HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-09-03 City Council Regular Meeting Packet (Public)1
COTTAGE GROVE CITY COUNCIL September 3, 2025
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 Hispanic Heritage Month Proclamation
Staff Recommendation: Receive the Hispanic Heritage Month Proclamation.
7 Consent Agenda
A City Council Special Meeting Minutes (2025-07-23)
Staff Recommendation: Approve the July 23, 2025, City Council Special Meeting Minutes.
B City Council Special Meeting Minutes (2025-07-30)
Staff Recommendation: Approve the July 30, 2025, City Council Special Meeting Minutes.
C City Council Special Meeting Minutes (2025-08-06)
Staff Recommendation: Approve the August 6, 2025, City Council Special Meeting Minutes.
D City Council Regular Meeting Minutes (2025-08-06)
Staff Recommendation: Approve the August 6, 2025, City Council Regular Meeting Minutes.
E EDA Meeting Minutes (2025-06-17)
Staff Recommendation: Approve the June 17, 2025, Regular Economic Development Authority Meeting
Minutes.
F Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (2025-07-28)
Staff Recommendation: Accept and place on file the minutes from the July 28, 2025, Planning Commission
Meeting.
G Grey Cloud Trail - Joint Powers Agreement
Staff Recommendation: Approve the Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Cottage Grove, the City of
St Paul Park, and Grey Cloud Island Township for joint responsibility of Grey Cloud Trail.
H Agreements for Professional Services – Fire Protection Systems Plan Review and
Inspections
Staff Recommendation: Approve the agreements with Fire Protection Services Inc. and Fire Loss Prevention
LLC for fire protection system plan reviews and inspections.
2
I No Parking Zone - Granada Ave S and 70th St S
Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2025-116 restricting parking along the northbound lane of
Granada Avenue where the median is present.
J TH61 River Oaks Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT) Final Payment
Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2025-126 approving the final payment in the amount of
$22,737.56 for the TH61 River Oaks RCUT Project.
K Hearthside Park Sports Lighting System Change Order
Staff Recommendation: Authorize Change Order for Hearthside Park Sports Lighting Project to contract
Killmer Electric to drill and/or install a spread footing for the light pole at a cost not to exceed $14,000.
L 2025 Fall Boulevard Tree Planting
Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2025-124 awarding the Base Quote plus Alternate 1 for the 2025
Tree Planting Contract to Wilson’s Nursey in the total amount of $52,705 for the material and labor to install
155 boulevard trees and authorize the service agreement between Wilson’s Nursery and the City of Cottage
Grove.
M Designated Hunting Areas
Staff Recommendation: Approve the proposed 2025-2026 archery and firearms hunting area maps.
8 Approve Disbursements
A Approve Disbursements
Staff Recommendation: Approve disbursements from 08-15-2025 through 08-28-2025 in the amount of
$6,616,996.90.
9 Public Hearings
A Frattalone’s Southpoint Ridge Easement Vacations and New Easements (Roers)
Staff Recommendation: 1) Hold the public hearing to vacate certain easements in Frattalone’s Southpoint
Ridge. 2) Adopt Resolution 2025-119 vacating, rescinding, terminating, and releasing certain easements
over Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, and Outlots A, C, and D of Frattalone’s Southpoint Ridge. 3) Approve the
establishment of a temporary construction easement for a retaining wall. 4) Approve the establishment of a
permanent retaining wall easement.
10 Bid Awards
11 Regular Agenda
A Adopt Preliminary Property Tax Levy
Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2025-121, Adopting the Proposed Preliminary 2025 Property Tax
Levy Collectible in 2026.
B Hazardous Building Demolition - 8274 Hemingway Avenue South
Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2025-134 ordering the removal of a hazardous building located at
8274 Hemingway Avenue South.
12 Council Comments and Requests
13 Workshops - Open to Public
A Amrize Nelson Mine – Final Environmental Impact Statement
Staff Recommendation: Receive the presentation and offer feedback to staff.
14 Workshops - Closed to Public
15 Adjournment
1
City Council Action Request
6.A.
Meeting Date 9/3/2025
Department Communications
Agenda Category Presentation
Title Hispanic Heritage Month Proclamation
Staff Recommendation Receive the Hispanic Heritage Month Proclamation.
Budget Implication
Attachments 1. September 2025 Hispanic Heritage Month Proclamation
PROCLAMATION HONORING HISPANIC HERITAGE MONTH
SEPTEMBER 15 — OCTOBER 15, 2025
WHEREAS, the United States of America is a nation built by the contributions of people
from diverse backgrounds, and the Hispanic community has played a vital role in shaping
our country’s history, culture, and achievements; and
WHEREAS, the Hispanic community has had a profound influence on our country through
their strong commitment to family, faith, hard work, and service, and they have enhanced
and shaped our national heritage with centuries-old traditions that reflect the multiethnic
and multicultural customs of their community; and
WHEREAS, the period from September 15 to October 15 is designated as National
Hispanic Heritage Month to celebrate the histories, cultures, and contributions of
Americans whose ancestors came from Spain, Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central and
South America; and
WHEREAS, this month-long celebration begins on September 15, a significant date that
marks the independence anniversaries of five Latin American countries: Costa Rica, El
Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, and includes Mexico’s Independence
Day on September 16, Chile’s Independence Day on September 18, and Belize’s
Independence Day on September 21; and
WHEREAS, we recognize and honor the many ways that the Hispanic culture has enriched
the fabric of our society while also rededicating ourselves to address the lack of equal
access to opportunity that many still face; and
WHEREAS, the City of Cottage Grove is proud to honor the history and contributions of the
Hispanic community here and throughout our State and our Nation.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, County of
Washington, State of Minnesota, hereby proclaim September 15 through October 15, 2025,
as:
HISPANIC HERITAGE MONTH
Passed this 3rd day of September 2025.
_____________________________________
Myron Bailey
Mayor
1
City Council Action Request
7.A.
Meeting Date 9/3/2025
Department Administration
Agenda Category Action Item
Title City Council Special Meeting Minutes (2025-07-23)
Staff Recommendation Approve the July 23, 2025, City Council Special Meeting Minutes.
Budget Implication N/A
Attachments 1. 2025-07-23 City Council Special Meeting (Budget) updated by Brenda
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE 12800 Ravine Parkway Cottage Grove, Minnesota 55016
www.cottagegrovemn.gov 651-458-2800 Fax 651-458-2897 Equal Opportunity Employer
Staff Recommendation: Provide staff with feedback and directions regarding the 2026 Budget.
City Council Special Meeting
July 16, 2025
Page 2 of 7
over the years. While initially experiencing a downturn, enterprise funds are now showing signs of recovery. Utility
rates for water, sewer, and streetlights are slated for discussion next week. Internal service funds, which had
dipped below zero, are now on an upward trend. Finally, developer LOCs involve funds received from developers
and held in escrow until engineering or other development-related bills are paid on their behalf.
Community Development Update
City Council Special Meeting
July 16, 2025
Page 3 of 7
and water treatment facilities, while commercial development saw the addition of Gerber Collision. Looking ahead
to 2026, the department's goals are centered on long-range planning, including the Comprehensive Plan Update
and Strategic Planning, alongside efforts to enhance customer service efficiency, promote development, and
continue resident education on ordinances.
Parks & Recreation Update
City Council Special Meeting
July 16, 2025
Page 4 of 7
has delivered excellent results with good coverage. Crucially, staff can now dedicate their time to course
maintenance rather than pipe repairs. The system has exceeded expectations, providing increased efficiency in
water usage through the deployment of soil moisture meters, allowing for more targeted watering.
City Council Special Meeting
July 16, 2025
Page 5 of 7
Equipment Replacement and Financial Management Plan
Administrator Levitt stated that equipment replacement is not currently in the budget in terms of direct levy
impact. Instead, it involves adding money to the budget in other ways. The 2026 equipment replacement will be
funded with equipment certificates, meaning there is no direct levy impact in 2026 for equipment replacement.
The city had initially planned for $900,000 in the financial management plan for 2026, but this has been reduced to
zero to achieve the 9.18% property tax levy increase.
It was proposed that for the next discussion, all equipment requests, including those affecting the property tax levy
in the financial management plan, should be presented to show the overall numbers. This was brought up because
there's a recognized need for administrative vehicles in public safety (two vehicles, one in 2026 and one in 2027),
which should be part of a larger conversation about equipment replacement. Councilmember Olsen expressed the
sentiment that "zero" for equipment replacement isn't feasible, and while the fund itself might appear to have a
zero-levy impact, the equipment is still being acquired, just paid for in different ways, such as through the $1.4
million in equipment replacement certificates.
Director Koerner stated in 2025, the Emergency Management division achieved several key milestones, including
the successful planning and hosting of a multi-disciplinary train derailment tabletop exercise. They also conducted
a joint training search and rescue exercise in collaboration with the Civil Air Patrol. Infrastructure improvements
saw the installation of a new outdoor warning siren, and the department actively participated in the REP Drill while
completing the revision of the City All-Hazards Plan. Looking ahead to 2026, the goals for Emergency Management
include organizing a Community Emergency Response Team (CERT), planning for additional outdoor warning
sirens, providing ICS-300 training for city supervisory personnel, and validating existing policies, plans, and
procedures through various exercises and real-life events. Budgetary impacts for Emergency Management involve
ongoing research into grant funding for Emergency Operations Center (EOC) technology and ensuring the
continuous maintenance of critical systems and equipment.
Koerner added the Police Department had a productive 2025, marked by the adoption of a new five-year strategic
plan and the initiation of quarterly reporting to track progress. A significant structural reorganization led to the
creation of the Community Impact Team (CIT), which now includes an embedded social worker and a Therapy K9,
enhancing community engagement and support. A Traffic Safety Officer position was also added to improve road
safety. The department successfully began the implementation of an assigned squad program, deploying new
Tasers, and advanced its technological capabilities. Furthermore, the establishment of the Positive Impact Team
and Peer Support Team significantly bolstered officer wellness, safety, and recruitment/retention efforts. For 2026,
the Police Department aims to refine its five-year strategic plan and continue achieving its strategic goals. A key
focus remains on recruiting and retaining police officers through a comprehensive wellness program, a CSO Cadet
program, and the growth of both the assigned squad and K9 programs. The department also plans to utilize grant
funding and maintain or expand service levels while fostering high community engagement.
Regarding Police Budget Impacts, the department will maintain the 49th police officer position and the grant-
funded Traffic Safety Officer. A second Case Management Detective is planned, contingent on securing a COPS CHP
grant in 2027. Operational budgets are set to increase for event overtime, ammunition, and professional services.
City Council Special Meeting
July 16, 2025
Page 6 of 7
The department is also requesting tuition reimbursement for the CSO Cadet program and is implementing Flock
cameras to enhance public safety. For police vehicles, requests for new squads are noted for both 2026 and 2027,
with specific concerns highlighted regarding frame rusting in one investigative squad and catastrophic engine
failure in another. The take-home squad program is anticipated to reach full deployment by 2027.
Animal Control
Fire Department
Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
Special Revenue Funds
City Council Special Meeting
July 16, 2025
Page 7 of 7
Forfeiture Budget include an increased need for forensic tools/software, prosecuting attorney fees for forfeiture,
forensic detective training, and enhancements in squad and body camera systems.
Challenges and Opportunities
1
City Council Action Request
7.B.
Meeting Date 9/3/2025
Department Administration
Agenda Category Action Item
Title City Council Special Meeting Minutes (2025-07-30)
Staff Recommendation Approve the July 30, 2025, City Council Special Meeting Minutes.
Budget Implication N/A
Attachments 1. 2025-07-30 City Council Special Meeting (Budget)
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE 12800 Ravine Parkway Cottage Grove, Minnesota 55016
www.cottagegrovemn.gov 651-458-2800 Fax 651-458-2897 Equal Opportunity Employer
Staff Recommendation: Provide staff with feedback and directions regarding the 2026 Budget.
Equipment Replacement Fund and Staffing
Public Works Department Review
City Council Special Meeting
July 16, 2025
Page 2 of 4
expected to be completed in 2027. Additionally, staff members are applying for grants to replant 131 trees that
were lost in the 2024 storm.
Utility Funds and Rate Changes
• Storm Water Utility: A 3% increase, or $0.19 per month.
• Water Utility: A 10% increase, or $1.04 per month, to fund current operations, a meter replacement
program, and capital improvements including painting of water towers.
• Sanitary Sewer Utility: A 7% increase, due to an increase in the MCES wastewater charge of 6.27%. The
largest expense in the Sanitary Sewer Budget is the MCES expense which is set by Met Council.
Fleet and Building Maintenance Update
General Government
• 2025 Accomplishments: Maintained a AAA bond rating and pursued funding for park development at
Mississippi Dunes Park.
City Council Special Meeting
July 16, 2025
Page 3 of 4
• 2026 Goals: Develop the Shoppes at Cottage View, maintain a AAA bond rating, and secure funding
for the 100th Street project.
Administration
• 2025 Accomplishments: Completed new hire and retention interviews and implemented the
JumpStart program for onboarding.
• 2026 Goals: Partner with Washington County on the 2026 general election and complete a
compensation study.
Finance
• 2025 Accomplishments: Transitioned all utility billing customer service to city staff and completed a
conversion to new utility billing software.
• 2026 Goals: Assist in a credit card processing conversion and explore the justification for an additional
accountant.
Information Technology
• 2025 Accomplishments: Updated policies to include AI initiatives and created a 10-year capital plan
for IT Infrastructure.
• 2026 Goals: Strengthen cybersecurity, improve customer experience, and modernize outdated
network connections.
Property Tax Levy Direction
Mayor Bailey complemented staff for balancing the property tax levy per the Council direction in April
which sets the property tax levy at 9.18%. However, the Mayor pointed out that there are some items missing
when looking at the property tax levy at 9.18% including tuition for fire and police, and there is risk if leaving the
EDA position vacant for the next year. Finally, the Mayor pointed at the equipment that was not funded at the
9.18% and wanted feedback on setting the property tax levy at 14.92% to add items that had been removed in
order to set the levy at 9.18%. Council Member Garza requested clarification on whether equipment would be
funded with the levy at 14.92%. Director Malinowski responded that the equipment would be funded with the
increased levy. Council Member Olsen added that the items included in the 14.92% were needed to continue with
the same level of service. Council Member Thiede had a preference to keep the 2026 levy lower and a higher levy
in 2027. Council Member Garza had a preference to set the levy percent increase at the same as 2025. Council
Member Olsen asked for clarification as to whether the property tax levy could be increased or if it could only be
decreased from the preliminary levy to the final levy. Director Malinowski stated that the final levy could be
decreased from the preliminary levy, but it could not be increased. Council Member Clausen referenced the
importance of funding equipment and that equipment had been pushed out in past. He felt it was important to
fund this equipment instead of pushing it out. There was further discussion on the property tax levy increase, and
Council consensus was to set the property tax levy at 14.92% to fund the current service levels. In addition, this will
lessen the property tax impact in 2027.
Communications Plan and Budget Discussion
The council reviewed a communications plan with three options. One of the options was more extensive
and aimed at providing the public with more detailed information about how their money is being spent. The
discussion highlighted that the items on the "add list," such as parks and public safety, are what the public tends to
focus on, and a survey showed high favorability for both. The survey also revealed that 34% of residents are
satisfied with their taxes, 32% are not, and 15% would accept service reductions for lower taxes.
A question was posed about calculating the tax rate to demonstrate that development is not causing the
tax increase, as many people believe. The response was that this is a key message to communicate to the public, as
the opposite is true. In a related question, it was asked if the key messages should be tied back to the realities of
the budget and what the residents feel based on the survey. The response confirmed that the communication plan
would, of course, be tied back to the realities of the budget and resident feedback from the survey.
Concerns were raised about the property tax increase for the year, and it was noted that even with an
increase, Cottage Grove will likely still be the second least taxed community in Washington County. The plan is to
City Council Special Meeting
July 16, 2025
Page 4 of 4
review the CIP and debt service at the Council workshop on August 8th. Another workshop will be held after the
Council meeting on August 20th to review the property tax levy and budget. The need for flexibility to look at other
items on the add list was also mentioned as the city refines the budget.
1
City Council Action Request
7.C.
Meeting Date 9/3/2025
Department Administration
Agenda Category Action Item
Title City Council Special Meeting Minutes (2025-08-06)
Staff Recommendation Approve the August 6, 2025, City Council Special Meeting Minutes.
Budget Implication N/A
Attachments 1. 2025-08-06 City Council Workshop Meeting
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE 12800 Ravine Parkway Cottage Grove, Minnesota 55016
www.cottagegrovemn.gov 651-458-2800 Fax 651-458-2897 Equal Opportunity Employer
COTTAGE GROVE CITY COUNCIL August 6, 2025
12800 RAVINE PARKWAY SOUTH
COTTAGE GROVE, MN 55016
TRAINING ROOM - 6:00 P.M
1. CALL TO ORDER
The City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota, held a Special Workshop Meeting on
August 6, 2025, at Cottage Grove City Hall, 12800 Ravine Parkway. Mayor Bailey called the meeting to order at
6:00 p.m.
2. WORKSHOP - OPEN TO PUBLIC
A. Twin City Land Development - Tank Property Concept Workshop
Staff Recommendation: Receive information from Twin City Land Development on their proposed
Concept Plan for the land east of Keats Avenue and south of 70th Street and provide comment and
feedback on their proposed Concept Plan.
Mayor Bailey said the only item that we’re going to be discussing today is looking again at the Twin City Land
Development, the concept that they brought back to us after a previous workshop. So, I’m not sure, who am I
kicking this to? Community Development Director Emily Schmitz replied oh, I can introduce them, absolutely.
Director Schmitz said Mayor and Council, so we’ve got Twin City Land back with us, Tracey and Ashley. As you
mentioned, Mayor, at a previous workshop they presented their concept for the Tank Property on the east side of
Keats. You had some thoughts about how they could reconfigure the neighborhood a little bit and if we could look
at some things a little bit differently. So, since that time, they’ve obviously taken a look, and we’ve also solidified
an alignment for the parkway, which helped them to really start to have a vision for how this could work with the
parkway. So, they’ve done some work, and I am going to pass it off to Tracey and Ashley, who are going to kind of
give you an overview of what they tweaked and looked at since your last conversation, and then, obviously, we’ll
have time for questions.
Good Evening, Mayor and Council Members, thank you again for having us. I am Tracey Rust, VP of Twin Cities
Land Development. Ben Schmidt, President, was here in early April. So, at that time, again we got feedback. We
had fully anticipated moving forward with Preliminary Plat and getting plans in, and we were not approved then.
Quickly after that meeting, we said hold on, we want to revisit the alignment of Ravine Parkway because this is the
first piece of a bigger puzzle; we totally get that and want to work with the City, and staff has been fantastic to
work with on what does the City need to see and how does that need to look, that kind of thing. So, we went back
and forth several times with the City on why its aligned where it is, the engineering wants alignment between
roads and easements and things like that. So, where its ended up now is more in alignment with the storm sewer
easement that runs through I’m going to call it the middle, but its not the middle of our parcel because ours is just
the land that we have under contract right now; but it is now through the middle where if you remember earlier, it
ran much further east, along that west future park alignment. So, again, for various reasons its now more towards
the middle, between Keats and that park area.
We do have the outlook and can touch on the name of Ravara Trails is what we are calling it now, and that
really, truly means, we had several different names, we kind of do a deeper dive not myself, by any means, I’m an
engineer, I’m a numbers person. We’ve got somebody who’s a little more creative in our office that does work on
marketing, and it really is more of a spinoff; we had a lot of things on Ravine, but there’s the Ravine Parkway and
we didn’t want it to be Ravine necessarily, but wanted to be kind of a spinoff of it, so that’s where we ended up
City Council Special Workshop Meeting
with it. No more magic than that, other than just Ravara Trails. Seeing as there are going to be trail systems
through this to connect to parks, that kind of stuff, so a lot of times we do meadows and brooks and things, so
again we just decided to do it with the trails on that.
City Council Special Workshop Meeting
all the way to the east is it really going to get the use that a collector roadway should? You really want that
collector halfway through the neighborhood. 3) Cost: This did reduce the length by somewhere around the order
of 700 feet, which doesn’t sound like a lot, but a road like this costs a lot per foot, so this development will have a
lower cost to build it.
Geis.
City Council Special Workshop Meeting
Tracey replied it is, and I mean, we recognize that, so.
City Council Special Workshop Meeting
Council Member Olsen asked are we in agreement to move forward? Mayor Bailey said I like it. Council Member
Clausen said I agree. Council Member Olsen said yeah, it’s awesome.
3. ADJOURNMENT
1
City Council Action Request
7.D.
Meeting Date 9/3/2025
Department Administration
Agenda Category Action Item
Title City Council Regular Meeting Minutes (2025-08-06)
Staff Recommendation Approve the August 6, 2025, City Council Regular Meeting Minutes.
Budget Implication N/A
Attachments 1. 2025-08-06 City Council Meeting
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE 12800 Ravine Parkway Cottage Grove, Minnesota 55016
www.cottagegrovemn.gov 651-458-2800 Fax 651-458-2897 Equal Opportunity Employer
COTTAGE GROVE CITY COUNCIL August 6, 2025
12800 RAVINE PARKWAY SOUTH
COTTAGE GROVE, MN 55016
COUNCIL CHAMBER - 7:00 P.M
1. CALL TO ORDER
The City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota, held a regular meeting on
August 6, 2025, at Cottage Grove City Hall, 12800 Ravine Parkway. Mayor Bailey called the meeting to order at
7:00 p.m. This meeting is being recorded by TruLens Community Media. You can view City meetings live and replay
them on Cable Channel 799, and the meetings are also streamed live and archived on the City of Cottage Grove’s
YouTube channel.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The audience, staff, and City Council Members stood and recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. ROLL CALL
Tammy Anderson, City Clerk, called the roll: Mayor Bailey-Here; Council Member Clausen-Here; Council Member
Garza-Here; Council Member Olsen-Here; Council Member Thiede-Here.
Also present: Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator; Ryan Burfeind, Public Works Director; Zac Dockter, Parks and
Recreation Director; Pete Koerner, Public Safety Director; Cynthia Kirchoff, City Attorney-LeVander, Gillen & Miller,
PA; Brenda Malinowski, Finance Director; Emily Schmitz, Community Development Director: Paul Sponholtz, City
Engineer; Phil Jent, Communication Manager.
4. OPEN FORUM
Mayor Bailey opened the Open Forum. He stated four individuals signed up to speak; he stated I’ll start with that
list first. He asked the speakers to state their name and address for the record. Please limit your comments to
three minutes. After those people spoke, I’ll see if there’s anybody else that wants to speak.
Cindy Gisch said hello, it’s nice to see some of your faces. I think I’ve actually voted for some of you, and I really
don’t know who you are, that’s okay. I’m here tonight to talk to you about Cottage Grove’s HERO Center and ICE
Enforcement. While you’re going to hear probably a lot of comments from a lot of different people, I’m here to
present to you a little different perspective. In 1945, this is my parents, my dad, my grandparents, and my aunts
and uncles in a family prison camp in Germany. They were Latvian citizens taken during World War II and placed in
this camp. This is the picture three years later in the United States of America, a misplaced persons’ camp in
Hebron, Nebraska, where good, decent Americans offered them a place to be, to work, to eat, and to raise their
family, one of which later came to be me. I don't know in all of the political rhetoric if anyone ever stops to think
that as first-generation Americans or 15th-generation Americans, this is very real. If we behaved in the United
States of America then like we are today, my family would not be here. As a matter of fact, if my grandparents
were still alive today, they would probably be in a place like Alligator Alcatraz because they died with only their
green cards. They could afford to have all of their children get their citizenship, and they worked diligently at that,
but they did not have the funding or the opportunity because they needed to work all of the time to get it
themselves. But yet my grandparents worked and paid into the taxes and Social Security that they never collected.
