labs Byers Scientific Report
5. Leafline Labs Resolution
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator
FROM: Samantha Pierret, Senior Planner
DATE: April 9, 2025
RE: Leafline Labs, LLC – Conditional Use Permit
Proposal
Leafline Labs (Owner), has submitted an application requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow
the property at 8235 97th Street South to grow, manufacture, and process adult use cannabis as
a Medical Cannabis Combination Business. They would continue to grow, manufacture, and pro-
cess medical cannabis on-site. The proposed application would rescind the existing CUP, which
was approved in May 2022 as Resolution 2022-075, to produce medical cannabis products.
Location Map
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt
Leafline Labs, LLC – Conditional Use Permit
April 9, 2025
Page 2 of 15
Review Schedule
Application Received: February 26, 2025
Acceptance of Completed Application: March 11, 2025
Planning Commission Date: March 24, 2025
Tentative City Council Date: April 16, 2025
60-Day Review Deadline: May 10, 2025
Background
The existing Leafline Labs facility was approved and constructed in 2014 following Minnesota’s
legalization of the production and use of cannabis for some medical purposes. Leafline Labs was
selected as a manufacturer by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) as one of two licensed
medical cannabis producers in Minnesota. The facility houses growing and processing functions
for the company’s medical cannabis products. They currently employ 65 cultivation employees
serving over 55,000 Minnesotans currently registered to use cannabis for medicinal purposes.
The approved site plan in 2014 planned for a future expansion on the site. In 2022, a Conditional
Use Permit and Site Plan Review were approved to allow construction of structure additions in
two phases. Phase I was constructed while Phase 2 was not constructed and is not proposed to
be constructed as part of this Conditional Use Permit request.
Minnesota legislation passed in 2023 created an adult use cannabis marketplace. The statute
under which the Applicant is currently licensed to be a pharmaceutical medical cannabis manu -
facturer will be repealed on December 1, 2025. To account for these changes at the State level
and to allow the Applicant to manufacture, cultivate, test, and process cannabis for medical and
recreational purposes in accordance with the Medical Cannabis Combination Business license
from the newly created State of Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management, a new CUP has been
applied for.
The City of Cottage Grove’s Zoning Code was amended in 2024 to add provisions for adult use
cannabis license types including performance standards, setbacks, and uses allowed in each
zoning district. Medical Cannabis Combination Businesses include the cultivation and manufac-
ture of cannabis and hemp products. These businesses may package these products for sale to
customers, patients, or another licensed cannabis business. A new Conditional Use Permit will
also ensure conformance with new city zoning regulations.
The Applicant is not expanding its operations on site. There will be no substantive changes to
current cultivation, production, manufacturing, or processing operations. The only change will be
allocating products to the medical and recreational cannabis ma rkets instead of just the medical
market. The Conditional Use Permit is being applied for to ensure compliance with state and local
statutes and rules and not due to any operational changes.
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt
Leafline Labs, LLC – Conditional Use Permit
April 9, 2025
Page 3 of 15
2022 Floor Plan
Planning Considerations
Conditional Use Permit
The purpose of a Conditional Use Permit is to authorize and regulate uses that may be beneficial
in a specific instance to the general welfare of the community yet ensure that such uses are not
detrimental to surrounding property and are consistent with th e stated purpose of the zoning
district.
The permit shall be approved solely for the proposed use of a particular site, not for a particular
person or firm. When granting a Conditional Use Permit, the City may impose conditions as it
deems necessary to serve and protect the health, safety, convenience, and general welfare of the
community.
When evaluating any proposed conditional use permit, the following findings shall be considered:
1. Compliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive Plan, including public facilities and
capital improvement plans.
2. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use will promote and en -
hance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, morals or comfort.
3. The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the
immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair
property values within the neighborhood.
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt
Leafline Labs, LLC – Conditional Use Permit
April 9, 2025
Page 4 of 15
4. The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly develop -
ment and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district.
5. Adequate public facilities and services are available or can be reasonably provided to
accommodate the use which is proposed.
6. The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the
district in which it is located.
7. The conditional use complies with the general and specific performance standards as spec -
ified by the Zoning Code.
The proposed use of Medical Cannabis Combination Business on the subject property is con-
sistent with the findings above as described in the following report.
Zoning and Comprehensive Plan
The parcel at 8235 97th Street South is located within the Cottage Grove Business Park and is
zoned I-1, General Industry. Manufacturing, production, testing, or processing of cannabis, whole-
sale with product on-site, warehousing, and cultivation (indoor or outdoor) are all conditional uses
in the I-1 District.
Existing Conditions
The site consists of a single structure. The east portion of the structure was constructed in 2015,
and the west addition was constructed in 2022. No changes to the structure footprint or parking
area are proposed with this conditional use permit request.
Existing Site
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt
Leafline Labs, LLC – Conditional Use Permit
April 9, 2025
Page 5 of 15
State of Minnesota Cannabis Requirements
Minnesota Statute 342 was passed in 2023 and amended in 2024 creating an adult use cannabis
market. This includes the creation of the Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) which now over-
sees the cannabis licensing and enforcement process including adult use cannabis, medical can -
nabis, and lower-potency hemp edibles. OCM has also been tasked with rulemaking to establish
final state regulations governing the adult-use cannabis market. Draft rules have been published
and OCM has enacted “expedited review” of those rules. It is anticipated these rules will be
formally adopted in April 2025.
There are thirteen cannabis license types recognized by the State. Leafline is proposing to tran -
sition to a “Medical Cannabis Combination Business” (Med Combo) license wherein the business
may cultivate cannabis and manufacture cannabis and hemp products, and package such prod-
ucts for sale to customers, patients, or another licensed cannabis business. The application win -
dow for adult use cannabis operations closed on March 14, 2025. Med Combo businesses are
not a capped license type (where only a specifi c number of licenses will be issued across the
state); therefore, upon a successful preliminary process with OCM, Leafline may obtain local gov -
ernment zoning approvals. After the local government confirms a business meets all local zoning
regulations and other local rules/ordinances, OCM will perform a full pre-license inspection. If the
inspection passes, the Applicant must pay license fees to the State of Minnesota. After fees are
received the business will be a fully licensed cannabis business. Leafline is one of only two
licensed medical cannabis manufacturing operators in the state and does not foresee any issues
obtaining preliminary approval from OCM.
City of Cottage Grove Cannabis Ordinance Requirements
City Code Title 11-4-18 details Cannabis Uses and Lower-Potency Hemp Edible Uses perfor-
mance standards.
E. Indoor Cultivation: Any cannabis or lower-potency hemp cultivation that involves indoor culti-
vation in an enclosed building must comply with the following:
1. A minimum of twenty (20) contiguous acres is required if located in the I -1 or I-2 zoning
districts.
The property in question is approximately 21.84 acres and is zoned I -1.
2. The buildings must be setback a minimum of three hundred feet (300’) from the property
lines.
The business operates in an existing structure currently used for medical cannabis growing, pro -
cessing, and manufacturing. The existing structure is approximately 76 feet from the south prop -
erty line and approximately 105 feet from the north property line at its closest points. These
distances exceed the minimum I-1 setback of 60 feet from rear property lines and 50 feet from
front yard property lines. The building is considered an existing non-conformity since Title 11-8-
18 standards were adopted after the building was constructed; no footprint changes are proposed.
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt
Leafline Labs, LLC – Conditional Use Permit
April 9, 2025
Page 6 of 15
Existing Setbacks
3. There must be a landscaped or screened buffer within the setback area which may
consist of a berm, trees, or combination thereof.
The site was developed between 2015 and 2022 including planting 158 trees, preservation of
existing trees, and planting over 200 shrubs. No additional landscaping is proposed. The site
contains a well-established vegetative buffer on the north, south, and east sides. Trees and
shrubs were planted northwest of the building during the 2022 expansion. There is no landscaped
or screened buffer on the west side of the property. It was determined in 2022 that there was not
enough room outside of the utility easement for trees.
2022 Site Restoration Plan
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt
Leafline Labs, LLC – Conditional Use Permit
April 9, 2025
Page 7 of 15
4. If greenhouses or hoop houses are allowed in the zoning district, interior lighting and
ventilation conditions may be imposed as part of the conditional use permit.
The applicant is not proposing to use greenhouses or hoop houses at this time. Any future use of
greenhouses or hoop houses must be considered as an amendment to any conditional use permit
issued.
F. Manufacturing, Production, Testing, or Processing of Cannabis Wholesale (if products stored
on-site), Warehousing must comply with the following performance standards:
1. No exterior storage is allowed, including storage of products in semis or trailers that are
parked outside of an enclosed building.
No exterior storage is proposed. The existing conditional use permit also contains Condition #5
which states, “Outdoor storage of containers, pallets, waste/recycle containers, etc. are prohib -
ited.” This condition is included as part of this conditional u se permit.
2. All mechanical, odor suppression equipment, and trash enclosures must comply with
City Code Sections 11-3-8 and 11-3-9.
Any new mechanical or odor suppression equipment must comply with these standards. No trash
enclosure changes are proposed. The existing conditional use permit also contains Condition #14
which states, “All mechanical and odor suppression equipment and tra sh enclosures must be
screened as required in City Code Title 11, Chapter 6, Section 3, Solid Waste Storage and Title
11, Chapter 6, Section 4, Screening Requirements”. This condition is included as part of this con -
ditional use permit.
G. Performance Standards:
1. Hours of operation for retail sales of cannabis or lower-potency hemp edible products
are permitted from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., seven (7) days a week. Retail sales of
lower-potency beverages at on-sale intoxicating liquor establishments or off-sale exclu-
sive liquor stores with a valid city registration and state license are permitted during the
hours of operation associated with the intoxicating liquor establishment.
The Applicant is not proposing to conduct retail sales on the property and is not a licensed liquor
establishment.
2. On-sale intoxicating liquor establishments and off-sale exclusive liquor stores with a
current lower-potency hemp edible city registration and a state license may sell lower -
potency hemp edible beverages but no other lower-potency hemp edible products.
The business is not an on-sale or off-sale liquor establishment.
3. No cannabis or lower-potency hemp edible use is allowed as part of an Adult Use
Establishment, as defined in City Code Section 3-14-2.
The business is not an adult use establishment.
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt
Leafline Labs, LLC – Conditional Use Permit
April 9, 2025
Page 8 of 15
4. No retail sales are allowed in the Agricultural or Industrial zoning districts.
The Applicant does not propose to conduct retail sales on-site.
5. No on-site consumption is allowed in the Agricultural or Industrial zoning districts.
The Applicant does not propose to have on -site consumption.
6. Cannabis and lower-potency hemp edible uses shall not violate federal laws, state laws,
or any provisions of City Code. Cannabis and lower-potency hemp edible uses shall
not be a public nuisance or violate Chapter 4, Section 8 regarding odors. The city may
impose odor suppression or odor mitigation conditions as part of the conditional use
permit.
The business has been the subject of various odor complaints since construction of their expan -
sion. The Applicant hired an outside consultant, Byers Scientific, to conduct an odor assessment
in February 2025. The consultant recommended various mitigation measures which the Applicant
intends to utilize. Odor mitigation is discussed in more detail below. Conditions regarding odor
mitigation are also included in the recommendation.
7. Distance Restrictions: Distances from a cannabis use or lower -potency hemp edible
use are measured from the storefront of a cannabis or lower-potency hemp edible retail
use to the property line of all other cannabis or lower-potency hemp edible uses:
a. There must be at least 1,000 feet between each cannabis or lower-potency hemp
edible use.
The business in question is over 3,500 feet from the nearest cannabis or lower -potency hemp
edible use (Grove Tobacco, 8599 West Point Douglas).
b. The location of all cannabis uses must comply with the following:
i. More than 1,000 feet from a school as measured from property line of the
school to the cannabis business.
The property is 3,647 feet from the nearest school (South Washington Alternative Learning
Center, 8400 East Point Douglas).
ii. More than 500 feet from a day care that is in the B-1, B-2, B-3, PB, or MU
zoning districts as measured from property line of the day care to the
cannabis business.
The property is over 3,500 feet from the nearest day care in the B-1, B-2, B-3, PB, or MU Districts
(KinderCare Daycare Center, 8453 East Point Douglas).
iii. More than 500 feet from a residential treatment facility, as measured from
the property line of the facility to the cannabis business.
The property is not within 500 feet of any residential treatment facilities.
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt
Leafline Labs, LLC – Conditional Use Permit
April 9, 2025
Page 9 of 15
iv. More than 500 feet from an attraction within a public park that is regularly
used by minors, such as, but not limited to a playground, athletic field,
athletic court, picnic area or permanent restrooms, pavilion or park build-
ing, disc golf features, as measured from the location of the public park
attraction to the cannabis business.
The business is not located within 500 feet of any of these features. The nearest parks are Denzer
Park (10270 Hadley Avenue) and Pine Glen Park (9701 Hamlet Avenue).
c. Outdoor and indoor cultivation must be more than 1,000 feet from a residential
zoning district or residential use as measured from the cannabis use property
line to the property line of the nearest residential zoning district or residential
use.
The property is over 2,000 feet from residential zoning districts and uses.
d. Manufacturing, production, testing, or processing of cannabis, wholesale (if
products stored on-site) or warehousing must be setback a minimum of 1,000
feet from a residential zoning district or residential use as measured from the
cannabis use property line to the property line of the nearest residential zoning
district or residential use.
The property is over 2,000 feet from the nearest residential zoning district or use.
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt
Leafline Labs, LLC – Conditional Use Permit
April 9, 2025
Page 10 of 15
1. Signage restrictions
No signage changes are proposed with this conditional use permit. Any sign changes will be re -
viewed for compliance with City Code.
2. Cannabis uses must meet the minimum parking requirements for each type of use as
stated in City Code 11-3-4. If there is a combination of cannabis uses at the same
location, the use that requires the largest number of spaces must be met.
In 2014, 102 parking spaces were constructed on -site where 111 were required (11-3-9: 1 space
required per 250 square feet of office space, 1 space per 400 square feet of manufacturing space,
and 4 spaces plus 1 space per 2,000 square feet of warehousing). The reduction in spaces was
approved given the minimal traffic to the site and proof of parking was submitted to ensure addi -
tional parking could be added if necessary. In 2022, 15 additional parking spaces were to be
added with the Phase I expansion and proof of parking for 55 stalls was provided. No additional
parking must be added with this conditional use permit as the footprint is not changing and the
scope of activity on site is not changing.
3. A security plan must be submitted to and approved by the Director of Public Safety to
address security issues in order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. The
security plan must include, but is not limited to addressing issues surrounding pa rking,
traffic, securing of monetary transactions, building security and alarm systems both in -
ternal and external, screening, lighting, window and door placement, landscaping, age
verification devices, and hours of operation.
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt
Leafline Labs, LLC – Conditional Use Permit
April 9, 2025
Page 11 of 15
This is included as a recommended condition. The State’s draft rules proposed for adoption in -
clude required security measures that will be verified by OCM. Security measures and specific
standards are included for alarm systems, video surveillance, lighting, locks, and an immediate
response protocol that must be initiated within 30 minutes after a security event occurs. Cannabis
businesses must also establish protocols for testing and maintaining security measures at least
once every 90 days by a contracted outside resource and promptly repair any deficiencies. Secu-
rity measures must also be implemented to protect business assets, facilities, regulated products,
workers, visitors, and the community. Cannabis businesses must develop and implement security
measures to guard against theft and diversion of cannabis clones, plants, seedlings, flower, plant
parts, concentrates, and products.
City of Cottage Grove Registration Requirements
City Code Title 3-13, Cannabis Business and Lower-Potency Hemp Edible Business Regulations,
was adopted in 2024. With the legislative and statutory changes, local units of government in
Minnesota must verify cannabis businesses comply with local zoning regulations before OCM will
issue a license. In Cottage Grove, all businesses licensed by the OCM must register with the city.
Registrations are issued upon City Council approval. The Applicant must be in compliance with
Title 3-13 and all zoning requirements, pay the registration fee, be current on all property taxes
and assessments, have a state license issued by OCM, and be current on payment of all other
City fees and charges. Under City of Cottage Grove rules, only after OCM issues a license will a
local registration be brought to the City Council for approval. This approval must be obtained
before commencing operations.
The registration term runs concurrently with the business’ state license term and if the state li -
cense is suspended, revoked, or terminated the City’s registration shall also be suspended,
revoked, or terminated. All registered businesses must be open to inspection by local law enforce-
ment or other authorized city official during regular business hours. City registrations must be
annually renewed. Before renewal, the city may enter and inspect the business to ensure compli-
ance with zoning ordinance, state laws, and Title 3-13.
Odor Mitigation
As a part of the CUP approval in 2014, the Applicant indicated they would provide appropriate
odor mitigation control system as well as an odor mitigation plan. The system they installed in-
cluded a carbon filter within their exhaust system to avoid noxious odors or creating dangers to
people within the vicinity. The odor mitigation plan requires monitoring of odor in three locations:
within the exhaust stack, just outside the building, and a t the property line. The mitigation plan
also allows the city the ability to take odor measurements at any time within the facility or property.
The Applicant is required to notify the city if a nasal ranger reading is above 2 dilution-to-threshold
(D/T, odor concentration in the air) or “a just noticeable odor” is detected at either location 2 or 3
on the below monitoring location map. If a nasal ranger reading is at or above 4 D/T, the property
owner is required to replace the carbon filters as a part of the odor mitigation system. The required
monitoring locations were not updated upon completion of the building expansion in 2022.
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt
Leafline Labs, LLC – Conditional Use Permit
April 9, 2025
Page 12 of 15
Monitoring Location Map 2022
City staff has fielded multiple
odor complaints related to the fa-
cility and the operations since
construction of the expansion in
2022. Leafline staff have contin-
ued to conduct nasal ranger
readings on a regular basis;
however, readings submitted to
the city have indicated no odors
present. The Applicant hired
Byers Scientific to conduct a site
visit in February 2025 and ana-
lyze existing odor mitigation
equipment and processes and give recommendations for improvements. Some mitigation
measures were identified that will be addressed immediately including turning off economizer
mode on rooftop air recirculation units and inspecting each RTU or air handling unit to ensure it
is also not operating in economizer mode, installing a meteorological station providing real-time
hyper-localized weather conditions, ensure exhaust from vacuum pumps in oil processing labor -
atory are plumbed to the existing exhaust system which is currently treated with molecular filtra -
tion, and take exhaust out of service in the sanitation room if it is not necessary or install molecular
filtration. Leafline will also be establishing an Odor Task Force to conduct proactive inspections
of engineering controls and areas where air is released from the bu ilding and immediately assem-
bling in response to community odor observations and conducting a thorough investigation.