City Council Meeting
August 6, 2025
Page 2 of 22
They raised good, decent citizens, they volunteered at food shelves, they oftentimes gave up their own food in
order to help other people that were coming into this country and they didn’t have any. In my family, we’re big
Nebraska Cornhusker fans and we watched a lot of football, and there was never a single time that if the National
Anthem came on that we were not expected to stand on our feet, put our hands over our hearts, and pledge
loyalty to this nation. Those are the people that are being swept up and taken away, and while I understand that
there’s been some kind of a contract and all kinds of other political things that have happened, as a 30-year
resident of this City, I wish I would have known, you would have heard from me sooner, maybe in a different
perspective. But I don’t want us, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, to be that. We’re better than that. We don’t need to
encourage ICE and have them here doing harm to people, scaring my students, I’m a teacher in this District, giving
me a script to say that if ICE shows up at my school building, what to say. What we need is to say how do we
embrace American ideals and make you welcome here? How do we fix it? It isn’t with guns. So, please reconsider.
City Council Meeting
August 6, 2025
Page 3 of 22
My name is Diane Anderson, 9424 Jergen Place South, Cottage Grove, and I did not prepare a thing for tonight, I
just found out there was a City Council Meeting tonight. I’ve been a resident for 27-1/2 years. I have a situation
where my neighbor has a bunch of dead trees, and when those trees come down, which they will, they’re going to
damage my property; and if I happen to be under, in that spot, mowing my grass or outside playing with or
entertaining family, whatever, that it would kill me, maim me, or anybody who’s there. So, I called Samantha Drury
about this issue twice, and there is no Code Enforcement to take down dead trees. Every time a storm comes
through, more trees fall down because there’s no maintenance in this yard. So, my ask today is I’m imploring the
City to please consider making a Code Enforcement for people to take down dead trees. I received the City letter
saying we want a safe environment, we all want people to be safe and happy and enjoy their properties. I can’t,
I’ve had a fear, every time I go outside, I’ve asked him to take the trees down and he won’t. So, I have no
repercussions to make him take the trees down. So, do you have any questions? I’m guessing not, but.
5. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
6. PRESENTATIONS - None.
7. CONSENT AGENDA
City Council Meeting
August 6, 2025
Page 4 of 22
project, funded by the 3M Settlement, increasing the current contract amount from $40,262,696.20
to $40,632,818.93.
N. Approve the Professional Services Agreement with Bolton and Menk for East Ravine Alternative
Urban Area-wide Review (AUAR) in the amount of $39,900.
O. Adopt Resolution 2025-097 approving the final payment in the amount of $21,242.33 to New Look
Contracting, Inc. for the Jamaica Avenue Trunk Storm Sewer Realignment Project.
P. Adopt Resolution 2025-103 approving the final payment in the amount of $15,807.23 to OMG
Midwest, Inc. DBA Minnesota Paving & Materials for the 2024 Pavement Management Project.
Q. Adopt Resolution 2025-104 approving the final payment to Northwest Asphalt, Inc. for the 2024
Jamaica Mill and Overlay Project in the amount of $12,187.83.
R. Authorize Service Agreement, subject to minor alterations by City Attorney, with Kampa, Inc. for
playground construction at Oltman Park for the amount of $149,112.16.
S. Approve purchase order to St. Croix Recreation for picnic shelter located at Oltman Park for the
amount $37,363.60, and approve service agreement with Mike Basich, Inc. for the installation of
picnic shelter at Oltman Park for the amount of $32,864.
T. Adopt Resolution 2025-106 approving the variances to allow the construction of additional parking
two feet from the east property line and to increase the impervious surface coverage of the site at
7155 Jorgensen Lane South.
U. Adopt Resolution 2025-108 authorizing the City to submit an application for LCDA grant funds for the
Real Estate Equities apartment project.
V. Approve the Lease Agreement with Paul Krueger Farms to farm the approximately 7.89 acres of EDA
property south of 98th Street South and east of Isleton Avenue South subject to minor modifications
by the City Attorney.
Council Member Thiede wished to pull Item I, Real Estate Equities LLC-Issuance of Conduit Multifamily Housing
Revenue Bonds, for further discussion and/or approval.
Council Member Thiede said yeah, I just thought that it might be good to have our Finance Director explain this a
little bit, as it can be a little bit complex. I know that Dave and Monique are new, and I remember when we kind of
did something similar for The Legends quite a few years ago, it took a little while to digest it. So, maybe we can just
explain it a little bit.
Finance Director Brenda Malinowski said yes, thank you, Council Member Thiede and Members of the Council,
I’m happy to walk through the conduit debt item that’s on your agenda this evening, and there are two parts to it
tonight, so it is even a little bit more unusual than what we talk about. So, first is the preliminary approval for the
issuance of conduit debt for Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds, so, those are in relation to Real Estate Equities.
As you know, they came to City Council in 2024, went out for a bonding allocation through the State or the CDA,
it’s usually a two-year process, and so they didn’t receive the funds in 2024, but they are receiving them 2025. So,
they do have their financing and so they will do it through us through conduit debt; in 2024, we gave them
preliminary issuance of that conduit debt in the amount of $32 million. They’re requesting an increase of that, up
to $50 million.
So, what does conduit debt mean? That is what I want to talk about first is we are asked to do that periodically,
and we last did it for The Legends of Cottage Grove. It is issued by the City to act as a conduit between the
borrower and the lender; the borrower in this case is Real Estate Equities and then the lender, so we act as that
conduit. Now, it’s important to remember that that $50 million in issuance is not going to go against our credit
rating, we are simply acting as that conduit. It doesn’t count against our Statutory Maximum that we can issue for
debt, and then also, it’s not included in our outstanding debt on our Financial Statements. So, all those things are
true, and we’re just acting as that conduit between the issuer and the borrower.
You had issued that conduit debt, that preliminary amount for Real Estate Equities back in 2024 in the amount
of $32 million; so, what is in front of you this evening is to increase that allocation to $50 million. The reason for
that request is there is a portion that is going to be recycled through the Washington County CDA of about $8
million that was part of the Trellis/Bluestem project. So, in the IRS Regulations, they’re able to do that, so they
City Council Meeting
August 6, 2025
Page 5 of 22
made that request, and so I’d asked the bond attorney that we work with why not just have the CDA do their
portion and we do our portion? It is to our advantage to have them have that one issue so that the underwriter
has one mortgage, per se, so that one debt issuance. So, that’s why it’s coming in front of you tonight is that
increase because of the amount that’s going to be recycled through the Washington County CDA, and then also
just increasing that $50 million, so the recycling and then the increase in the issuance amount.
8. APPROVE DISBURSEMENTS
A. Staff Recommendation: Approve disbursements for the period of 7-11-2025 through 7-31-2025 in
the amount of $5,524,920.51.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None.
10. BID AWARDS - None.
11. REGULAR AGENDA - None.
12. COUNCIL COMMENTS AND REQUESTS
City Council Meeting
August 6, 2025
Page 6 of 22
for the kids going back to school, on the part of either Basic Needs or our Friends in Need Food Shelf because they
look forward to those donations every year, and there were a lot of awfully generous people.
Moana 2.
City Council Meeting
August 6, 2025
Page 7 of 22
It's a lot different these days than it has been in the past, but it’s really kind of cool to see that and get to witness
some of the great camaraderie between the neighbors and such with that.
13. WORKSHOPS - OPEN TO PUBLIC - TRAINING ROOM
Staff Recommendation: Receive information on the draft 2026-2030 Capital Improvement Plan.
Ice Arena
City Council Meeting
August 6, 2025
Page 8 of 22
In 2028, the second Zamboni is being replaced, that was originally purchased in 2008 when we expanded the Ice
Arena.
Park Improvements
• Roberts Lake Neighborhood Park Development Area, which is now the Roger and Myra Peterson Park,
$500,000 for park development.
• Denzer Neighborhood Park Development, $300,000.
• Looking to replace the Skate Park surface, the pavement where the Skate Park is on, getting that replaced;
it’s pretty dangerous with a lot of big cracks in there, so that needs to be replaced, $100,000.
• Sports Lighting System at Hamlet Park, converting that from the metal-halide to LED; if you remember,
there are football fields and courts and an ice rink, so there’s a lot of lighting there, that’s $355,000.
• The Kingston Park building replacement we’ll talk about that a little bit later, I want to have a separate
conversation on that.
• Bike Park: We’re looking to improve some of the jump blinds there, they’re having a hard time keeping up
the maintenance on those with their volunteer crew. This is going to be a little more formalized system
with some timber and some other materials that will get put on the jumping lips; that should greatly
reduce their maintenance, improve the riding experience, and then also improve the longevity of those
jump blinds.
• In 2027, we’re looking at some Still Ponds Neighborhood Park Development and restoration, the Military
Trailhead we think that will be ready for about $200,000, that we have on Jamaica and Military Avenue
there.
City Council Meeting
August 6, 2025
Page 9 of 22
• Lamar Sports Lighting Improvements: Replacing the two softball fields’ lighting systems for $350,000.
• Replacing the Hamlet Park shelter for $50,000.
• Following up to the Sports Surface Replacement, reinvesting and/or replacing the Hamlet Park Skate
equipment for $300,000; again, that’s a placeholder, and there are some components in there that we
think we can reuse, but we want to make sure we have enough money in there to replace whatever needs
to be replaced at that time.
• Pine Coulee court replacement, $20,000.
• River Oaks Scenic Overlook, $100,000, for investment into a trail and a bench and some other things to
kind of improve that opportunity there, especially with the road, that will be during the road
reconstruction down there; so, we maybe want to improve that and add some parking and some other
things to make that a more useable facility.
• The Dunes Park infrastructure, we’ll talk about this a little bit later, too, parking lot, trails, and boat ramp
for $7 million.
Council Member Thiede said with Kingston Park and that, there’s a lot to handle all of that. Director Dockter
replied yes, that’s why we’re going to talk about that separately, after I run through these. I have two slides on
those.
• In 2028 and 2029, we have a few trees for Ravine Park if development occurs, then we’ll need some
money set aside for that, that one would go to the Park Trust Fund.
• In 2028, replacing the old Cottage Grove sports lighting system for $35,000.
• Peter Thompson Park upgrades: Replacing the rink boards, sport courts, re-shingling the roof, for
$315,000.
• We’ll need to replace the Highlands tennis courts for $100,000.
• Pine Tree Pond Park improvements: That’ll be the Settlement dollars from the Water Treatment Facility
plant, so that’s $500,000 reinvested into the park there because that’s where the Water Treatment
Facility is located; just a reminder, that comes out of those 3M Settlement dollars.
• The Dunes Park Recreation Facility, again, we’ll talk about that later, $2 million.
• In 2029, replacing the Pine Tree Pond court for $30,000.
• We have two playgrounds at Hemingway and North Ideal that will be due for replacement for $150,000.
• Hearthside Park: That will be pavement management related so if there’s investments we want to do
there, whether it’s a picnic shelter or enhance the parking lot, those things we typically do like we did at
Hidden Valley this year; we look for opportunities to add trail extensions or whatever it is, so adding
$100,000 there as a placeholder.
• Dunes Park building, $7 million.
Council Member Thiede said I have a question on the Peter Thompson Park. I mean, originally, that kind of started
out as a neighborhood, did the neighborhood actually support that originally, or was it always the City?
Director Dockter replied it was always the City.
Council Member Thiede said oh, yeah, so do we do enough then? Because this is really kind of surrounded by
that neighborhood, like the other neighborhoods, I think, and everything, but its really a more substantial regional
park, you know? So, in terms of some of the, all the other houses that are going in, do we promote that at all to
those houses, too, so that they know that its not just a neighborhood type deal? I mean, to me, I’d be okay, but it
kind of comes off a little bit more as a neighborhood, because its smack dab in the middle, right?
Director Dockter replied well, I don’t know that we promote it. I mean, it’s a public park, obviously, and I think
the signage there proves it. But we have started running trails from the other neighborhoods into the park, which
should help people make them aware.
Council Member Olsen said well, it gets plenty of use. Director Dockter agreed and said we didn’t build parks
over there, Bailey Woods, we built trail systems to get people to use Peter Thompson Park instead of building extra
neighborhood parks.
Council Member Olsen asked what does it cost to do the rink boards?
Director Dockter replied just the rink boards are about, it depends on what style, but I’d say $150,000; but yeah,
the asphalt, which that one has the asphalt with it, its another $100,000. And if you remember, we originally were
City Council Meeting
August 6, 2025
Page 10 of 22
going to do the pickleball concept at Peter Thompson, but with our playground programming and the limited
parking there, we felt that Woodridge was actually the better fit and it had the new lighting system and all that
was going on at the same time.
• In 2030, another potential future park.
• The Woodridge playground surface will be due, that’s almost $500,000 nowadays. So, if you remember,
we’re actually getting it sealed this year, hoping to buy some time until 2030, maybe further if we’re
lucky, maybe less if we’re not so lucky.
• Pine Glen improvements, $100,000, and that’s again related to pavement management; we’ll look to see
what needs to be improved there, if anything.
• Woodridge court resurfacing for $150,000, that’s a full redo of the pavement.
• Nina’s Park picnic shelter, replacing that for $30,000. We’d been replacing fabric at some different parks,
so we went to some of those shade shelters instead of full shelters, so replacing those kind of in whole
would be about $30,000.
• The Pine Tree Valley ice rink board replacement for $150,000.
City Council Meeting
August 6, 2025
Page 11 of 22
Director Dockter added and the good news is the plans and specs are complete; so, whenever the Council decides
it’s time to go, we can move pretty quickly.
City Council Meeting
August 6, 2025
Page 12 of 22
Director Dockter replied yeah, I would say that’s, you kind of summed it up well. I think the hard part for me is it’s
hard to get grants for parking lots, they’re not very jazzy, right? So, we might have to, I don't know, I’m going to
see if this DNR grant gets us a parking lot. If it doesn’t, we might have to invest in the parking lot to kind of get the
money to do the rest of those things. Again, I don’t have, unfortunately, Park and Recreation buildings don’t
typically have grant dollars associated with them, but hopefully, you have some ideas. But those are the two items
that I worry about, but it’s one of those things where we might have to invest some money upfront to get behind
it.
City Council Meeting
August 6, 2025
Page 13 of 22
Mayor Bailey said and just to put it in perspective, a huge share of the island as a whole will have some type of a
marina on it, into the main channel. So, if you’ve got something on the back side here, where if you wanted to do
something today, you’d have to take it up, obviously go to the other marina, and that will eventually be on the
other side of the island.
80th Street Project
City Council Meeting
August 6, 2025
Page 14 of 22
reimbursement project, too. We were going to build it and they would reimburse us, but they have agreed to
actually provide that money in advance, so we don’t have to float the construction of that project, so that’s good
news.
City Council Meeting
August 6, 2025
Page 15 of 22
Council Member Garza said I just have a quick question on the East Point Douglas construction, I know we talked
about it before, but I don’t see, are you guys not going to address the crossing between Hy-Vee and McDonald's
and Arby’s and the School District and all of that?
City Council Meeting
August 6, 2025
Page 16 of 22
Director Burfeind replied so, we have our letter ready to go that they are going to be getting, more on the
assessment side of things and like that. We haven’t talked to them about this project, you know, just in general for
quite some time, but some of that we had to kind of see where this was landing. That’s a great question.
80th and Keats Roundabout
Ravine Parkway and Shoppes at Cottage View
City Council Meeting
August 6, 2025
Page 17 of 22
work is almost done, and then we’ll be in a position where we can use that funding for this section as well. So you
can kind of see how it will be phased over the years, starting in 2026.
2027 Mill and Overlay
2028 Mill and Overlay
2028 Pavement Management
Jamaica Avenue Reconstruction
City Council Meeting
August 6, 2025
Page 18 of 22
Ravine Parkway/Shoppes at Cottage View
We have additional segments of that, approximately the yellow. We’ll see how that property develops and how we
phase this, that’s just how we show it at this time; and then one more phase of Ravine Parkway in that area of the
Tank, Goebel, and Biscoe properties.
Real quickly, we lumped all these together for 2029 and 2030, maybe just a couple to draw attention to:
• We’ll have the last two phases of Ravine Parkway and Cottage View Drive, down by Shoppes at Cottage
View.
And then a couple different things that we want to start looking towards:
• Reconstructing that 103rd Street bridge, that $8 million. Paul has a lot of experience with bridges and
railroad bridges, and there are different buckets of money we can tap into. There are some studies we
have to do in advance of that, so we showed those in some earlier years, but we really want to look at
what kind of grant funding can we get for that bridge to get that replaced. Because if we don’t get that
done before we turn it over to the County, the County is going to expect money for them doing that in the
future. So, it’s in our best interests to get grants and get that done now, but that will be a several-year
process to work through Feasibility Studies and do grant applications or bonding applications.
• Also we have kind of out there the outlier, that Innovation bridge, we always show it out there, that’s a
County and MnDOT project, but just a placeholder if there are grants and such that we can go for.
Council Member Thiede said so that 103rd Street bridge, that’s the railroad bridge.
Director Burfeind replied that’s the railroad bridge, yep, and it’s interesting because it’s a railroad bridge but we
do have to replace it because they were there first; so, cities are actually on the hook to replace those. It was kind
of unique back in the 2000s how they did it, I think maybe because of the condition, but because they did that, it’s
on us now to make those improvements.
Council Member Olsen asked do we see anything on our list that could potentially qualify for State bonding funds?
Director Burfeind replied this is one; I don't know if, Paul, you can explain the bonding. It is State bonding that
we talked about for that bridge.
Engineer Sponholz said yes, Brenda has a Local Bridge Improvement Program, which uses the State bonding that
the State legislature issues every year during their bonding program, its funds into the bridges, so we could use
that funding to pay for this bridge or even the Grey Cloud Island bridge that’s coming to the end of its life; that
would be eligible for that as well. So, that program, yes, is entirely available to us.
Council Member Olsen asked but we will need help from our legislators to get it on the list, is that what you’re
saying?
Engineer Sponholz replied the normal process is that we have to actually have a fully-approved plan, approved
by MnDOT, on the shelf, ready to go, and then we can get it on the list, and that’s really just first come, first
served, so.
Council Member Olsen said right, is that being planned?
Engineer Sponholz replied yep. Council Member Olsen said okay, perfect, thank you.
Mayor Bailey said I have a question on the other bridge, or the road going to the other bridge and onto the island. I
know way back when the County first put together this whole design, they showed it raising the causeway if you
will and then putting a new bridge again down there. Now that isn’t us, correct? Is that truly the County?
Director Burfeind replied so, that one we haven’t really talked about with the County too much yet because
that’s obviously a major expense.
Mayor Bailey said yes, and that’s why I’m asking.
Director Burfeind said that one, I’ll be honest, we haven’t broached the subject, and I think they could look to us
for some support in that because we’d be turning over this road with the additional bridge. I think that’s where
Paul’s having it now, like let’s try and plan for this stuff in advance if there’s State bonding that we can get that’s
really meant for that. It’s a little different, you know, we go for bonding requests that we’ve got to go testify for,
but this is really bonding that’s meant for this type of project. So, it’s much more well positioned. Yeah, I think a lot
City Council Meeting
August 6, 2025
Page 19 of 22
of the causeway, maybe Jennifer knows more, it was raised to some degree with the flood improvements; it’s just
that bridge and the area around the causeway we’ve got to still raise another three-to-four feet.
County 19A/100th Street Realignment
Utility and Pedestrian Safety Projects
• Stormwater maintenance: That one is just kind of a regular maintenance program that increases each
year, some big numbers obviously.
• We’ve got our different 3M Settlement projects, and we get some of our Water Treatment Plants going,
technically through 2029, but largely complete in 2028.
• We have a variety of other projects in here, you know, State upgrades, tower painting, different Well
electrical upgrades, it’s all in that 10-year CIP for Water that we talked about last Wednesday at our
budget meeting. I will say the water softening, we keep it in here, but it is not in our 10-year Water Utility
CIP, it is not funded right now, but it’s always a question that comes up; people have interest in water
softening, we have interest in water softening, so we like to keep that on there, but it’s at the end of the
five years. We’re not planning to implement that in 2030.
City Council Meeting
August 6, 2025
Page 20 of 22
Director Burfeind said, oh, with the physical buildings? Council Member Olsen replied yeah. Director Burfeind said
so, we’re going to see that because we won’t use them, but because they are in such good shape, we’ll see much-
lower bids because contractors will reuse those. Council Member Olsen said that’s what I wanted to hear. Director
Burfeind said yep, so we’re working on the Well 2 one right now, actually with Rice Lake, and they’ve already said
like we’re going to salvage this building and we’ll likely see a lower cost of demo.
• Sanitary Sewer Maintenance, Streetlight Maintenance, kind of standard work.
• Here are those traffic signals that we show out in 2028, a variety of 80th and Jamaica, Keats and Indian;
Keats and Indian, the County looks at, they’re watching that traffic level, we just show it there with the
development happening, we know that those warrants will come up sooner, and we’ll continue to watch
80th and Jamaica as well.
Pedestrian Improvements
• One major thing we’d like to accomplish once we get our Safe Streets and Roads for All Plan done is some
type of improved crossing at Pine Tree Valley Park, that’s on there for $300,000.
• Right now, we show Hadley and 92nd out there as well, but I will say we are with the School District
Project and Pine Hill Elementary, we are pushing to have something done with the school project,
actually.
• And then there’s our Safe Streets and Roads for All Plan, that’s fully State and Federal funded at $440,000.
Debt
said I tend to agree with Justin.
City Council Meeting
August 6, 2025
Page 21 of 22
later or we can talk about it this evening; if you’re comfortable in issuing more debt, like I said, so every $4 million
is about $21 on that median home. So, those items in pink are not included in the FMP, so you could delay
something that’s not in pink or you could decide that you want to move those into the FMP. Any feedback on that?
City Council Meeting
August 6, 2025
Page 22 of 22
Council Member Garza said but it looks like there’s a lot of opportunities for grants or some type of; Council
Member Olsen said there always is, and our team does a heck of a good job chasing those dollars, they really do.
Council Member Garza said I realize that, that’s why I said that. Council Member Olsen said yeah, we’ve got some
really good grant writers on the staff.
14. WORKSHOPS - CLOSED TO PUBLIC - None.
15. ADJOURNMENT
1
City Council Action Request
7.E.
Meeting Date 9/3/2025
Department Administration
Agenda Category Action Item
Title EDA Meeting Minutes (2025-06-17)
Staff Recommendation Approve the June 17, 2025, Regular Economic Development
Authority Meeting Minutes.
Budget Implication N/A
Attachments 1. 6-17-2025 EDA Meeting Minutes
MINUTES June 17, 2025
COTTAGE GROVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
12800 Ravine Parkway South
Cottage Grove, MN 55016
COUNCIL CHAMBER - 7:30 A.M.
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a joint meeting of the Economic Development Authority was held on the 17th day of June,
2025, at 7:30 a.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Cottage Grove Economic Development Authority (EDA) meeting 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
Becca Blair, Administration Specialist, called the roll:
EDA President Bailey-Here; EDA Vice President Olsen-Here; EDA Member Jean-Baptiste-Here; EDA Member Khambata-Absent; EDA
Member Latack-Here; EDA Member Scott-Here; EDA Member Tschida-Here.
Staff Present: Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator
Jaime Mann, Assistant to the City Administrator
Becca Bair, Administration Specialist
Phil Jents, Communications Manager
Others Present: HVS: Tom Hazinski, Henry Detmer, Tarika Jain (Online video)
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Staff Recommendation: Approve the April 8, 2025 Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes.
EDA Vice President Olsen made a motion to approve the April 8, 2025 Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes.
Motion was seconded by EDA Member Tschida. Motion passed unanimously (6-to-0 vote).
5. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. Hotel Room Leakage Analysis Report
Staff Recommendation: Receive the report from HVS.
EDA President Bailey said HVS will be making this presentation online, and he turned it over to them.
Tom Hazinski, Managing Director of HVS Convention, Sports, & Entertainment said good morning, everyone, let me introduce our
team: We’re very pleased to have worked for you to do this analysis. Our Minneapolis group has done some work in the area and
that’s how we came on to understand what you needed and be engaged. The leads on our project are Henry Detmer and Tarika Jane
that did the lion’s share of the work on this; I kind of oversaw it generally, but they were in the weeds on the study, so I am going to
turn it over to Henry and Tarika to present a summary of our findings, which were provided to you in a narrative report, which I
hope you have. We’ll just go over the highlights of that report in our presentation today. So, Henry, please take it away.
Henry replied thank you, Tom. Good morning, everyone. I apologize if my voice is a little bit hoarse, I’ve been sick the last couple of
days, but hopefully its not too bad. I’m going to be presenting our Hotel Room Nights Leakage Analysis and our overall findings. So,
just to give an overview of what we’re going to get into today, just an Introduction & Scope Review of what we did, Market
Overview, and our Hotel Leakage Analysis findings, and then I’ll open it up for Conclusion & Discussion.
Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes
June 17, 2025
Page 2 of 15
Introduction: So, a little introduction of ourselves, HVS CSE is a division of HVS, founded in 2001. We pride ourselves as a very
independent and objective third party that’s going to present the results and findings and not necessarily be a cheerleader on the
project present you the real results that you need. Market Overview: Cottage Grove, as I’m sure you all know, has a population of
just around 40,000 or a little bit more, and is a 17-minute drive from the MSP Airport. Length of Stay: Getting into some of the
visitation numbers, which is really what we care about when we’re talking about Hotel Room Nights and Hotel Room Nights Leakage,
over the last 12 months (which is the unit of time that we’re going to be using for all of this Placer data) there were 99,500
distinctive overnight visits made to Cottage Grove. This amounted to a little bit over 300,000 visit nights, so that’s about three days
on average Length of Stay. While there are 300,000 visit nights, this doesn’t necessarily mean that there’s 300,000 heads in beds in
Cottage Grove or because of Cottage Grove’s events, this is because of a lot of family-related events in Cottage Grove, and all of
these may not result in hotel room demand.
Tom said Henry, just so I can interject, to explain the data source that we used here, Henry referenced Placer.ai, its a data source
that we subscribe to, which is locational data, it’s done by tracking cell phones, hundreds of apps on cell phones, and the data is
anonymized and it gives us a sample of people that have traveled to Cottage Grove. It gives us information on the origin of the
travel, how long they stayed, and where they went when they were in the market. So these are estimates, they don’t track all cell
phones. So, they get a panel of phones and they also check it against other sources of data they have, like credit card information to
validate, but it produces an estimate of total stays based on where these people come from, the percentage of phones they have,
and it even tells us about their average income and a lot of other characteristics that are correlated with the data they have. So,
that’s our primary data source that we’re using for this. We also are using Smith Travel Research (STR) data, which is the industry
source of data on hotel occupancy and rate; it’s reported by the hotels to Smith Travel, and then again anonymously provided on
groups of hotels to people who subscribe to the database. So, those are the primary sources that we’re using and that’s what you’re
seeing. Keep in mind these are estimates, we think that they are, we deem them to be pretty accurate, but they are estimates so
don’t take the numbers to be exact, take them as a good indicator of what total volumes of visits are and what the nature of the
visits are. Go ahead, Henry.
Henry said so getting into some of the Overnight Visitor Origins, as we look at some of the top destinations that people are
coming from, you see Duluth and Mankato at the top there, with 24,000 and a little over 19,000, respectively. Interestingly,
Mankato has a much higher length of stay than many of the other destinations we see like Duluth, Chicago, Rochester. Then, as we
look down the list a little bit, Madison, Minneapolis, Fargo are bringing a little bit less people, but those are obviously, aside from
Minneapolis where there are a lot of daytrips, but Fargo and Madison are a little bit farther destinations.
Lodging Supply in Cottage Grove: As we look at Leakage, it’s important to look at the current Lodging Supply in Cottage Grove; there
are currently two hotels, the Country Inn & Suites, which is an Upper Midscale property in terms of chain scale and quality, 76
rooms, and the Wakota Inn & Suites, which is Economy and has 31 additional guest rooms. So, a total of 107 rooms, most of which
are Upper Midscale, which is pretty limited in Cottage Grove’s ability to accommodate surges in visitation for any event, and there
are currently no Upper Upscale or Luxury Chain Scale properties, which is really what a lot of corporate travel and higher spending
leisure travel are looking for when they’re visiting. Lodging Supply in Dakota and Washington Counties: When we look at location of
Lodging Supply and the quality, we use ESRI here to map our hotel supply data from STR. So, this is the Lodging Supply in Dakota and
Washington Counties, and as you see, there’s kind of three groupings around Cottage Grove of hotels and that’s in Woodbury, Inver
Grove, and Hastings. You can see that there’s a little bit more of a diverse spread to their supply: There are two Upscales and a
Luxury in Woodbury, an Upscale and a Luxury in Inver Grove, and then an Upper Upscale in Hastings. So, that’s just kind of a brief
overview and shows you the surrounding supply where people might be leaking to primarily.
Hotel Leakage Analysis
So, as we look at visitation and demand drivers in Cottage Grove, we grouped them up into three categories:
1) Wedding Venues: Hope Glen Farm, River Oaks Event Center, and The Madison.
2) Corporate Travel: 3M, Renewal by Andersen, American Distribution & Manufacturing Company, Van Meter, Inc. and a couple
others. This doesn’t catch the entire travel source in Cottage Grove, but these are the ones that we selected, which give us a good
representation of what the rest of visitation in Cottage Grove looks like.
3) Sports & Recreation: Cottage Grove Ice Arena, Kingston Park holds events like soccer tournaments and the Strawberry Festival,
Oakwood Park Disc Golf Course, Hamlet Park. We couldn’t include Wolfpack Stadium because I’m aware that’s on school grounds
and Placer isn’t allowed to give data on school facilities, so that’s a limitation; but we think the areas we selected are representative
of Sports & Recreation visitation as a whole in Cottage Grove.
Hotel Same-Day Visit Leakage: Off the hotel visits that we were able to track, which is based on same-day visitation, if they went to
one of these venues that we selected and then in the same day visited a hotel, we’ll count them as having stayed at a hotel. Because
typically if you go to a hotel, you’re going to be staying there. So, Business and Corporate Travel has the highest percentage of
leakage with 87% there as you can see, Sports & Recreation is close to 70%, and then a lot of the Wedding Events & Venues don’t
have a lot of leakage at almost 27%, so a lot of those people are held in Cottage Grove at the Country Inn & Suites or the Wakota.
Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes
June 17, 2025
Page 3 of 15
So, overall, for every 10 people, approximately 7 of them stay outside of Cottage Grove just to put it simply. As we discussed before,
leakage is highest in Corporate and Sports & Recreation visitors.
Estimate of Hotel Room Night Leakage: Over the past most recent 12 months it’s about 58,000, and this is based on the Lodging
Capacity in Cottage Grove and the current Room Nights Sold. So, this is our estimate of how much is currently being retained in
Cottage Grove: 24,000 Room Nights, and then scaling it up with our Estimated Hotel Leakage Factor, which is based on the Leakage
Percentage that we gathered from Placer.ai, we find that over 58,000 people are likely staying outside of Cottage Grove as a result
of Cottage Grove demand generation. This is a rough estimate but likely conservative estimate.
Estimated Leakage (Trailing 12 Months): Moving on to what Estimated Leakage means, with an Average Daily Rate of $125 in
Cottage Grove, the Hotel Revenue Leakage is over $7 million, and at a 3% Local Occupancy Tax Rate, this equals over $220,000 in
Annual Lost Tax Revenue and in Local Sales Tax Revenue it’s over $20,000. So, these numbers show that there is significant Leakage
occurring in Cottage Grove.
Conclusion & Discussion
Key Takeaways:
• The current supply of lodging in Cottage Grove of 107 rooms is insufficient to meet the lodging needs generated by
Corporate activity and Sports & Recreation.
• The significant Room Night Leakage of 70% is a high number; over the last 12 months, this is over 58,000 Room Nights.
• This translates to over $7 million in lost Hotel Revenue and over $220,000 in lost Occupancy Tax Revenue.
• We can’t say anything in this study as to the cause of this leakage; it may result from a variety of factors beyond just hotel
supply, including: Limited surrounding demand drivers, absence of nearby retail, dining, or entertainment options,
amenities for groups, or preferred hotel brands that would encourage overnight stays in Cottage Grove.
• Additionally, this study makes no projection for the performance of new lodging supply; so, we make no projection of how
it will perform if a new hotel gets built.
Henry said with that, I can open it up for discussion or questions.
EDA President Bailey said all right, thank you. First of all, I guess I’ll throw it out to the EDA; are there any questions that you have
regarding the study.
EDA Member Latack said one question I have for the business traveler is the loyalty program, is that pretty important regarding
where they’re deciding to stay?
Tom replied yes, it is. It is a driver in a couple of ways: It’s a driver of hotel choice on the part of business travelers. They have
their own personal loyalty programs and most travelers are enrolled in more than one of those loyalty programs, but it really is a big
factor in the draw to branded hotels rather than independent hotels. Also, the corporations like 3M or Renewal by Andersen may
have corporate contracts with hotels, and they guarantee a certain number of Room Nights a year in exchange for a lower rate. So,
that’s also a big determinant of hotel choice. So, when you think about hotel development for Cottage Grove, it would make sense
to have branded hotel development in Cottage Grove.
EDA Member Scott asked is there a recommended number of rooms that you would recommend based on this study, based on the
leakage if we were going to build a hotel?
Tom replied as Henry said, we haven’t done or weren’t really engaged to do the work that one would do to recommend a hotel
room count because that would be a different analysis where we would look at the performance of a competitive set of hotels,
project their market performance, and understand how a new hotel might kind of affect that market. There are a lot of other factors
besides leakage that would factor into that. Without having done that analysis, I would venture a guess that the most appropriate
product for Cottage Grove would be a quality select service hotel that’s branded and would have an advantageous rate. The location
and specific site of the hotel is very important to how it will perform, what kind of neighboring amenities it will have, what kind of
transportation access, what kind of visibility; all those questions would come into play to predict how an individual hotel might
perform. Full service, select service hotels typically range from 90 to 120 rooms that you might see in a Courtyard by Marriott, Hilton
Garden Inn or Hampton Inn, those kind of properties; that would be the most likely type of development to succeed in this market.
Tarika said if I may, our 2022 study by our Minneapolis office also recommended a 90-room limited service hotel for Cottage
Grove. So, that study has been conducted in 2022.
EDA President Bailey said I was just going to share that I believe we did do our own study, is that what she’s referring to? One of
the things that EDA Vice President Olsen and I just came back in May from the ICSC Convention in Las Vegas and met with a bunch of
hoteliers out there or developers. What we were hearing from them was exactly the numbers that you were just sharing; some were
between 90 and 120 rooms for a business class hotel, but then also about 40 to maybe 60 rooms of extended stay. So they were
talking about kind of almost like a dual brand, if that would be the case, it doesn’t have to be; they were commenting that some of
Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes
June 17, 2025
Page 4 of 15
these brands might want a portion of the hotel to be like the business class type hotel and then with one lobby in the middle, and
then to the other side would be their version of an extended stay for that particular brand. So, I thought that was kind of interesting
because they did see, based on the study that Tarika was mentioning, I know there was a comment about extended stay and that
same message due to things that are happening in our market area that that was something also important for our community. I just
thought I’d throw that out there, we heard that very loud and clear when we were at the ICSC Convention in Las Vegas.
EDA Member Jean-Baptiste said in your previous slide you kind of had a map of the different types of hotels that are in the area. Is
there any concern, given the level of consolidation in the hotel industry, that we might have trouble pulling in one of those bigger
brands given that they’re relatively concentrated in the area and might be worried about some sort of cannibalization on their
individual hotels?
Tom replied yes, that would be a concern, and it depends on the developer of these hotels, as they often seek a brand restriction
within a radius around them. My guess is that the radius around these hotels probably don’t extend into all of Cottage Grove, I
would be surprised; the radius restrictions are probably roughly within those circles that you see on the map. There are also a wide
variety of brands that are available, brands have proliferated, so even if there were restrictions, there’s probably comparable brands
that may be available. EDA Member Jean-Baptiste said thank you.
EDA President Bailey said the one thing I had a question on, on that slide that you showed where a lot of the perceived traffic is
coming into Cottage Grove; the only thing I personally can take out of that with grandkids in sporting events, when you look at like
Mankato and you look at Rochester and Duluth and some of these places, knowing in Cottage Grove that we have a lot of these
tournaments that doesn’t surprise me to a certain extent. Is that what you feel or does your data kind of state that that’s the case,
as it is being driven predominantly, at the moment anyway, by sporting events that are happening in Cottage Grove?
Tom replied yes, I think that is a predominant driver because convenience and proximity and drive time, the kind of product that
would be appropriate for Cottage Grove suits sports demand. The problem is it’s not consistent, you know, tournaments occur
typically on weekends, they’re seasonal, and so it’s not a constant daily source of demand, but it’s a very important source of
demand.
In support of Cottage Grove, I had Renewal by Andersen just come to my house to replace some windows in my basement. So I
asked the sales guy who came over, I said oh, I’m working in Cottage Grove, it’s where your headquarters are, do you have to go
there for training? He said, no, we all do it here in the Chicago area. I was so disappointed that there wasn’t a direct connection, but
he obviously was very aware of that being their corporate headquarters, but apparently Andersen doesn’t, at least for their Chicago
people, they do their training in Chicago. We know there’s a lot of demand related to Andersen that does come to the market, but I
was hoping to find that direction connection. So, I think if you capture the corporate demand, it’s much more difficult because of the
brand loyalty that you’d mentioned earlier and because of the quality of hotel and the lack of price sensitivity that corporate visitors
may have. So, it would be tough to build a product in Cottage Grove I think that would draw a lot of that demand back into Cottage
Grove; it certainly would capture some of it, but that’s tougher I think than capturing the sports demand.
EDA President Bailey asked if the EDA Members had any more comments or questions for HVS and there were none. He stated well,
thank you for the information, we do appreciate getting it, I think it kind of solidifies what we thought with some of the challenges. I
do know that, as I mentioned earlier, when we were out at the ICSC Convention, all of this different data that we have been
gathering for the EDA was very well received by all the different hoteliers that were out there. For our group, we are working on an
RFP for a hotel in Cottage Grove, and one of the hoteliers we met out there has already been to town to look at the site, is planning
to put in an RFP on the site, and it would be a business-class hotel. So, that’s great news, it does go to show the data you provided to
us, as well as what we felt were the issues in Cottage Grove, are absolutely there. Hopefully, we’ll see something develop on that
site within the next year. He thanked HVS for their presentation.
B. Economic Development Update
Staff Recommendation: Receive Beige Book Report - April 2025 & Development Update 6-10-2025.
EDA President Bailey said City Administrator Jennifer Levitt will walk us through this one.
Beige Book Report: Overall, the economy activity is lower since the last report across most sectors. Employment: Many business
sectors are reporting hiring freezes and, in some cases, temporary layoffs. Prices: Have increased moderately since February.
Construction Activity: Had fallen overall but is beginning to pick up into spring. Manufacturing: Has increased modestly as
companies move to “buy now” before prices rise. Yesterday, as we met with a broker, one of the observations he was making was
that a lot of our retailers in the Midwest market have kind of I’ll say go dormant; they weren’t making investments and were kind of
Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes
June 17, 2025
Page 5 of 15
holding their position. He said right now, he’s starting to see a lot of those retailers start to emerge, more with an interest to expand
in the market, so that is good news. Residential Real Estate Sales: Also, anecdotally from Cottage Grove, when you look at our single-
family housing stock, it is still going very strong; so, that is one good news for us is when you see those platted lots, we see those
new housing permits come in, that activity is still very good and helping our local economy.
Community Development Updates: Lumbermen’s: Is working on their buildout, as you recall, there are two buildings that
NorthPoint has, and Lumbermen’s was in the smaller building and now they’ve moved to the larger building. So, they are starting to
complete their tenant improvements: Carpet and floor tile are being laid; Ceiling grid and the plumbing fixtures are being installed in
the office area; Building permit secured to relocate the original conference room and convert the space into additional office space. I
met with NorthPoint on Friday, and the good news is that the larger building where Lumbermen’s is now being located, they do
believe they’re close to securing another tenant that is kind of a partner with Lumbermen’s; so we hope to see that actually come in
the door for a building permit shortly. So, they’re still leaving some vacant space there, but it’s exciting to see that those spaces are
filling up and that Lumbermen’s obviously is growing. Bluestem Apartments: This was that deeply affordable housing product that is
right across from GROVE80 and the library. We had an exciting ribbon cutting there earlier this spring. Right now, they’re finishing
up the exterior site work and we’ll be issuing a full Certificate of Occupancy shortly and then working on their business subsidy. Low
Zone Water Treatment Plant: A big thing to note is when you have a glass of water this week, you will be drinking treated water
coming from this very facility. The Council toured this facility two weeks ago, just before we became operational, and we are
hopefully flowing treated water to residents. In these interesting two blue tanks here on the left of the screen, what’s interesting is
there is a green sand in there that actually helps the tanks take out the manganese in that; that was actually one of the things that
was delaying the plant from coming on was that green sand from Brazil. You never know when you’re dealing with projects where all
of your products are going to be coming from, and we had some controls that were stuck in France. It’s exciting to see even the
global market right here in Cottage Grove on a Water Treatment Plant. Interior finishing work and water quality testing continues.
Curb and gutter work have begun with the paving of the parking lot to begin shortly. Public Works Remodel: Has a very small
renovation that’s taking place in their mechanics’ shop; we’re taking out an interior wall so that we can bring in a larger hoist to
enable our fleet team to be able to service some of our larger vehicles, fire trucks and apparatus like that and plow trucks. So, that
work is underway. Oltman Middle School: Work has started on footings and foundation for the building addition. Council just
awarded the Oltman ball field and playground and so that project will start as well. If you’re up in the Oltman area, you’ll actually
see our activity start with the park and then you’ll also see the building improvement taking place. Park High School: If you’ve driven
by on 80th Street, you’ve seen a chain-link fence all the way around and down to Crestview. A couple of things are happening there:
1) There’s a very extensive new drive being constructed between the tennis courts and Crestview, so you’re going to see that road
alignment come out to 80th Street. 2) As part of our 2026 project on 80th Street, we’ll install the turn lanes for that. Right now, if
you’re out there, you’ll start to see some demolition work but you’re also starting to see a lot of that civil work with the piping and
other things being delivered to the site. HORSCH AgTec Grand Opening: I know you’ve all received the invitation for the grand
opening at 9700 Hemingway on June 18, from 1:00-10:00 p.m., they’re bringing in their team for a German-made agricultural
product, and so it’s exciting that they’re here in Cottage Grove. So, if you have an opportunity to stop by and welcome them to the
community, you’ll have a fairly significant timeslot to do that on Wednesday.
Administrator Levitt said I would be happy to stand for any questions. EDA President Bailey asked the EDA Members if they had any
questions for Administrator Levitt, none were asked. EDA President Bailey thanked Administrator Levitt.
C. Resolution Modification - 2024-01
Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2024-014 correcting a numbering error in our official records, ensuring clarity and
accuracy for a previously-approved action related to Purchase Agreements with Glendenning Farms and Kwik Trip.
EDA President Bailey said Tammy will be taking us through this one.
Tammy Anderson said I have the honor of being the City Clerk for Cottage Grove. I’m not used to standing right here, I’m usually
over where Becca is, but this is kind of nice, I could get used to this.
Today I want to talk to you a little bit about what Clerk responsibilities are and my responsibilities as Clerk would be to make sure
that I have clear, transparent, and legal records that go forward for future generations that reside in Cottage Grove.
During an audit three weeks ago, we discovered that two Resolutions that were presented to the EDA in 2024 had the same
Resolution number. The first one was presented on January 9, 2024, and it was approving a modification to the development
program for Development District #1 and Adopting a Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing in District #1 through
2024 and that was for Roers. Then, we found another one with the same Resolution number, as I stated before, 2024-01, which was
Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes
June 17, 2025
Page 6 of 15
approved by the EDA on February 13, 2024, and that Resolution was approving the First Amendment to a Purchase Agreement and
that was in regards to Kwik Trip.
So, after consulting with our City Attorney, Kori Land, we came up with a solution and that Recommendation is before you today,
and I’ll stand for any questions.
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2024-014 correcting a numbering error in our official records, ensuring clarity and accuracy
for a previously-approved action related to Purchase Agreements with Glendenning Farms and Kwik Trip.
EDA President Bailey said so, it’s just kind of a formality situation you just need to make, to make sure that the two aren’t equal.
Tammy replied correct.
Motion by EDA Member Jean-Baptiste to Adopt Resolution 2024-014 correcting a numbering error in our official records, ensuring
clarity and accuracy for a previously-approved action related to Purchase Agreements with Glendenning Farms and Kwik Trip.
EDA Member Tschida seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously (6-to-0 vote).
D. 9430 East Point Douglas Road Purchase Agreement
Staff Recommendation: Authorize the EDA President and the City Administrator to execute the Purchase Agreement with
Martha Ross to purchase 3.59 acres for development purposes.
EDA President Bailey said this item will be presented by Jennifer.
Administrator Levitt said well, thank you, we talked a lot this morning about hotels and we’re going to continue that theme. As
the City Council had looked at the Strategic Plan in January of this year, we knew there was a need for a hotel. We had estimated the
leakage through our Chandlerthinks project, we knew that there was a driver and a need for a hotel here in Cottage Grove. One of
the unique opportunities that presented itself is that there is a 3.59-acre site adjacent to Walmart that is owned by the Ross family;
they have been interested in selling, and so we have been engaged with them to negotiate a Purchase Agreement. You’ll recall you
previously approved an appraisal to be conducted on the property. The property is zoned Residential today, but is guided as Mixed
Use, so it would support a hotel and be compliant. The City hired our consultant to make sure that a hotel would actually fit on the
site itself, and so what you have demonstrated here is that a 90-room hotel would fit on the site and that it would be conducive to
that. We are undergoing a Phase 1 Environmental on the site right now and that report should be completed at the end of June.
With that, we’re looking at an additional assessment and soil borings. The leakage study that was just presented will be sent to all of
those that are currently holding our RFP, and the RFP for the hotel would be due at the end of August. So, we would be bringing a
proposal to you most likely in September to discuss an acceptance of a proposal to start the acquisition process. The intent with your
action today is for the EDA to actually buy the Ross property, and then our intent is to do the demo work on the house, the well, the
septic, and if there’s any environmental work, we would take care of that. So, that way before we close with a hotel investor, those
things would be done. We are trying to make it as easy as possible for a hotel to come in on this site. We also believe when you look
at the adjacent 73 acres, this might be that catalyst or that spur to help bring additional investment on that 73 acres. In talking with
a couple of the hotel companies, they do like the visibility from Highway 61, and so that prominent visibility and easy access is very
attractive to them.
One of the other things, too, is we did receive Federal funds of just over $3 million for the Shoppes at Cottage View related to
infrastructure; we would anticipate starting that work in the spring to construct the spur road into this and then realign a road going
into Walmart, and then we would provide the sewer and water services as well. So, it’s as easy as we can make it for a developer,
making it shovel ready the day they would sign on the dotted line for the acquisition.
So, with that, I do have a Purchase Agreement in your packet with Martha Ross for purchase of that 3.59 acres, and I’d be happy
to stand for any questions.
EDA Member Jean-Baptiste said I’m assuming we have Site control for the piece of land where the Shoppes at Cottage View would
be already, is that correct?
Administrator Levitt replied currently the 73 acres is under option to River Caddis, and so I’m not sure if he is going to continue to
extend his option on the property, but it is under option by someone at this time. So, even if our project moves forward, it would be
a catalyst for that end user, who holds that option, or if he relinquishes it, it could give an opportunity to another investor to pursue
acquisition on that 73 acres.
EDA Member Jean-Baptiste replied got it, and do we know when our current option expires?
Administrator Levitt replied I’m not sure of the exact deadline, as that is a private agreement between the broker and the
landowner.
Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes
June 17, 2025
Page 7 of 15
EDA Member Jean-Baptiste said got it, and then there was a couple other lots surrounding both Shoppes at Cottage View as well as
where the hotel is going to be, it looks like there is a small piece of land to the left and then one to the right. Do we have any interest
in those or are those up for sale or is there any plan to develop those as well?