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt
Leafline Labs, LLC – Conditional Use Permit
April 9, 2025
Page 13 of 15
Leafline Filtration Systems February 19, 2025
Some longer term recommendations were also included such as outfitting Reception 112 with two
small molecular filtration recirculation systems to remove odor prior to any release via the front
entry, installing two molecular filtration units in the main hallway to remove odors at the source,
installing an updated molecular filtration system on the primary exhaust system, and utilizing
vapor-phase technology to treat emissions with a curtain of odor neutralizer. Each of these options
has a cost and lead time associated with obtaining equipment.
At this time, Leafline will install and enact equipment and processes that can be accomplished in
short order. As order lead times, installation timelines, and funding allows the Applicant will install
longer term odor mitigation measures. Conditions are included in this CUP regarding odor
mitigation.
Public Hearing Notices
The public hearing notice was published in the St. Paul Pioneer Press and mailed to the 8 property
owners within 500 feet of the property on March 13, 2025.
Planning Commission Meeting
The City’s Planning Commission reviewed and held a public hearing for the request at their March
24, 2025 meeting. One resident provided comment on the application. Below is a summary of the
inquiry and Planning Commission requests for clarification. The Commission unanimously (7-to-
0) voted to recommend approval of the application.
Public Inquiry:
• Will the operation use more water, wastewater, and energy with the proposed change in
operations?
o The Applicant stated that energy consumption, water, and wastewater use is still to
be determined because they are still working on finalizing plans for adult use can -
nabis and it will depend on supply and demand. All of the process is constantly
recirculating water in the room; nothing is evaporating to the outside atmosphere.
Planning Commission requests for clarification:
• Why is the number 7 used for the D/T when it is known that odors will still be present?
Should a smaller number be used to ensure no odors are present?
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt
Leafline Labs, LLC – Conditional Use Permit
April 9, 2025
Page 14 of 15
o The City Attorney stated that the company that developed the nasal ranger are
world-renowned scientific experts in the odor detection field. Their objective analysis
and measurements have withstood federal court of appeals scrutiny for constitution-
ality. Experts can testify to its effectiveness. Further clarification was added that
every property has an odor, and those odors could be deemed favorable or unfa -
vorable based on the individual. Everyone’s sense of smell is different and not
everyone can operate a nasal ranger if their sense of smell is too sensitive. There
needs to be an objective measurement; however, the facility will still smell. The City
Attorney noted just like all sound cannot be kept completely quiet, all smells cannot
be completely contained; however, there is a level of nuisance we measure it by. A
threshold of 0 would be unreasonable and unrealistic.
• Why were the Applicant’s readings showing no odor present when there were odor
complaints regarding the facility?
o The City Attorney noted that in 2014, the 7 D/T was not known and there was not
enough information about the nasal ranger itself or odor in 2014 compared to today.
We now know there can be an objective test, nasal rangers must be calibrated, and
operators must be certified. It is possible the results were being measured from lo-
cations where the odors were not as strong, appropriate levels may not have been
registering, or the equipment may not have been properly calibrated. An odor miti -
gation plan is a required condition of the CUP.
• Regarding the Performance Standards found in City Code, there are provisions for retail
sales; will Leafline be selling cannabis from their location?
o Staff clarified that Leafline does not propose to conduct retail sales on -site and retail
sales are prohibited in the Industrial Districts.
• What is the existing license the Applicant is currently operating under?
o Staff noted the Applicant currently operates as a pharmaceutical manufacturer
under the old City Code that was in place prior to 2024. They are licensed by the
State as a medical cannabis manufacturer/producer. The new license type was cre -
ated by State Statute in 2023 and is called Medical Cannabis Combination Busi -
ness. This term was added to City Code in 2024 and the activities are allowed as a
Conditional Use in the I-1 District.
• Is there a reason the map for odor monitoring locations shows two locations west of the
facility while winds in Cottage Grove are typically from the northwest towards the river?
o Staff clarified that the monitoring locations map was from 2014. The Applicant will
be required to measure from three property line locations as a condition of this CUP.
Their current monitoring locations were also right outside of their buildings when we
want odor to be mitigated at property lines.
• Is an increase in production expected once they can open to the adult use cannabis
market?
o The Applicant noted that they do expect to change some product sizes and quanti -
ties. They expect to convert the biomass they currently have into whatever the
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt
Leafline Labs, LLC – Conditional Use Permit
April 9, 2025
Page 15 of 15
saleable mix will look like. They are still waiting for state rules to be finalized to
determine what the mix will be, what the license will look like, and what demand will
be.
• Are there any regulations on how much of the biomass can be cultivated/produced?
o The Applicant noted that the State has a limitation as to how much can be manu -
factured and produced, and there is a canopy cap from the State that they cannot
go above.
• Where will the meteorological station be installed?
o The Applicant stated it will be installed outside on -site.
• Would the amount of medical product produced be negatively impacted if demand for adult
use cannabis exceeds demand for medical cannabis?
o The Applicant stated that the State has implemented a ratio for the amount of adult
use cannabis that can be produced by their facility that is based on the amount of
medical cannabis that is produced. There is also a limit as to how much cannabis
can be produced for adult use at their facility. There is a requirement that they must
continue to sell medical cannabis.
Recommendation
That the City Council adopt Resolution 2025-061 rescinding prior conditional use permit and site
plan resolutions and approving the Conditional Use Permit for a Medical Cannabis Combination
Business at 8235 97th Street South.
W RITER’S D IRECT D IAL N O .: (9 52) 746-2 187
E -M AIL:CMOSS@HJLAWFIRM.COM
March 24, 2025
Samantha Pierret, AICP VIA EMAIL ONLY
Senior Planner
City of Cottage Grove
12800 Ravine Parkway
Cottage Grove, MN 55016
spierret@cottagegrovemn.gov
Re: Conditional Use Permit Application, LeafLine Labs
Our File No.: 37087.0002
Dear Ms. Pierret:
I write to provide a summary of LeafLine’s security plans for the Cottage Grove facility. As part
of its application for a medical/business combo license from the Office of Cannabis Management,
LeafLine recently submitted a security plan outlining its robust security plan in place since its
inception as a medical cannabis manufacturer. We are providing a summary rather than the plan
itself to keep certain sensitive information regarding security from becoming public information.
LeafLine’s Cottage Grove facility is not open to the public nor does it conduct any commercial or
monetary transactions at the location. Therefore, the safety plan is does not include provisions
relating to cash transactions or security involving members of the public. Its current plan satisfies
the applicable provisions of Minnesota Statute Chapter 342 and includes the following:
• 24/7 live monitoring through LeafLine’s electronic security system which includes recording
from internal and external cameras;
• State-of-the-art security system that has multiple different levels of signals from panic and
silent alarms to security motion sensors;
• Access control system that limits access to personnel via electronic keycard;
• Complete commercial fire alarm system;
• Commercial-grade doors and locks; and
• An auxiliary power source to ensure continued security measures in case of power outages.
LeafLine conducts audited routine inspections no less than every 30 days to ensure equipment is
in good working order. LeafLine’s security measures will be re-evaluated with the publication of
final regulations to ensure all regulatory requirements are met.
Samantha Pierret, AICP
March 24, 2025
Page 2
Very truly yours,
HELLMUTH & JOHNSON
Carol R. M. Moss
Attorney at Law
CRM/st
Enc.
W RITER’S D IRECT D IAL N O .: (9 52) 746-2 187
E -M AIL:CMOSS@HJLAWFIRM.COM
March 11, 2025
Samantha Pierret, AICP VIA EMAIL ONLY
Senior Planner
City of Cottage Grove
12800 Ravine Parkway
Cottage Grove, MN 55016
spierret@cottagegrovemn.gov
Re: Conditional Use Permit Application, LeafLine Labs
Our File No.: 37087.0002
Dear Ms. Pierret:
In response to your letter dated, February 27, 2025, please find enclosed and submitted on behalf
of LeafLine Labs:
• Byers Scientific Report dated March 11, 2025;
• Correspondence from LeafLine Labs, outlining its odor mitigation actions; and
• LeafLine Labs’ Odor Mitigation Team Plan.
LeafLine Labs’ correspondence outlines the immediate action it is taking based on Byers
Scientific’s recommendations, along with potential long-term actions. LeafLine Labs is committed
to working with Cottage Grove to ensure it meets the odor mitigation standard in the current CUP,
and in Ordinance § 4-8-1.B.
A representative from Byers Scientific will be in attendance at the March 24, 2025 meeting, along
with a representative from LeafLine Labs to answer and address the Planning Commission’s
questions or concerns.
Very truly yours,
HELLMUTH & JOHNSON
Carol R. M. Moss
Attorney at Law
CRM/st
Enc.
March 11, 2025
Mr. Deke Fischer
GTI Cottage Grove MN
8235 97th Street South
Cottage Grove, MN 55016
Re: Byers Scientific | Site Visit Report
Dear Mr. Fischer:
I am writing on behalf of KGM Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Byers Scientific (“Byers”) to briefly
outline observations from my site visit to GTI-Cottage Grove MN’s (“GTI-CG”) commercial cannabis
cultivation, processing and manufacturing facility in the City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota (the “City”)
(the “Facility”).
Please note that for purposes of this report, I will be using the term, “observation ,” in lieu of
the term, “complaint,” to remove any potential negative connotations about odor observations prior
to an investigation and determination of the source of the alleged odor(s).
Background
On February 19, 2025, I conducted a site visit to the Facility in response to a request from
Green Thumb Industries Regional Director Jeff Armstrong. The request was driven by a pending
permit application for the Facility.
During the site visit, I met with representatives from Facilities Management, Ned Pierson,
Quality Control, and Ryan Winchester, as well as the Facility’s General Manager, Deke Fischer, to
better understand current odor enforcement, historical odor observations, as well as regulations
that the Facility is subject to. During this meeting, I learned the following:
o It was reported that community odor observations are not communicated consistently or in
a timely manner by the City. I was informed that the City does not adhere to a particular
SOP to communicate alleged odor observations and neither the address of the alleged
observer nor even a general geographic area is provided by the City, which would greatly
assist GTI-CG in its efforts to investigate odor observations.
o It was shared that there have been three (3) reported odor observations from City
enforcement in the last 90 days.
o Apparently, the most recent odor observation location was shared after a GTI-CG
representative asked for more information. The location was reported as being at
100th and 90th streets.
o GTI-CG is required to maintain an odor abatement plan (OAP) that was initially established
by the Facility’s former owner/operator, Leafline Industries. I confirmed with Facility
management that the OAP is actively managed. This appeared to be confirmed by inspecting
several Nasal Ranger logs.
o The OAP requires bi-monthly site walks with designated areas where a Nasal Ranger odor
detection device must be utilized and results documented. I understand that Ryan
Winchester has been trained by the City and is currently designated as the primary GTI-CG
contact to use and document results. It was shared that the threshold for compliance is a 2:1
ratio.
o It was shared with me that City enforcement does not use a Nasal Ranger, but rather their
agents use their noses and a 0 to 5 scale when deployed to investigate potential fugitive
odor. In my company’s experience, such scales can be very subjective and potentially
inaccurate.
o The City has apparently not offered any details about the three (3) recent odor observations
that have been received, only one of which was within the last three months. Unfortunately,
the time that has passed makes proper investigation of these claims nearly impossible.
o I learned that GTI-CG does not currently track hyper-localized meteorological conditions,
which is a crucial tool for a proper odor investigation.
o Finally, it was shared with me that a proposed residential construction project just south of
the Facility will become the closest group of potential residential odor receptors. The
engineering control recommendations set forth below consider this information.
Observations
While traveling via vehicle on 100th Street S with windows down, I detected cannabis-
related odor. Upon arrival at the Facility, I detected cannabis-related odor while on the east side of
the main parking lot corner as well as a faint and fleeting odor at the front door of the Facility. The
odor is best described as a combination of cultivation and extraction processes. The wind pattern in
the area at that time (based on anemometer readings) would support the detection of these odors
coming from the Facility.
While reviewing the rooftop units designed for air recirculation, it was discovered that
some may be programmed to operate in economizer mode. While this mode provides excellent
energy savings, it also exhausts interior air directly outside. Depending on the area served (e.g.,
cultivation, drying), this could result in the potential for significant odor release. Economizer mode
is typically activated in late spring, early summer, and early fall. While it may not be the cause of the
most recent odor observations, it could have contributed to past observations. Verifying that these
units are not programmed to switch to economizer mode is recommended.
As part of the site inspection, I reviewed the Facility’s mechanical design plans to better
understand intended airflow, including adjustments for temperature and relative humidity. The
Facility employs a common approach for cannabis operations, with approximately 95% of the air
recirculated through dedicated rooms and corridors. There are two (2) primary exhaust sources—
one treated with a molecular filtration unit and the other untreated.
I was given a complete tour of the Facility. I visibly inspected the interior construction of the
building, including how walls are finished and connected to the roof deck as well as how the various
corridors and areas of the building are connected to each other. I observed the structure and
interior envelop of the Facility to be in a such condition that it would not appear to present
opportunity for excessive odorous emissions.
Engineering Controls
As noted above, GTI-CG currently has an engineering control on the primary exhaust system
with a cartridge-style prefilter and molecular filtration housing. The molecular filtration housing
design indicates an understanding of the requirement to slow down air flow to increase residence
time with the activated carbon media. This is a critical variable allowing odorous compounds
sufficient opportunity to be adsorbed by the media. With that said, the current activated carbon
media selection is not optimal for cannabis-related odor and does not allow for third-party testing
and verification of remaining life. Such testing helps operators proactively manage the engineering
control to reduce both waste and the opportunity for odor break through due to saturated media.
Air Sampling
Byers recommended GC/MS analysis of a series of air samples to establish baseline odor
concentrations from the identified primary sources at the Facility and to assess the effectiveness of
existing engineering controls. One set of air samples was collected from the decarboxylation
exhaust before the molecular filtration unit and another sample was taken post-filtration, as shown
below.
It is important to note that other intake sources connected to the main exhaust were not sampled or
accounted for in this sampling event. Additionally, exterior air samples at the exhaust point could
not be taken due to subfreezing temperatures. Byers is coordinating with GTI-CG to schedule the
remaining air samples as soon as possible. The results of the air sample analysis are pending with
an independent third-party laboratory and will be provided upon receipt.
Air Balance
During the site visit, I conducted a series of field tests throughout the Facility utilizing a
handheld anemometer. The below readings are in feet per minute.
The extraction room was demonstrating a
net neutral environment which is good.
However, cannabis-related odors were
perceivable outside of the lab. Additional
engineering controls have been
recommended to sequester these odors.
The solventless room had a negative
pressure reading inside the room and is
not currently considered a primary odor
source. Byers is not currently
recommending engineering controls for
this room.
Additional air balance findings worth noting:
• Flower Room 4 had a very strong interior odor but anemometer readings to the
hallway had a net neutral reading and there was no real detectable odor of
flowering or cultivation activities in the main hall.
• The emergency exit that sits along the West wall as part of building B demonstrated
negative pressure in the hallway. It appeared to be drawing in about 400 to 500
feet/minute into the building.
• Dry Room 3 had a net neutral reading and exhibited more of a greenery/plant-based
odor.
Recommendations
Based on the site visit, below are Byers’ preliminary recommendations for the Facility include the
following:
Positive pressure from building B to
building A at a rate of about 216 feet per
minute was observed. This imbalance
creates an opportunity for cultivation
odor to be pushed into building A, which
is currently dedicated to oil
processing/extraction. This further
supports the deployment of additional
molecular filtration in the hallway
Immediately Actionable
1. The Facility could benefit from establishing an internal Odor Task Force composed of
representatives from operational departments that may contribute to internal odor sources or
emissions released from the building.
Task Force Responsibilities:
The Odor Task Force would be responsible for:
• Conducting proactive inspections of engineering controls and areas where air is released
from the building.
• Immediately assembling in response to community odor observations and conducting a
thorough investigation.
Recommended Investigation Process:
If an odor observation is reported, the task force could take the following steps:
a. Review Operational Activities:
o Recap all activities and standard operating procedures (SOPs) before, during,
and after the time of the odor observation to identify potential contributors.
b. Inspect Engineering Controls:
o Verify the proper operation of all engineering controls at the time of the odor
observation.
o Confirm that systems have been maintained according to protocol.
c. Analyze Meteorological Conditions:
o Assess wind direction and speed before, during, and after the odor observation.
o Determine if meteorological conditions support the reported odor observation
(e.g., whether the alleged receptor was upwind or downwind).
d. Document Findings:
o Compile a short report summarizing all findings.
o Submit the report internally and, if directed by compliance/legal, provide it to
the City as part of the Facility’s commitment to regulatory compliance and
community engagement.
By implementing this initiative, GTI-CG would demonstrate a proactive approach to odor
management, regulatory compliance, and community responsibility.
*As part of the post site inspection meeting, it was reported that GTI will implement this
recommendation ASAP
2. The Facility should be outfitted with a meteorological station providing real-time hyper-
localized weather conditions with WI-FI remote monitoring capability. Such a unit should allow
GTI-CG to track meteorological conditions over set periods of time, so that in the event of a
reported odor observation, GTI-CG can understand whether the alleged odor receptor was
upwind or downwind at the exact time of the alleged odor observation. Below is an option for
such a weather station.
a. https://www.amazon.com/Ambient-Weather-WS-2000-Station-
Monitoring/dp/B07GRBY9NP/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.4gYOLNBSOtAqkk9tz
YTIzKfMwQiC65R1Bn-FUfr4H3m0e3WyK8coCwsaqGLYdl14I9k9W0-
Oq9hKSeiN7PhfsWuvupT6nz2qV2HKEdjfdz6Xc1d5d4QsuXNrlBX-
GHkEF_VoIpudqZ21mGJj0q8NveSBaHtOKQVUmFG_LjzwgwpeovZ4XBtSdwmQlr1So6Mi
RMULnK6O_tAFo9RsL2bdMgy47jcn_vXEYbXWb-
PDynbGdGRo3sOSMhPzydern5jNr2kWboSg2ReyN7Az2GCn7aAWSdayK1bKwKAZM1A
PkXY.pcsjNVFU8VDfG-
atFo3AIDEKD9MAyGMkHLVWS80WkyU&dib_tag=se&keywords=wifi%2Bweather%2B
station&qid=1740527621&sr=8-1-spons&sp_csd=d2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9hdGY&th=1
*As part of the post site inspection meeting, it was reported that GTI will implement this
recommendation ASAP
3. There are three (3) vacuum pumps that are currently operating in the oil processing laboratory
that are venting inside the lab. The exhaust from these pumps is known to contain microscopic
oil droplets that not only contribute to a foul odor inside the lab, but are also generally
considered to pose a potential inhalation hazard. Byers recommends the exhaust from these
units is plumbed to the existing exhaust system which is currently treated with molecular
filtration.
*As part of the post site inspection meeting, it was reported that GTI will implement this
recommendation ASAP
4. Each RTU or air handling unit should be inspected to verify that it is not programmed to
operate in economizer mode. As discussed in more detail above, generally speaking,
economizer mode allows the unit to use outside air to cool the area and in the process, allows
warmer air from inside the building interior to be exhausted outside, releasing any potential
odors with it.