Administrator Levitt replied that’s a good question. The lot to the left of the 3.59 acres, that’s a stormwater pond, so that’s an
Outlot owned by the City. The other parcel that’s not highlighted here could be included at the Shoppes at Cottage View, it’s maybe
just an error in my graphic. Its actually under a separate entity, a different LLC, and so it actually goes together as the same
underlying landowner, it’s just two different companies that own it but it’s the same landowner. So, it probably should have been
shaded on the graphic, so I’m sorry for that.
EDA Member Jean-Baptiste said oh, no worries, that makes perfect sense. And then my last question is for the Shoppes at Cottage
View, I think I’ve seen some renderings that originally had a hotel as a part of that. Is that still the case? Would we duplicate and
have two hotels or would we just do something else with that space? I think it would be in the bottom-right corner, now that we are
hopefully going to purchase this 3.59-acre lot and have that as the hotel.
Administrator Levitt replied in my perfect world, I would love to see that 90-unit hotel, you know like a Marriott brand type hotel
come in, and you might then have an extended-stay hotel maybe purchase the land adjacent. It gives that opportunity for more
upscale restaurants that we’re lacking in our community to potentially be attracted to this site. So, we think all of that is going to
make this acquisition a great catalyst to make all of that happen.
EDA Member Latack said so for the 3.59 acres, I’m curious if we can go back to the map; the property on the other side of the road,
that may not be super useful to a hotel, would that be able to almost be resold as a gas station, quick-serve restaurant, or something
like that?
Administrator Levitt asked just for clarification, are you referring to this little triangular piece?
EDA Member Latack replied yes, or is it too small to do anything?
Administrator Levitt replied actually, we’ll be cleaning that up as Right-of-Way; so on East Point Douglas, we would secure the
Right-of-Way for that, and then the DOT would actually take that little sliver there. We have to clean up that Right-of-Way as part of
this acquisition in the plat, but a good question on that.
EDA President Bailey said I will just say one thing, real quick. There were some great questions down there about the plat. Because
I’ve been part of knowing about this from the very beginning, at the very beginning, the owners of the Shoppes at Cottage View, the
Heringers, they had an agreement with the Rosses years and years and years ago that as things would develop on that site that they
would go in and whatever Jerry was selling the property, he would go in and help buy the Rosses. Well, Jerry passed away and Jim
Ross passed away, and so we just decided after a conversation I had with Mary was just it would be a good idea for us to go ahead
and do it because right now, as you kind of heard, things have been kind of stagnant on that site with the current option that’s out
there. The other piece of the difference I think on that screen that you were showing is at the time, when Jerry was alive, he actually
purchased that other square on the corner. And what’s nice about that, to be honest with you, is when Walmart came in and did the
deal with the Heringers, Walmart put a bunch of restrictions on what can go in down there. And so, as part of the deal, for example,
I don't believe there can be a grocery store in any of that bigger parcel there if there was a need for a grocery store; and so, this area
down on the bottom there where the cursor is right now, that area has no restrictions because it was purchased and came on board
with the Heringers after the agreement with Walmart. So, just giving you a heads up that there’s all these tentacles of things that
can be a challenge with some of these sites, but hopefully, we’ll see something develop in there other than what we’re proposing to
do with this one site.
Recommendation: By motion, Authorize the EDA President and the City Administrator to execute the Purchase Agreement with
Martha Ross for the purchase of 3.59 acres for development purposes.
EDA Vice President Olsen made a motion to Authorize the EDA President and the City Administrator to execute the Purchase
Agreement with Martha Ross for the purchase of 3.59 acres for development purposes. The motion was seconded by EDA
Member Scott. Motion passed unanimously (6-to-0 vote).
E. Façade Improvement Program
Staff Recommendation: 1) Award VP Investments, LLC, owners of 80th Street Crossing, an award letter for the submitted
project with matching funds of up to $24,999 for any eligible expenses as part of the City of Cottage Grove Façade
Improvement Grant Program and $2,000 in design assistance. 2) Award Alisan, LLC c/o Kin Properties, owners of the Sherwin
Williams building, an award letter for the submitted project with matching funds of up to $24,999 for any eligible expenses
as part of the City of Cottage Grove Façade Improvement Grant Program. 3) Award Boondocks Vintage Boutique an award
Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes
June 17, 2025
Page 8 of 15
letter for design assistance for the submitted project of up to $2,000 for any design work procured by a licensed design
professional to assist with the creative design for their Façade Improvement Grant Program application.
Mayor Bailey said Jaime Mann, Assistant to the City Attorney, is going to walk us through this one.
Jaime said I’m happy to announce that we have three applications this year for our Façade Improvement Program, but we’ll start out
with a little bit of history on the program:
• It started in the City of Cottage Grove in 2019 as a way to beautify commercial stock in the City;
• It is a grant-based program that is a 50% match, up to $25,000, but they also have to provide a $25,000 investment into the
upgrades.
• It is meant to keep our commercial stock beautiful in the City.
Criteria for the awards:
• It has to be a location within the City of Cottage Grove.
• Ability to encourage improvements to surrounding businesses.
• Ability to improve the appearance and attractiveness of an area.
• Consistent with Cottage Grove Comprehensive Plan.
• Compliance with City Codes.
• Priority may be given to local businesses over national/regional tenants.
• Building owners who have not previously been awarded a grant will be considered before those who have already received
grant funding.
We do have Façade Improvement Grant Priority Zones within the City of Cottage Grove, you can see them on the map here. Priority
is given to applications from areas that contain a larger concentration of commercially-zoned parcels, as well as those areas in the
community that have a more visible/higher traffic count: Priority Zone 1 is indicated by green on the map and includes 80th Street
and East Point Douglas Road, as well as Jamaica Avenue and East Point Douglas Road. Priority Zone 2 is indicated by blue on the map
and includes the Southwest Corner of 70th Street and Keats Avenue, the Northwest Corner of 70th Street and Hinton Avenue, and
West Point Douglas Road.
So, with the grant EDA has, we have budgeted for two Façade Improvement grants this year of $25,000 each, so we have $50,000 in
the 2025 EDA Budget. With that, all the work needs to be performed before we pay out the dollars. So, they pay for everything and
they submit the paid invoices to us and then it’s reimbursement to them for up to 50% of cost. You’ll see estimates on the future
screens that I have here; we base the dollars we pay on their final cost, so those are just estimates at this point as we move through
the three projects.
1) 80th Street Crossing Application: This is the first one we received and is where Pizza Hut, Basic Needs, and Ace Hardware
are located. They are in Priority Zone 1 and their total estimated project costs are just over $75,000. They plan to include: Tuck
pointing and painting; Removing Pizza Hut sign from the roof and putting it on the front of the building; Replacing lighting with
under-canopy lighting and can lighting; Installing privacy film on back windows (ineligible expense totaling $2,036). They are
requesting the full grant match of $25,000. They also requested $2,000 for design assistance to go out and do the final design, and
we also allow $2,000 for design assistance to businesses that apply for that.
2) Sherwin Williams: This is the second application we received, and on the bottom right of the screen is a rendering of what
they’re looking to do. The extensive list for their project includes: Power washing exterior; Replacing damaged/rotting fascia and
soffits; Replacing missing fencing; Replacing/repairing existing drip edge; Tuckpointing any deteriorated mortar joints, cleanout and
recaulking masonry expansion joists; Prime and paint for entire building, soffit, fascia, pylon signposts, wood fence, bollard, and
doors and frames; Installing approximately 336 SF of cultured stone over brick at front elevations and around base of pylon sign; Re-
lamping the soffit lights with LEDs and re-lamping the parking lot light with LED (ineligible expense). Their estimated project costs
are just over $75,000, and they are requesting the full grant match as well. They did not request design assistance because they’ve
done that inhouse.
3) Boondocks Vintage Boutique: There have been some ongoing Code violations with Boondocks, and they did not have
complete estimates. They submitted estimated project costs of just over $21,000, asking for a 50% grant funding of that. They did
not submit quotes as the other two applicants have, but they did request design assistance. They are looking at the biggest cost for
the project being leveling their parking lot, which is not included in our grant program. We have ineligible expenses such as parking
lot replacement lighting, so a big portion of their grant request was for that ineligible expense.
Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes
June 17, 2025
Page 9 of 15
Jaime said so, with that, I have a Recommendation and a few Motions before you, but I’ll be happy to stand for any questions about
any of the three projects.
Recommendation: By Motion:
1) Award VP Investments, LLC, owners of 80th Street Crossing, an award letter for the submitted project with matching
funds of up to $24,999 for any eligible expenses as part of the City of Cottage Grove Façade Improvement Grant Program
and $2,000 in design assistance.
2) Award Alisan, LLC c/o Kin Properties, owners of the Sherwin Williams building, an award letter for the submitted project
with matching funds of up to $24,999 for any eligible expenses as part of the City of Cottage Grove Façade Improvement
Grant Program.
3) Award Boondocks Vintage Boutique an award letter for design assistance for the submitted project of up to $2,000 for
any design work procured by a licensed design professional to assist with the creative design for their Façade
Improvement Grant Program application.
EDA President Bailey thanked Jaime and confirmed with her that there would need to be three separate motions. He asked if any
EDA Members had questions for Jaime.
EDA Vice President Olsen thanked Jaime for the update. I was aware of all of these previous to the presentation, but I’m grateful
that we got some further detail here on what everybody’s looking for. One of the things you mentioned earlier in your presentation
was we try to prioritize those local businesses, which I think is absolutely the right thing to do. One of the questions that I would ask,
though, is when you work with a local business, in many cases you’re working with a single owner, maybe two owners, much smaller
infrastructure than you’d get with working with a corporate entity. Do we help them with their submission? In other words, when
they express interest and they say I heard about this program, I really would like to get involved, but I’m not quite sure what to do,
do we do any advising or provide any sort of support in terms of application submittal, make sure that its buttoned up the right way
so that they can hopefully gain some sort of award? The reason I’m asking the question is I think back to our COVID timeframe, and
at that time, we had a number of local businesses at risk of shutting down because of the changes in the market caused by the
COVID pandemic, and we did a lot of handholding. I recall our former Economic Development Director, Christine Costello, literally
going and sitting down with people and taking out a little piece of paper and saying okay, here’s what you fill out here and what you
fill out there. I’m just wondering, I know that is very time consuming and staff time is definitely something that we have to watch
closely; do we help to get these folks tracking the right way?
Jaime replied thank, EDA Vice President Olsen, it is an option available to businesses. I actually met with the Sherwin Williams
group before they did their submittal to talk through the process, answer any questions they might have. So, if they do let us know
they are looking for assistance, we are more than happy to help.
EDA Vice President Olsen said thinking about the Boondocks, one of the things that was mentioned to me on a visit here about a
month, month and a half ago was that they were pursuing this, they mentioned that they were pursuing this and that they had a
meeting set up with our former EDA Director. Do you happen to know if that meeting ever took place?
Jaime replied I am not sure on that one. I can look back to a calendar to see if it’s out there.
EDA Vice President Olsen said and maybe that’s a wise decision because when you mentioned that they had some things that
they were looking to do and that those things weren’t eligible, I would hope that if they did have that meeting, that would have
been discussed with them; but I just would like to know whether or not that meeting actually took place or not because if it didn’t,
maybe we need to do a little handholding there that we hadn’t done in the past. It’s just a thought, that’s all I have. Thank you.
EDA President Bailey asked if there were any other questions, and there were none.
EDA Member Scott made a motion to award VP Investments, LLC, owners of 80th Street Crossing, an award letter for the
submitted project with matching funds of up to $24,999 for any eligible expenses as part of the City of Cottage Grove Façade
Improvement Grant Program and $2,000 in design assistance. Motion was seconded by EDA Member Jean-Baptiste. Motion
passed unanimously (6-to-0 vote).
EDA Member Tschida made a motion to award Alisan, LLC c/o Kin Properties, owners of the Sherwin Williams building, an award
letter for the submitted project with matching funds of up to $24,999 for any eligible expenses as part of the City of Cottage
Grove Façade Improvement Grant Program. Motion was seconded by EDA Vice President Olsen. Motion passed unanimously
(6-to-0 vote).
Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes
June 17, 2025
Page 10 of 15
EDA Member Latack made a motion to award Boondocks Vintage Boutique an award letter for design assistance for the
submitted project of up to $2,000 for any design work procured by a licensed design professional to assist with the creative
design for their Façade Improvement Grant Program application. Motion was seconded by EDA Member Scott.
EDA President Bailey asked if there was any further discussion on this. EDA Vice President Olsen said yes, as I mentioned earlier,
I’d be curious if that meeting did take place and what additional support we may be able to provide to this local business. I’d like to
just remind people that one of the owners of this business had a terrible tragedy in their family here in the not too distant past, and
that may have been something that would have prevented them from maybe dotting the I’s and crossing the T’s to the degree that
they needed to. So, if we can just follow up with that, see if there’s any additional support we can provide, I would sure like to see
that happen.
Motion passed unanimously (6-to-0 vote).
F. National Community Survey Report
Staff Recommendation: Receive Report.
EDA President Bailey said Phil is going to walk us through this one.
Phil Jents, Communications Director, said you’ve heard a lot of information data, a lot of data on some different topics. I’m very
excited to present to you a little bit more data from our very own residents and talking about the results of the Polco National
Community Survey, which was recently conducted. Before I get into the slides, it’s just important to note that there was a lot of
information in the full survey report that I have copies of if anyone would like that in physical form or emailed. The slides that I have
before you are shortened from the full presentation, if you will, just in the interest of time, and also focusing on topics that the EDA
Board might be interested in. Having said all of that, there’s a lot more information available that I’d be happy to discuss or provide
you with the full report as a follow up to this morning.
So, all households within Cottage Grove were eligible to participate in this survey. The City used and Polco used GIS boundary files
provided by the City, and addresses located outside of Cottage Grove boundaries were removed from the list of potential
households for this survey. From that list 3,000 addresses were randomly selected to receive the survey, and of those 3,000
randomly-selected households, they received mailings beginning on March 20, 2025, and the survey remained open for six weeks.
The first mailing was a postcard inviting the households to participate in the survey, and the next mailing contained a cover letter
with instructions, the five-page survey questionnaire, and a postage paid return envelope. Both the postcard and cover letter
included a web link to give residents the opportunity to respond to the survey online. All follow-up mailings asked those who had
not yet completed the survey to do so and those who had already done so did not respond twice. The survey and all mailings were
also available in English and Spanish. A total of 483 completed surveys were received from these efforts; that provided a response
rate of 16% with a +/- 4% margin of error. It’s very worth noting that nationally we are hearing that survey responses are down and
that our 16% response rate and margin of error rate is higher than that national average and better than that national average; and
I’m happy to report that our residents are clearly engaged and responding to surveys even though survey fatigue nationally may be a
real thing.
In addition to the randomly-selected probability households, a link to an online open participation survey was published by the
City. In the following slides, you’re going to see words like “in comparison to benchmark communities,” so those are communities all
across the country that have filled out the National Community Survey and how we rank against them. So, you’ll see words like
“higher,” “lower,” “similar” just for point of reference. The methodology that Polco uses defines higher as 10 percentage points
higher than an average, lower is at least 10 percentage points lower, and similar is within that range. So, when you see we ranked
higher than the average, similar, or lower, you kind of have an understanding of what that actually means.
In the survey, in addition to many other topics, we had two questions related to Community Livability. The first asks residents to
rate the quality of each, and you can see the resulting comparison to the National Benchmark in the shading on the chart. So, where
we rank higher is in kind of that darker green, similar in that lighter green, and lower in an even lighter green. The second question
asks about the same facets of livability, but is centered upon how important residents think it is for the community to focus on each
facet in the coming two years. I personally really appreciate this particular data point because it’s really important that a City is a lot
of things to a lot of people and provides a lot of services with limited time, limited staff resources, and other resources. It’s very
important to see if somebody thinks Safety or the Economy or Utilities is of high or medium or low quality, where did they rank it on
a scale of importance. I think that this thing needs to be improved and I also think it’s really important to focus on that, or I don’t
think this thing necessarily needs to be improved, but it’s not as important to me. So, that is very interesting insight in terms of how
we prioritize our time moving forward.
Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes
June 17, 2025
Page 11 of 15
The next slide is just another representation, visually, of that gap, if you will, of importance to quality. Polco put this together, this
Gap Analysis Chart, which is used to help determine which areas are relatively higher in importance and lower quality to residents.
This chart is one of many ways to interpret the data and can be used to identify key findings and help determine which areas may
need additional focus or resources allocated in the coming years and which others are performing well in comparison. So, you see
here some standouts are the Economy, Utilities, Community Design, and again, just another visual representation of that
relationship between opinions on quality and importance.
So, in terms of the Economy in Cottage Grove, which the EDA Board may be uniquely interested in learning about, we saw that
earlier 86% of the residents emphasized the importance of focusing on the economy, ranking second among the ten facets. The
overall economic health of Cottage Grove was rated positively by about six of ten residents as was the overall quality of businesses
and service establishments. Cottage Grove as a place to work followed at 49%, ranking lower than the benchmark, highlighting other
potential areas of focus, ratings were also lower than the national average benchmark for the variety of business and service
establishments at 36% and Cottage Grove as a place to visit at 35%. An important note on a variety of business and service
establishments, we also had a couple open-ended questions: What would you like to see changed or added, I believe was the
phrasing on one particular question, and we have a lot of written responses to that open-ended question about what people are
looking for; it’s a little bit of an unwieldy spreadsheet to print out, but I do have those results and you see a lot of common themes
that support kind of that talking point of people are looking for a variety of businesses in the community. Also worth mentioning is
that custom question that the City developed and added into that survey where residents share open feedback on anything they
would like to see improved or added; while those verbatim responses are not coded and analyzed as you see in this slide, as I said,
those survey responses are available and support people’s opinions on wanting that variety of businesses.
Here we have some information regarding Taxes and Services. There’s a lot of information on this particular slide here and a lot of
interesting feedback. When asked about their opinion relating to Taxes and Services in Cottage Grove, about a third of residents that
responded have a positive opinion about our taxes here in the City of Cottage Grove; 34% of residents said they were satisfied with
the current level of taxes in Cottage Grove, and a similar portion, 32%, felt they paid too much in taxes for the level of service they
receive, and even yet 11% are willing to pay more taxes to get those services. A small share, 5%, reported having no preference, and
3% had an opinion that was not listed. For additional context, we also see here the ratings for one of the default survey questions,
which asked residents to rate the value of services for taxes paid to Cottage Grove. The results showed that 9% of respondents rated
this item as excellent, 44% as good, 27% as fair, and 20% as poor. For benchmark comparison purposes, Polco combined the
excellent and good ratings to represent an overall “percent positive” in this case giving us a 53% rating, which ultimately ranked
similar to other communities nationwide.
And then in terms of City priorities, when I referenced those custom questions that we added into the survey, those custom
questions sought some insight into longer-term focus for the City. Among the options provided, residents placed the largest
priorities on focusing on Utilities, so that’s 97% at high or medium priority, Fire and EMS, Transportation, Police, and then of course
Economic Prosperity.
Council Member Olsen said Phil, I’m going to stop you for a second. The Fire and EMS color coding on 68%, what does that
represent?
Phil replied EDA Vice President Olsen, that’s a good point. This is something that I actually caught yesterday that I didn’t correct in
this slide because I was working on a different presentation for tomorrow night, but that’s just a coloring error; that should be the
blue, high priority. EDA Vice President Olsen replied thank you.
Phil said so with that, I’ll stand for any discussion or questions. As I said at the beginning, that was a lot, and there’s a lot of
information, a lot more, in the full report that I’d be happy to give you as a follow up.
EDA President Bailey said all right, sounds good, thank you for presenting it. EDA Vice President Olsen, you have an additional item
you want to ask?
EDA Vice President Olsen replied I do, thank you. This is the first time we’ve used Polco; we’ve done community surveys like this
in a variety of manners for as long as I’ve been a member of the City Council and even before that, when I was on the Public Safety
Health and Welfare Commission, and we’ve tried a lot of different ways to extract what we felt would hopefully be valuable
information from surveys. How do you feel about the methodology and the data capture that we got using this method vs. the
number of different ways we’ve done it in the past? I’m sure you’ve done a little bit of looking back, even though you weren’t here,
but a lot of members of the staff certainly have been for quite some time. Do you feel it was better, do you feel it was valuable, etc.?
Phil replied that’s a good question, and while I can’t very specifically speak to methodologies that were used in the past, I can
definitely speak to this experience using Polco. I think that overall, any survey is going to have, you know, I mentioned a percentage
Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes
June 17, 2025
Page 12 of 15
of margin of error, response rates, and how people respond. There’s always going to be a little bit of an element of imperfection,
right, in any survey that you conduct. My perception of Polco as a vendor, highly professional, very engaged, very responsive, and so
our project manager, our experts who designed the survey, were excellent to work with and very responsive to our feedback, our
pushback, our questions, and so on and so forth. I also think I was probably bothering our project manager during the survey, as I
was asking him very frequently how we were doing, what our responses looked like, and what our response rate looked like, and he
was very gracious in his time in responding to me. And so I think both the survey methodology makes a lot of sense to me, they’re
using a survey that is used all across the country, I believe it’s something like 500 some communities nationally. And, so, not only do
you have a solid, again with that caveat of every survey is going to have a level of imperfection to it, I have a lot of confidence in the
survey itself and responses we received via the methodology used just on its own; but then also understanding that survey is used
almost verbatim, I mean, the communities are allowed to tweak things, like we removed the word sheriff because the County
provides the sheriff, not the City. But the overall survey is more or less the same because they want, you know, trust in data when
you compare against those 500 communities nationally, and so I have a lot of confidence in this survey itself and also appreciate
how their methodology applies to other communities across the country. And then, just to end, my experience in my prior job, I
would have dearly loved to have the resources to conduct a survey such as this. Because one thing that we gleaned with this survey,
through the open-ended question, which I’m very glad we asked it on communication methods, as obviously as the City’s
Communications Manager, I’m very interested in people’s responses to how we communicate and how they feel about it. It’s hard
to always understand when we send out a newsletter to thousands and thousands of addresses, that takes a lot of time to gather a
lot of staff resources across multiple departments, a lot of costs in terms of postage and mailing, is that worth it? Are people reading
it? Do people find value in it? It’s hard to know, right? You create it and you like to think that it’s important and that people will read
it and find value in it, and then lo and behold, they respond to an open-ended question about communication platforms and the
newsletter, Cottage Grove Connect, emails, things that stood out as very common themes of how people responded. I was very
pleased to hear that hey, this thing that we’re spending a lot of time and effort on across so many different departments, that
people seem to actually value it. And, so, that’s a long way around of saying that in my previous job I would have loved to have had
that similar insight into what we were doing and why, and we weren’t always able to do that sort of thing just because everyone’s
got limitations on resources. So, hopefully, that answers your question.
EDA Vice President Olsen replied it does, thank you very much, and again, you know, as I look back at making phone calls, you
know, using that sort of methodology, we’ve done the community conversation surveys, and tried to kind of catch people where
they are, and we had chalkboards all over town and did a bunch of different things. You know, I was excited when we talked about
Polco because, precisely as you said, they have a benchmark, and they work with so many other communities; I thought it would
give us a more valid snapshot of how do we look vs. similar communities across the country, and I think we achieved that objective.
But methodology is everything when it comes to surveys, it’s the manner in which you ask the question, how do you interpret the
data, and of course you spent a lot of time before the survey even went out kind of dissecting what do we want to ask, what do we
not want to ask, and how do we want to try to gather this information. So, I was hopeful that from your seat you felt comfortable
with it and it sounds like you did, and that means the data can be utilized moving forward as we get into the budget conversations
and things to kind of guide our decision making process, which is really the point. So, thank you again for the presentation and
thanks for your feedback.
EDA Member Latack said I just have one question, when was the survey performed?
Phil replied March 20th to May 1st, 2025, that’s a great question. EDA Member Latack said thank you, I appreciate that.