*As part of the post site inspection meeting, it was reported that GTI will implement this
recommendation ASAP
5. The sanitation room has a dedicated exhaust, which does not have an engineering control. This
exhaust should be taken out of service if it is not necessary or in the alternative, inline
molecular filtration should be added.
*As part of the post site inspection meeting, it was reported that GTI will implement this
recommendation ASAP
Longer Term
6. Reception 112 should be outfitted with two (2) small molecular filtration recirculation systems
designed to remove odor prior to any release via the front entry.
*Due to supply chain constraints, lead time is estimated at 16 weeks. Byers is actively
seeking an alternative molecular filter with the same capabilities for these applications.
7. Due to the concentrated odors generated in the oil processing and extraction rooms, Byers
recommends strategically placing two (2) MT-2 Molecular Filtration units in the main hallway.
These units will operate 24/7 to capture and remove odors at the source, preventing migration
throughout the facility. Additionally, the main building exhaust system (item #7), which also
operates 24/7, will serve as a supplemental engineering control to further mitigate odor
dispersion.
*Lead time is estimated at 90 days after receipt of down payment
8. The primary exhaust system for the Facility needs an updated molecular filtration system.
Given the number of inputs and variability of potential concentration of odorous gases in the
exhausted air stream, Byers is recommending a dual engineering control. This design would
allow for molecular filtration to address as much odor as possible prior to the heat recovery
system, and then an additional identical molecular filtration system post-heat recovery system
for a second treatment of air prior to exhaust to atmosphere. These molecular filtration systems
would be slightly oversized to reduce face velocity, increase residence time, and optimize the
potential removal of odorous gases for both systems.
*Lead time is estimated at 25-30 days after receipt of down payment.
9. Finally, as an additional odor control measure, Byers is recommending deployment of its
patented vapor-phase technology at an agreed upon location on the exterior of the Facility.
Vaporized odor neutralizer would be distributed via 6” pipe running up the side of the building
that will feed a ported piping network designed to encircle the Facility roof such that all
emissions would be treated with a curtain of odor neutralizer.
*Lead time is estimated at 90 days after receipt of down payment.
Please let me know if you or anyone from your company has any questions or concerns regarding
the above. Otherwise, please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss how your
company would like to proceed.
Sincerely,
Josh Rembusch
Vice President
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2025-061
A RESOLUTION RESCINDING PRIOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN
RESOLUTIONS AND APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A MEDICAL
CANNABIS COMBINATION BUSINESS LOCATED AT 8235 97TH STREET SOUTH
WHEREAS, Leafline Labs, LLC (“Leafline”) was granted a conditional use permit (CUP)
and site plan approval on September 17, 2014 (Resolution No. 2014 -088) for the construction of
an approximately 43,7000 square foot pharmaceutical manufacturing and processing facility that
produces medical cannabis pharmaceutical products on property legally described as:
Block 1, Lot 1 GLENGROVE INDUSTRIAL PARK 4TH ADDITION, Cottage Grove,
Washington County, State of Minnesota
Commonly known as 8235 97th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota ; and
WHEREAS, in 2015, pursuant to the approved CUP and Site Plan, Leafline constructed a
41,289 square foot building; and
WHEREAS, Leafline applied for a new CUP and Site Plan, which was granted on February
19, 2020 (Resolution No. 2020-027) which rescinded Resolution 2014-088, acknowledged the
original building construction and approved the construction of a 134,000 square foot greenhouse
addition to the original building; and
WHEREAS, instead of constructing the greenhouse addition, Leafline applied for an
amendment to Resolution No. 2020-027, which was granted on May 4, 2022 (Resolution No.
2022-075) to allow for the construction of a traditional building style instead of a greenhouse, but
authorized a larger 134,000 square foot addition, which was to be constructed in two phases; and
WHEREAS, in 2022, pursuant to Resolution 2022-075, Leafline constructed a 70,937 square
foot addition, but did not complete the second phase of the addition as contemplated in Resolution
2022-075; and
WHEREAS, Leafline now desires to operate a Medical Cannabis Combination Business,
pursuant to Minnesota Statute Ch. 342, which allows one business to manufacture both medical
cannabis and adult-use cannabis; and
WHEREAS, Leafline does not propose to expand the existing building and will be operating
within the current building footprint, therefore, the City desires to rescind the prior CUP and Site Plan
Resolutions (Resolution No. 2020-027 and Resolution No. 2022-075) and approve a new CUP to be
clear that the CUP is for a Medical Cannabis Combination Business (medical and adult-use
cannabis) which will operate within the existing Site Plan and a building footprint of 112,226 square
feet with updated and relevant conditions to protect the public health, safety and general welfare,
including conditions such as, but not limited to, odor mitigation and security; and
WHEREAS, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the
property and a public hearing notice was published in the St. Paul Pioneer Press; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 24, 2025; and
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
City Council Resolution 2025-061
Page 2
WHEREAS, a planning staff report, which detailed specific information on the property and
the application request was prepared and presented; and
WHEREAS, the public hearing was open for public testimony and testimony from the
applicant and the public was received and entered into the public record; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission unanimously (7-to-0 vote) recommended approval
of the conditional use permit, subject to certain conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove,
Washington County, Minnesota, hereby approves the conditional use permit for a Medical
Cannabis Combination Business at 8235 97th Street South, based on the following findings of
fact:
A. The proposed Medical Cannabis Combination Business is a conditional use in the I-1,
General Industry District.
B. All minimum and maximum development regulations for the I-1 District are complied with.
C. The use as a Medical Cannabis Combination Business for the subject site is consistent
with the “industrial” land use designation in the City’s adopted Future Vision 2030
Comprehensive Plan and the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the approval of the conditional use permit is subject to the
following conditions:
1. No retail sales shall take place on site.
2. No adult use cannabis products shall be cultivated, manufactured, processed, or stored
on-site until a license is approved by the State of Minnesota Office of Cannabis
Management (“OCM”) and Leafline has registered the business with the City of Cottage
Grove in accordance with City Code Title 3-13. City registration shall be renewed annually
as required in City Code Title 3-13-9. Leafline will provide the City with a copy of its OCM
license.
3. Leafline shall maintain its license in good standing with OCM as a Medical Cannabis
Combination Business in order to continue to operate pursuant to this CUP.
4. Leafline shall apply for and obtain an air permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, if applicable and provide the City with a copy of its air permit, if applicable.
5. Based on the Byers Scientific report completed on March 11, 2025, Leafline must enter
into an odor mitigation plan as approved by the Community Development Director within
45 days of approval of a CUP or June 15, 2025, whichever comes first. The odor
mitigation/maintenance plan shall include the following information:
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
City Council Resolution 2025-061
Page 3
Facility Information
• Name and address of facility and mailing address of facility, if different from physical
address
• Name, phone number, and email address for facility owner
• Name, phone number, and email address of primary contact for facility operator
• Facility type and license type
• Facility hours of operation
• General description of facility operations
• Emergency contact information
Facility Odor Emissions Information
• Facility Floor Plan
o A facility floor plan with locations of odor-emitting activities and emissions
specified.
o Relevant information may include but is not limited to, the locations of doors,
windows, ventilation systems, and odor sources.
• Specific Odor-Emitting Activities
o Description of the odor-emitting activities or processes that take place at the
facility, the sources of those odors, and the locations from which they are
emitted.
• Phases of Odor-Emitting Activities
o Description of the phases of the odor-emitting activities that take place on the
facility with what frequency they take place, and the duration of the activities.
Odor Mitigation Practices
• Administrative Controls
o Procedural Activities
▪ Description of activities such as building management
responsibilities as it relates to odor mitigation practices.
o Staff Training Procedures and Frequency of training for odor
mitigation.
o Recordkeeping Systems
▪ A description of the records that will be maintained (e.g.
records of purchases of replacement carbon filters,
performed maintenance tracking, documentation and
notification of malfunctions, monitoring of administrative
and engineering controls).
• Engineering Controls
o Provide evidence that engineering controls are sufficient to
effectively mitigate odors for all odor sources.
▪ Include evidence that engineering controls meet at least
one of the following:
• Controls are consistent with accepted and avail-
able industry-specific best control technologies
designed to effectively mitigate odors for all odor
sources; and/or
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
City Council Resolution 2025-061
Page 4
• Controls, as installed, have been reviewed and
certified by a professional engineer or certified
industrial hygienist.
o Components of engineering controls:
▪ System Design
• Leafline shall install all odor control technologies
that are identified in Byers Scientific report dated
March 11, 2025 at the facility and explain to which
odor-emitting activities, sources, and locations
they are applied.
• If not yet installed, provide dates by when all
equipment or technologies will be installed and
operational
▪ Operational Processes
• Describe the activities being undertaken to
ensure the odor mitigation system remains
functional, the frequency with which such activi-
ties are performed, and the roles/titles of the
personnel responsible for such activities.
▪ Maintenance Plan for odor mitigation controls
• Include a description of the maintenance
activities that are performed, the frequency with
which such activities will be performed, and the
roles/titles of the personnel responsible for
maintenance activities.
o Complaint tracking system:
▪ Explain an odor complaint response and tracking
system, including responsible staff, mechanism for
receiving odor-related complaints, how and by whom
such complaints will be addressed, and how the odor
complaint and response will be addressed.
6. Growing, manufacturing, or processing cannabis products must comply with all applicable
laws and shall not produce noxious or dangerous gases or odors or otherwise create a
danger to any person or entity in or near the manufacturer’s facilities. Leafline shall provide
to the City verification from a professional engineer or qualified industrial hygienist that the
facility provides appropriate odor control systems so as not to produce any noxious or
dangerous gases or odors or create any dangers to any perso n or entity in or near the
cannabis manufacturing and processing facility.
7. Odor monitoring using the Nasal Ranger – Field Olfactometer® (unless a similar testing
device is approved by the City) shall be conducted at three property line locations approved
by the City no less than daily and the data shall be provided to the City at the end of each
week. After a period of 12 consecutive months without a dilution -to-threshold ratio that
exceeds the limit of odor units allowed (as later described), Leafline may request that the
daily monitoring and weekly reporting requirements be reduced. Leafline shall conduct
additional odor monitoring immediately when odor complaints are received. Results of odor
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
City Council Resolution 2025-061
Page 5
monitoring in response to such complaints shall be promptly forwarded to the City. Dilution -
to-threshold ratio as measured at the property line shall not exceed 7 odor units or above.
8. Outdoor storage of containers, pallets, waste/recycle containers, etc. is prohibited.
9. Irrigation shall be provided for all sodded and mulched landscaped areas. Irrigation must
also be provided to each landscape island interior to the parking lot. The grass area for
that section of land abutting Renewal by Andersen’s private access road must be
maintained.
10. Leafline must allow City personnel to enter upon the property to maintain, re pair, and
inspect all public utility systems that exist on the property. Flushing the fire hydrant internal
to the site is the City’s responsibility.
11. All mechanical and odor suppression equipment and trash enclosures must be screened
as required in City Code Title 11-3-8, Trash Enclosures and Title 11-3-9, Mechanical Equip-
ment Screening Requirements.
12. A security plan must be submitted to and approved by the Cottage Grove Director of Public
Safety including all items required in Title 11-4-18 G 10 prior to beginning adult use
cannabis production activities. The security plan shall include a description of the following
information:
• Access Control: Describe how access points are secured and the procedures for
allowing access to the various access points; the procedures for removing access when
an employee leaves employment; the use of access codes and if so, how often are they
changed; compliance with Minn. Stat. §324.24 subd. 3 and the record-keeping
requirements for restricted areas
• Surveillance: The existence of a surveillance system, including the number of cameras
inside and outside the facility; the video storage length; whether or not the recordings
are date and time stamped; the existence of back-up batteries; maintenance check
protocol; notification for system failure or malfunction; capability of monitoring from on
and off-site; whether it is motion activated or active 24/7; the process for producing
copies of video to law enforcement immediately upon request.
• Alarms: General description of the security alarm system, including contact information
for the alarm company that installed, maintains and monitors the system; whether or
not it is motion activated; maintenance check protocol; how to detect employee theft
• Training: Description of security training provided to employees.
13. Leafline shall comply with all State of Minnesota Laws and Rules relating to medical and
adult-use cannabis.
14. All existing signage must comply with City Sign Ordinance regulations, and state
regulations . No additional signage shall be allowed as a part of this CUP approval.
City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota
City Council Resolution 2025-061
Page 6
15. All site lighting must comply with the existing photometric plan and meet City Code
requirements.
16. Resolution No. 2020-027 and Resolution No. 2022-075 are hereby rescinded. No
expansion of the existing 112,226 square foot building shall be allowed without Site Plan
Approval and compliance with City Ordinances.
Passed this 16th day of April 2025.
Myron Bailey, Mayor
Attest:
Tamara Anderson, City Clerk
1
City Council Action Request
13.A.
Meeting Date 4/16/2025
Department Finance
Agenda Category Action Item
Title 2026 Budget Workshop
Staff Recommendation Receive information regarding the 2026 Budget Workshop and
provide feedback to staff.
Budget Implication N/A
Attachments 1. CC memo council budget workshop 04162025
2. Equipment Requests 2025-2034
3. Bonds
4. ASSESSMENT REPORT 2025 (FINAL)
To:Mayor and City Council Members
Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator
From:Brenda Malinowski, Finance Director
Date:April 16, 2025
Subject:2026 Budget Workshop/Tax Levy direction
INTRODUCTION
The 2026 Budget process requires planning and consensus throughout the process to effectively evaluate the
service level impacts and property tax implications. This workshop will begin the 2026 budget process.
Property Tax Levy
Cottage Grove prepares a two-year operating budget to allow a better ability to forecast revenue and
expenditure trends, and to understand the budget and property tax levy impacts over a two-year cycle.
Therefore, when the 2025 budget was prepared a preliminary 2026 budget was prepared in tandem. That 2026
preliminary 2026 budget contained a property tax levy increase of 12.93%. This property tax levy will certainly
change throughout the budget process as the budget is evaluated and refined. In addition, council budget
priorities and direction will have an impact on the property tax levy.
2024
Budget
2025
Budget
2026
Proposed
General Fund Operating Levy $18,567,010 $21,667,300 $23,692,300
Public Safety/City Hall Levy 300,000 300,000 300,000
Equipment Replacement Levy 319,100 321,000 584,000
EDA Levy 275,000 137,500 187,500
Park Improvement Levy 190,000
Debt Levy $3,664,490 $3,564,800 $4,414,545
Total Property Tax Levy before HRA $23,125,600 $25,990,600 29,368,345
% Increase 12.39%13.00%
HRA Levy 137,500 137,500
Total Property Tax Levy $23,125,600 $26,128,100 $29,505,845
% Increase 12.98%12.93%
Assessment Report and Taxable Values
The 2025 Assessment Report has an increase of 6% in assessed values with 2.68% of this increase due to new
construction. Per the Assessment Report, the median home will increase in value by 3.9% from $354,500 to
$368,400. Preliminary Taxable Values will be released by the County in April. Until that time, very preliminary
assumptions are shown below regarding different changes in Tax Capacity with the increase of the property tax
levy of 12.93%.
Preliminary Values City Taxes on
Median Home
Increase from 2025
4% Tax Capacity Increase $1,439 $168
5% Tax Capacity Increase $1,432 $162
6% Tax Capacity Increase $1,418 $148
While the median home had been estimated to increase by $130, that was based on an increase in taxable value
of 2%. The increase of 3.9% is causing a larger increase in city taxes on the median home. If the median home
had increased in value by 2% the impact at the 5% tax capacity increase would have been $130, or $117 at the 6%
tax capacity increase.
A 9.87% increase in the property tax levy at a 6% tax capacity increase is estimated to have an increase of $105
on the median home. For the 9.87% increase, the 2026 preliminary property tax levy would need to be lowered
by $800,000.
EDA and HRA Levy
Until 2025, the City had utilized the EDA levy for both EDA and redevelopment activities. Starting with the 2025
budget, a separate levy was approved for each activity. This occurred based on consensus to start increasing the
property tax levy for redevelopment and housing activities. For transparency to the taxpayer, it made sense to
include the development and housing activities in a separate HRA levy. Council and the EDA will need to
determine whether to increase the HRA levy. The 2025 HRA levy is $137,500.
One-time public safety aid
$1,733,090 in one-time public safety aid was received in 2023. These funds were identified to be utilized in the
2024 to 2026 budgets as detailed below. The aid granted the city opportunity to hire these positions in an
earlier budget cycle than would have been possible if the City had not received the one-time public safety aid.
Description 2024
Budget
2025
Budget
2026
Budget
Police Officers (2 FTE’s)$205,600 $116,000 $63,800
Firefighter/Paramedics (3 FTE’s)222,750 156,750 86,200
Fire staffing plan 64,000
Paramedic school for PT firefighters 36,000
Deputy Fire Chief 177,000 183,300
Standards of coverage study 50,000
Toughbook computers and watchguard 188,000 103,000 79,990
SCBA’s for fire 2,737
Total $680,350 $638,750 $414,027
However, there will be a property tax impact of adding these items to the property tax levy as the one-time
public safety aid is depleted. With the decline in this allocation, there will be an impact to the property tax levy
for both 2026 (.86%) and 2027 (1.5%).
Other Considerations
As in any budget process there are many initiatives and projects that must be considered as these items have an
impact to the levy. Items for Council to consider and prioritize include the following:
•Salaries for existing employees
o Labor contracts for all unions have been settled for 2026. The COLA of 3% and market
rate adjustment of 3% have been included in the 2026 property tax levy.
•Paid family and medical leave
o The state-administrated paid family and medical leave insurance will begin January 1,
2026, unless the state delays, modifies, or repeals this program. Currently, there are
not any exemptions for cities. While the leave program started with a contribution of
.7%, this amount has been increased .88% by DEED. 50% of this premium can be paid by
the employee and this has been included in the most recent union contracts. The
employer portion for the General Fund will need to be added to the property tax levy,
and the other operating budgets will need to add the expense for those premiums to
their budgets. Preliminary estimates for just the General Fund portion total over
$70,000. There is a private plan exemption for employers and the HR staff is
determining the cost of a private plan.
•Equipment Capital
o $2.9 million of equipment requests were submitted for 2026 during the 2025 budget
cycle. Available funding within the proposed property tax levy and equipment
certificates is only $1.5 million of this equipment.
•Additional employees
o No additional employees have been included in the 2026 budget.
•There are several 2026 projects that will require debt issuance. Not shown below is $1 million
(600,000 for pavement management and 400,000 for equipment) in bond premium from the
2025 bond issuance that can be used to “buy down” these bonds.
o 2026 Pavement Management (East Point Douglas (Inwood to CDS) & Kingsborough Trail
▪$3.5 million project with $2.9 million in debt issuance
o 100th Street Improvement (part of CSAH 19 & TH 61)
▪$2.8 million (this is the current city portion)
o Oltman park project
▪$3 million with $2.3 million in debt issuance.
o Equipment certificates
▪$1 million
o Assigned squads.