EDA President Bailey said it’s funny, too, because this is just me personally on two things: One is I think we also learned whatever’s
happening at the time of the survey will possibly dictate some of the items that you’re asking for in the survey. So, when you kind of
look at the economy kind of thing, I guess you could probably say because there was concern about tariffs and rising prices and all
that. So, I just wanted to throw that in there as what I thought was interesting. And then though statistically Cottage Grove has been
higher on survey response rates, I’m still not personally happy with the lack of total survey responses, you know what I mean? That’s
just me again. I know statistically they’re saying we’re higher than the national average, but I’m just like, gees, we just can’t get
enough people to give us feedback, you know what I mean? So, those are just the two things. I mean, the information that was
provided was very good. I have not had a chance to see the comments yet, I know you’re putting that together, though I’ve been
told on a few of them of what some of the items are, but I will be interested to kind of see what people are saying in a general,
open-ended question comment with regards to communication, what do you want to see in Cottage Grove, you know, restaurants
and things like that.
EDA President Bailey asked if there were any other questions, but none were asked. He said awesome, thank you.
Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes
June 17, 2025
Page 13 of 15
G. Housing and Redevelopment Authority Preliminary 2026 Levy Adoption
Staff Recommendation: 1) Approve Resolution 2024-10, authorizing a preliminary levy to be set on taxable property of the
City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota, for fiscal year 2025, a special benefit tax levy not to exceed $142,500
per the Proposed 2025 Budget on file with the City. 2) Call for a Public Hearing to consider adoption of the final levy to be
held by the EDA at their regular meeting on December 2, 2025, at 6:00 p.m.
EDA President Bailey said Administrator Levitt will be speaking on this item.
Administrator Levitt said well, I have to say, EDA, I wear a lot of hats in the City, but I have never worn the Finance Director hat
before, so I am going to put the Finance Director’s hat on for this presentation, so that’s my intro to say go easy on me. If you want
to talk about streets, plowing, development, I’m all there; on the finance, just throw me the softballs this morning is all I ask.
So, to start with, we are looking at the EDA Levy once again for this year, we obviously adopted our first levy last year. The way
our EDA is set up and structured does permit for a levy for EDA activities and HRA activities. If you think about that as economic
development, redevelopment, housing, and affordable housing, a good example of that redevelopment element related to
affordable housing is Trellis; so, we talked about that deeply affordable subsidizing, and we’ve been talking to Real Estate Equities,
once again bringing affordable apartment units into our community, so that’s looking at your HRA activities. So, on the EDA, that’s
when we look at the TIF development for properties that may be blighted or properties that have environmental challenges that we
can bring to the table there.
In this year’s active EDA Levy for 2025, we had a levy of $137,500; to remind you, our statutory maximum was $1.2 million. What
we are proposing for the EDA Levy in 2026, which we will take to Council in July, would be for $182,500. So, that is not in your
purview, but that would be the City Council taking action, that’s where we’re looking at that recommendation.
When we look at the EDA, what you would be taking action on today is the HRA Levy portion. Now remember, that calculation of
how we get to that $1.22 million is based on a percentage of our market value, which is limited by that .0185% , and that’s for
payable taxes in 2026. We will be holding a Public Hearing on the levy, it’s an evening meeting by State Statute, on December 2,
2025, at 6:00 p.m., so mark your calendars as we do need a quorum for that.
What we are proposing today is to just increase the levy from that $137,500 to $142,500, so just over a 3.5% increase for the levy,
trying to track with that Financial Management Plan that we had put together a couple years ago to continue to grow that base.
Now one of the interesting things is you heard in the Polco study, a few interesting points: One is when you look at what people
desire in the community, for economic development it was like 89% and where they believe our quality is, it’s at 54%. So, you saw
one of the largest gaps in the survey what our residents are desiring are more economic development activity, so just a reminder
that the EDA Levy plays a critical role in that. One of the other elements in the survey that we didn’t highlight today was related to
affordable housing. I think we were below the market nationally of what people want and need in affordable housing. So, our
residents have said affordable housing is important to us. So when you look at your HRA Levy, you now have the statistical data to
show how important affordable housing is and then as the body of work that you do as the EDA, how important economic
development is for our residents, you know they’re noting there is a need and a desire for us to achieve more on that.
So, with that, I will stand for any questions, and the Recommendation and Motions are on the screen.
EDA President Bailey said okay, thank you, Jennifer. Are there any questions on the process here or the levy as it relates to HRA?
There were no questions.
Recommendation, by Motion:
1) Approve Resolution 2024-10, authorizing a preliminary levy to be set on taxable property of the City of Cottage Grove,
Washington County, Minnesota, for fiscal year 2025, a special benefit tax levy not to exceed $142,500 per the Proposed 2025
Budget on file with the City.
2) Call for a Public Hearing to consider adoption of the final levy to be held by the EDA at their regular meeting on December 2,
2025, at 6:00 p.m.
EDA Vice President Olsen made a motion to Approve Resolution 2024-10, authorizing a preliminary levy to be set on taxable
property of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota, for fiscal year 2025, a special benefit tax levy not to
exceed $142,500 per the Proposed 2025 Budget on file with the City. The motion was seconded by EDA Member Jean-Baptiste.
Motion passed 5-to-1 (Nay vote by EDA Member Tschida).
Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes
June 17, 2025
Page 14 of 15
EDA Member Scott made a motion to call for a Public Hearing to consider adoption of the final levy to be held by the EDA at their
regular meeting on December 2, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. The motion was seconded by EDA Vice President Olsen. Motion passed
unanimously 6-to-0.
Administrator Levitt said EDA President Bailey and Members of the EDA, I’m my first time wearing the Finance Director’s hat and I
have a slight glitch. The Resolution that was on the screen does not match the Resolution that was in the packet for the Levy. Could I
just ask you to acknowledge the Resolution that is in the packet for the EDA Resolution, it’s 2025-001, just for absolute clarity
related to the fiscal year 2026?
EDA President Bailey said I was wondering about that, I saw that on there, I almost stopped this, so I was wondering because it
says 2025 vs. 2026. Okay, so do you want us to?
Administrator Levitt asked so could you just remake that motion, matching the Resolution in the packet? EDA President Bailey
replied yes. Administrator Levitt said my apologies.
EDA Vice President Olsen asked so could you put it back up on the screen, please? EDA President Bailey said and then we’ll just
update it. Administrator Levitt said so, it is Resolution 2025-001 and fiscal year 2026 and the $142,500.
Motion by EDA Vice President Olsen to Approve Resolution 2025-001, authorizing a Preliminary levy to be set on taxable property
of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota, for fiscal year 2026, a special benefit tax levy not to exceed
$142,500 per the Proposed 2026 Budget on file with the City. The motion was seconded by EDA Member Jean-Baptiste. Motion
passed 5-to-1 (Nay vote by EDA Member Tschida).
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None.
7. OTHER BUSINESS
EDA President Bailey said the ICSC Meeting this year in Las Vegas was very well attended. We had literally every half hour meetings
set up with all these different end users, hoteliers, business investors, and so on. I did take away some very good information. As I
was mentioning earlier, within a week of getting back from the convention, we actually had an investor in town looking at the hotel
situation, and that’s just the one, we’ve had more that have reached out to us since then. And then of the interesting things and I’ll
just say it and then EDA Vice President Olsen can elaborate if he wants: That is we met with a couple of different investors and
developers, and one particular investor and developer literally shared with us and I’m not exaggerating when I say this number, he
said he had over 100 retailers, restaurants, whatever, that want to be in Cottage Grove, they just need a home. And it kind of blew
me away and then he started going down the list, some of them we’re aware of, some of them are going to be new to the Twin
Cities that are coming in that have been visiting Cottage Grove, and they’re like find me a place. So, one of the big challenges once
again that we’re having is either our ability to bring these businesses into town; it either has to be through redevelopment
opportunities within certain corridors in our community, or the Shoppes at Cottage View I know is what I’d mentioned as an option.
We did meet that person that has the option out there, and I was not happy with basically what we heard from him; so, at this point,
I’ve been speaking with the current family members that own the actual property there to talk about what’s the future hold for that
site. Because as you all know, at some point here we are going to be having some development on the other side of the highway,
alongside Highway 61 where the old Majestic Ballroom site is, and my comment has been if that opens up at some point down the
road, we could see that fill up fairly quickly and then the Shoppes at Cottage View will kind of wither on the vine, so to speak, if they
don’t get going on their project, especially with what we’re hearing from the developer and such out there. So, the great new is
people know who we are, we’ve said that before, but even people and businesses that we had no idea were interested in coming to
our community, are literally planning to come to our community, it’s just they need land and they need a place to locate. So, the
good news is we’re hearing that, the great news is our staff’s working as diligently as we can to figure out how do we get these
people into town. Some of it is the things that we just did today, which is the EDA purchasing some property to kind of spur some
opportunities in certain areas of our community, but I don't know if you want to add anything else to what I just shared.
EDA Vice President Olsen said yeah, it was a very productive trip to ICSC this year, and I would argue that probably 10-to-15%
more attendees than last year with respect to the brokers and the various businesses, etc. They keep expanding that Las Vegas
Convention Center, and no matter how big they make it, it seems to be full, so we definitely got our steps in. In terms of the Shoppes
at Cottage View site, I would echo EDA President Bailey’s sentiment when we met with the individual who is currently enjoying the
option on that site, and we asked the specific question, well, hey, are you marketing the site here at ICSC? The response was, well,
no, I don’t really have any drawings or anything like that. And, so, as we met with the other brokers and developers with whom we
had appointments, they all seemed incredibly excited to potentially take down that site if and when the property owner decides to
make a change. And, so, we’ll continue to work that angle because as EDA President Bailey mentioned, there are numerous entities,
end users, who want to be here in Cottage Grove, some of whom actually are currently doing business in other states, in other parts
Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes
June 17, 2025
Page 15 of 15
of the country, but they haven’t quite dipped their toe in the water yet in Minnesota and they’d like to. So, there’s a lot of work to
be done there, we had a very nice debrief meeting with the staff after the ICSC Convention, and I know that Jaime and Jennifer, etc.
took tons of notes and I know that there’s a whole lot of follow up going on. This is the place where you plant seeds and then you try
to watch them grow, and we’ve got a number of businesses in town that have resulted from our excursions to ICSC over the last
several years that we’re proud of. I think having control of the Ross site is going to definitely help us when it comes to being able to
make something happen there, sooner vs. later. So, all in all, I thought it was a really, really beneficial trip. We were tired, it was a lot
of running around, but it was a good kind of tired, you felt like you accomplished something.
EDA President Bailey said oh, yeah, definitely.
EDA Vice President Olsen said anyway, I’m glad we did it, and am excited to hear that there’s already been some attention paid to
the community by some of the folks we talked to out there, and I would expect we’re going to have more good news to share here
before the year closes out.
EDA President Bailey replied I agree, I agree.
8. WORKSHOP - None.
9. PRESENTATIONS - None.
10. ADJOURNMENT
EDA President Bailey said the next EDA Meeting will be on July 8.
EDA Vice President Olsen made a motion to adjourn. Motion was seconded by EDA Member Scott. Motion passed unanimously
(6-to-0 vote). The meeting was adjourned at 9:01 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jaime Mann
Assistant to the City Administrator
JM/jag
1
City Council Action Request
7.F.
Meeting Date 9/3/2025
Department Community Development
Agenda Category Action Item
Title Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (2025-07-28)
Staff Recommendation Accept and place on file the minutes from the July 28, 2025,
Planning Commission Meeting.
Budget Implication N/A
Attachments 1. Planning Commission Minutes 2025-07-28
COTTAGE GROVE PLANNING COMMISSION July 28, 2025
12800 Ravine Parkway South
Cottage Grove, MN 55016
COUNCIL CHAMBER - 7:00 P.M.
The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held in the Council Chamber and telecast on Local Government Cable
Channel 16.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Frazier called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Pradeep Bhat-Here; Ken Brittain-Here; Jessica Fisher-Here; Evan Frazier-Here; Eric Knable-Excused; John Stechmann-Here;
Terrence Woodman-Excused.
Members Absent: Eric Knable, Terrence Woodman
Staff Present: Emily Schmitz, Community Development Director; Samantha Pierret, Senior Planner; Kelly Becker, Associate
Planner; Crystal Raleigh, Assistant City Engineer; Justin Olsen, City Council Liaison.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Bhat made a motion to approve the agenda. Stechmann seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (5-to-0 vote).
4. OPEN FORUM
Frazier opened the Open Forum and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on any non -agenda item. No
one spoke. Frazier closed the Open Forum.
5. CHAIR’S EXPLANATION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS
Frazier explained the purpose of the Planning Commission, which serves in an advisory capacity to the City Council, and that the
City Council makes all final decisions. In addition, he explained the process of conducting a public hearing and requested that any
person wishing to speak should go to the podium and state their full name and address for the public record.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND APPLICATIONS
A. Grove Tobacco - Case CUP2025-019
Royalty & Sons, Inc., DBA Grove Tobacco, has applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to sell low potency hemp
edibles at their existing business located at 8599 West Point Douglas Road South, Suite 200.
Pierret summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report.
Frazier asked if there were any questions for staff.
Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting
July 28, 2025
Page 2 of 15
Fisher said I have one. I know that there were some, I mean we’re still trying to figure out all this cannabis stuff, right? But there
was something about proximity to schools and things, and the bus garage is like right next door. Does that have any bearing on
this at all? Pierret replied that’s a very good question. So, the low -potency edibles do not need to meet those setbacks from
schools, parks, treatment centers, all of that kind of stuff. Just kind of diving in even further here, the bus garage would not be
considered a school structure by definition that a full-potency cannabis business would need to meet the distance requirements
for, but that is not what the applicant is here for tonight, it’s just that low potency.
There were no further questions, so Frazier thanked Pierret.
Frazier asked at this time if the applicant is present and would like to add anything additional.
My name is Mike Tadal and I’m a resident at 6419 Edgemont Circle North in Brooklyn Park; my business address is 8599 West
Point Douglas Road, Suite 200, in Cottage Grove. I just wanted to explain a little bit more about the low potency, it doesn’t seem
like there was anybody on your member board that had any questions, but the low potency is not. Let me just explain about
myself, I am a student at St. Paul College. That is, I’m in the process of getting certification for cannabis retail, and so they have
classes that help us understand how to, what is in our product and how it affects people and how to best explain the effect to
people. The product itself is probably controlled a lot more than a lot of other product that is available out there in the stores
that is not regulated currently by the State, like for example, kratom or things like that that still need to be regulated. But, again,
what I wanted to just share with you is that I’m not just somebody who has just decided hey, you know, I’m going to sell this
product and make money off of it and then I don’t care about the community. That’s completely opposite, I really, truly believe
that this product can help a lot of people that are taking medications; for example, I know from a recent study that the highest
increase in consumption of low-potency hemp was in the senior population of Minnesota, 67% increase just last year, since its
been passed. So, just basically just an intro about myself and that I really know what I’m doing with this product, and I’m not
going to be reckless with it. So, that’s about it, and if there’s anybody that has questions for me, I’ll be more than happy to explain
a little further. I don’t want to go on a rant here and nonstop, but yeah. So, does anybody have any questions?
Bhat said so my question is regarding, what’s the difference here, what you refer to as hemp, is that cannabis in pure form, or its
just an exception of? Mike replied great question. So, cannabis is the marijuana plant, and hemp is the plant itself, but the re’s
levels of potency; so, for example, in alcohol, you know how they sell 3.2 beer at a gas station, and you get the regular beer at a
liquor store. So, this low-potency hemp is that type of marijuana, a plant that you would find that’s equivalent to t he 3.2 beer
that you would find at a gas station. Again, hemp is marijuana, but its not the, there are three types, the stuff you can buy from
someone off the street; at the same time, to your question, there are different levels, not just levels, but like there are different
types of hemp. So, there’s the THC, the CBD is a form of hemp, but it’s a very different plant and a different seed, a strain of
seeds that is grown in the ground to give that potency. The average potency of a street marijuana plant is between 23% to 35%,
so that’s the THC that is contained in the flower, and with hemp, it could be 2%.
Stechmann said I was just curious, the lower-potency hemp, is that sometimes referred to as Delta-8 or Delta-9 or something
along those lines? Mike replied great question, yes, it is referred to as Delta-8, sometimes referred to as Delta-9, and it also could
be a combination of the two. So, it could be CBD plus the Delta-9 or Delta-8; I don't know if you remember, there was a Delta-7
back then. There are certain grams of that hemp that the State allows the maximum to be in a product. So, right now, you can’t
get any product that has more than 10 mg. of THC or hemp or Delta-8 or 9, and yeah, there’s a Delta-8 plus so and so, so there’s
many acronyms to it. It can get a little confusing here, but you’re right. Stechmann said thank you. Mike replied yeah, no pr oblem.
There were no further questions, so Frazier said all right, thank you. Mike replied great, thank you very much.
Frazier opened the Public Hearing. No one spoke. Frazier closed the Public Hearing.
Frazier asked if there was any further discussion by the commission and there was none.
Fisher made a motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Stechmann
seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (5-to-0 vote).
B.61 Marine & Sports - Cases SP/CUP2025-018
Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting
July 28, 2025
Page 3 of 15
61 Marine & Sports has applied for a Site Plan review for a 50-foot by 8-foot building addition and a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) for the display, hire, service, rental, leasing, and/or sale of boats and recreational vehicles conducted
outside a building with servicing inside a building at 11730 Point Douglas Drive South.
Pierret summarized the staff report and recommended approval, subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report.
Frazier asked if there were any questions for staff; none were asked. Frazier thanked Pierret.
Frazier asked at this time if the applicant would like to approach and add anything additional; Frazier said he’s waving from the
back that he’s okay.
Frazier opened the Public Hearing. No one spoke. Frazier closed the Public Hearing.
Frazier asked if there was any discussion by commission.
Brittain said we have a letter that was given to us from Theresa Williams. Could you comment on the concern that they have
about the lighting, how it exists, and how this may affect it or not? Pierret replied sure, of course. The letter was in reference to
the residential houses that are across Highway 61 from the property. It seems that some lighting that is not downward directe d,
that is kind of flooding the parking lot, has been installed ove r the years. It is the City’s Code that all lighting in the commercial
districts not exceed a one-foot candle at properties adjoining commercial and industrial, and a half -foot candle adjoining
residential; however, taking into consideration we do understand Highway 61, a four -lane road, is in between these two.
However, all lights should be downward directed, and that is included in a condition in your packet that all lighting be installed
to City standards, and we would require the applicant to do that with the existing lighting on the property at this time. Brittain
said okay, thank you.
Frazier stated I did not see the front of that email that indicated it was an email, and so that will be part of the record f or this
application as well. And, Sam, the only other thing I was going to ask then about that is so there’s a condition, I see Con dition 15
that was added about outdoor lighting shall be directed downward as part of City Ordinance; going forward, has that been just
incumbent on Code Enforcement then to make sure that City Code is being followed with respect to this issue? Pierret rep lied
that would be correct. There also is the opportunity for us to require a Lighting Plan or a Photometric Plan where the applicant
would show us that that half-foot candle is being met at property lines. So, there are other things that we can also look into as
well. Frazier said okay, thank you.
Frazier asked if there was any further discussion from the commission.
Frazier said I guess I’ll just add I’ve been on the Planning Commission now since 2018 and so I’ve seen 61 Marine & Sports co me
through several times, as we saw in the application. I’m glad they’re a business in the community that’s still growing and do ing
more business, and so, I’m glad to see them work out with the City this application.
Brittain made a motion to approve the Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit subject to conditions stipulated in the staff
report. Fisher seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (5-to-0 vote).
C. Almar Village Parking - Case V2025-017
Curt Hoffman, on behalf of Almar Village, LLC, has applied for a variance to allow expansion of the existing parking
lot at 7155 Jorgensen Lane South to be within two feet of the east property line and to increase the impervious surface
coverage of the parcel beyond the 70 percent impervious surface allowed in the B -1, Limited Business District.
Pierret summarized the staff report and recommended approval based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions
stipulated in the staff report.
Frazier thanked Pierret, asked if there were any questions for staff.
Brittain said the parking spaces that are in the southeast corner of the property, which is not part of the 2.4 acres, if tha t parcel
were to develop at some point in time, I know its kind of small, how would that impact if whatever business were to go on that
parcel required the entire site have more parking spaces? What would happen? Pierret replied that’s a very good question. So,
Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting
July 28, 2025
Page 4 of 15
we’re discussing this box in the red, down in the southeast corner. Should a business or something come in there that require s
more parking spaces than is currently provided on their individual piece, as you can see there is less fewer parking spaces t han
our required on the site today. So, what we do is we look at their use and we look at things like peak hours of business. For
example, the two restaurants on site are going to need these parking spaces roughly at the same time of the day vs. a hair sa lon
or nail salon that is in there if that were to go on this vacant parcel, they need the parking spaces at a different time of t he day.
We are able to kind of look at peak hours and things like that, but technically, each tenant space needs to have parking to satisfy
their particular use. So, without knowing what somebody would come in and ask for, it’s hard to say, it’s very much a situati on-
based request. Brittain replied so, if there was a high parking need, then it probably couldn’t go in there, but it wou ldn’t prevent
some type of use from going in there if it had a balance between the hours and that use. Pierret replied yes . Brittain said okay,
thank you.
Frazier said if we can go back to that photo, so this is a rendering then of what it would look like, or what the approval wa s back
when it was first approved. So, the green circle is kind of these are the parking spots that they want to add, and I know yo u said
it was two feet from the property line is where these spots end, which Pierret confirmed. Frazier said and then there is the Right-
of-Way, and within the Right-of-Way there is a walking trail that does bend towards the parking lot. Do we know how cl ose the
parking spots are going to be to the walking trail at its closest spot? Pierret replied Mr. Chair, very good question. I did not
measure that, however the two feet plus, I would only be guessing if I had to say the trail is maybe four -or-five feet off of that
property line there, so at least five feet, but that would only be a guess. Frazier said okay, thank you, and I appreciate it . I don’t
like to play stump the planner, but just a concern of mine that it does bend towards the parking lot right wh ere those spots are
going to go; and it doesn’t sound like we’re going to get any screening or any fencing or anything, which makes sense because it
would not fit the rest of the character of the area, but just a concern of mine that that’s going to be pre tty close to that walking
trail.
Fisher said I was trying to find in here, I read that there’s like a shared parking agreement amongst all of the businesses t here. Is
that going to change anything about that agreement? Because I know that there are other places that I won’t name, but one
near me where I know that there are like kind of fights between the establishments with parking, right, and if anyone’s on th e
Facebook page, they know all about the drama. I’m just wondering with two restaurants there and you think about peak time
and you think about all of that, is the City going to require some sort of agreement amongst all of them to play nice or how does
that work? Because I could see that becoming an issue. Pierret replied that’s a very good question, and I am not on the Facebook
page. So, like I kind of mentioned, this owner owns the two restaurants or will own the two restaurants, which are the major
parking gatherers if you will of the property, with the gas station being the second one; however, it’s ki nd of, as we all know,
more a transient come and go, and then the retail space, which is, as I mentioned before, the peak hours are going to be different.
In my conversations with the owner, unfortunately he couldn’t make it tonight, they all work well together with this shared
parking agreement, they all understand that you can park on any of these parcels. You’ll be able to park in his new spaces and
go to the gas station if you really wanted to walk that far, and there’s been no issues with them as of yet with the current owners,
I’ll say. Fisher said okay.
Bhat said regarding the vacant parcel, it seems to have some parking areas in it, so why is it called vacant then? Pierret re plied
good question. I considered it vacant since there’s not a commercial use or structure on the site; right now, its solely bein g used
for parking and mostly people who are visiting the Carbone’s restaurant , I would say, are parking in that space. So, right now,
there’s not a structure or a commercial use taking place on the property, it’s solely at-grade parking. Bhat asked so if there is
going to be a structure coming up there, can it occupy any of those parking areas? Pierret replied so, they would be able to count
those few parking spaces towards their use; however, then we would be taking away those parking spaces from the Carbone’s,
this restaurant use, and it kind of leads back to Commissioner Brittain’s question where we’re talking about what type of use
would go here; and without just spitballing various ideas, we would need to be looking at what are the peak hours of operatio n
for such a use, how much parking are they needed based on the use, based on our ordinance. It’s very hard to kind of imagine
what could ever possibly go there, and as mentioned, it is a fairly small parcel as well. Bhat said I guess my question was can in
that vacant parcel, can they build anything on the existing parking area so that those will be no longer parking spaces, something
else will come up on them? So, then you’re short of parking areas. Pierret replied okay, so that would kind of be like they’d be
taking away the parking from not only themselves, but also from the other uses on the site. So, technically, if they met all of the
setbacks, all of our City ordinance requirements, you could construct a building that meets setbacks and everything like that on
that vacant parcel; however, again, it’s just hard to envision something that isn’t in front of us right now as a proposal. Yes,
somebody could construct a building over those parking stalls, and those would then be removed from the site. Bhat said thank
you.
Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting
July 28, 2025
Page 5 of 15
Frazier said I have a question about stormwater maintenance. So, maybe our City Engineering Department and since
Commissioner Stephens isn’t here, I will talk about the stormwater. I know Sam pointed out that the retaining basin that’s on
the other side of Jorgensen Lane was set up to accommodate 6.3 acres, and this is going to get us to 6.3 acres. I’m assuming that
is like a, is that based on like the 100-year estimates that would keep the 6.3-acre amount of water that would be diverted from
the site, or? Pierret replied yeah, that’s a great question. The stormwater design for this site is based on several different storms
based on our Surface Water Management Plan. So, yes, the 100-year storm is evaluated in those conditions, and that additional
impervious acreage that would be included from these parking stalls was accounted for in that 100 -year calculation for the
current stormwater pond that’s on the site. Frazier said okay. So, even though we are getting up to the 6.3 -acre limit, that’s not
a concern because it is built to handle a very unlikely scenario with respect to that area. Pierret replied yeah, Mr. Chair, that is
correct. We’re getting up to what it was designed to accommodate in the first place. Frazier said okay, thank you.
Fisher said and I don't know if you guys, because the applicant isn’t here, so you may not be able to answer, but would there
ever be a time when instead of considering expanding the parking lot, the capacity of the restaurant that’s coming in would b e
less? Because, I mean, that might be, and like I said, you may not be able to answer it because he’s not here. Pierret replied g ood
question. So, the capacity of the restaurant of course is how we calculate the needed parking spaces. It was brought up to th e
applicant that the restaurant could reduce the number of seats to hit or get much closer to that required parking number with out
adding these parking spaces; however, as most of us from a business standpoint, reducing the number of seats it was a very la rge
number of seats they would’ve needed to reduce by, almost half, just to get to the required parking number on site where they
wouldn’t need to add these. Fisher said sure, it makes sense. It’s just the part of the variance thing, the economic part of it, is I
guess what I’m hung up on; like, you know, when we grant a variance, economics are not supposed to be factored in, right?
When you have a restaurant coming in and you have to have X amount of capacity in order for it to be economically viable, you
just have to consider that. Pierret replied yeah, so, I’ll just kind of piggyback; restaurants are a permitted use, and so, had this
met all the parking standards and everything, staff would have said go forth and open your restaurant and everything. We are
just really trying, because we know as staff and as commissioners, parking in this lot is quite challenging; and, so, now see med
like the time to with this 2016 variance to let’s get that added because we’re going to be having another restaurant on the site.
Fisher asked is there any plan, because there’s a residential area immediately to the west of there, are there No Parking sig ns on
that street already, or are there going to be measures taken to not hinder the residents either? Because I would assume that this
parking lot would overflow at some point. Pierret replied I don’t think that there are any No Parking signs on Jorgensen. Fisher
replied I’m just thinking about where is the overflow gong to go? It’s going to go on those residential streets that are. Cou ncil
Member Justin Olsen said I can answer that question for you. There is nothing posted on Jorgensen that says No Parking. There
actually are overflow parkers who use that now, and one of the concerns under consideration is the space that that woul d leave
for emergency vehicles should they need to access that area. If you think about a bar and a restaurant, sometimes that’s
something that you have to think about. But there’s no posting on it now; it’s certainly something that could be recommended.
Fisher replied right, I was just going to say maybe that’s something that can be considered if it becomes a problem, if things get
jammed up there. I don't know how the City would go about keeping an eye on that or whatever, but it’s just a thought.
Bhat said I have a quick question. So, where is the Mexican restaurant going to come; is it in the big building or the one in front
of the Holiday station? Pierret replied yes, it is in the big building. It’s going to take up two tenant spaces right on the north side
of the building here, so they will have the outdoor patio area accessible for them as well out there. Bhat replied okay, thank you.
Stechmann asked so, when exiting onto 70th Street from Jorgensen there, before, at some point in time, there was a porkchop
that prevented people from turning left to head westbound on 70th Street, right? Council Member Olsen replied that’s correct.
Stechmann said okay, and that is since removed, so now that restriction has kind of been removed and so people can turn either
left or right onto 70th Street, that’s probably true? Council Member Olsen replied yes, the County took that out. Stechmann s aid
so, with the increased number of parking spaces and the increased demand for this space with the new restaurant coming in,
are there going to be concerns about increased traffic spilling out onto 70th Street, especially with respect to the property that
abuts it to the north? Pierret replied yes, I will allow Crystal Raleigh, the Assistant City Engineer, to come up; I know she was
preparing for these questions. Raleigh said yeah, this is a situation that will continue to be monitored by the County as additional
developments go in and change the way that this is used. Currently, their guidance regarding this intersection has been, and we’ll
get to it with the Cedarhurst discussion, but to align this access from Jorgensen to the north with the Cedarhurst driveway; that
makes that intersection safer for a variety of reasons by aligning that. Those left -turning movements can operate much more
freely. We also have the benefit of having a left-turn lane into both of these properties, so that stacking isn’t on the main
throughway. The County does have the ability to limit this access if it does become problematic in the future, so they could limit
it to that right in, right out in the future. Stechmann said thank you.
Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting
July 28, 2025
Page 6 of 15
Frazier said Sam, I do have just one more question for you, and I have not been to this parking lot in a while, so I don’t re member.
I think, correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the entire lot is kind of surrounded by curb. So, my question is, if that is the case, are
these new spots going to have curb to prevent them from going onto the grass and the Right -of-Way, where Keats is? Or is it just
going to be pavement right up to, like basically at level with the grass? Pierret replied very good question. So, they would need
to be installing the curb and everything like that per the City standards for parking lots and everything. Frazier said okay, all right,
thank you.
Frazier asked and you said the applicant is not here tonight? Pierret replied correct.
Frazier opened the Public Hearing. No one spoke. Frazier closed the Public Hearing.
Frazier asked if there was any further discussion by commission.
Frazier said I guess I have to highlight it, I have some real concerns with the parking abutting the walking trail and just how close
its going to be. I think as Council Member Olsen indicated, you know, bars and restaurants are sometimes places that emerg ency
vehicles need to get to; bars and restaurants are also places that serve alcohol and people then drive away from, and when th ey
do that, they’re not always the most careful drivers. And, so, I think getting that close to the public Right -of-Way, especially
where there is a device designed for people to be walking on, I think is a concern that I have about extending this parking i nto
that area. So, that is my personal concern about it. Does anyone else wish to discuss?
Fisher said I actually was going to say that. I’m wondering if there’s any sort of, instead of just a curb, if this does go through, like
is there some sort of something, I don't know, like outside Target there’s the big red balls, right? Like, is there something that
can be put along that side of the parking lot to maybe help protect from cars going too far, or? Pierret replied sure, something
like bollards or something like that. Fisher said I don't know what they’re called, something, a stake or something that would
stop a vehicle that’s going where it’s not supposed to be, maybe that could be something added to it. I don't know. Pierret replied
that is, the commission’s purview could be to add that as a possible condition for the overall safety. Brittain said in regar ds to
that, I can see there being some issues with something along those lines, even though there might be value added in it, and I
would think that we’d want to evaluate whether moving the trail would be a better solution for that than putting in a guard r ail,
so to speak, whether it’s bollards or not. Maybe have staff evaluate what the best option for safety is there vs. forcing them into
something with the particular application. Fisher replied you can’t put that trail closer to Keats, though. Brittain said wel l, it is
closer to Keats on 50% of it, this is significantly farther in than the rest of it. So, it’s just a thought. Frazier said yeah, I mean, I
understand the commercial realities of the parking and needing it; if you’re now going to have two restaurants in there in wh at
is already a busy parking lot, obviously, you need to have places for people to park legally because then I think the issue on
Jorgensen gets worse if you don’t. Because people ar e just going to not go there, they’re just going to find other places to put
their car that are probably not as great a place to put it. So, I think if it does go through and the commission votes to rec ommend
City Council approve it, I would ask if staff a nd the applicant to work together on what is a workable way to make sure that
pedestrians and people who are on the walking trail are protected. Because I agree that putting bollards, obviously that’s the
one that they stop cars because they’re either metal or they’re concrete, but in this area, I think they would look odd. You know,
I don't know how effective they would be, but I think there should be some kind of consideration that the applicant should put
forward in making sure that this is not going to become a nuisance or a problem.
Brittain said I agree, and another option may be some of the standardized fencing that we have around patios and things along
those lines. While it wouldn’t forcibly stop a vehicle from moving forward, but it would be an additional optical recognition from
anybody getting in their car that there’s something in front of them and maybe subconsciously have them think about that. But
just to consider the different options that are available for making it as safe as possible.
Brittain made a motion to approve based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report
with the additional request that staff review the trail placement and safety of that parking area and what can be done, if
anything, to make it as safe as possible as it moves forward and then present that to the City Council to get their consideration
on that as well. Stechmann seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (5-to-0 vote).
D. Cedarhurst - Cases ZA/HCUP/SP2025-020
Bellagala has applied for a Zoning Amendment to rezone the property at 6940 Keats Avenue from AG -2, Agricultural,
to M-U, Mixed Use District; a Historical Conditional Use Permit to operate an event center in the M -U, Mixed Use
District; a Site Plan Review; a Zoning Amendment to rezone the property at 9912 70th Street from AG -2 to R-3, Single
Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting
July 28, 2025
Page 7 of 15
Family Residential; and a Historical Conditional Use Permit for associated business uses in conjunction with the event
center.
Schmitz summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. She
stated the applicant with Bellagala, J.J., is also here and he is going to share some more details of the improvements, as I had
promised, to understand better that restoration effort to the mansion. Brittain asked Emily, can we do questions to you be fore
we, sorry, J.J., and Schmitz replied yeah.
Brittain said question one, Caretaker Cottage and Gardener’s House, are those the same thing? Schmitz replied technically, yes.
Brittain said so if you could maybe be consistent because it got a little confusing in there, it almost sounded like the Gard ener’s
House somebody just owned it and they were going to stay living there; but then this Caretaker thing was going to potentially be
utilized for some sort of function, even though it wasn’t owned. So, there was a little bit of confusion there in regards to that.
So, that’s a separate property that has the Gardener’s House on it, ha s some potential use for it, and is not owned by this entity
that is buying the Cedarhurst part of it? Schmitz replied the current landowner owns both parcels, and the applicant is propo sing
to purchase both parcels. Brittain replied okay, I didn’t get that from the staff report, so that is a good clarifi cation. Brittain asked
with respect to the drainage, is that a little pond that’s to the right, a little holding area to the right of the impervious parking
lot? So, that’s for water storage there as well, okay. Brittain said so I was going to ask about gh ost platting that other property,
but if you’re going to own it all and there isn’t somebody that’s living there that’s going to do something else with it, the n I don’t
have a concern with that. So, that satisfies my questions at this time. Thank you.
Frazier asked if there were any other questions for staff.
Bhat said so why are these two parcels zoned differently, like in the Comprehensive Plan, and is there, I mean, can we amend it
and then call both of them as Mixed Use? I’m having that confusion. Schmitz replied long term, it was always envisioned that this
would remain as a single-family home likely due to its historic nature, it would give us the ability to preserve it as the home and
preserve the home itself. However, yes, we could reevaluate long term, as we think about our 2050 Comprehensive Plan, to align
both of those parcels with the same guidance of Mixed Use.
Fisher said so about the Cottage House only being used as like a staff, it sounds like a lunchroom kind of thing, but is ther e going
to be a capacity assigned to that building because its now going to become a commercial use capacity, what about like Fire Code
things? Are they going to be able to rent that out for let’s say somebody wants to have a meeting? Like, what are, because th at
house is changing from a dwelling, basically, into a commercial business use, are any of those things being considered? Sch mitz
replied so that would be specific to the Building Code. So, from a Zoning perspective, we recognize that it is still a single -family
home, but we allow for this commercial use as they apply for permits to do the improvements and what that use looks li ke and
how they evaluate it from the State Building Code side. They will align with those standards. Fisher said okay.
Brittain said so, in regards to that, if the Gardener’s Cottage is still zoned as low residential, how does that fit into a b usiness use?
Schmitz replied so zoning is one standard, right, for how it can be utilized? But when you look at the Building Code, and I am no
building official, but I can tell you they do look at how it is being utilized and there are standards that align, even thoug h it is
technically a single-family home if its being used for a different type of use it does need to meet those stand ards. Brittain asked
and at some point, would they have the ability to, not that they would want to do this , but just so that we’re prepared, to
subdivide that under its current zoning classification as low residential into more than one structure? Schmitz replied that is
possible, they could submit for that application. Brittain asked with the extension of the water and sewer from the cul -de-sac to
the west, I’m assuming that would preclude building on that area? Schmitz replied it likely would impact how those lots may lay
out. Brittain said okay, all right, thank you.
Bhat said so the stormwater pond that is proposed, that is for the additional impervious land coming from the parking lot and
just the parking lot alone, or does it account for all the impervious land there? Schmitz replied I am going to turn it over to
Assistant City Engineer Crystal Raleigh to give just a little bit more of a detailed general overview of how the stormwater i s laid
out and evaluated on the site. Bhat said thank you. Raleigh replied so, the stormwater that is proposed on the site, which is just
to the east of that new proposed impervious parking, that stormwater is to take care of any additional impervious that’s bein g
added to the site. So, that would include the parking lot, the additional area on the driveway that’s being added, as well as the
roof for the 4,000 square-foot addition. So, that stormwater pond would be to accommodate all of the stormwater from the
additional impervious for the whole site. Bhat said thank you.
Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting
July 28, 2025
Page 8 of 15
Fisher said I don’t know how to ask my question, I’m trying to figure out how to word it. So, with the Cottage House, now Ken ’s
got me thinking about developing it in the future. So, it’s going from AG -2 to R-3; is there an different R we can put it under to
kind of keep it? I don't know, I’m still trying to learn the new. Schmitz replied sure. So, it is a unique scenario in that we are
proposing to rezone to R-3, which is single-family residential. We want to make sure that aligns with the Comprehensive Pl an.
Now, hypothetically, a new property owner says I would like to sell it, it would be a single -family residence, right, someone could
live there; is there the potential for redevelopment? Certainly. The Historical Conditional Use Permit (HCUP) is what gives us the
ability to say hey, we want to use it in conjunction with this other historic use, which lays over top of it, right? It does run with
the land, so that opportunity is there, but we did want to be specific in our conditions that the commercial us e was just that,
limited within the Gardener’s Cottage. Fisher said got you, okay, thank you.
Brittain said all right, I’m going to ask another question there because it’s burned a thought. So, the driveway or the Garde ner’s
Cottage is now coming off of the new drive line. If, for some unforeseen reason, that parcel was sold off and developed as
something, would that require an access point on 70th Street, or would they still continue to use that shared new driveway
access with the commercial use? Schmitz replied likely if that parcel were to potentially I’m going to say redevelop, it would take
its access from 69th Street, the cul-de-sac to the west. Brittain said all right, thank you. Brittain said all right, I’m going to ask
another one. So, access from 70th Street, I have some concern with; well, let me just ask you this. Coming east on 70th Stree t,
we currently have a dedicated right into Almar, correct, and a through to go to the roundabout, and then going west, we currently
have a dedicated left into Almar and a through, so two lanes going both directions. What’s going to happen with people goi ng
east on 70th Street since we don’t have a dedicated left coming from that direction coming into the property and because you
no longer have a through. If traffic stops, in order to enter this property and there’s a backup on 70th, you know waiting fo r
people coming through the roundabout, then that’s going to mean that traffic would potentially back up on 70th, correct?
Schmitz replied so, there’s currently, if folks are headed east on 70th and they’re going to take a left into the site, there is currently
a turn lane. Brittain said so there is currently a dedicated left and right going east? Schmitz replied correct. Brittain sai d okay,
good, that’s one of the things that I wanted to clarify, so that’s great. Now, going the other way, going west, is there going to
potentially be a need for a right-hand dedicated turn? Because we have a dedicated left into Almar and a through, and my
concern is if there might be a need for a dedicated right -hand turn lane into the property and the storm holding area that we
currently have there could potentially preclude if that were necessary to move the trail over to add a dedicated right -hand turn
lane. So, I guess I would phrase it this way: If we feel that there’s a safety concern from a traffic perspective that would require
a right-hand turn lane, does that automatically trigger the north entrance point being invoked as an in and out from the Military
cul-de-sac? Or is there a way to do this in such that if we don’t feel we need a right -hand turn lane right now, which I’m concerned
about, because people whipping around that roundabout might not see people stopped or slowing down in order to turn right
into this property. So, I have a concern about that, so I see two solutions: One is a dedicated right-hand turn lane, and is there a
way that we can make it feasible to add that if we don’t feel that its added now but enable us to do it later? Keeping in min d that
storm portion on the south part of the parking lot, the stormwater pond, if you put something there, there migh t be a problem
with moving the trail so that you can put in the turn lane. Or if we see that there’s a problem automatically, we’re going to have
to put a new road in from the north? Schmitz replied two things: First, 70th is a County Roadway, and it will be up to the County
to identify when this particular intersection needs to be limited to that right in, right out, on both the north and the sout h side.
Second, folks heading into the site, taking a right, they’re not limited by anything as they’re pulling into that site, right, so that’s
a free flow of traffic into the Cedarhurst site. No, there is not a dedicated right -turn lane as folks are headed west, turning into
the site; however, there is nothing that stops them so likely that backup wouldn’t be an issue on 70th Street. Brittain replied I’m
not necessarily worried about a backup, I’m worried about you’re traveling at say 35 MPH by the time you’re at that point, an d
then you’re slowing down to 0 to make the turn; there’s that transition point of I was flowing at one speed through the
roundabout and it’s like oh, now I’ve got to turn right. It’s the guy behind him that you’re not stopped, but you also may no t be
paying attention because you’re not, and so, I just have a concern with the proximity distan ce from the entrance to the
roundabout; and I understand it’s the County’s decision, but we can squeak enough that if we feel that it’s important that th ey
would at least evaluate it. I guess what I’m trying to do here is what I see is a potential solution being prevented by the current
location of the southern portion of that holding pond, maybe, I don't know, the City Engineer would be able to say better , but
my concern is that we might need something there. If the simple solution is it’s just going to trigger a road through the woo ds
up to the Military thing, then okay, you know that would be the way to go, but it would be nice to preserve the option of not
forcing it to have to happen right now. If we felt it was necessary to add one later, that you coul d add one later without putting
infrastructure in place that would prevent that from moving. So, that would be my thought on that particular part of it, and
granted, I would expect it to be fully evaluated by staff because you guys do a great job about tha t, but this may not have been
considered up to this point in time. Schmitz replied I would also add if at such time a right-turn lane in were to be warranted, I
imagine likely at that point it would be warranted to shift the driveway to the full access to be on Keats Avenue, and so that right-
turn lane wouldn’t be necessary. But we will follow the guidance of the County absolutely. Brittain said okay, thank you.
Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting
July 28, 2025
Page 9 of 15
Stechmann said just to follow up, do I understand correctly that the County has kind of like the exclusive jurisdiction to de cide
whether or not this has become a safety hazard on 70th Street? Because I thought that I read somewhere in the packet that it
could be either the County Engineer or the City Engineer that could initiate whatever is necessary, a traffic study or reporti ng of
the number of crashes, or other types of evidence to establish that there needs to be some measures taken to improve the
safety. I drove this today and it was during my lunch hour, so it wasn’t a big deal for me to go around the roundabout and come
back, heading westbound on 70th Street. I didn’t encounter that and of course it wasn’t open so nobody was turning right into
the property. But I can foresee on a Saturday at 6:00 p.m., you know, people coming through there, and like Commissioner
Brittain said, you know that people are accelerating from this roundabout, heading westbound; then suddenly they encounter
brake lights in front of them, and they have to then like decelerate, perhaps after they’ve had a few while at some other
establishment. So, that’s my concern, I guess is the County the exclusive arbiter of whether or not there needs to be either a
dedicated right-turn lane or if there needs to be the northern access to Military? Raleigh replied the City and the County will
continue to work together on the safety of this intersection into its future. We’re frequently communicating with them and we
communicate our concerns on County corridors often, and they are taken seriously. We will continue to work with them. I think
Emily was correct in saying that the second option really is that Military access if we get into a situation where a right -turn lane
would be needed, I do think we’d be going up to Military rather than constructing that right -turn lane, but this will continue to
be worked on with the County. One thing I also wanted to mention is that the internal site itself has a significant amount of
stacking in the driveway, so it’s not like they’re turning right and then they’re waiting for somebody to back out of a parking stall
before they can get into the parking lot. There’s a significant amount of stacking within the driveway, before they’re turnin g
down into the parking lot as well. So, we don’t anticipate traffic sitting out there on 70th Street, but there are some unknowns
here with this type of use and exactly how many people we’re going to have coming in here. We know we don’t anticipate that
it’s going to cause stacking out on 70th, but that’s the reason why we’ll continue to plan for that access at Military, if needed.
Stechmann said I did notice in maybe one of the other figures that was included in the packet, not this one, that the entranc e to
the proposed parking lot was awfully close to the driveway entrance on 70th Street, but it appears now in this drawing that the
entrance into the parking lot is further north. Is that the additional buffer zone or distance that would allow this stacking to occur
on site instead of on 70th Street? Raleigh replied I don’t really understand your question, can you state that again? Stechmann
said when I was looking through the packet, I saw that a motorist that would drive from 70th Street and enter to the property ,
using the driveway, I thought on one of the diagrams it showed that in order to go from the driveway into the parking lot was on
what would be the south side of the parking lot instead of the north side of the parking lot. So, is it in fact the case that the
entrance to the parking lot will be on the north side of the parking lot and not the south, thereby to prevent the stacking from
occurring on 70th Street? Raleigh replied you’re correct, the entrance has moved to the north side of that parking lot, and we’ve
required that alignment with the driveway to the Gardener’s Cottage. It was I guess a later change in the Site Plan when the
County guided us to align the driveway with Jorgensen. With that in mind, we needed to move the driveway to the Gardener’s
Cottage, and the best design then is to have those two coming together at the same point, on the north side of the parking lot.
Stechmann said great, thank you.
Frazier said all right, I think that’s it for questions for staff. If the applicant would like to approach and add anything a dditional.
Good Evening, my name’s J.J. Maleitzke, 6940 Keats Avenue South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, 55016, hopefully. Emily, great
job, a tough crowd to follow here, but she kind of took a lot of my thunder here. I’m just going to tell you a little bit abo ut who
we are to just kind of show you the behind the screen here, behind the curtain: 28 years in business, not me, I’ve just been wit h
the company for three years, Tim George started this business as a DJ company almost three decades ago, and we’re up to six
venues, this could be number seven. As you stated, we’re in 12 other cities, actually outside of here, so lucky number 13,
technically here. We’ve got an old historic mansion, VanDusen Mansion, in downtown Minneapolis, A’BULAE, Le ’ Venere, also a
historic building in downtown St. Paul. We’ve also got over 200 acres in Chaska with three locations out there, Edward Anne
Estate, Equestria West, and Woodland Glasshaus. The part of the business that is actually in the other markets, as well as here,
where we do all the wedding services, wedding, photo, video, DJ, etc., is called Bellagala. Our goal is to host world -class events;
we consider ourselves one of the premier wedding venues in the State of Minnesota and hoping to expand that a bit here, too.