▪The assigned squad program began in 2024. The preliminary additional cost for
this program was estimated to be $20,000 per year.
•Other Budget Additions that are submitted by departments throughout the budget process.
•Other Council considerations.
Action Requested
City Council discussion and direction for the 2026 Budget.
Bond Issuance Amounts Identified in 2025-2029 CIP
Project 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Total
Water Tower 4,000,000 4,000,000
Pavement Management 2,453,000 2,909,000 2,801,000 3,026,000 4,085,000 15,274,000
CSAH 19 & TH 61 2,850,000 650,000 3,500,000
Shoppes at Cottage View 377,000 2,760,000 3,137,000
Harkness Avenue 938,000 938,000
Jamaica (Rose of Sharon to Military)3,000,000 3,000,000
Kingston Park 5,000,000 5,000,000
Oltman-lacrosse complex&parking lot 2,300,000 2,300,000
Equipment 1,920,000 1,080,000 560,000 3,560,000
Golf Irrigation Equipment 1,600,000 1,600,000
Total Bonds 9,973,000 9,139,000 9,011,000 6,403,000 7,783,000 42,309,000
ASSESSMENT
REPORT
2025
This report includes specific information regarding the 2025 assessment, as well
as general information about both the appeals and assessment processes.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 3
Sales Analysis Section ............................................................................................................................................... 4
Sales Analysis......................................................................................................................................................... 4
Sales Statistics Defined ........................................................................................................................................ 4
Arm’s-Length Transactions ................................................................................................................................. 6
Residential Lender-Mediated Sales ................................................................................................................... 8
County Sales Statistics by Classification ........................................................................................................ 10
Historic Average Sale Prices: Single Family & Townhome/Condo............................................................ 12
Past & Current Year Adjustments/Parcel Count Section ................................................................................ 13
Agricultural Class Summary: Current Year Adjustments ............................................................................ 13
Agricultural Class: Past & Current Year Adjustments ............................................................................. 14
Agricultural Class: Parcel Counts ................................................................................................................ 15
Apartment Class Summary: Current Year Adjustments ............................................................................. 16
Apartment Class: Past & Current Year Adjustments .............................................................................. 17
Apartment Class: Parcel Counts.................................................................................................................. 18
Commercial/Industrial Class Summary: Current Year Adjustments ........................................................ 19
Commercial/Industrial Class: Past & Current Year Adjustments ......................................................... 20
Commercial/Industrial Class: Parcel Counts............................................................................................. 21
Residential/SRR Class Summary: Current Year Adjustments .................................................................... 22
Residential/SRR Class: Past & Current Year Adjustments ..................................................................... 23
Residential/SRR Class: Parcel Counts ........................................................................................................ 24
Total Taxable Class Summary: Current Year Adjustments ......................................................................... 25
Total Taxable Class: Past & Current Year Adjustments .......................................................................... 26
Total Taxable Class: Parcel Counts ............................................................................................................. 27
Residential/SRR Class: Current Year Value Changes ................................................................................... 28
Market Value Section ............................................................................................................................................ 29
Distribution of Market Value by Classification ............................................................................................ 29
Median Values .................................................................................................................................................... 30
Historical Median Residential Improved Value: Residential/SRR ........................................................ 30
Historical Median Residential Improved Value: Townhomes/Condos ............................................... 31
Historical Median Residential Improved Value: Single Family ............................................................. 32
Single Family and Townhome/Condo breakdown .................................................................................. 33
Historical County Median Residential Improved Value (Data from page 30) .................................... 33
Other Assessment Related Information ............................................................................................................ 34
New Construction .............................................................................................................................................. 34
Current New Construction Starts: All Classifications .............................................................................. 34
Past & Current New Construction Starts: Single Family and Townhome/Condo .............................. 35
Historical New Construction Summary: All Classifications .................................................................... 36
Appraiser Activity: Permit & Quintile Review Counts ................................................................................ 37
Appraiser Activity: Tax Petition Related ....................................................................................................... 38
Tax Petitions: Number of Petitions Filed for Payable Years 2020-2024 .............................................. 39
Tax Petitions: Value Under Petitions Filed for Payable Years 2020-2024 ........................................... 39
Assessment Process: Statutory Requirements ............................................................................................. 40
Appeals Process ................................................................................................................................................. 42
Property Tax Calendar ...................................................................................................................................... 44
2025 Local Board & Open Book Meeting Schedule ..................................................................................... 46
3 | Page
INTRODUCTION
The Washington County Assessor Division has prepared this 2025 Assessment Report for use by
the County Board, City Councils, Town Boards, residents, and staff. This report includes specific
information regarding the 2025 assessment, as well as general information about both the
appeals and assessment processes.
Minnesota statutes establish specific requirements for the assessment of property. The law
requires that all real property be valued at market value, which is defined as the usual or most
likely selling price as of the January 2nd assessment date.
The estimated market values established through the 2025 assessment are based upon actual
real estate market trends of Washington County properties from October 1, 2023, through
September 30, 2024. From these trends, our mass appraisal system is used to determine
individual property values. Detailed discussion of the sales analysis can be found in the “Sales
Analysis” section of this report.
The summaries breaking down the adjustments made in each community, by property use, can
be found in the “Past and Current Year Adjustments/Parcel Count” section of this report.
Property owners who have questions or concerns regarding the estimated market value that has
been established for their property are encouraged to contact the property appraiser responsible
for their area. In most cases, an interior inspection of the property will be necessary. For detailed
discussion regarding the appeals period, please refer to the section of this report titled “Other
Assessment Related Information.”
Lisa Young, S.A.M.A.
Washington County Assessor
4 | Page
SALES ANALYSIS SECTION
Sales Analysis
The assessment function is governed by Minnesota State statute. The law requires that all real
property be valued at market value, which is defined as the usual or most likely selling price as of
the assessment date of January 2nd of each year. Assessors are historians and measure the
market based on sales which have occurred previous to the assessment date. Assessors do not
create the value or predict what the market will do; rather, the assessor’s job is to follow the
patterns set by the real estate market.
Information on the sales of real estate is of paramount importance to the assessors in a market-
based property tax system. Sales information is required to be submitted electronically using the
program developed by the Minnesota Department of Revenue. This program is known as the
Electronic Certificate of Real Estate Value (eCRV). The Department of Revenue requires all County
Assessors to utilize a specified time period for sales analysis. This time period of 12 months is
from October 1st through September 30th preceding the assessment date. Sales within this time
period will be used to determine the changes in assessed value that may be needed in each
community for the impending assessment.
For example, the sales that occurred between October 1, 2023, and September 30, 2024, are
used to establish the January 2, 2025, assessed values.
The assessor’s office is charged with setting estimated market values for tax purposes at actual
market value. The relationship between sales prices to estimated market value is called the sales
ratio. The target median ratio range is set by the assessor’s office for all Washington County
communities (for all classes of property); the range established for the 2025 assessment is 93%-
96%. We make every effort to make certain that each municipality in Washington County falls
within this range. In this way, we ensure an equitable distribution of the property tax burden for
all Washington County taxpayers.
Sales Statistics Defined
In addition to the median ratio, we have the ability to measure other statistics to test the accuracy
of the assessment. Some of these are also used at the state level. The primary statistics used are:
Median Ratio
This is a measure of central tendency. The median of a sample is the value for which one-half
(50%) of the observations (when stratified) will lie above that value and one-half will lie below
that value. The median is not susceptible to extreme observations referred to as outliers. We use
this ratio, much like the mean, not only to measure our assessment level, but also to analyze
5 | Page
property values by municipality, type of dwelling and value range. These studies enable us to
track market trends in neighborhoods, popular housing types and classes of property.
Arithmetic Mean Ratio
The mean is the average ratio. Unlike the median, the mean is influenced by outliers. We use this
ratio not only to measure our assessment level, but also to analyze property values by
municipality, type of dwelling and value range. These studies enable us to track market trends in
neighborhoods, popular housing types and classes of property.
Within the county, we strive to achieve a ratio within the 93%-96% range for the median and
mean. This allows us a margin to account for a fluctuating market and still maintain ratios within
state mandated guidelines.
Coefficient of Dispersion (COD)
The COD is used to measure the accuracy of the assessment. The COD indicates the spread of the
ratios from the mean or median ratio. The goal of a good assessment is a COD of 10 to 20. A COD
under 10 is considered excellent and anything over 20 will result in an assessment review by the
Department of Revenue.
Price-Related Differential (PRD)
The PRD is used to measure value related inequities in the assessment, referred to as regressivity
or progressivity. Appraised values are regressive if high value properties are under appraised
relative to low value properties and progressive if high value properties are over appraised
relative to the low value properties. The PRD is found by taking the mean (average) ratio of the
sample and dividing it by the weighted (aggregate) mean ratio. The acceptable range is .98 to
1.03.
6 | Page
Arm’s-Length Transactions
The Department of Revenue requires all County Assessors to utilize a specified time period in
their sales analysis. This time period is 12 months from October 1st through September 30th,
preceding the January 2nd assessment date. Sales within this time period will be used to
determine the changes in the prior years assessed values in each community for the impending
assessment.
The sales that occur within this October 1st through September 30th time period, each year, are
closely scrutinized by the appraisers within the Assessor Division. Evidence suggesting a forced
sale, foreclosure, a sale to a relative, or anything other than an arm’s-length transaction requires
the sales to be disqualified from the sales study. This is important, because the real estate sales
information constitutes the statistical basis for determining the annual adjustments that are
made to the valuation models.
An arm’s-length transaction is any transaction in which buyers and sellers of a product act
independently and have no relationship to each other. The concept of an arm's-length
transaction is to ensure that both parties in the deal are acting in their own self-interest and are
not subject to any pressure or duress from the other party.
The following graphs and charts show the number of arm’s-length transactions that occurred
within each sales period.
Sales Period 10/1/19-
9/30/20
10/1/20-
9/30/21
10/1/21-
9/30/22
10/1/22-
9/30/23
10/1/23-
9/30/24
ay2021 ay2022 ay2023 ay2024 ay2025
Apartment 10 10 6 5 7
Commercial 49 61 59 44 50
Residential 4,004 4,341 3,810 2,938 2,867
Single Family 2,719 2,996 2,621 1,981 1,939
Townhome/Condo 1,285 1,345 1,189 957 928
TOTAL 4,063 4,412 3,875 2,987 2,924
7 | Page
Residential/SRR (Seasonal Rec) sales count ay2021-ay2025
Sales Period 10/1/19-
9/30/20
10/1/20-
9/30/21
10/1/21-
9/30/22
10/1/22-
9/30/23
10/1/23-
9/30/24 Difference from
Previous Year
ay2021 ay2022 ay2023 ay2024 ay2025
Afton 36 34 24 20 25 5
Bayport 31 50 42 33 32 -1
Baytown 23 20 33 18 19 1
Birchwood 12 12 16 4 11 7
Cottage Grove 527 585 513 455 407 -48
Dellwood 12 18 14 13 18 5
Denmark 15 10 11 7 8 1
Forest Lake 267 290 300 212 209 -3
Grant 45 51 37 27 32 5
Grey Cloud 4 3 2 2 4 2
Hastings 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hugo 323 316 315 219 220 1
Lake Elmo 166 172 135 114 133 19
Lake St. Croix 17 12 16 6 13 7
Lakeland 22 25 23 17 10 -7
Lakeland Shores 1 3 3 2 1 -1
Landfall 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mahtomedi 113 117 100 67 76 9
Marine 15 14 9 5 14 9
May 36 30 32 15 28 13
Newport 43 48 55 32 24 -8
Oak Park Hgts 69 55 46 41 39 -2
Oakdale 391 404 388 333 310 -23
Pine Springs 5 4 5 1 1 0
St. Mary's Point 6 5 7 1 3 2
St. Paul Park 62 84 77 47 45 -2
Scandia 52 69 30 39 28 -11
Stillwater 344 363 308 200 233 33
Stillwater Twp 14 22 25 14 13 -1
West Lakeland 41 44 39 20 15 -5
White Bear Lake 2 4 1 3 2 -1
Willernie 13 12 13 5 9 4
Woodbury 1,297 1,465 1,191 966 885 -81
COUNTY 4,004 4,341 3,810 2,938 2,867 -71
8 | Page
Residential Lender-Mediated Sales
Foreclosures
Properties in which the financial institution has repossessed the home from the owner due to
non-payment of mortgage obligations.
Short Sales
Unique arrangements where the financial institution and in-default homeowner work together
in an attempt to sell the home before it is foreclosed upon.
In both situations, lenders are highly motivated “sellers”, which can result in discounted asking
prices as they attempt to move the assets quickly from the balance sheets. Lender mediated sales
are not used in the sales study.
4,004
4,341
3,810
2,938 2,867
54 22 6 35 29
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
ay2021 ay2022 ay2023 ay2024 ay2025
Comparison of Arm's-Length & Lender-Mediated Sales ay21-ay25
(Data from pages 7 & 9)
Arm's-Length Sales Lender-Mediated Sales
9 | Page
Residential Lender Mediated Sales Count ay2021-ay2025
Sales Period 10/1/19-
9/30/20
10/1/20-
9/30/21
10/1/21-
9/30/22
10/1/22-
9/30/23
10/1/23-
9/30/24
ay2021 ay2022 ay2023 ay2024 ay2025
Afton 0 0 0 3 0
Bayport 2 1 0 0 0
Baytown 0 0 0 0 0
Birchwood 0 0 0 0 0
Cottage Grove 9 2 1 2 5
Dellwood 0 0 0 0 0
Denmark 0 0 0 1 0
Forest Lake 5 1 2 2 6
Grant 3 2 0 1 1
Grey Cloud 0 0 0 0 1
Hastings 0 0 0 0 0
Hugo 2 2 1 0 0
Lake Elmo 2 0 0 0 0
Lake St. Croix 0 1 0 0 0
Lakeland 0 0 0 3 1
Lakeland Shores 0 0 0 0 0
Landfall 0 0 0 0 0
Mahtomedi 2 0 0 4 0
Marine 0 0 0 1 0
May 1 0 0 1 0
Newport 2 0 0 0 0
Oak Park Hgts 0 0 0 0 0
Oakdale 8 6 0 4 4
Pine Springs 0 0 0 0 0
St. Mary's Point 0 0 0 0 0
St. Paul Park 3 2 0 4 3
Scandia 0 1 0 0 0
Stillwater 2 0 2 2 2
Stillwater Twp 1 1 0 0 1
West Lakeland 0 0 0 1 0
White Bear Lake 0 0 0 0 0
Willernie 0 0 0 0 0
Woodbury 12 3 0 6 5
COUNTY 54 22 6 35 29
10 | Page
County Sales Statistics by Classification
The statistics listed for each use (classification) below are measured after the annual adjustments
are applied to each classification of each property.
Apartment Sales Statistics (After Annual Adjustments)
Commercial/Industrial Sales Statistics (After Annual Adjustments)
Residential Sales Statistics (After Annual Adjustments)
Sales Period 10/1/19-
9/30/20
10/1/20-
9/30/21
10/1/21-
9/30/22
10/1/22-
9/30/23
10/1/23-
9/30/24
ay2021 ay2022 ay2023 ay2024 ay2025
Number of Sales 10 10 6 5 7
Median 94.9% 94.5% 94.7% 97.6% 99.3%
Mean 103.0% 92.0% 95.2% 98.2% 96.5%
COD 5.7 2.6 2.9 4.2 3.1
Sales Period 10/1/19-
9/30/20
10/1/20-
9/30/21
10/1/21-
9/30/22
10/1/22-
9/30/23
10/1/23-
9/30/24
ay2021 ay2022 ay2023 ay2024 ay2025
Number of Sales 49 61 59 44 50
Median 95.5% 99.5% 93.9% 94.4% 97.1%
Mean 93.8% 101.9% 94.4% 97.5% 97.0%
COD 8.3 7.4 7.5 8.7 7.1
Sales Period 10/1/19-
9/30/20
10/1/20-
9/30/21
10/1/21-
9/30/22
10/1/22-
9/30/23
10/1/23-
9/30/24
ay2021 ay2022 ay2023 ay2024 ay2025
Number of Sales 4,004 4,341 3,810 2,938 2,867
Median 93.6% 93.8% 93.3% 94.7% 95.0%
Mean 94.1% 94.2% 94.4% 95.1% 95.3%
COD 5.8 8.0 7.2 6.1 5.8
11 | Page
Residential Sales Statistics
The sales statistics (Number of Sales, Low Sale Price, and High Sale Price) are based on data
collected from sales that occurred between October 1, 2023, and September 30, 2024.
The remaining statistics are measured after annual value changes are applied to the going-in ratio
(previous year assessed value/sale price) in each community for the 2025 assessment. The
Department of Revenue uses median sales ratio to analyze the performance of the assessment.
Median sales ratios are calculated when there are at least six sales and ratios are required to be
between 90% to 105%. If there are 30 sales or less in a community, the median sales ratio is the
only statistic deemed reliable.