You kind of hit all the highlights of what the mansion is all about, bu ilt in the 1860s, expanded once in 1917, multiple remodels
since then. It is on the Historic Registry, so its kind of unique; this is basically the spiel that I gave a few weeks back to the
neighborhood to try to educate them about us. I’ll try to go a little more high level since you guys are knowledgeable on it, but
the biggest notable historic things are not only ABA significance, but also the people who stayed there: Cordenio Severance, Cass
Gilbert, and the mansion hosted on occasions U.S. Presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, William H. Taft, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolid ge,
and so on. Our plan is simply to mirror what we did at the Van Dusen Mansion :
Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting
July 28, 2025
Page 10 of 15
1) Respect the history of Cedarhurst. We want to keep as much green space as possible, do as little disruption as we can;
obviously, adding a 4,000 square-foot building, the Atrium, is not a small disruption, but knowing that, we’re trying to
limit it as much as possible, focusing on important pieces like the Rose Garden, focusing on that Cass Gilbert building as
soon as we can, kind of in a Phase 2, and trying to get the grounds, the yard, the inside spaces as original as possible.
2) Again, rehabilitate wherever we can and whatever we can.
3) Create a luxury wedding experience with a rich history and with modern amenities, ADA compliance, proper restrooms,
new elevators, all those things.
4) Bellagala gives our couples an all-inclusive wedding experience. Marketing would kill me, but it’s kind of a one -stop
shop, if you want; you have the ability to get all those services, the location, the food, the beverage, everything on site.
5) Be a steward of our community and be a great neighbor, not just our neighborhood, the people that live right around
us, but Cottage Grove, the cities that we obviously have business in.
You’ll notice a lot has happened in the last five years since they have not done business. These are just a few lowlights of what
the place looks like, but our plan is to again keep as much as we can: Windows, siding, all of these things, but obviously br inging
it back to life. If this thing sits for too many more years, I’m afraid its going to turn to rubble, and so our goal is to re verse that.
Inside, as much of the flooring as we can keep, as much of the original lighting that’s 100 and some odd years ol d, we want to
keep. We want to rewire, we want to bring back and bring back to life. The basement is scary, probably haunted, but we’re goi ng
to definitely go in there, I’m not going to, he’s going to go in there, and do everything that we can from new wir ing, new plumbing,
HVAC, everything, bring it up to Code again to keep the life of this building going.
The Build
1) This is pretty darn high level, but we’re hoping for approval here and the next couple of hoops we’ve got to jump
through, too. The plan is to potentially start in mid-to-late August, if possible.
2) The goal would be to get a lot of the outdoor heavy work done in 2025, then in winter, spring, and then mid-summer
next year to kind of help it grow and help it settle.
3) In the wintertime, a lot of the indoor remodeling.
4) Spring, 2026: Plantings, all the finishes, all the fine details that those couples really, really fall in love with.
5) Our goal is opening August, 2026. This is at or around probably an 11-month project that it would take to actually get
this thing to the finish line; he says 12, but I bet you we can get them at 11, so, it’s on the record now.
6) Grand opening would be a few weeks after the first event, we said that in the neighborhood, we would love the City,
we’d love everybody to come join and be part of it. As we said, we want to be stewards of the community and let you
guys come and enjoy something on us, too.
J.J. said Emily had kind of shown the vibe, the picture, the view of this. Part of what we’re attempting to do here is you’ll notice
the shed-style addition; our goal, especially from the recommendations of the historic channels, is we don’t want to match this,
we don’t want to make it look like Cedarhurst Mansion, we want to make it look a little bit different and obviously, that is what
we have chosen to do here. What you’ll also notice kind of in that top -right picture, notice the floor-to-ceiling windows, basically.
In that little area that you see those little mini people walking around, that is the Rose Garden. Our goal is to make that R ose
Garden really the centerpiece of this entire thing. It is one of the most beautiful things about this history, an d our goal is to kind
of bring that outdoor space inside as well. What you’ll notice, too, is our neighborhoods are kind of going west and north, f or the
most part; this area is where the majority of the activity is actually going to take place, which real ly acts as a physical barrier
when it comes to sound, when it comes to light, noise pollution, and stuff like that. So, that was by no mistake, that was by
design, to again make sure our neighbors love us not only today but years from now as well.
Again, this is just kind of a high-level overview of what this is going to look like, and Emily had already gone through some of this,
but you will notice like our goal on the inside of this building is to do whatever we can to maintain. Obviously, we’re going to
have to rehabilitate a lot, but whatever we can do to sand down floors, whatever we can do to keep existing original wallpape r,
lighting, etc. we’re going to do. Some of that stuff is a little TBD, we’ve had a lot of construction. PMI has brought in tons of
contractors to make sure that they can give it the best assessment, and from the current approach, it feels like we’re going to be
able to save a lot of it, which is awesome, same thing for the upstairs and the addition.
Traffic Management and Parking
Something that’s always important is traffic, parking, and how do we manage it, obviously, a controlled entry and exit. Our g oal
from a business standpoint, from location to the parking lot, the ideal is going to be off of 70th, it just makes the most se nse. It’s
going to allow for that grand entrance when people go into the parking lot, walk through the really nice pathway to get them to
Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting
July 28, 2025
Page 11 of 15
either the mansion, the Rose Garden, or the Atrium. We do understand that who knows what’s to come in the future, and that’s
why we’re working with Emily and the City to determine a Plan B, hopefully Plan Z, but way down there if we do have to make
something happen, we want to make it happen. What we’re also pros at is we’ve got three locations on 200 acres in Chaska, all
of which come in the same single-road driveway. We’ve got what we call air traffic controllers out there that are actually getting
people in and out, we escort them, we do this thing for being a high end, for lack of a better term, exclusive wedding experience,
and our clients come to expect that. So, on the face it shows as high -end luxury, but at the same time, too, it’s also protecting
the little things; I don’t want people sitting and waiting in parking lots, not knowing where they’re going, backing up traffi c on
the main road. So, the cosmetic beauty up front is cool, high -end luxury, the reality on the back end is we’re doing it becaus e
we’ve got flow, we’ve got function, we’ve got things that we need to do from an operations standpoint, too. Obviously,
designated areas for staffing, vendor parking, client parking, which you would see all the way in the bottom right; so, we wo uld
have over here in our, it’s not necessarily overflow, the 24 spots is 1A and then 1B is the spot I’m highlighting right here. You
know, if you ever go to Home Depot or whatever, everybody parks in the back; that’s kind of the same thing that we would do,
so the people that are coming in for the event would obviously filter into the front area. We do also from a parking standpoint
build relationships, we’re not there yet, we wait obviously until everything is done, but local hotels, local shuttles, local
limousines, etc. to identify opportunities for people to do more than the average three person per car typical usage. Also,
internally, when we see extremely high guest counts, more towards the max of our capacity, there are times that we’ll actually
implement inhouse valet parking, which would allow us to in those 23 spots, you can usually get close to three times, actually, if
you’re kind of parking them like sardines, if you will, but we’d have licensed, insured valet parkers bring that in, which wo uld
alleviate that parking issue. I don’t have the updated one, because I sent this before, you were so kind to adjust that, but Emily
had shown the updated parking is actually going to be here, not here. This is the Code Red, though, 911 parking stuff that we
don’t plan to use; we would only use it in a situation that we had to make it happen.
Managing Sound and Light
How do we manage sound and light? These are two of those pollutions, too, that obviously I think really impact the neighbors.
The building itself, as I showed, is a massive blocking agent, I guess, for both sound and light. Emily had also mentioned th at any
amplified sound from us wouldn’t be after 10:00 p.m.; that would include the Rose Garden, that would be included on any of ou r
porches or patios. The majority of our ceremonies are typically like that 4:00 to 5:30, give or take, so usually any of those things
that she had stated were 150+ feet away from any of the other properties, would usually be done by dinnertime. So, then they
would move back into the mansion and spend the majority of their time in that Rose Garden area. Again, the parking lot is a little
bit more, its closer to the 70th area, and what she had shown and with the amount of trees that we’re bringing in, this is al so
one of those two-part things. Clients love it, but it’s also really, really functional. Our g oal is, you know, we are still going to be
taking out a decent amount of stuff, expanding the driveway, obviously adding a 4,000 square -foot establishment, we want to
make it beautiful. We also know from a functional standpoint that these are great sound barriers when we’re putting up trees,
we’re putting up bushes, removing actually some of the dirt; if there are any other areas where we want to actually make any of
those type of sound barriers, you know, little four-foot slopes on the exterior, especially to the north and potentially to the west,
blocking those homes, we’ve actually considered that as well.
Again, just another little high view overview; Emily did a great job about talking about trees and all that fun stuff, and if you really
want to get crazy granular, these are actually a great deal of the things that we plan to add in. And then just a littl e overview,
you know we’ve been working with the same designer for the last 15 years, his goal at Oxford is to really embody I think the
history of what Cedarhurst is all about. So, our goal is to bring in as much old -fashioned furniture, utilizing a lot of the stuff that
still is there because a lot of it is actually decent and in good shape.
This is just a sketch of the Bridal Suite or one of our getting ready suites, and the Groom Suite, the other getting ready su ite, is
going to be a little bit more interactive; you know, a pool table, the bathtub that President Roosevelt actually apparently bathed
in. We have no photos to prove this, but we’re going to have that actually in the Groom’s Suite as kind of a photo opp thing; it
won’t be functioning, but more of a piece of art. Even the elevators, the inserts of the elevators, our plan is to find a really cool
wall to kind of place those on; they will not be functioning, but we want to pay homage to a lot of these things that maybe a ren’t
going to work anymore but can still tell that story. The bar, this is probably the biggest addition or change inside the mansion
itself. The current bar just isn’t going to work functionally, that flow isn’t going to be possible. There used to be actuall y a hole
behind the bar, historically, that was filled in, in one of those 1917 to whenever expansions or renovations. So, we’re actually
just going to reopen that wall, having the same entrance to where it used to be before, and then close to where the kitchen i s,
that’s where that bar is going to be. So, from a functionality standpoint, it’s going to make a lot mo re sense, but also from a flow
standpoint, just the safety of congestion and stuff it’s also going to make a lot more sense. What this will allow people to do is
head out to the Atrium, head back into the mansion, and so on, creating a great flow and obvio usly a good experience for our
Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting
July 28, 2025
Page 12 of 15
clients. We’re keeping all those fireplaces that were built 100+ years ago, as you can see one in the sketch on the left ther e. The
Atrium, kind of our ballroom if you will. You know, we do want to bring just a tiny bit of that history in here, you’ll see some of
the lattice, etc. We’re actually toying with bringing an actual fountain in there, not a plumbed one, so we’re not going to h ave to
go there, but something that can be decorated, something that people can put floral and things lik e that on, and finding
something that is from that period of the late 1800s, early 1900s, to really back the history of that location. The Cedarhurs t
Mansion, we want to keep the name; we did update, just a touch, the logo, but that’s about it. Questions? And thank you for
your consideration. Frazier replied absolutely.
Frazier asked if there were any questions.
Bhat said so, I do see that in some of these pictures or diagrams you had the driveway not aligned with the Jorgensen street, and
in some, you have it aligned with the Jorgensen street, so which one is it going to be? J.J. replied aligned. So, we had abou t nine
emergency meetings I feel like in the last ten days, and I had gotten this, prior to Thursday over to these ladies for you guys to
be prepared, and on Thursday, Tim, one of our architects, was able to provide the updated version to Emily so that coul d be
added. So, it would be aligned, and we actually hadn’t had County confirmation prior to me submitting this as well. So, she’s
right, I’m wrong. Bhat said thank you; J.J. replied you’re welcome, thank you.
Fisher said I don’t have a question, but I just think it’s really cool to see this thing renovated. I’m a big house geek, and I just
cannot wait to see this done, I think it’s going to be awesome. J.J. replied very cool, I’ll take that, very nice. Commissi oner Bhat,
do you want to second that? Stechmann said I will.
Stechmann said I’m very happy that this property is coming into a greater use, and its a beautiful property and I’m happy to see
this. And, you now, that’s all I have to say. J.J. replied thank you, Commissioner Stechmann.
Frazier said all right, thank you very much. J.J. replied I appreciate you, thank you.
Frazier opened the Public Hearing. No one spoke. Frazier closed the Public Hearing.
Frazier asked if there was any further discussion by commission.
Fisher said I do have one question. It was mentioned that there was a community meeting, and it said mostly unobjectionable.
I’m wondering why it doesn’t say 100% unobjectionable. What were the concerns, if any, that were brought up by the people
surrounding the property? J.J. replied so, full transparency, you know, there was one couple that was in there that was kind of
busting me up a little bit and asking every single question; it was a lot like what Emily had to go through up here a few min utes
ago. At the end of it, they were one of the first groups there and they stayed the entire time, and they were on board. Every
single person, multiple people were talking, which you said, and it’s like we witnessed , we saw what this place was going to
become; it was a shopping center, it was a strip mall, it was apartment complexes, it was our neighboring on the west were
nervous about, the entire staff aren’t going to come here through the cul -de-sac, correct? And, so, they saw what this place could
be and what this place still might be, and they were so happy with this. I think they were appreciative, so to me, from my aspect,
I felt like 100% of the people; 90% were happy when they got there, 100% were happy when they left. And, so, I don’t want to
say even for that last 10%, it was the lesser of two evils, maybe, but they liked what we talked about, they investigated what our
brand was about, who we were, they read our reviews, and they said, you know, if I have to have a neighbor that’s going to do
something here, I’d like it to be you. Fisher said okay, thank you. I would agree, I mean, the lack of public comment right now,
too, says that it sounds like the meeting was well attended and lots of questions were answered. J.J. replied my estimate was
closer to 40 people, by the way, just throwing it out there. Thank you.
Frazier said I guess I’ll add in my two cents. I’m thankful that someone is willing to take on what sounds like a very big jo b, and
it’s going to be closer to 12 months, I agree, to do this work because I think this is a very important piece of the City’s history that
we want to make sure we can keep; and the best way to do that is by having somebody come in and be able to use it for a
commercial venture and make money off it, because that means they’ll take care of it. So, I’m excited to see how it turns o ut. I
think this is a very good proposal to have in the community, and it sounds like the applicant is willing to keep the historic al aspect
of this property intact so that we can remember what it was like, but also use it going on in the future.
Brittain said I’ll say that from a planning perspective, I think you guys are dotting all the I’s and crossing the T’s, and y ou know,
that’s what goes into a recommendation, yea or nay. From a personal perspective, I’ve seen what’s been proposed here in th e
Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting
July 28, 2025
Page 13 of 15
past, and I’ve seen what’s been implemented here in the past, and I haven’t seen anybody take it to the level that you’re
proposing to take it. And it’s exciting to see what you’re proposing, it’s something, it’s never our purview to consider whet her or
not you’re going to be successful, that’s just not our job; our job is just to focus on the zoning, but from what I’ve seen in the
past, there’s never been enough investment in what was trying to be done in order to make it successful and therefore it was
never sustainable. So, I am excited to see the Atrium, the Rose Garden, and all the things that you’re adding; that, in my opinion,
from seeing all these other things, give it a very high chance of success vs. what we’ve seen happen in the past.
Fisher made a motion to approve the Zoning Amendment for both parcels, the HCUP for both parcels, as well as the Site Plan
Review subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Stechmann seconded. The motion was approved unanimously
(5-to-0 vote).
7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approval of the June 23, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Staff Recommendation: Approve the June 23, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.
Bhat made a motion to Approve the June 23, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Brittain seconded. Motion passed
unanimously (5-to-0 vote).
8. REPORTS
A. RECAP OF JULY 16, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Schmitz summarized the actions taken at the July 16, 2025 City Council Meeting.
Council Member Olsen said the only thing I would add is we are neck -deep now in budget, so you know, we’re meeting every
week at this point. We’ll meet again this coming Wednesday, last week was Public Safety and Emily’s department and General
Government and some other things, and this week will be Public Works and Equipment, and then we’ll revisit some of the things
that we talked about last week. And then the week after that, we have a regular Council Meeting, but we have a before Council
Meeting Workshop and an after Council Meeting Workshop; the after Council Meeting Workshop is for the Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP), which is where we put in big projects, you know, park buildings and road projects and those kind of things. We have
a five-year CIP that we work on, and of course, that’s a moving five-year plan, but we reevaluate it every year so that we can slot
in what we need to do, when we need to do it, based upon when we can afford it; then we have to circulate that amongst our
partners, particularly the County, as you mentioned earlier, to make sure that they’re CIP and ours merge. So, it’s a heavy lift,
but it’s sort of the most important thing we do, so we’re in the midst of that right now and hopefully we’ll have a budget fo r the
next two years put to bed here by the end of August.
With respect to your question, Commissioner Stechmann, about is the County the sole arbiter on County Roads, the answer to
that question is yes. We have the ability to make noise or squeak, I think as Commissioner Brittain said, and we’re pretty go od at
it, and we’re lucky that we have a County Commissioner who works very closely with us and is responsive to our requests and
our needs and things like that; that isn’t always the case, sometimes you have that and sometimes you don’t. The County staff is
very good and their County Engineer, Wayne Sandberg, is exceptional. To give you a perfect example of your question in real life,
there was a porkchop that was on that road that was removed, and it was removed at the behest of the City in partnership with
the County, and we had a County Commissioner who didn’t really work with us too closely on that, but the County staff, Engineer
Wayne Sandberg, worked closely with us on that. The caveat when that was taken out is that if anything were to change in term s
of the demographic of that intersection and/or traffic patterns, to your point, Commissioner Brittain, we may relook at that. So,
I would not be surprised if there is some additional dialogue if the Cedarhurst project continues to progress with regard to that
access point and some of the details that you mentioned here tonight, and you did a great job with that, thank you. Those are
lots of questions that we as a City Council will also ask, and so, since they’ve been asked and answered already, we’ll just simply
follow up on those. So, thank you for that. But yes, the County is in charge, its their road.
The last thing I wanted to mention is if you haven’t already heard, this was a year where we did a Community Survey; we do
these every three-to-five years, and we did a different type of survey this year. We went with a national survey organization,
Polco, and the reason we chose to do that is Polco does community surveys across the country. And, so, we were able to
Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting
July 28, 2025
Page 14 of 15
benchmark Cottage Grove’s responses to responses from across the country, different demographics, different states, different
cities, different climates, etc. So, I’ll just give you a few highlights:
• 79% of the residents in the City of Cottage Grove rank their quality of life as excellent or good; that was great to see,
that’s 8 in 10.
• 86% gave a very positive rating to our path and trail system, people being able to walk and use the pathways and the
trails.
• This one will be good for you, Commissioner Fisher, a variety of housing options was 63% positive and availability of
affordable housing options was 89% positive. Now, keep in mind, you and I think of affordable housing differently
perhaps than a standard person would because there are definitions to that, but still, that’s a pretty impressive
response, I think.
• Overall government, are you ready, 56%, I’ll take it, gave us a positive response, although 68% said they were happy
with their level of taxes, good or excellent, so that was good.
• Public Safety got an unbelievably positive rating, which doesn’t surprise me because we spend a lot of time, energy,
effort, and investment on Public Safety in this community, 86% positive, which I was gratified to see; if you don’t have
Public Safety, you don’t have a community, it’s just the way it is.
• We also had 86% rate the community as a good place to raise a family.
So, some really nice highlights there; there’s more information on the survey on the City’s website. There was also a lot of
information that was shared on the City’s social media, Facebook page, etc. If you go to the City’s website, you can download the
PDF of the entire survey, and the survey was done in two separate ways: So, it was targeted to certain residents, we did dire ct
mailings and things like that, and then there was an open survey where anybody who lived in the community could respond.
And, so, they blended those together, which is something that Polco does that I’ve never seen done before, and the
representative sample size was about 493 residents between the two who responded. So, according to Polco, that’s a statistically
relevant number, I would have liked to see more, but they’re the experts, so we’re going to go with that. And then they
extrapolate those answers out across the entirety of the community’s population by demographic. So, all in all, good news there.
Like I said before, there’s not going to be a lot of sleep in the next month or so until we get through the budget, but this is the
time of year we live for, it’s very important, and these survey results are a direct correlation to what we put as prioritie s in our
budget, so it was good to have this information going into the budget dialogue.
Council Member Olsen said with that, Mr. Chair, I’ll turn it back to you; if there are any questions, I’m happy to answer the m.
Frazier said thank you, Council Member Olsen, and I know in a year in the climate that we’re in right now that the budget is going
to be probably tricky than ever to try to make sure we balance levy vs. getting services to the people who are in the City. C ouncil
Member Olsen replied it’s tough, yeah, we’ve had a lot of Federal government funds that have been committed to us over the
last couple of years for different projects that we’re not certain we’re going to get; so, we’re trying to find different way s to
balance the budget while still funding those major projects that we have been planning for, like the 80th Street reconstructi on
and those kind of things. So, I appreciate your acknowledgement of that, it’s a very difficult period for local government a t the
minute.
Bhat said I’m just curious, so when was this survey conducted? Council Member Olsen replied it started in March and it went
through the end of May. Bhat said okay, and do they have a statistic showing which areas were picked for the survey? Council
Member Olsen replied absolutely, yep, it’s all available on the PDF report that’s available on the City’s website. And if you ’d like
it emailed to you, send me a note on my City email and I’ll happily get it to you. Bhat said okay, thank you. Council Member Olsen
said our Communications Department, Phil Jents, whom some of you have met, he’s ultimately the one who was responsible for
executing that.
Bhat said and one last follow-up question on the management of roads and who is the arbiter, so that’s just on the County roads,
and we just have City roads, and there’s nothing in between? Council Member Olsen replied yeah, the City operates all of the
City streets, the City roadways, the collectors, those kind of things. We have the County that als o operates County roads, like
County State Aid Highway 22 is 70th Street; so, that’s a County road. Sometimes, believe it or not, we trade. So, a few years ago,
we traded a portion of 65th Street from the County to the City for the City to operate because it wasn’t really feasible for the
County to continue operating it when it was being used for City traffic; but don’t forget, we also have State Highway 61, so if you
look at Highway 61 that intersects the City, that’s a State highway. So, anything we do with that road has to be done through
Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting
July 28, 2025
Page 15 of 15
MnDOT; the City does not control that, and the same is true of the bridge decks. Bhat replied okay, and the side roads in the
neighborhood, they’re City owned or are they neighborhood owned, the sidewalks? Council Member Olsen replied so, if you
have a community in your neighborhood where you have sidewalks, and you have a Homeowners Association (HOA), your HOA
may actually be responsible for your sidewalks. So, if you live in a neighborhood like mine where I don’t have an HOA and the re
are sidewalks, then the City maintains those. Bhat said okay, thank you; Council Member Olsen replied you’re welcome.
No further questions were asked, so Frazier thanked Council Member Olsen.
B. RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION INQUIRIES
Frazier said we had two inquiries that were both answered at the last meeting, so we didn’t have any more to follow up on.
C. PLANNING COMMISSION REQUESTS
Frazier asked if there were any requests for staff; there were none.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Fisher made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Brittain seconded. Motion passed unanimously (5-to-0 vote). The meeting was
adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
1
City Council Action Request
7.G.
Meeting Date 9/3/2025
Department Administration
Agenda Category Action Item
Title Grey Cloud Trail - Joint Powers Agreement
Staff Recommendation Approve the Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Cottage
Grove, the City of St Paul Park, and Grey Cloud Island Township for
joint responsibility of Grey Cloud Trail.
Budget Implication N/A
Attachments 1. Memo - Levitt (Grey Cloud JPA)
2. Agreement - Grey Cloud Signed
Background/Discussion
The City of Cottage Grove has been in discussions with Grey Cloud Island Township (GCIT)
since the fall of 2024 regarding the increased traffic on Grey Cloud Trail due to the
development of the old Mississippi Dunes Golf Course. Washington County commissioned
a study to determine the condition of the road by American Engineering Testing. The road
was found to be able to withstand a 10-plus rating with a pavement condition index (PCI) of
94 and was rated as “good”. GCIT had concerns about the temporary construction traffic
from the Mississippi Landing deteriorating the roadway condition prematurely. In response
to that concern the City worked with GCIT and St. Paul Park (SSP), who jointly owns the
road to provide the following commitments:
1. A third-party engineering firm would be hired to determine the condition and
evaluation of work completed by the agreement.
2. In Year 1 Cottage Grove will shoulder the roadway.
3. In Year 2 Cottage Grove will crack fill the roadway and again in Year 7.
4. Cottage Grove will patch or pothole fix the road as necessary during the length of the
agreement.