# of Sales
Median
Sales Ratio COD PRD
Low Sale (no
trend applied)
High Sale (no
trend applied)
Afton 25 95.2%329,522$ 3,400,000$
Bayport 32 95.6% 12.22 1.085 232,000$ 2,625,000$
Baytown 19 95.3%615,000$ 1,412,500$
Birchwood 11 95.2%220,000$ 1,100,000$
Cottage Grove 407 94.9% 6.16 1.004 205,000$ 775,000$
Dellwood 18 94.3%381,000$ 3,450,000$
Denmark 8 95.5%467,540$ 950,000$
Forest Lake 209 95.3% 7.45 1.014 168,000$ 1,174,900$
Grant 32 95.3% 15.49 1.086 401,580$ 3,300,000$
Grey Cloud 4 237,650$ 731,200$
Hastings 0 -$ -$
Hugo 220 94.8% 7.06 1.009 187,500$ 930,000$
Lake Elmo 133 94.5% 7.91 1.011 289,000$ 1,810,000$
Lake St. Croix 13 95.5%205,000$ 600,000$
Lakeland 10 95.5%259,863$ 3,385,000$
Lakeland Shores 1 353,500$ 353,500$
Landfall 0 -$ -$
Mahtomedi 76 94.8% 7.71 1.019 201,051$ 3,000,000$
Marine 14 95.8%346,100$ 965,000$
May 28 96.3%390,000$ 1,350,000$
Newport 24 95.6%182,000$ 556,000$
Oak Park Hgts 39 95.3% 7.91 1.016 100,000$ 850,000$
Oakdale 310 95.1% 6.89 1.007 77,600$ 679,900$
Pine Springs 1 645,500$ 645,500$
St. Mary's Point 3 230,000$ 1,375,000$
St. Paul Park 45 95.0% 10.26 1.007 220,000$ 385,000$
Scandia 28 96.2%210,000$ 1,575,000$
Stillwater 233 95.0% 8.55 1.024 195,000$ 1,400,000$
Stillwater Twp 13 95.2%457,000$ 1,525,000$
West Lakeland 15 95.2%449,000$ 2,060,000$
White Bear Lake 2 327,500$ 410,000$
Willernie 9 94.8%170,000$ 524,100$
Woodbury 885 94.9% 5.89 1.005 140,000$ 2,695,000$
COUNTY 2,867 95.0% 7.52 1.013 77,600$ 3,450,000$
12 | Page
Historic Average Sale Prices: Single Family & Townhome/Condo
ay2021 ay2022 ay2023 ay2024 ay2025
Afton 604,345$ 722,300$ 724,500$ 809,500$ 1,025,900$
Bayport 350,999$ 361,000$ 436,400$ 424,400$ 576,100$
Baytown 687,415$ 754,000$ 894,000$ 1,031,300$ 1,026,900$
Birchwood 384,548$ 494,800$ 438,800$ 476,300$ 528,300$
Cottage Grove 303,060$ 344,300$ 371,500$ 388,300$ 397,800$
Dellwood 969,333$ 1,100,000$ 1,226,900$ 849,700$ 1,018,400$
Denmark 875,786$ 697,300$ 751,800$ 727,800$ 624,300$
Forest Lake 294,563$ 375,900$ 383,600$ 431,200$ 398,200$
Grant 673,901$ 672,700$ 754,200$ 773,500$ 881,400$
Grey Cloud 561,717$ 564,700$ 272,500$ 527,500$ 399,900$
Hastings -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Hugo 300,311$ 449,900$ 392,000$ 403,800$ 411,200$
Lake Elmo 537,760$ 619,000$ 657,300$ 659,600$ 697,600$
Lake St. Croix 266,870$ 354,800$ 411,700$ 419,700$ 354,000$
Lakeland 414,202$ 571,200$ 538,700$ 416,800$ 772,700$
Lakeland Shores 1,625,000$ 1,004,700$ 502,300$ 530,500$ 353,500$
Landfall -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Mahtomedi 409,456$ 527,900$ 471,400$ 496,800$ 610,200$
Marine 422,754$ 572,400$ 386,100$ 553,400$ 577,100$
May 597,749$ 691,800$ 754,800$ 800,300$ 765,700$
Newport 294,723$ 304,500$ 357,800$ 354,400$ 348,900$
Oak Park Hgts 247,558$ 284,700$ 337,300$ 343,300$ 332,400$
Oakdale 260,361$ 288,000$ 320,500$ 329,200$ 333,600$
Pine Springs 408,850$ 663,700$ 648,000$ 619,900$ 645,500$
St. Mary's Point 968,883$ 544,000$ 429,300$ 380,000$ 626,700$
St. Paul Park 234,443$ 267,000$ 286,400$ 296,500$ 288,600$
Scandia 448,700$ 499,100$ 578,800$ 648,100$ 574,500$
Stillwater 352,427$ 413,300$ 462,700$ 446,100$ 476,900$
Stillwater Twp 570,652$ 802,900$ 696,800$ 811,300$ 827,900$
West Lakeland 585,678$ 695,200$ 841,900$ 776,600$ 927,900$
White Bear Lake 263,268$ 390,600$ 345,000$ 342,100$ 368,800$
Willernie 273,820$ 277,800$ 326,500$ 249,200$ 365,800$
Woodbury 357,373$ 411,600$ 441,000$ 458,800$ 469,000$
COUNTY AVERAGE 355,283$ 410,300$ 437,500$ 447,900$ 471,100$
13 | Page
PAST & CURRENT YEAR ADJUSTMENTS/PARCEL COUNT SECTION
Agricultural Class Summary: Current Year Adjustments
Afton 443,400$ 167 154,668,100$ 170,238,700$ 9.8%
Bayport -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
Baytown 33,600$ 43 30,290,700$ 30,757,700$ 1.4%
Birchwood -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
Cottage Grove -$ 150 132,532,100$ 135,639,100$ 2.3%
Dellwood -$ 5 5,292,900$ 5,187,000$ -2.0%
Denmark 626,100$ 339 197,069,500$ 233,427,700$ 18.1%
Forest Lake 149,900$ 150 74,528,600$ 74,464,800$ -0.3%
Grant 83,200$ 141 113,384,200$ 115,064,400$ 1.4%
Grey Cloud -$ 10 5,231,100$ 5,273,000$ 0.8%
Hastings -$ 0 28,500$ 28,500$ 0.0%
Hugo 492,300$ 259 148,099,100$ 147,046,300$ -1.0%
Lake Elmo 320,400$ 108 102,896,400$ 100,065,000$ -3.1%
Lake St. Croix -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
Lakeland -$ 4 1,952,400$ 2,276,200$ 16.6%
Lakeland Shores -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
Landfall -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
Mahtomedi -$ 2 262,000$ 314,200$ 19.9%
Marine -$ 9 5,808,700$ 5,907,900$ 1.7%
May 1,005,300$ 293 200,478,700$ 191,486,200$ -5.0%
Newport -$ 3 8,016,800$ 8,009,100$ -0.1%
Oak Park Hgts -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
Oakdale -$ 4 6,926,500$ 3,917,100$ -43.4%
Pine Springs -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
St. Mary's Point -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
St. Paul Park -$ 58 4,759,300$ 4,970,600$ 4.4%
Scandia 502,100$ 300 140,113,900$ 143,986,800$ 2.4%
Stillwater -$ 4 3,680,900$ 3,691,100$ 0.3%
Stillwater Twp 26,400$ 106 83,799,100$ 79,335,300$ -5.4%
West Lakeland -$ 43 32,110,600$ 36,753,100$ 14.5%
White Bear Lake -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
Willernie -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
Woodbury 414,500$ 87 138,878,800$ 141,369,400$ 1.5%
COUNTY 4,097,200$ 2,285 1,590,808,900$ 1,639,209,200$ 2.8%
ay2025
New Construction
Number of
Parcels
ay2025
Agricultural Value
ay2024
Agricultural Value
ay2025
% Growth (less NC)
14 | Page
Agricultural Class: Past & Current Year Adjustments
ay2021 ay2022 ay2023 ay2024 ay2025 5-Year Change
Afton 3.2% 21.6% 28.3% -6.7% 9.8% 56.3%
Bayport 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Baytown 5.7% 15.3% 19.3% 3.4% 1.4% 45.2%
Birchwood 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Cottage Grove -3.0% 18.6% 5.0% -1.0% 2.3% 22.0%
Dellwood 16.8% 39.6% 42.7% -1.1% -2.0% 95.9%
Denmark 3.0% 26.9% 12.9% 1.7% 18.1% 62.7%
Forest Lake 3.0% 26.6% 4.1% -1.0% -0.3% 32.4%
Grant 3.6% 29.1% 10.9% -2.1% 1.4% 43.0%
Grey Cloud 0.1% 25.9% 1.7% 1.8% 0.8% 30.4%
Hastings 0.0% 19.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 19.7%
Hugo 1.9% 22.6% 13.4% -4.7% -1.0% 32.2%
Lake Elmo -5.4% 28.1% 9.4% -1.4% -3.1% 27.7%
Lake St. Croix 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Lakeland 0.0% 15.2% 7.8% 4.6% 16.6% 44.2%
Lakeland Shores 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Landfall 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Mahtomedi -22.9% 25.0% 16.1% -41.7% 19.9% -3.5%
Marine 7.2% 36.5% 3.4% 2.9% 1.7% 51.7%
May 4.2% 29.0% 14.3% -0.2% -5.0% 42.3%
Newport 2.1% 20.9% 22.0% -0.2% -0.1% 44.8%
Oak Park Hgts 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Oakdale -60.8% 15.3% 8.8% -21.5% -43.4% -101.5%
Pine Springs 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
St. Mary's Point 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
St. Paul Park 3.8% 26.4% 19.6% -0.2% 4.4% 54.0%
Scandia 1.4% 30.0% 5.5% 1.2% 2.4% 40.5%
Stillwater -78.8% 16.4% 7.4% 0.0% 0.3% -54.8%
Stillwater Twp -0.4% 23.1% 19.3% 2.5% -5.4% 39.1%
West Lakeland 0.2% 18.9% 5.5% 0.5% 14.5% 39.6%
White Bear Lake 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Willernie 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Woodbury -11.4% 13.6% -4.1% -16.4% 1.5% -16.9%
COUNTY -2.0% 23.7% 10.6% -2.8% 2.8% 32.4%
15 | Page
Agricultural Class: Parcel Counts
ay2021 ay2022 ay2023 ay2024 ay2025
# Parcels # Parcels # Parcels # Parcels # Parcels
Afton 172 173 169 171 167 -4
Bayport 0 0 0 0 0 0
Baytown 50 46 44 43 43 0
Birchwood 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cottage Grove 165 160 158 149 150 1
Dellwood 6 5 5 5 5 0
Denmark 338 333 333 331 339 8
Forest Lake 150 153 152 149 150 1
Grant 143 144 142 141 141 0
Grey Cloud 10 10 10 10 10 0
Hastings 1 1 1 0 0 0
Hugo 265 264 264 262 259 -3
Lake Elmo 122 118 118 118 108 -10
Lake St. Croix 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lakeland 4 4 4 4 4 0
Lakeland Shores 0 0 0 0 0 0
Landfall 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mahtomedi 2 2 2 2 2 0
Marine 9 9 9 9 9 0
May 311 312 311 302 293 -9
Newport 3 3 3 3 3 0
Oak Park Hgts 0 0 0 0 0 0
Oakdale 4 4 4 4 4 0
Pine Springs 0 0 0 0 0 0
St. Mary's Point 0 0 0 0 0 0
St. Paul Park 57 58 63 58 58 0
Scandia 327 323 313 311 300 -11
Stillwater 4 4 4 4 4 0
Stillwater Twp 108 109 110 110 106 -4
West Lakeland 47 46 45 44 43 -1
White Bear Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0
Willernie 0 0 0 0 0 0
Woodbury 102 97 90 90 87 -3
COUNTY 2,400 2,378 2,354 2,320 2,285 -35
+/-
16 | Page
Apartment Class Summary: Current Year Adjustments
Afton -$ 2 2,275,300$ 2,270,000$ -0.2%
Bayport -$ 22 27,129,200$ 27,113,300$ -0.1%
Baytown -$ 1 769,700$ 769,700$ 0.0%
Birchwood -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
Cottage Grove 15,322,900$ 47 248,676,700$ 261,727,200$ -0.9%
Dellwood -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
Denmark -$ 1 1,280,900$ 1,314,700$ 2.6%
Forest Lake -$ 76 312,840,500$ 293,705,700$ -6.1%
Grant -$ 1 1,516,800$ 1,530,000$ 0.9%
Grey Cloud -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
Hastings -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
Hugo -$ 12 56,788,400$ 57,747,600$ 1.7%
Lake Elmo 838,700$ 17 125,353,700$ 130,993,500$ 3.8%
Lake St. Croix -$ 1 627,900$ 627,900$ 0.0%
Lakeland -$ 2 977,000$ 973,200$ -0.4%
Lakeland Shores -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
Landfall -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
Mahtomedi 6,628,000$ 20 94,713,600$ 99,427,500$ -2.0%
Marine -$ 2 493,100$ 493,100$ 0.0%
May -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
Newport 8,967,700$ 44 82,841,800$ 89,989,800$ -2.2%
Oak Park Hgts -$ 33 177,880,800$ 177,417,300$ -0.3%
Oakdale 111,167,700$ 61 449,383,200$ 540,809,500$ -4.4%
Pine Springs -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
St. Mary's Point -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
St. Paul Park -$ 32 9,318,200$ 9,324,000$ 0.1%
Scandia -$ 2 -$ -$ 0.0%
Stillwater 12,233,100$ 83 201,873,100$ 212,179,700$ -1.0%
Stillwater Twp -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
West Lakeland -$ 1 984,700$ 976,400$ -0.8%
White Bear Lake -$ 1 14,296,300$ 14,446,100$ 1.0%
Willernie -$ 1 1,096,000$ 1,096,000$ 0.0%
Woodbury 18,606,800$ 81 1,201,642,600$ 1,230,870,900$ 0.9%
COUNTY 173,764,900$ 543 3,012,759,500$ 3,155,803,100$ -1.0%
ay2025
New Construction
Number of
Parcels
ay2025
Apartment Value
ay2024
Apartment Value
ay2025
% Growth (less NC)
17 | Page
Apartment Class: Past & Current Year Adjustments
ay2021 ay2022 ay2023 ay2024 ay2025 5-Year Change
Afton 17.5% 1.8% 17.3% 2.9% -0.2% 39.3%
Bayport 6.0% 17.0% 7.5% 1.5% -0.1% 32.0%
Baytown 0.0% 8.8% 3.3% 0.0% 0.0% 12.1%
Birchwood 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Cottage Grove 2.8% 31.6% 3.5% 0.9% -0.9% 38.0%
Dellwood 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Denmark -24.8% 10.1% 16.4% -3.3% 2.6% 1.0%
Forest Lake 2.5% 18.3% 14.1% -0.3% -6.1% 28.5%
Grant 4.6% 4.6% 23.7% 5.9% 0.9% 39.7%
Grey Cloud 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Hastings 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Hugo 13.1% 17.6% 6.9% 0.0% 1.7% 39.3%
Lake Elmo 52.1% 9.7% 6.4% 1.0% 3.8% 73.0%
Lake St. Croix 30.7% 27.5% 12.0% 1.6% 0.0% 71.8%
Lakeland 25.4% 15.1% 4.6% 5.2% -0.4% 49.9%
Lakeland Shores 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Landfall 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Mahtomedi 2.1% 12.9% 9.4% -0.9% -2.0% 21.5%
Marine 7.8% 15.2% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 25.3%
May 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Newport 1.8% 15.3% 18.8% 10.9% -2.2% 44.6%
Oak Park Hgts 2.6% 16.0% 3.2% -0.5% -0.3% 21.0%
Oakdale 4.1% 28.6% 14.7% -0.3% -4.4% 42.6%
Pine Springs 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
St. Mary's Point 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
St. Paul Park 3.2% 22.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 26.1%
Scandia 3.3% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0%
Stillwater 4.8% 27.0% 8.3% -0.3% -1.0% 38.8%
Stillwater Twp 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
West Lakeland 4.0% 13.4% 16.4% 5.2% -0.8% 38.2%
White Bear Lake 1.7% 10.6% -8.9% 0.0% 1.0% 4.4%
Willernie 1.5% 11.6% -3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 9.8%
Woodbury 7.6% 16.1% 2.6% 0.0% 0.9% 27.1%
COUNTY 5.5% 19.4% 6.6% 0.3% -1.0% 30.8%
18 | Page
Apartment Class: Parcel Counts
ay2021 ay2022 ay2023 ay2024 ay2025
# Parcels # Parcels # Parcels # Parcels # Parcels
Afton 2 2 2 2 2 0
Bayport 22 22 22 22 22 0
Baytown 1 1 1 1 1 0
Birchwood 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cottage Grove 41 44 45 46 47 1
Dellwood 0 0 0 0 0 0
Denmark 1 1 1 1 1 0
Forest Lake 71 73 74 75 76 1
Grant 1 2 1 1 1 0
Grey Cloud 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hastings 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hugo 9 11 11 11 12 1
Lake Elmo 10 10 10 12 17 5
Lake St. Croix 1 1 1 1 1 0
Lakeland 2 2 2 2 2 0
Lakeland Shores 0 0 0 0 0 0
Landfall 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mahtomedi 17 17 19 19 20 1
Marine 2 2 2 2 2 0
May 0 0 0 0 0 0
Newport 42 42 42 44 44 0
Oak Park Hgts 33 33 33 33 33 0
Oakdale 51 56 57 65 61 -4
Pine Springs 0 0 0 0 0 0
St. Mary's Point 0 0 0 0 0 0
St. Paul Park 31 31 31 31 32 1
Scandia 3 3 2 2 2 0
Stillwater 79 80 81 81 83 2
Stillwater Twp 0 0 0 0 0 0
West Lakeland 1 1 1 1 1 0
White Bear Lake 1 1 1 1 1 0
Willernie 1 1 1 1 1 0
Woodbury 75 81 79 76 81 5
COUNTY 497 517 519 530 543 13
+/-
19 | Page
Commercial/Industrial Class Summary: Current Year Adjustments
Afton 3,144,200$ 38 48,278,900$ 51,499,800$ 0.2%
Bayport -$ 101 52,161,000$ 52,662,500$ 1.0%
Baytown -$ 12 4,049,300$ 4,049,300$ 0.0%
Birchwood -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
Cottage Grove 26,769,700$ 564 655,593,300$ 674,649,000$ -1.2%
Dellwood -$ 26 20,023,900$ 20,021,900$ 0.0%
Denmark 756,500$ 65 39,654,200$ 41,427,900$ 2.6%
Forest Lake 12,542,400$ 539 371,208,100$ 375,751,600$ -2.2%
Grant -$ 93 25,811,400$ 26,206,100$ 1.5%
Grey Cloud -$ 22 3,843,400$ 3,842,700$ 0.0%
Hastings -$ 5 2,019,500$ 2,019,500$ 0.0%
Hugo 866,100$ 198 220,137,900$ 215,918,800$ -2.3%
Lake Elmo 21,873,000$ 210 240,080,800$ 263,492,600$ 0.6%
Lake St. Croix -$ 9 3,023,300$ 3,066,700$ 1.4%
Lakeland 63,500$ 39 18,266,600$ 17,939,800$ -2.1%
Lakeland Shores -$ 9 3,200,500$ 3,433,100$ 7.3%
Landfall -$ 7 11,790,700$ 11,702,000$ -0.8%
Mahtomedi 34,400$ 69 80,824,000$ 79,402,000$ -1.8%
Marine -$ 16 4,035,900$ 4,036,800$ 0.0%
May -$ 8 3,428,200$ 3,175,800$ -7.4%
Newport -$ 200 104,111,800$ 106,013,300$ 1.8%
Oak Park Hgts 2,136,100$ 215 284,466,300$ 286,521,900$ 0.0%
Oakdale 7,383,500$ 386 671,209,000$ 671,555,400$ -1.0%
Pine Springs -$ 0 -$ -$ 0.0%
St. Mary's Point -$ 0 100,000$ 100,000$ 0.0%
St. Paul Park 785,900$ 202 65,043,300$ 72,609,600$ 10.4%
Scandia 356,000$ 71 21,549,500$ 21,942,000$ 0.2%
Stillwater 3,267,900$ 400 465,750,800$ 489,232,400$ 4.3%
Stillwater Twp -$ 6 1,954,000$ 1,761,600$ -9.8%
West Lakeland -$ 34 19,850,000$ 20,793,700$ 4.8%
White Bear Lake -$ 8 7,892,800$ 8,781,700$ 11.3%
Willernie -$ 33 7,982,600$ 8,019,900$ 0.5%
Woodbury 19,406,900$ 658 1,992,932,100$ 1,987,541,600$ -1.2%
COUNTY 99,386,100$ 4,243 5,450,273,100$ 5,529,171,000$ -0.4%
ay2025
New Construction
Number of
Parcels
ay2025
Comm/Ind Value
ay2024
Comm/Ind Value
ay2025
% Growth (less NC)
20 | Page
Commercial/Industrial Class: Past & Current Year Adjustments
ay2021 ay2022 ay2023 ay2024 ay2025 5-Year Change
Afton 4.4% 14.4% 15.9% 4.6%0.2% 39.5%
Bayport 4.4% -0.7% 19.7% 0.7% 1.0%25.0%
Baytown 5.8% 6.0% 31.1% 14.7% 0.0% 57.6%
Birchwood 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Cottage Grove 7.1% 5.1% 27.1% 1.4% -1.2%39.6%
Dellwood 10.0% 18.3% 15.6% 0.9% 0.0% 44.8%
Denmark 11.3% 5.0% 22.3% -0.5% 2.6% 40.7%
Forest Lake 8.8% 1.0% 21.4% 0.5% -2.2% 29.5%
Grant 6.4% -3.2% 16.4% 0.1% 1.5% 21.1%
Grey Cloud -1.5% 9.7% 8.8% -2.0% 0.0% 15.0%
Hastings 10.0% 0.0% 9.9% 0.0% 0.0% 19.9%
Hugo 5.9% 5.4% 21.6% -0.2% -2.3% 30.3%
Lake Elmo 7.7% 3.7% 20.0% 2.5% 0.6% 34.6%
Lake St. Croix 9.8% 2.7% 21.9% 5.8% 1.4% 41.7%
Lakeland 4.5% 0.1% 14.6% 0.9% -2.1% 18.0%
Lakeland Shores 13.3% -0.2% 12.5% 1.3% 7.3% 34.2%
Landfall 10.0% 0.0% 22.8% 0.0% -0.8% 32.1%
Mahtomedi 5.2% 5.9% 22.4% 1.0% -1.8% 32.8%
Marine -19.0% -0.5% 13.5% 0.3% 0.0% -5.7%
May 7.1% 10.6% 4.2% 4.3% -7.4% 18.9%
Newport 5.3% 4.1% 23.2% 1.5% 1.8% 36.0%
Oak Park Hgts 9.5% 1.7% 16.1% -1.1% 0.0% 26.1%
Oakdale 8.1% 3.0% 17.7% 0.2% -1.0% 28.0%
Pine Springs 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
St. Mary's Point 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
St. Paul Park 24.4% 22.0% 41.6% -0.6% 10.4% 97.7%
Scandia 8.7% 6.9% 16.6% 0.1% 0.2% 32.5%
Stillwater 9.1% 1.2% 18.5% 0.1% 4.3% 33.2%
Stillwater Twp 9.3% 7.0% 1.3% 1.6% -9.8% 9.3%
West Lakeland 8.2% 6.8% 23.8% 3.8% 4.8% 47.4%
White Bear Lake 10.0% -0.1% 21.2% 2.6% 11.3% 45.0%
Willernie 8.3% 2.3% 24.7% 0.5% 0.5% 36.2%
Woodbury 9.0% 1.8% 18.2% 0.0% -1.2% 27.7%
COUNTY 8.4% 2.9% 19.8% 0.4% -0.4% 31.1%
21 | Page
Commercial/Industrial Class: Parcel Counts
ay2021 ay2022 ay2023 ay2024 ay2025
# Parcels # Parcels # Parcels # Parcels # Parcels
Afton 36 39 38 39 38 -1
Bayport 107 107 107 101 101 0
Baytown 10 10 12 12 12 0
Birchwood 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cottage Grove 567 567 568 569 564 -5
Dellwood 28 28 26 26 26 0
Denmark 66 65 65 65 65 0
Forest Lake 546 546 544 540 539 -1
Grant 95 93 93 93 93 0
Grey Cloud 21 22 22 22 22 0
Hastings 5 5 5 5 5 0
Hugo 194 195 205 202 198 -4
Lake Elmo 201 201 204 209 210 1
Lake St. Croix 9 9 9 9 9 0
Lakeland 38 38 38 38 39 1
Lakeland Shores 9 9 9 9 9 0
Landfall 7 7 7 7 7 0
Mahtomedi 78 77 68 68 69 1
Marine 17 16 16 16 16 0
May 8 8 8 8 8 0
Newport 197 197 197 201 200 -1
Oak Park Hgts 220 220 215 215 215 0
Oakdale 398 393 398 394 386 -8
Pine Springs 0 0 0 0 0 0
St. Mary's Point 0 0 0 0 0 0
St. Paul Park 201 200 201 202 202 0
Scandia 77 75 72 72 71 -1
Stillwater 400 394 391 390 400 10
Stillwater Twp 6 6 6 6 6 0
West Lakeland 34 33 33 34 34 0
White Bear Lake 9 9 9 9 8 -1
Willernie 33 33 33 33 33 0
Woodbury 575 574 577 571 658 87
COUNTY 4,192 4,176 4,176 4,165 4,243 78
+/-
22 | Page
Residential/SRR Class Summary: Current Year Adjustments
Afton 9,429,000$ 1,255 769,879,100$ 825,907,400$ 6.1%
Bayport 1,469,500$ 1,019 411,029,300$ 440,567,800$ 6.8%
Baytown 13,432,200$ 894 663,715,700$ 675,564,500$ -0.2%
Birchwood 2,125,900$ 414 222,218,800$ 220,126,400$ -1.9%
Cottage Grove 126,909,200$ 14,706 5,273,692,200$ 5,617,800,200$ 4.1%
Dellwood 2,264,400$ 505 492,858,900$ 461,679,900$ -6.8%
Denmark 4,429,400$ 743 460,521,200$ 445,700,600$ -4.2%
Forest Lake 20,740,800$ 7,560 2,843,346,300$ 2,873,330,500$ 0.3%
Grant 10,756,000$ 1,751 1,115,349,600$ 1,168,294,500$ 3.8%
Grey Cloud 82,100$ 151 55,692,200$ 58,156,300$ 4.3%
Hastings -$ 4 785,500$ 791,100$ 0.7%
Hugo 67,454,200$ 6,888 2,633,101,300$ 2,790,786,100$ 3.4%
Lake Elmo 61,300,300$ 5,151 2,900,838,100$ 2,982,909,700$ 0.7%
Lake St. Croix 712,400$ 707 163,610,800$ 178,726,800$ 8.8%
Lakeland 708,800$ 784 314,954,700$ 333,773,800$ 5.8%
Lakeland Shores 365,700$ 144 80,787,700$ 79,767,100$ -1.7%
Landfall -$ 1 213,200$ 215,600$ 1.1%
Mahtomedi 7,801,800$ 3,034 1,446,316,500$ 1,472,085,900$ 1.2%
Marine 1,108,400$ 511 196,085,500$ 208,117,400$ 5.6%
May 7,158,300$ 1,426 778,716,600$ 846,935,100$ 7.8%
Newport 1,625,500$ 1,413 437,830,900$ 476,194,500$ 8.4%
Oak Park Hgts 1,535,500$ 1,565 431,838,400$ 460,655,900$ 6.3%
Oakdale 33,112,700$ 9,931 3,088,305,900$ 3,161,298,500$ 1.3%
Pine Springs 111,900$ 164 85,138,900$ 84,002,600$ -1.5%
St. Mary's Point 135,400$ 296 121,385,900$ 114,794,600$ -5.5%
St. Paul Park 1,940,200$ 2,001 513,570,200$ 537,010,600$ 4.2%
Scandia 6,517,600$ 2,208 901,140,200$ 941,532,600$ 3.8%
Stillwater 8,512,100$ 7,548 3,137,439,200$ 3,162,618,500$ 0.5%
Stillwater Twp 5,121,400$ 815 521,299,400$ 524,134,700$ -0.4%
West Lakeland 7,277,400$ 1,446 960,469,600$ 1,055,838,600$ 9.2%
White Bear Lake -$ 99 34,319,800$ 34,231,500$ -0.3%
Willernie 118,400$ 312 59,528,400$ 65,117,600$ 9.2%
Woodbury 208,104,500$ 27,022 11,670,672,200$ 12,068,390,200$ 1.6%
COUNTY 612,361,000$ 102,468 42,786,652,200$ 44,367,057,100$ 2.3%
ay2025
% Growth (less NC)
ay2025
New Construction
Number of
Parcels
ay2025
Res/SRR Value
ay2024
Res/SRR Value
23 | Page
Residential/SRR Class: Past & Current Year Adjustments
ay2021 ay2022 ay2023 ay2024 ay2025 5-Year Change
Afton 1.6% 19.1% 14.0% -12.8% 6.1% 28.0%
Bayport 4.3% 15.6% 11.1% -3.8% 6.8% 34.1%
Baytown 3.2% 18.1% 18.4% 0.2% -0.2% 39.6%
Birchwood 1.5% 26.0% -0.8% 2.4% -1.9% 27.2%
Cottage Grove 2.6% 22.2% 9.9% -3.5% 4.1% 35.3%
Dellwood 1.8% 22.5% 8.5% -3.3% -6.8% 22.8%
Denmark 2.7% 25.4% 5.4% -0.2% -4.2% 29.1%
Forest Lake 3.6% 27.1% 4.7% 2.2% 0.3% 37.9%
Grant 1.9% 21.6% 8.1% -3.7% 3.8% 31.7%
Grey Cloud 3.1% 27.2% 0.8% 2.3% 4.3% 37.6%
Hastings 1.2% 19.8% 3.7% -0.2% 0.7% 25.3%
Hugo 4.8% 21.0% 7.0% -4.0% 3.4% 32.2%
Lake Elmo 5.4% 22.1% 3.6% 1.3% 0.7% 33.1%
Lake St. Croix 3.1% 17.3% 10.1% -7.3% 8.8% 32.1%
Lakeland 3.6% 17.1% 5.2% -5.4% 5.8% 26.3%
Lakeland Shores 3.2% 17.3% 4.8% 2.0% -1.7% 25.6%
Landfall 12.1% 3.7% 23.8% 0.0% 1.1% 40.7%
Mahtomedi -2.6% 25.2% 1.5% 1.2% 1.2% 26.6%
Marine -1.6% 32.8% -2.6% 5.6% 5.6% 39.7%
May 0.0% 23.8% 7.8% -8.3% 7.8% 31.1%
Newport 2.4% 20.9% 9.0% -7.1% 8.4% 33.6%
Oak Park Hgts 2.7% 20.0% 5.3% 1.0% 6.3% 35.3%
Oakdale 2.6% 18.1% 8.6% -1.6% 1.3% 28.9%
Pine Springs 3.5% 25.5% 4.4% 3.2% -1.5% 35.1%
St. Mary's Point 11.4% 20.2% 10.8% -1.8% -5.5% 35.0%
St. Paul Park 1.3% 20.0% 4.2% -0.2% 4.2% 29.5%
Scandia 1.7% 24.6% 4.6% -1.7% 3.8% 33.0%
Stillwater 5.6% 18.7% 9.3% -1.6% 0.5% 32.5%
Stillwater Twp 3.6% 20.6% 1.0% 0.5% -0.4% 25.2%
West Lakeland 4.5% 19.5% 13.8% -6.6% 9.2% 40.3%
White Bear Lake 2.0% 24.8% 0.3% 1.6% -0.3% 28.5%
Willernie 6.1% 17.6% -4.5% 0.4% 9.2% 28.8%
Woodbury 3.4% 18.6% 9.3% -3.2% 1.6% 29.6%
COUNTY 3.2% 20.7% 7.9% -2.4% 2.3% 31.6%
24 | Page
Residential/SRR Class: Parcel Counts
ay2021 ay2022 ay2023 ay2024 ay2025
# Parcels # Parcels # Parcels # Parcels # Parcels
Afton 1,275 1,266 1,255 1,256 1,255 -1
Bayport 1,030 1,026 1,023 1,019 1,019 0
Baytown 805 856 872 874 894 20
Birchwood 414 413 415 414 414 0
Cottage Grove 13,078 13,875 14,177 14,439 14,706 267
Dellwood 513 509 506 506 505 -1
Denmark 737 742 744 747 743 -4
Forest Lake 7,369 7,386 7,381 7,403 7,560 157
Grant 1,752 1,753 1,755 1,752 1,751 -1
Grey Cloud 152 151 151 151 151 0
Hastings 3 3 4 4 4 0
Hugo 6,286 6,425 6,468 6,618 6,888 270
Lake Elmo 4,579 4,872 4,902 4,947 5,151 204
Lake St. Croix 717 714 714 714 707 -7
Lakeland 791 788 787 786 784 -2
Lakeland Shores 144 144 144 144 144 0
Landfall 1 1 1 1 1 0
Mahtomedi 3,003 3,010 3,011 3,015 3,034 19
Marine 518 510 511 510 511 1
May 1,430 1,429 1,427 1,429 1,426 -3
Newport 1,424 1,424 1,421 1,414 1,413 -1
Oak Park Hgts 1,564 1,558 1,557 1,553 1,565 12
Oakdale 9,524 9,633 9,690 9,749 9,931 182
Pine Springs 164 164 164 164 164 0
St. Mary's Point 305 307 301 299 296 -3
St. Paul Park 1,990 1,991 1,982 1,983 2,001 18
Scandia 2,211 2,205 2,198 2,206 2,208 2
Stillwater 7,487 7,502 7,504 7,503 7,548 45
Stillwater Twp 814 812 811 812 815 3
West Lakeland 1,437 1,438 1,442 1,446 1,446 0
White Bear Lake 99 99 99 99 99 0
Willernie 312 311 311 311 312 1
Woodbury 24,981 25,270 26,136 26,357 27,022 665
COUNTY 96,909 98,587 99,864 100,625 102,468 1,843
+/-
25 | Page
Total Taxable Class Summary: Current Year Adjustments
Afton 13,016,600$ 1,462 975,101,400$ 1,049,915,900$ 6.3%
Bayport 1,469,500$ 1,142 490,319,500$ 520,343,600$ 5.8%
Baytown 13,465,800$ 950 698,825,400$ 711,141,200$ -0.2%
Birchwood 2,125,900$ 414 222,218,800$ 220,126,400$ -1.9%
Cottage Grove 169,001,800$ 15,467 6,310,494,300$ 6,689,815,500$ 3.3%
Dellwood 2,264,400$ 536 518,175,700$ 486,888,800$ -6.5%
Denmark 5,812,000$ 1,148 698,525,800$ 721,870,900$ 2.5%
Forest Lake 33,433,100$ 8,325 3,601,923,500$ 3,617,252,600$ -0.5%
Grant 10,839,200$ 1,986 1,256,062,000$ 1,311,095,000$ 3.5%
Grey Cloud 82,100$ 183 64,766,700$ 67,272,000$ 3.7%
Hastings -$ 9 2,833,500$ 2,839,100$ 0.2%
Hugo 68,812,600$ 7,357 3,058,126,700$ 3,211,498,800$ 2.8%
Lake Elmo 84,332,400$ 5,486 3,369,169,000$ 3,477,460,800$ 0.7%
Lake St. Croix 712,400$ 717 167,262,000$ 182,421,400$ 8.6%
Lakeland 772,300$ 829 336,150,700$ 354,963,000$ 5.4%
Lakeland Shores 365,700$ 153 83,988,200$ 83,200,200$ -1.4%
Landfall -$ 8 12,003,900$ 11,917,600$ -0.7%
Mahtomedi 14,464,200$ 3,125 1,622,116,100$ 1,651,229,600$ 0.9%
Marine 1,108,400$ 538 206,423,200$ 218,555,200$ 5.3%
May 8,163,600$ 1,727 982,623,500$ 1,041,597,100$ 5.2%
Newport 10,593,200$ 1,660 632,801,300$ 680,206,700$ 5.8%
Oak Park Hgts 3,671,600$ 1,813 894,185,500$ 924,595,100$ 3.0%
Oakdale 151,663,900$ 10,382 4,215,824,600$ 4,377,580,500$ 0.2%
Pine Springs 111,900$ 164 85,138,900$ 84,002,600$ -1.5%
St. Mary's Point 135,400$ 296 121,485,900$ 114,894,600$ -5.5%
St. Paul Park 2,726,100$ 2,293 592,691,000$ 623,914,800$ 4.8%
Scandia 7,375,700$ 2,581 1,062,803,600$ 1,107,461,400$ 3.5%
Stillwater 24,013,100$ 8,035 3,808,744,000$ 3,867,721,700$ 0.9%
Stillwater Twp 5,147,800$ 927 607,052,500$ 605,231,600$ -1.1%
West Lakeland 7,277,400$ 1,524 1,013,414,900$ 1,114,361,800$ 9.2%
White Bear Lake -$ 108 56,508,900$ 57,459,300$ 1.7%
Willernie 118,400$ 346 68,607,000$ 74,233,500$ 8.0%
Woodbury 246,532,700$ 27,848 15,004,125,700$ 15,428,172,100$ 1.2%
COUNTY 889,609,200$ 109,539 52,840,493,700$ 54,691,240,400$ 1.8%
ay2025
New Construction
Number of
Parcels
ay2025
Total Value
ay2024
Total Value
ay2025
% Growth (less NC)
26 | Page
Total Taxable Class: Past & Current Year Adjustments
ay2021 ay2022 ay2023 ay2024 ay2025 5-Year Change
Afton 2.0% 19.3% 16.1% -11.1% 6.3% 32.6%
Bayport 4.4% 13.9% 11.8% -3.0% 5.8% 32.8%
Baytown 3.3% 17.9% 18.5% 0.4% -0.2% 39.9%
Birchwood 1.5% 26.0% -0.8% 2.4% -1.9% 27.2%
Cottage Grove 2.8% 20.9% 10.9% -2.8% 3.3% 35.1%
Dellwood 2.3% 22.5% 9.0% -3.1% -6.5% 24.2%
Denmark 3.2% 24.5% 8.4% 0.3% 2.5% 38.9%
Forest Lake 4.0% 23.4% 7.0% 1.7% -0.5% 35.7%
Grant 2.2% 21.7% 8.5% -3.5% 3.5% 32.4%
Grey Cloud 2.5% 26.0% 1.3% 2.0% 3.7% 35.5%
Hastings 7.6% 5.2% 8.0% -0.1% 0.2% 20.9%
Hugo 4.8% 19.8% 8.3% -3.7% 2.8% 32.0%
Lake Elmo 5.4% 20.8% 4.9% 1.3% 0.7% 33.0%
Lake St. Croix 3.3% 17.1% 10.5% -7.0% 8.6% 32.5%
Lakeland 3.7% 16.2% 5.7% -5.0% 5.4% 26.0%
Lakeland Shores 3.6% 16.6% 5.1% 2.0% -1.4% 25.8%
Landfall 10.0% 0.1% 22.8% 0.0% -0.7% 32.2%
Mahtomedi -2.0% 23.7% 2.8% 1.0% 0.9% 26.3%
Marine -1.9% 32.0% -2.1% 5.4% 5.3% 38.8%
May 0.8% 24.7% 9.0% -6.7% 5.2% 33.1%
Newport 2.9% 17.3% 12.3% -3.5% 5.8% 34.7%
Oak Park Hgts 4.8% 13.3% 8.1% 0.0% 3.0% 29.1%
Oakdale 3.2% 16.3% 10.4% -1.3% 0.2% 28.9%
Pine Springs 3.5% 25.5% 4.4% 3.2% -1.5% 35.1%
St. Mary's Point 11.3% 20.2% 10.8% -1.8% -5.5% 35.0%
St. Paul Park 3.6% 20.3% 7.8% -0.3% 4.8% 36.3%
Scandia 1.8% 24.9% 4.9% -1.3% 3.5% 33.9%
Stillwater 5.6% 16.7% 10.3% -1.3% 0.9% 32.2%
Stillwater Twp 3.0% 20.8% 3.1% 0.8% -1.1% 26.6%
West Lakeland 4.4% 19.3% 13.7% -6.2% 9.2% 40.4%
White Bear Lake 2.9% 17.1% 0.2% 1.4% 1.7% 23.3%
Willernie 6.2% 15.9% -1.8% 0.4% 8.0% 28.8%
Woodbury 4.2% 16.0% 9.7% -2.7% 1.2% 28.3%
COUNTY 3.6% 18.9% 9.0% -2.0% 1.8% 31.4%
27 | Page
Total Taxable Class: Parcel Counts
ay2021 ay2022 ay2023 ay2024 ay2025
# Parcels # Parcels # Parcels # Parcels # Parcels
Afton 1,485 1,480 1,464 1,468 1,462 -6
Bayport 1,159 1,155 1,152 1,142 1,142 0
Baytown 866 913 929 930 950 20
Birchwood 414 413 415 414 414 0
Cottage Grove 13,851 14,646 14,948 15,203 15,467 264
Dellwood 547 542 537 537 536 -1
Denmark 1,142 1,141 1,143 1,144 1,148 4
Forest Lake 8,136 8,158 8,151 8,167 8,325 158
Grant 1,991 1,992 1,991 1,987 1,986 -1
Grey Cloud 183 183 183 183 183 0
Hastings 9 9 10 9 9 0
Hugo 6,754 6,895 6,948 7,093 7,357 264
Lake Elmo 4,912 5,201 5,234 5,286 5,486 200
Lake St. Croix 727 724 724 724 717 -7
Lakeland 835 832 831 830 829 -1
Lakeland Shores 153 153 153 153 153 0
Landfall 8 8 8 8 8 0
Mahtomedi 3,100 3,106 3,100 3,104 3,125 21
Marine 546 537 538 537 538 1
May 1,749 1,749 1,746 1,739 1,727 -12
Newport 1,666 1,666 1,663 1,662 1,660 -2
Oak Park Hgts 1,817 1,811 1,805 1,801 1,813 12
Oakdale 9,977 10,086 10,149 10,212 10,382 170
Pine Springs 164 164 164 164 164 0
St. Mary's Point 305 307 301 299 296 -3
St. Paul Park 2,286 2,280 2,277 2,274 2,293 19
Scandia 2,633 2,606 2,585 2,591 2,581 -10
Stillwater 7,970 7,980 7,980 7,978 8,035 57
Stillwater Twp 928 927 927 928 927 -1
West Lakeland 1,519 1,518 1,521 1,525 1,524 -1
White Bear Lake 109 109 109 109 108 -1
Willernie 346 345 345 345 346 1
Woodbury 25,733 26,022 26,882 27,094 27,848 754
COUNTY 104,020 105,658 106,913 107,640 109,539 1,899
+/-
28 | Page
Residential/SRR Class: Current Year Value Changes
This table displays a breakdown of the number of value changes by percent change for the
residential and seasonal recreational properties in each community for the 2025 assessment. The
percent change groupings are listed across the top row of the table. For the 2025 assessment,
71.54% are receiving a valuation notice indicating an increase in their property value.
Over 15% Decrease10.1% - 15% Decrease5.1% - 10% Decrease.1% to 5% DecreaseNo Change.1% to 5% Increase5.1% - 10% Increase10.1% - 15% IncreaseOver 15% IncreaseTotal Total Decrease & No ChangeTotal IncreaseAfton 4 3 6 8 103 178 887 32 34 1,255 124 1,131
Bayport 4 1 3 267 86 258 66 213 121 1,019 361 658
Baytown 4 5 36 570 63 111 38 3 64 894 678 216
Birchwood 1 3 35 116 47 198 5 1 8 414 202 212
Cottage Grove 3 5 36 1,815 563 7,251 3,186 964 883 14,706 2,422 12,284
Dellwood 15 154 162 44 38 74 6 4 8 505 413 92
Denmark 3 8 206 382 89 38 5 1 11 743 688 55
Forest Lake 14 9 258 2,492 836 3,319 339 69 224 7,560 3,609 3,951
Grant 2 - 4 35 195 1,027 399 46 43 1,751 236 1,515
Grey Cloud - 1 - 1 37 69 40 2 1 151 39 112
Hastings - - - - 2 2 - - - 4 2 2
Hugo 41 51 196 772 275 3,512 1,403 218 420 6,888 1,335 5,553
Lake Elmo 7 13 176 2,096 920 1,306 237 28 368 5,151 3,212 1,939
Lake St. Croix 4 1 1 9 155 36 229 179 93 707 170 537
Lakeland 12 2 2 3 45 98 578 28 16 784 64 720
Lakeland Shores 3 1 9 97 25 5 1 1 2 144 135 9
Landfall - - - - 1 - - - - 1 1 -
Mahtomedi 13 15 12 516 312 1,733 349 44 40 3,034 868 2,166
Marine - - 2 14 130 167 150 15 33 511 146 365
May 2 1 16 39 265 264 276 314 249 1,426 323 1,103
Newport - 1 7 12 105 197 611 354 126 1,413 125 1,288
Oak Park Hgts 1 - - 305 77 272 666 170 74 1,565 383 1,182
Oakdale 4 3 157 2,110 597 6,272 538 36 214 9,931 2,871 7,060
Pine Springs 16 1 2 112 16 15 1 1 - 164 147 17
St. Mary's Point 24 58 34 52 124 2 1 - 1 296 292 4
St. Paul Park 8 13 59 146 258 670 530 226 91 2,001 484 1,517
Scandia 11 38 54 173 567 479 686 108 92 2,208 843 1,365
Stillwater 4 6 320 1,712 978 4,187 263 34 44 7,548 3,020 4,528
Stillwater Twp 3 15 187 327 125 56 48 31 23 815 657 158
West Lakeland 2 8 16 19 45 129 508 627 92 1,446 90 1,356
White Bear Lake - - - 43 47 9 - - - 99 90 9
Willernie - - - 22 74 10 99 81 26 312 96 216
Woodbury 36 61 141 3,724 1,078 18,933 1,888 193 968 27,022 5,040 21,982
241 477 2,137 18,033 8,278 50,877 14,033 4,023 4,369 102,468 29,166 73,302
0.24% 0.47% 2.09% 17.60% 8.08% 49.65% 13.70% 3.93% 4.26% 100.00% 28.46% 71.54%
COUNTY
29 | Page
MARKET VALUE SECTION
Distribution of Market Value by Classification
With new construction included the pattern of change in the county’s total value and
classification value distribution can be seen in the following list of past assessment year data.
Estimated Market Value (EMV) by Classification & Percentage of Total
EMV (includes new construction)ay2021 ay2022 ay2023 ay2024 ay2025
Total EMV 39,314,872,800$ 47,713,887,100$ 53,051,928,400$ 52,840,493,700$ 54,691,240,400$
Agriculture EMV 1,271,577,600$ 1,578,317,900$ 1,650,874,300$ 1,608,999,100$ 1,639,209,200$
Agriculture % of Total 3.2%3.3%3.1%3.0%3.0%
Apartment EMV 1,939,119,200$ 2,492,341,700$ 2,840,263,100$ 3,012,759,500$ 3,155,803,100$
Apartment % of Total 4.9%5.2%5.4%5.7%5.8%
Commercial/Industrial EMV 4,214,432,800$ 4,395,244,900$ 5,374,873,700$ 5,450,273,100$ 5,529,171,000$
Comm/Industrial % of Total 10.7%9.2%10.1%10.3%10.1%
Residential/SRR EMV 31,889,743,200$ 39,247,982,600$ 43,185,917,300$ 42,786,652,200$ 44,367,057,100$
Residential/SRR % of Total 81.1%82.3%81.4%81.0%81.1%
3.0%
5.8%
10.1%
81.1%
2025 EMV Distribution by Classification
Agriculture
Apartment
Commercial/Industrial
Residential
30 | Page
Median Values
Historical Median Residential Improved Value: Residential/SRR
(Combined Single Family and Townhome/Condo with improvement value ≥ $25,000)
Median %Median %Median %Median %Median %
ay2021 Change ay2022 Change ay2023 Change ay2024 Change ay2025 Change
Afton 489,100$ -1.6% 597,000$ 22.1% 697,800$ 16.9% 617,600$ -11.5% 661,000$ 7.0%
Bayport 288,200$ 9.6% 336,400$ 16.7% 375,100$ 11.5% 377,400$ 0.6% 389,700$ 3.3%
Baytown 589,500$ 9.0% 691,900$ 17.4% 837,200$ 21.0% 841,000$ 0.5% 832,600$ -1.0%
Birchwood 354,800$ -1.0% 435,400$ 22.7% 416,700$ -4.3% 437,400$ 5.0% 439,700$ 0.5%
Cottage Grove 270,700$ 6.7% 328,600$ 21.4% 365,200$ 11.1% 354,500$ -2.9% 368,400$ 3.9%
Dellwood 688,100$ 24.4% 804,900$ 17.0% 895,600$ 11.3% 854,200$ -4.6% 772,800$ -9.5%
Denmark 467,400$ 6.3% 612,100$ 31.0% 655,500$ 7.1% 669,000$ 2.1% 643,600$ -3.8%
Forest Lake 281,400$ 4.0% 361,000$ 28.3% 371,500$ 2.9% 383,600$ 3.3% 387,000$ 0.9%
Grant 503,400$ -0.9% 618,400$ 22.8% 676,700$ 9.4% 654,000$ -3.4% 684,700$ 4.7%
Grey Cloud 371,400$ 7.9% 480,500$ 29.4% 478,600$ -0.4% 488,700$ 2.1% 519,600$ 6.3%
Hastings
Hugo 309,800$ 11.2% 379,300$ 22.4% 408,700$ 7.8% 389,400$ -4.7% 408,700$ 5.0%
Lake Elmo 458,700$ 6.5% 553,800$ 20.7% 585,700$ 5.8% 581,700$ -0.7% 585,800$ 0.7%
Lake St. Croix 250,000$ 8.3% 293,700$ 17.5% 325,700$ 10.9% 300,000$ -7.9% 332,600$ 10.9%
Lakeland 297,000$ 10.4% 349,000$ 17.5% 370,500$ 6.2% 337,200$ -9.0% 358,600$ 6.3%
Lakeland Shores 358,500$ 5.1% 418,300$ 16.7% 444,400$ 6.2% 451,400$ 1.6% 437,300$ -3.1%
Landfall
Mahtomedi 351,200$ 2.5% 435,800$ 24.1% 444,100$ 1.9% 450,900$ 1.5% 455,900$ 1.1%
Marine 379,900$ -1.8% 499,600$ 31.5% 477,300$ -4.5% 529,000$ 10.8% 556,100$ 5.1%
May 452,100$ -0.5% 567,200$ 25.5% 621,700$ 9.6% 578,600$ -6.9% 644,400$ 11.4%
Newport 229,600$ 6.2% 285,700$ 24.4% 325,500$ 13.9% 305,100$ -6.3% 327,500$ 7.3%
Oak Park Hgts 251,000$ 6.0% 294,600$ 17.4% 322,400$ 9.4% 321,900$ -0.2% 350,000$ 8.7%
Oakdale 264,300$ 4.5% 315,000$ 19.2% 343,300$ 9.0% 337,800$ -1.6% 342,700$ 1.5%
Pine Springs 429,200$ 4.1% 538,900$ 25.6% 563,400$ 4.5% 582,400$ 3.4% 580,400$ -0.3%
St. Mary's Point 335,000$ 5.4% 402,900$ 20.3% 446,500$ 10.8% 446,000$ -0.1% 403,800$ -9.5%
St. Paul Park 221,600$ 5.0% 266,600$ 20.3% 277,600$ 4.1% 279,500$ 0.7% 291,500$ 4.3%
Scandia 375,500$ 2.7% 476,800$ 27.0% 495,600$ 3.9% 497,600$ 0.4% 522,800$ 5.1%
Stillwater 313,400$ 8.3% 373,800$ 19.3% 409,500$ 9.6% 409,400$ 0.0% 408,000$ -0.3%
Stillwater Twp 499,700$ -1.2% 612,400$ 22.6% 630,500$ 3.0% 644,800$ 2.3% 643,500$ -0.2%
West Lakeland 503,300$ 5.7% 606,500$ 20.5% 695,900$ 14.7% 648,300$ -6.8% 710,100$ 9.5%
White Bear Lake 276,500$ 4.6% 345,500$ 25.0% 345,800$ 0.1% 354,600$ 2.5% 354,600$ 0.0%
Willernie 226,300$ 11.8% 266,200$ 17.6% 254,500$ -4.4% 255,100$ 0.2% 282,800$ 10.9%
Woodbury 351,100$ 7.2% 419,000$ 19.3% 456,600$ 9.0% 441,100$ -3.4% 451,500$ 2.4%
COUNTY MEDIAN 316,800$ 6.8% 384,200$ 21.3% 415,600$ 8.2% 407,900$ -1.9% 417,400$ 2.3%
31 | Page
Historical Median Residential Improved Value: Townhomes/Condos
(With improvement value ≥ $25,000)
Median %Median %Median %Median %Median %
ay2021 Change ay2022 Change ay2023 Change ay2024 Change ay2025 Change
Bayport 364,600$ 17.5% 418,700$ 14.8% 457,600$ 9.3% 443,300$ -3.1% 447,500$ 0.9%
Cottage Grove 199,000$ 11.5% 236,300$ 18.7% 259,300$ 9.7% 248,000$ -4.4% 268,300$ 8.2%
Forest Lake 196,800$ 3.8% 246,300$ 25.2% 261,900$ 6.3% 270,700$ 3.4% 273,000$ 0.8%
Hugo 212,000$ 8.4% 254,800$ 20.2% 280,400$ 10.0% 268,400$ -4.3% 274,400$ 2.2%
Lake Elmo 309,700$ 8.5% 341,800$ 10.4% 375,600$ 9.9% 368,100$ -2.0% 361,000$ -1.9%
Mahtomedi 281,500$ 1.5% 340,600$ 21.0% 334,500$ -1.8% 339,700$ 1.6% 333,500$ -1.8%
Marine 219,900$ 4.2% 291,200$ 32.4% 277,300$ -4.8% 290,900$ 4.9% 363,700$ 25.0%
Newport 174,400$ 5.5% 212,300$ 21.7% 207,100$ -2.4% 229,200$ 10.7% 234,200$ 2.2%
Oak Park Hgts 202,300$ 11.5% 270,200$ 33.6% 245,500$ -9.1% 263,000$ 7.1% 284,300$ 8.1%
Oakdale 194,600$ 7.6% 220,000$ 13.1% 245,500$ 11.6% 242,000$ -1.4% 245,700$ 1.5%
St. Paul Park 199,800$ -2.6% 241,100$ 20.7% 250,400$ 3.9% 239,300$ -4.4% 271,100$ 13.3%
Stillwater 262,800$ 5.5% 299,400$ 13.9% 334,500$ 11.7% 327,000$ -2.2% 327,700$ 0.2%
Woodbury 231,700$ 11.5% 261,900$ 13.0% 290,200$ 10.8% 280,600$ -3.3% 285,800$ 1.9%
COUNTY MEDIAN 216,900$ 10.0% 251,500$ 16.0% 277,200$ 10.2% 271,800$ -1.9% 276,200$ 1.6%
32 | Page
Historical Median Residential Improved Value: Single Family
(With improvement value ≥ $25,000)
Median % Median % Median % Median % Median %
ay2021 Change ay2022 Change ay2023 Change ay2024 Change ay2025 Change
Afton 489,100$ -1.6% 597,000$ 22.1% 697,800$ 16.9% 617,600$ 3.5% 661,000$ 7.0%
Bayport 283,200$ 10.5% 332,300$ 17.3% 368,500$ 10.9% 375,400$ 13.0% 381,300$ 1.6%
Baytown 589,500$ 9.0% 691,900$ 17.4% 837,200$ 21.0% 841,000$ 21.5% 832,600$ -1.0%
Birchwood 354,800$ -1.0% 435,400$ 22.7% 416,700$ -4.3% 437,400$ 0.5% 439,700$ 0.5%
Cottage Grove 279,000$ 7.0% 339,100$ 21.5% 379,200$ 11.8% 369,500$ 9.0% 381,500$ 3.2%
Dellwood 688,100$ 24.4% 804,900$ 17.0% 895,600$ 11.3% 854,200$ 6.1% 772,800$ -9.5%
Denmark 467,400$ 6.3% 612,100$ 31.0% 655,500$ 7.1% 669,000$ 9.3% 643,600$ -3.8%
Forest Lake 302,800$ 4.1% 389,800$ 28.7% 399,800$ 2.6% 413,300$ 6.0% 415,700$ 0.6%
Grant 503,400$ -0.9% 618,400$ 22.8% 676,700$ 9.4% 654,000$ 5.8% 684,700$ 4.7%
Grey Cloud 371,400$ 7.9% 480,500$ 29.4% 478,600$ -0.4% 488,700$ 1.7% 519,600$ 6.3%
Hastings
Hugo 372,100$ 6.8% 450,200$ 21.0% 484,900$ 7.7% 467,400$ 3.8% 478,400$ 2.4%
Lake Elmo 464,600$ 5.9% 563,500$ 21.3% 598,300$ 6.2% 600,100$ 6.5% 603,500$ 0.6%
Lake St. Croix 250,000$ 8.3% 293,700$ 17.5% 325,700$ 10.9% 297,000$ 1.1% 327,900$ 10.4%
Lakeland 297,000$ 10.4% 349,000$ 17.5% 370,500$ 6.2% 337,400$ -3.3% 359,300$ 6.5%
Lakeland Shores 358,500$ 5.1% 418,300$ 16.7% 444,400$ 6.2% 451,400$ 7.9% 437,300$ -3.1%
Landfall
Mahtomedi 361,600$ 2.8% 451,300$ 24.8% 458,500$ 1.6% 467,800$ 3.7% 474,900$ 1.5%
Marine 379,900$ -1.8% 513,900$ 35.3% 495,200$ -3.6% 539,900$ 5.1% 570,400$ 5.6%
May 452,100$ -0.5% 567,200$ 25.5% 621,700$ 9.6% 578,600$ 2.0% 644,400$ 11.4%
Newport 229,600$ 6.2% 289,400$ 26.0% 330,100$ 14.1% 309,500$ 6.9% 331,500$ 7.1%
Oak Park Hgts 270,600$ 4.9% 314,500$ 16.2% 348,500$ 10.8% 346,300$ 10.1% 373,900$ 8.0%
Oakdale 284,600$ 5.1% 340,900$ 19.8% 367,900$ 7.9% 363,400$ 6.6% 367,300$ 1.1%
Pine Springs 429,200$ 4.1% 538,900$ 25.6% 563,400$ 4.5% 582,400$ 8.1% 580,400$ -0.3%
St. Mary's Point 335,000$ 5.4% 402,900$ 20.3% 446,500$ 10.8% 446,000$ 10.7% 403,800$ -9.5%
St. Paul Park 221,600$ 5.0% 268,900$ 21.3% 279,900$ 4.1% 282,400$ 5.0% 293,600$ 4.0%
Scandia 375,500$ 2.7% 476,800$ 27.0% 495,600$ 3.9% 498,100$ 4.5% 522,900$ 5.0%
Stillwater 321,800$ 8.4% 387,600$ 20.4% 422,800$ 9.1% 422,600$ 9.0% 423,300$ 0.2%
Stillwater Twp 499,700$ -1.2% 612,400$ 22.6% 630,500$ 3.0% 644,800$ 5.3% 643,500$ -0.2%
West Lakeland 503,300$ 5.7% 606,500$ 20.5% 695,900$ 14.7% 648,300$ 6.9% 710,100$ 9.5%
White Bear Lake 276,500$ 4.6% 345,500$ 25.0% 345,800$ 0.1% 354,600$ 2.6% 354,600$ 0.0%
Willernie 226,300$ 11.8% 266,200$ 17.6% 254,500$ -4.4% 251,500$ -5.5% 278,000$ 10.5%
Woodbury 395,400$ 6.5% 476,100$ 20.4% 520,000$ 9.2% 503,700$ 5.8% 512,700$ 1.8%
COUNTY MEDIAN 348,000$ 6.1% 425,900$ 22.4% 460,600$ 8.1% 452,200$ 6.2% 463,200$ 2.4%
33 | Page
Single Family and Townhome/Condo breakdown (Data from pages 31 & 32)
(With improvement value ≥ $25,000)
Historical County Median Residential Improved Value (Data from page 30)
(Includes both Single Family and Townhome/Condo with improvement value ≥ $25,000)
$348,000
$425,900
$460,600
$452,200
$463,200
$216,900
$251,500
$277,200
$271,800
$276,200
AY2021
AY2022
AY2023
AY2024
AY2025
Median Residential Value by Dwelling Type
Townhome/Condo Single Family
$316,800
$384,200
$415,600
$407,900
$417,400
AY2021
AY2022
AY2023
AY2024
AY2025
County Median Residential Improved Value
34 | Page
OTHER ASSESSMENT RELATED INFORMATION
New Construction
Current New Construction Starts: All Classifications
SFR TH/Condo Comm/Ind Apartment Exempt Total
Calendar Year 2024 2024 2024 2024 2024 2024
New Starts New Starts New Starts New Starts New Starts New Starts
Afton 3 0 0 0 1 4
Bayport 1 0 0 0 0 1
Baytown 16 0 0 0 0 16
Birchwood 1 0 0 0 0 1
Cottage Grove 281 54 1 1 3 340
Dellwood 1 0 0 0 0 1
Denmark 7 0 0 0 0 7
Forest Lake 67 27 3 1 1 99
Grant 7 0 0 0 0 7
Grey Cloud 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hastings 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hugo 162 8 0 0 0 170
Lake Elmo 86 10 3 1 0 100
Lake St. Croix 1 0 0 0 0 1
Lakeland 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lakeland Shores 0 0 0 0 0 0
Landfall 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mahtomedi 4 0 0 0 0 4
Marine 2 0 0 0 0 2
May 15 0 0 0 0 15
Newport 0 0 0 1 0 1
Oak Park Hgts 2 0 2 0 0 4
Oakdale 94 0 2 0 0 96
Pine Springs 0 0 0 0 0 0
St. Mary's Point 0 0 0 0 0 0
St. Paul Park 2 2 1 0 0 5
Scandia 9 0 0 0 0 9
Stillwater 7 0 0 0 0 7
Stillwater Twp 3 0 0 0 0 3
West Lakeland 4 0 0 0 2 6
White Bear Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0
Willernie 0 0 0 0 0 0
Woodbury 347 123 3 0 4 477
COUNTY 1,122 224 15 4 11 1,376
35 | Page
Past & Current New Construction Starts: Single Family and Townhome/Condo
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
New Starts New Starts New Starts New Starts New Starts
Afton 8 19 11 7 3
Bayport 28 8 14 3 1
Baytown 11 9 12 18 16
Birchwood 2 1 0 2 1
Cottage Grove 359 536 406 307 335
Dellwood 4 2 3 0 1
Denmark 13 15 6 3 7
Forest Lake 52 41 34 19 94
Grant 16 19 14 7 7
Grey Cloud 0 0 0 0 0
Hastings 0 0 0 0 0
Hugo 161 197 110 119 170
Lake Elmo 282 326 162 202 96
Lake St. Croix 1 0 1 0 1
Lakeland 2 1 0 2 0
Lakeland Shores 0 0 1 1 0
Landfall 0 0 0 0 0
Mahtomedi 13 6 6 14 4
Marine 0 5 6 2 2
May 3 3 8 4 15
Newport 67 70 10 6 0
Oak Park Hgts 6 5 1 0 2
Oakdale 4 24 69 48 94
Pine Springs 0 0 0 0 0
St. Mary's Point 0 2 0 0 0
St. Paul Park 0 1 1 6 4
Scandia 7 20 21 10 9
Stillwater 33 39 26 11 7
Stillwater Twp 1 6 1 4 3
West Lakeland 8 18 6 2 4
White Bear Lake 0 0 0 0 0
Willernie 2 2 3 0 0
Woodbury 383 533 352 482 470
COUNTY 1,466 1,908 1,284 1,279 1,346
Calendar Year
36 | Page
Historical New Construction Summary: All Classifications
Historical Comparison of New Construction: ay21–ay25
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
ay2021 ay2022 ay2023 ay2024 ay2025
Single Family 1,247 1,592 1,066 975 1,122
Townhome/Condo 219 316 218 304 224
Apartment 10 4 9 7 4
Commercial/Industrial 14 18 23 16 15
Misc Permits 3,250 3,527 3,601 2,916 3,607
TOTAL 4,740 5,457 4,917 4,218 4,972
Taxable Value Added 703,302,300$ 987,855,900$ 1,121,556,700$ 897,986,300$ 889,609,200$
4,740
5,457
4,917
4,218
4,972
AY2021
AY2022
AY2023
AY2024
AY2025
New Construction Reviews
(New Starts & Misc. Permit)
37 | Page
Appraiser Activity: Permit & Quintile Review Counts
Current state law mandates that all property must be re-assessed each year and reviewed once
every five years (aka quintile). Staff also inspect properties that have taken out a construction
permit during the course of the year.
During 2024 (for the 2025 assessment), the Assessor Division appraisers and locally hired
assessors reviewed 27,029 properties. Below is the breakdown of the properties that were
reviewed over the last five years.
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
ay2021 ay2022 ay2023 ay2024 ay2025
Residential Quintile 24,160 23,008 22,605 21,696 21,130
Apt/CI Reviews 1,191 499 1,240 1,320 927
New Construction Reviews 4,740 5,457 4,917 4,218 4,972
Misc Reviews 0 1,494 2 1,474 0
TOTAL 30,091 30,458 28,764 28,708 27,029
38 | Page
Appraiser Activity: Tax Petition Related
Minnesota Tax Court has been established by the Minnesota Legislature for the purpose of
hearing only tax related cases. The Court’s judges have expertise in tax laws and apply that
knowledge in a manner to ensure that taxpayers are assessed in a fair and equitable way.
The tax petition process is a complicated and ever-changing part of our business. The entire
process continues to consume a large amount of our Commercial/Industrial/Apartment appraiser
workload.
The table below provides a summary of the petition filings in Washington County over the last
five payable years. Petitions related to taxes payable 2024 increased in the number of petitions
filed by 75 petitions. All property types have an increase in filings. The total value under petitions
filed for pay2024 increased roughly 40.6% when compared to the previous year.
Payable Year 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Residential 12 5 6 4 5
Commercial/Industrial 156 179 149 114 175
Apartment 19 17 15 37 50
TOTAL 187 201 170 155 230
Payable Year 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Residential 18,685,600$ 4,333,700$ 7,242,400$ 3,474,200$ 44,469,400$
Commercial/Industrial 1,281,098,600$ 1,336,984,000$ 1,228,442,100$ 925,542,600$ 1,405,576,500$
Apartment 419,793,700$ 345,661,300$ 278,996,400$ 1,021,577,000$ 1,292,952,800$
TOTAL 1,719,577,900$ 1,686,979,000$ 1,514,680,900$ 1,950,593,800$ 2,742,998,700$
Number of Petitions Filed
Value Under Petitions Filed
39 | Page
Tax Petitions: Number of Petitions Filed for Payable Years 2020-2024
Tax Petitions: Value Under Petitions Filed for Payable Years 2020-2024
12 5 6 4 5
156
179
149
114
175
19 17 15
37 50
PAY 2020 PAY 2021 PAY 2022 PAY 2023 PAY 2024
Number of Petitions Filed (By Classification)
Residential Commercial/Industrial Apartment
$1,719,577,900
$1,686,979,000
$1,514,680,900
$1,950,593,800
$2,742,998,700
PAY 2020
PAY 2021
PAY 2022
PAY 2023
PAY 2024
Value Under Petitions Filed (All Classifications)
40 | Page
Assessment Process: Statutory Requirements
Minnesota law establishes specific requirements for the entire property tax system, including the
assessment of property (M.S. Chapter 273). These requirements have not changed during the
past year. The laws require the following:
1. All real property is to be valued at market value, which is defined as the usual or most
likely selling price at the time of assessment. Special qualified exclusions such as the
Veterans’ Exclusion are subtracted from the market value to arrive at the taxable value.
2. Property is classified according to state law, and the tax capacity is calculated.
3. The tax capacity is multiplied by the tax rate (the total of county, school, city, and
miscellaneous levies) to determine the amount of property tax.
The annual property assessment focuses on the very first step of this process - establishing an
estimated market value for each parcel of property.
Market values are assessed locally by either a county employed appraiser or a locally hired
assessor. The work of both county and local assessors is monitored by the County Assessor,
whose work is in turn monitored by the Minnesota Department of Revenue. The monitoring
agency is authorized by law to adjust the property assessment to help ensure county-wide and
state-wide equalization of property assessments.
The County Assessor has established the standard that all Washington County communities, with
at least six (6) sales in their sales study, have a community median ratio in the range of 93%-96%
of actual market values in relationship to time-adjusted sales prices. At times, local assessment
levels have been adjusted by the County Assessor or the State of Minnesota.
State law also requires that each individual property be reviewed by the assessor at least once
every five years. Each community has a rotating revaluation schedule to ensure that this
requirement is met.
What is market value?
Minnesota Statue 273.03 defines market value as “… the usual selling price at the time of
assessment.” The Assessor’s Office works throughout the year to estimate market values of each
property for the following January 2nd assessment date.
41 | Page
How is market value determined?
Review Property: Approximately every fifth year, an appraiser working under the supervision of
the County Assessor will review the property. Any property that had a building permit issued in
a given year is reviewed and the new value is calculated as of January 2nd following the
construction.
Gather Information: The appraiser gathers information on all characteristics of the property that
affect market value, such as size, age, quality of construction, basement finish, and extra features,
such as fireplaces, walk-out basements, et cetera.
Compute Value: The characteristics are entered into a computerized system (CAMA). Information
on actual market sales is used to establish the building and component rates used to calculate
the property’s market value. The market value estimated by the appraiser should be very close
to the amount the property would sell for, if placed on the open market.
Why may market value change from year to year?
Property values change continuously depending on the economic conditions affecting the local
market. In addition to market changes, physical changes made to a property can also affect its
market value. All factors are considered in estimating the value of property.
42 | Page
Appeals Process
In Minnesota, property tax laws provide the legal parameters that govern the work of assessors.
These statutes lay down a cycle of assessment activities that are conducted on an annual basis.
Each year, assessors are required to work on a number of tasks that include listing, valuing, and
classifying all taxable properties; processing both real and personal property transfers; analyzing
market data; monitoring assessment levels for several different classes of property; and
arranging and conducting an appeals process.
The latter of these activities is a key part of the assessment cycle that provides property owners
with an opportunity to review and, if necessary, challenge their estimate of market value and/or
classification that will be used for taxation purposes in the following year.
At what point in the assessment cycle does the appeals process begin?
The appeals process begins in March and extends through June. When property owners receive
their Valuation Notices during the month of March, they should read them carefully for
instructions about deadlines, filing procedures, meeting dates and times. If they are not clear,
they should call the assessor’s office for clarification and additional information because a missed
deadline, an incorrect filing, or the failure to attend a scheduled meeting can cause an appeal to
be dismissed.
What steps should property owners take to appeal their assessments?
There are two avenues of appeal that property owners may take to challenge their assessments.
The first route is referred to as the three-step appeal and the second is known as the one-step
appeal. These steps are illustrated in the flow chart on the following page.
How should property owners begin their appeal?
Property owners are encouraged to contact their appraiser to discuss their property assessment
concerns. An informal meeting can be scheduled to review the property, examine market data,
answer questions, and clarify the valuation and classification practices used. This discussion can
also be handled by telephone, mail, or email during regular business hours.
43 | Page
Appeals Process: What are the options?
Appeal to your Local Board of Appeal & Equalization (LBAE) or attend one of four regional Open Book meetings (meeting times & locations are listed on your valuation notice).
•Appeal in person, by letter, or by designated representative.
•If your appeal is not addressed to your satisfaction, or you and the County staff cannot agree to a change in valuation or classification, continue to the next step.
Appeal to the Washington County Board of Appeal & Equalization (CBAE).
•You must have first appealed to your LBAE (unless your property is in an Open Book community) Check your valuation notice to verify.
•The CBAE meets in June - Call the Assessor’s Office at 651-430-6175 by
May 1, 2025, to make an appointment.
•If you still do not feel your concerns have been addressed to your satisfaction, you may next appeal to the Minnesota Tax Court.
Appeal in the Minnesota Tax Court
•Appeals may be filed up until April 30th of the year when the taxes are due.
•The Tax Court can be contacted at 651-539-3260 for more information on procedures, forms, and filing fees.
Regular Division
•Can be used for any property type
•Must be used for property assessed > $300,000
•Can be appealed to the Supreme Court
Small Claims Division
•All homestead property 1 unit/parcel/petition
•Homestead classifications
•Assessed < $300,000
•All decisions are final
First Contact the County Assessor’s Office or your Local Assessor 651-430-6175.
•Discuss your concerns with the assessor or an appraiser.
•Compare values of neighboring or similar properties.
•Review local comparable sales information.
•If you and your assessor or the County staff do not agree, continue below: Appeal directly to Tax Court (One-Step Appeal)
44 | Page
Property Tax Calendar
45 | Page
46 | Page
2025 Local Board & Open Book Meeting Schedule
City/Township Format Meeting Date Time Location
Baytown Local Board Monday, April 7, 2025 4:00-5:00pm
Baytown Community Center
4020 McDonald Dr N
Birchwood Local Board Tuesday, April 8, 2025 6:00-6:30pm
Birchwood Village City Hall
207 Birchwood Ave
Denmark Local Board Tuesday, April 8, 2025 4:30-5:30pm
Denmark Town Hall
14008 90th St S
Forest Lake Local Board Monday, April 14, 2025 5:30-6:30pm
Forest Lake City Hall
1408 Lake St S
Grey Cloud Island Local Board Thursday, April 10, 2025 6:00-7:00pm
Grey Cloud Island Town Hall
9910 Grey Cloud Island Dr S
Hugo Local Board Thursday, April 3, 2025 5:30-7:00pm
Hugo City Hall
14669 Fitzgerald Ave N
Lake Elmo Local Board Tuesday, April 15, 2025 4:30-6:30pm
Lake Elmo City Hall
3880 Laverne Ave N
Mahtomedi Local Board Wednesday, April 2, 2025 5:00-6:00pm
Mahtomedi City Hall
600 Stillwater Rd
Marine on St Croix Local Board Tuesday, April 1, 2025 9:00-9:30am
Marine on St Croix City Hall
121 Judd St
May Local Board Wednesday, April 16, 2025 9:00-10:00am
May Town Hall
13939 Norell Ave N
Scandia Local Board Monday, April 14, 2025 5:00-6:00pm
Scandia Community Center
14727 209th St N
Willernie Local Board Monday, April 21, 2025 5:30-6:30pm
Willernie City Hall
111 Wildwood Rd
Afton Open Book
Bayport Open Book
Dellwood Open Book May attend any one of four Regional Open Book meetings
Cottage Grove Open Book
Grant Open Book
Hastings Open Book Regional Open Book-Cottage Grove Cottage Grove City Hall
Lake St Croix Beach Open Book Thursday April 3, 2025 5:00-7:00pm 12800 Ravine Pkwy S
Lakeland Open Book
Lakeland Shores Open Book Regional Open Book-Oakdale Oakdale City Hall
Landfall Open Book Wednesday April 9, 2025 5:00-7:00pm 1584 Hadley Ave N
Newport Open Book
Oak Park Heights Open Book Regional Open Book-Woodbury Woodbury City Hall
Oakdale Open Book Thursday April 17, 2025 5:00-7:00pm 8301 Valley Creek Rd
Pine Springs Open Book
St Mary's Point Open Book Regional Open Book-Stillwater Washington Cty Govt Center
St Paul Park Open Book Wednesday April 23, 2025 2:00-7:00pm 14949 62nd St N
Stillwater City Open Book
Stillwater Township Open Book
West Lakeland Open Book
White Bear Lake Open Book
Woodbury Open Book
County Board Govt Center Tuesday, June 17, 2025 5:00pm **By Appointment
County Board Govt Center Tuesday, June 24, 2025 11:00am (times subject to change)
**Appointment deadline for County Board Thursday May 1, 2025