5. The final year of the agreement the road will be rated by the third-party engineering
firm, if the roadway is rated below an 84 the roadway will need to be brought up an
84 PCI.
The obligations of SPP and GCIT as part of the agreement are as follows:
1. The road will not be load restricted for the public or construction traffic. Load
restrictions will only be in place during seasonal load limits.
2. Only in emergency situations may the roadway be closed.
3. They still must maintain the ditches, culverts, trees, driveway access and coordinate
with private utilities.
GCIT signed the agreement on August 18, 2025. SPP is proposed to take action on the
agreement on September 2, 2025.
Recommendation
It is recommended to execute the JPA with Cottage Grove, St. Paul Park, Grey Cloud Island
Township for Joint Responsibilities of Grey Cloud Trail.
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator
Date: August 29, 2025
Subject: Grey Cloud Trail – Joint Powers Agreement
1
City Council Action Request
7.H.
Meeting Date 9/3/2025
Department Community Development
Agenda Category Action Item
Title Agreements for Professional Services – Fire Protection Systems
Plan Review and Inspections
Staff Recommendation Approve the agreements with Fire Protection Services Inc. and Fire
Loss Prevention LLC for fire protection system plan reviews and
inspections.
Budget Implication N/A
Attachments 1. Fire Protection Systems Agreements for Professional Services CC Memo
2. Fire Protection Systems - Agreement with Fire Protection Services Inc.
3. Fire Protection Systems - Agreement with Fire Loss Prevention, LLC
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator
From: Andrew McLean, Chief Building Official
Date: August 26, 2025
Re: Agreements for Professional Services – Fire Protection Systems Plan
Review and Inspections
Background
The State of Minnesota Department of Construction Code and Standards require s commercial
and institutional fire suppression and fire alarm plans to be reviewed and inspections conducted
by a State delegate certified to complete the se plan reviews and conduct these inspections. The
City of Cottage Grove does not have a certified delegate to conduct plan reviews on staff;
therefore, since 2014, the City has contracted with private contractor s for fire suppression and
fire alarm plan reviews.
Fire Protection Services Inc. conducts plan reviews for commercial, institutional, and multi-family
residential fire suppression systems. Fire Loss Prevention LLC. conducts plan reviews for
commercial and institutional fire alarm systems. The current professional services agreements
with these two consultants have expired and require renewal.
Recommendation
Approve the agreements with Fire Protection Services Inc. and Fire Loss Prevention LLC for fire
protection system plan reviews and inspections.
1
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and executed this __ day of , 2025,
by and between the City of Cottage Grove, 12800 Ravine Parkway South, Cottage Grove,
Minnesota 55016, (“City”) and Fire Protection Services, Inc., 203 SW 3rd Street, P.O. Box 269,
Medford, Minnesota 55049 (“Consultant”).
WHEREAS, the City has accepted the proposal of the Consultant for certain professional services;
and
WHEREAS, Consultant 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 Consultant as an independent contractor for the purpose of
performing certain professional Services (“Services”), as described as follows:
i. The City’s plan review for fire protection systems.
ii. Prepare reports of findings based on the plan review of fire protection
systems and provide reports to the City.
iii. When requested by the City, provide site visits or inspections of facilities
or systems.
b. Consultant covenants and agrees to provide the Services to the satisfaction of the
City in a timely fashion, subject to Section 7 of this Agreement.
c. Consultant agrees to comply with all federal, state, and local laws and ordinances
applicable to the Services to be performed under this Agreement. Consultant
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. PAYMENT.
a. City agrees to pay and Consultant agrees to receive and accept payment for the
Services provided under this Agreement as follows:
2
i. Plan review fee.
1. Projects will be reviewed based on a fee in the amount of 0.01 x
sprinkler contract amount.
2. Resubmitted plans will be reviewed based on a fee in the amount of
$65.00 per hour (one (1) hour minimum) billed on ¼ hour
increments.
ii. On-site project inspection fee.
1. On-site project inspections will be conducted based on a fee in the
amount of $65.00 per hour billed on ¼ hour increments.
2. Mileage expense based on $0.70 per mile. The hourly rate will be
applied to driving time.
b. Any changes in the scope of the work of the Services that may result in an increase
to the compensation due the Consultant 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. Consultant 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.
3. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date written in the initial
paragraph of this Agreement and shall remain in effect until terminated pursuant to Section
4 herein.
4. 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 Section 13 of this Agreement. Upon termination under this provision, if
there is no default by the Consultant, Consultant shall be paid for Services rendered
and reimbursable expenses incurred 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.
3
5. SUBCONTRACTORS. Consultant shall not enter into subcontracts for any of the Services
provided for in this Agreement without the express written consent of the City. Consultant
shall pay any subcontractor involved in the performance of this Agreement within ten (10)
days of the Consultant’s receipt of payment by the City for undisputed services provided
by the subcontractor.
6. STANDARD OF CARE. In performing its Services, Consultant 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. No warranty,
express or implied, is made or intended by Consultant’s undertaking herein or its
performance of Services.
7. DELAY IN PERFORMANCE. Neither City nor Consultant 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 Consultant 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 describing the
circumstances preventing continued performance and the efforts being made to resume
performance of this Agreement. Consultant will be entitled to payment for its reasonable
additional charges, if any, due to the delay.
8. CITY’S REPRESENTATIVE. The City has designated Andrew McLean to act as the
City’s representative with respect to the Services to be performed under this Agreement.
He 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.
9. PROJECT MANAGER AND STAFFING. The Consultant has designated Daniel Kaiser
to be the primary contact for the City in the performance of the Services. He shall be
assisted by other staff members as necessary to facilitate the completion of the Services in
accordance with the terms established herein. Consultant may not remove or replace the
designated staff without the approval of the City.
10. INDEMNIFICATION.
a. Consultant and City each agree to 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
4
are caused by the joint or concurrent negligence of Consultant and City, they shall be
borne by each party in proportion to its own negligence.
b. Consultant shall indemnify City against legal liability for damages arising out of
claims by Consultant’s employees. City shall indemnify Consultant against legal
liability for damages arising out of claims by City’s employees.
11. INSURANCE. During the performance of the Services under this Agreement, Consultant
shall maintain the following insurance:
a. General Liability Insurance, with a limit of $2,000,000 for any number of claims
arising out of a single occurrence.
b. Professional Liability Insurance, with a limit of $2,000,000 for any number of
claims arising out of a single occurrence.
c. Workers’ Compensation Insurance in accordance with statutory requirements.
d. Automobile Liability Insurance, with a combined single limit of $2,000,000.
Consultant 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 General Liability Insurance policy.
12. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. Professional documents, drawings, and specifications
prepared by the Consultant as part of the Services shall become the property of the City
when Consultant has been compensated for all Services rendered, provided, however, that
Consultant shall have the unrestricted right to their use. Consultant shall retain its rights in
its standard drawing details, specifications, databases, computer software, and other
proprietary property. Rights to proprietary intellectual property developed, utilized, or
modified in the performance of the Services shall remain the property of the Consultant.
13. 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
Or emailed: jlevitt@cottagegrovemn.gov
If to Consultant: Fire Protection Services
203 SW 3rd Street
P.O. Box 269
Medford, MN 55049
5
Or emailed: fpservices@msn.com
14. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS. All services provided by Consultant, its
officers, agents and employees pursuant to this Agreement shall be provided as employees
of Consultant or as independent contractors of Consultant and not as employees of the City
for any purpose.
15. 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 Consultant 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. 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.
d. Amendments. Any modification or amendment to this Agreement shall require a
written agreement signed by both parties.
e. 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.
f. 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.
g. 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]
6
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE
By:
Myron A. Bailey, Mayor
By:
Tamara Anderson, City Clerk
7
FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES, INC. (“CONSULTANT”)
Signature:
Name:
Its:
Date:
Daniel A. Kaiser
President
08/27/2025
1
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and executed this __ day of , 2025,
by and between the City of Cottage Grove, 12800 Ravine Parkway South, Cottage Grove,
Minnesota 55016, (“City”) and Fire Loss Prevention, LLC, 678 Pinewood Drive, Shoreview,
Minnesota 55126 (“Consultant”).
WHEREAS, the City has accepted the proposal of the Consultant for certain professional services;
and
WHEREAS, Consultant 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 Consultant as an independent contractor for the purpose of
performing certain professional Services (“Services”), as described as follows:
i. The City’s plan review for fire protection systems.
ii. Prepare reports of findings based on the plan review of fire protection
systems and provide reports to the City.
iii. When requested by the City, provide site visits or inspections of facilities
or systems.
b. Consultant covenants and agrees to provide the Services to the satisfaction of the
City in a timely fashion, subject to Section 7 of this Agreement.
c. Consultant agrees to comply with all federal, state, and local laws and ordinances
applicable to the Services to be performed under this Agreement. Consultant
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. PAYMENT.
a. City agrees to pay and Consultant agrees to receive and accept payment for the
Services provided under this Agreement as follows:
i. $50.00 per hour for all Services provided by Consultant to the City under
this Agreement, including any required travel time.
2
ii. Mileage reimbursement of $0.70 per mile for any required travel by
Consultant for site visits or inspections.
b. Any changes in the scope of the work of the Services that may result in an increase
to the compensation due the Consultant 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. Consultant 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.
3. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date written in the initial
paragraph of this Agreement and shall remain in effect until terminated pursuant to Section
4 herein.
4. 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 Section 13 of this Agreement. Upon termination under this provision, if
there is no default by the Consultant, Consultant shall be paid for Services rendered
and reimbursable expenses incurred 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.
5. SUBCONTRACTORS. Consultant shall not enter into subcontracts for any of the Services
provided for in this Agreement without the express written consent of the City. Consultant
shall pay any subcontractor involved in the performance of this Agreement within ten (10)
days of the Consultant’s receipt of payment by the City for undisputed services provided
by the subcontractor.
6. STANDARD OF CARE. In performing its Services, Consultant 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. No warranty,
express or implied, is made or intended by Consultant’s undertaking herein or its
performance of Services.
7. DELAY IN PERFORMANCE. Neither City nor Consultant 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
3
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 Consultant 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 describing the
circumstances preventing continued performance and the efforts being made to resume
performance of this Agreement. Consultant will be entitled to payment for its reasonable
additional charges, if any, due to the delay.
8. CITY’S REPRESENTATIVE. The City has designated Andrew McLean to act as the
City’s representative with respect to the Services to be performed under this Agreement.
He 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.
9. PROJECT MANAGER AND STAFFING. The Consultant has designated Jon Nisja to be
the primary contact for the City in the performance of the Services. He shall be assisted by
other staff members as necessary to facilitate the completion of the Services in accordance
with the terms established herein. Consultant may not remove or replace the designated
staff without the approval of the City.
10. INDEMNIFICATION.
a. Consultant and City each agree to 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 Consultant and City, they shall be
borne by each party in proportion to its own negligence.
b. Consultant shall indemnify City against legal liability for damages arising out of
claims by Consultant’s employees. City shall indemnify Consultant against legal
liability for damages arising out of claims by City’s employees.
11. INSURANCE. During the performance of the Services under this Agreement, Consultant
shall maintain the following insurance:
a. General Liability Insurance, with a limit of $2,000,000 for any number of claims
arising out of a single occurrence.
b. Professional Liability Insurance, with a limit of $2,000,000 for any number of
claims arising out of a single occurrence.
4
c. Workers’ Compensation Insurance in accordance with statutory requirements.
d. Automobile Liability Insurance, with a combined single limit of $2,000,000.
Consultant 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 General Liability Insurance policy.
12. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. Professional documents, drawings, and specifications
prepared by the Consultant as part of the Services shall become the property of the City
when Consultant has been compensated for all Services rendered, provided, however, that
Consultant shall have the unrestricted right to their use. Consultant shall retain its rights in
its standard drawing details, specifications, databases, computer software, and other
proprietary property. Rights to proprietary intellectual property developed, utilized, or
modified in the performance of the Services shall remain the property of the Consultant.
13. 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
Or emailed: jlevitt@cottagegrovemn.gov
If to Consultant: Fire Loss Prevention, LLC
678 Pinewood Drive
Shorewood, MN 55126
Attention: Jon Nisja
Or emailed: jonnisja@comcast.net
14. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS. All services provided by Consultant, its
officers, agents and employees pursuant to this Agreement shall be provided as employees
of Consultant or as independent contractors of Consultant and not as employees of the City
for any purpose.
15. 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 Consultant 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.
5
c. 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.
d. Amendments. Any modification or amendment to this Agreement shall require a
written agreement signed by both parties.
e. 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.
f. 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.
g. 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]
6
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE
By:
Myron A. Bailey, Mayor
By:
Tamara Anderson, City Clerk
Date:
7
FIRE LOSS PREVENTION, LLC (“CONSULTANT”)
Signature:
Name:
Its:
Date:
Jon Nisja
Owner
August 28, 2025
1
City Council Action Request
7.I.
Meeting Date 9/3/2025
Department Engineering
Agenda Category Action Item
Title No Parking Zone - Granada Ave S and 70th St S
Staff Recommendation Adopt Resolution 2025-116 restricting parking along the northbound
lane of Granada Avenue where the median is present.
Budget Implication N/A
Attachments 1. 2025-09-03 CC No Parking Granada and 70th Memo
2. 2025-09-03 CC No Parking Granada and 70th Resolution
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Genevieve Tester, EIT, Graduate Engineer
Date: August 27, 2025
Re: Granada Avenue and 70th Street – No Parking Zone
Background
No Parking zone on Granada Avenue,
north of 70th Street (CSAH22). Where the concrete median is present, parked vehicles hinder a
driver’s ability to safely travel northbound on Granada Avenue. This situation was brought to
City Staff’s attention through a sign request from a resident. The narrow lane width does not
provide adequate space for both a through lane and on-street parking. The location is depicted
in Image 1. The stretch is approximately 150 feet.
Image 1: The proposed No Parking zone on Granada Avenue at 70th Street.
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt
th Street “No Parking” Zone
The minimum design width for a parking lane is 8 feet and 10 feet for a through lane. Therefore,
the current dimensions of this stretch of road—approximately 14 feet—do not accommodate
both a legally parked car and a traffic lane.
th Street So.), has
been notified of the potential change in parking allowances adjacent to their property. They are
supportive of the proposal.
No Parking signage as warranted and guided by the Minnesota
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices “MN MUTCD” for the approximately 150-foot stretch.
Recommendation
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING A NO PARKING ZONE
WHEREAS, the City of Cottage Grove is concerned about a vehicle’s ability to
safely travel northbound into the Pine Summit development from 70th Street; and
WHEREAS, the City acknowledges that such parking restrictions will apply to all
parked vehicles within the affected zone, regardless of the residency of the vehicle owner
or operator.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that the City of Cottage Grove
shall ban the parking of motor vehicles on Granada Avenue, north of 70th Street where
the concrete median is present within the City of Cottage Grove.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Cottage Grove supports full
enforcement of the proposed parking restrictions by city law enforcement personnel.
Passed this 3rd day of September 2025.
Myron Bailey, Mayor
Attest:
Tamara Anderson, City Clerk
1
City Council Action Request
7.J.
Meeting Date 9/3/2025
Department Engineering
Agenda Category Action Item
Title TH61 River Oaks Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT) Final
Payment
Staff Recommendation Adopt Resolution 2025-126 approving the final payment in the
amount of $22,737.56 for the TH61 River Oaks RCUT Project.
Budget Implication $22,737.56 - MNDOT Grant and MSA Funds
Attachments 1. Transmittal Letter Final Estimate
2. River Oaks RCUT Final Payment Resolution
3. 129262 Excecuted Final Pay Request
4. All IC-134s
5. All Lien Waivers
6. 129262 Pember Warranty Bond
August 28, 2025
Paul Sponholz, PE
City Engineer
City of Cottage Grove
12800 Ravine Parkway South
Cottage Grove, MN 55016
RE: Contractor’s Pay Request No. 5 and Final
TH61 River Oaks RCUT
Dear Mr. Sponholz:
Attached is the signed copy of the Contractors Pay Request No. 5 and Final for the TH61 River Oaks
RCUT Project. Also included are the IC 134 forms, Lien Waivers, and Warranty Bond as submitted by the
Contractor. The Contractor for this project is Pember Companies.
REVIEW OF PROJECT HISTORY
The contractor began this project in August 2024 and the project was substantially completed on
October 18, 2024. The contractor returned in spring and summer of 2025 to complete the remaining
punch list work.
CONSTRUCTION COST OVERVIEW
As indicated on the final request for payment, the original contract amount was $1,203,803.45. The final
construction cost as shown is $1,167,769.95 which is $36,033.50 less than the contract amount.
The overall project underrun was due to underruns in estimated compost usage of $43,560.00, and
addition of $8,766.80 in dowel bar reinforcement, and other minor quantity discrepancies.
RECOMMENDATION
Pember Companies in accordance with the contract plans and specifications has satisfactorily completed
the work. Therefore, it is recommended that final payment of $22,737.56 be made and the City of
Cottage Grove accept the project. After acceptance, please distribute all requests for payments as
appropriate.
If you have any questions or require further information, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Bolton & Menk, Inc.
Timothy J Adler
Design Engineer
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has certified that work has been satisfactorily
completed; and
WHEREAS, the original total contract amount was $1,203,803.45. The final con-
struction cost was $1,167,769.95, which is $36,033.50 less than the contract amount. The
reduced construction cost was due to underruns in estimated compost usage of
$43,560.00, and addition of $8,766.80 in dowel bar reinforcement, and other minor
quantity discrepancies; and
WHEREAS, the project has been satisfactorily completed in accordance with the
contract plans and specifications.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Cottage
Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, that $22,737.56 is paid to Pember
Companies, Inc. for the final payment for the TH61 River Oaks RCUT Project.
Passed this 3rd day of September, 2025.
Myron Bailey, Mayor
Attest:
Tamara Anderson, City Clerk
From
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
a.X
b.X
c.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Name: Name:
1,167,769.95$
1,209,527.40$
Retainage
Current Contract Price (Line 1 + Line 2)
Total Work completed and materials stored to date
(Sum of Column G Lump Sum Total and Column J Unit Price Total)
Contractor's Application for Payment
S.P. No 8205-156
City of Cottage Grove
Pember Companies, Inc.
Bolton & Menk, Inc.
Owner's Project No.:
Engineer's Project No.:
Agency's Project No.:
Owner:
Contractor:
Engineer:
1,203,803.45$
5,723.95$ Net change by Change Orders
0N1.129262
T.H. 61 Reduced Conflict Intersection (RCI) Project
Contract:
1/21/2025 to
Original Contract Price
Application Period:7/28/2025
Application Date:8/4/20255 & Final
Project:
Application No.:
Amount due this application
Contractor:
Balance to finish, including retainage (Line 3 - Line 4)
Work Completed
Stored Materials
Total Retainage (Line 5.a + Line 5.b)
Amount eligible to date (Line 4 - Line 5.c)
Less previous payments
$ 1,167,769.95
$ -
The undersigned Contractor certifies, to the best of its knowledge, the following:
(1) All previous progress payments received from Owner on account of Work done under the Contract have been applied on
account to discharge Contractor's legitimate obligations incurred in connection with the Work covered by prior Applications for
Payment;
(2) Title to all Work, materials and equipment incorporated in said Work, or otherwise listed in or covered by this Application for
Payment, will pass to Owner at time of payment free and clear of all liens, security interests, and encumbrances (except such as
are covered by a bond acceptable to Owner indemnifying Owner against any such liens, security interest, or encumbrances);
and
(3) All the Work covered by this Application for Payment is in accordance with the Contract Documents and is not defective; and
(4) The provisions of M. S. 290.92 have been complied with and that all claims against me by reason of the Contract have been
paid or satisfactorily secured.
-$
Date:
Signature:
Approved by City of Cottage GroveRecommended by Bolton & Menk, Inc.
Name:
Date:
Title:
Contractor's Certification
-$
-$
22,737.56$
1,145,032.39$
-$
1,167,769.95$
Pember Companies, Inc.
Date:
By:
Title:
By:
Title:
EJCDC C-620 Contractor's Application for Payment
(c) 2018 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved.
Docusign Envelope ID: 04F8F10D-A9C4-4F37-8B84-ABCEB6EF29FA
August 6, 2025
Project ManagerRyan Pember
August 6, 2025
Design Engineer
Tim Adler
Contractor's Application for Payment
Owner's Project No.:
Engineer's Project No.:
Agency's Project No.:
5 & Final From 01/21/25 to 07/28/25
A C D E F F1 F2 G H I J K L
Item Quantity Units
Unit Price
($)
Value of Bid Item
(C X E)
($)
Quantity Previous
Estimate
Value Previous
Estimate
Estimated
Quantity
Incorporated in
the Work
Value of Work
Completed to Date
(E X G)
($)
1 1.00 LUMP SUM 4,100.00 4,100.00 1.00 4,100.00 1.00 4,100.00 4,100.00 100% -
2 1.00 LUMP SUM 57,385.00 57,385.00 1.00 57,385.00 1.00 57,385.00 57,385.00 100% -
3 9,000.00 LIN FT 0.90 8,100.00 5,000.00 4,500.00 5,000.00 4,500.00 4,500.00 56% 3,600.00
4 2.00 EACH 4,370.00 8,740.00 2.00 8,740.00 2.00 8,740.00 8,740.00 100% -
5 1.00 EACH 155.00 155.00 1.00 155.00 1.00 155.00 155.00 100% -
6 1.00 EACH 26.00 26.00 1.00 26.00 1.00 26.00 26.00 100% -
7 10.00 EACH 26.00 260.00 10.00 260.00 10.00 260.00 260.00 100% -
8 2,396.00 LIN FT 4.50 10,782.00 2,396.00 10,782.00 2,396.00 10,782.00 10,782.00 100% -
9 383.00 LIN FT 3.25 1,244.75 383.00 1,244.75 383.00 1,244.75 1,244.75 100% -
10 1,491.00 LIN FT 3.00 4,473.00 1,491.00 4,473.00 1,491.00 4,473.00 4,473.00 100% -
11 1,601.00 LIN FT 7.85 12,567.85 1,601.00 12,567.85 1,601.00 12,567.85 12,567.85 100% -
12 1,817.00 SQ YD 12.35 22,439.95 1,817.00 22,439.95 1,817.00 22,439.95 22,439.95 100% -
13 395.00 SQ YD 6.30 2,488.50 395.00 2,488.50 395.00 2,488.50 2,488.50 100% -
14 3,907.00 CU YD 22.40 87,516.80 3,907.00 87,516.80 3,907.00 87,516.80 87,516.80 100% -
15 1,652.00 CU YD 36.50 60,298.00 1,652.00 60,298.00 1,652.00 60,298.00 60,298.00 100% -
16 2,087.00 CU YD 8.10 16,904.70 2,087.00 16,904.70 2,087.00 16,904.70 16,904.70 100% -
17 113.00 CU YD 86.65 9,791.45 113.00 9,791.45 113.00 9,791.45 9,791.45 100% -
18 673.00 CU YD 61.55 41,423.15 673.00 41,423.15 673.00 41,423.15 41,423.15 100% -
19 772.00 EACH 10.85 8,376.20 1,580.00 17,143.00 1,580.00 17,143.00 17,143.00 205% (8,766.80)
20 2,818.00 SQ YD 105.80 298,144.40 2,818.00 298,144.40 2,818.00 298,144.40 298,144.40 100% -
21 840.00 POUND 2.65 2,226.00 1,074.00 2,846.10 1,074.00 2,846.10 2,846.10 128% (620.10)
22 12.00 EACH 14.20 170.40 28.00 397.60 28.00 397.60 397.60 233% (227.20)
23 609.00 EACH 7.70 4,689.30 670.00 5,159.00 670.00 5,159.00 5,159.00 110% (469.70)
24 223.00 CU YD 64.00 14,272.00 223.00 14,272.00 223.00 14,272.00 14,272.00 100% -
25 4.00 EACH 1,610.00 6,440.00 4.00 6,440.00 4.00 6,440.00 6,440.00 100% -
26 2.00 EACH 1,430.00 2,860.00 2.00 2,860.00 2.00 2,860.00 2,860.00 100% -
27 150.00 LIN FT 72.60 10,890.00 150.00 10,890.00 152.00 11,035.20 11,035.20 101% (145.20)
28 227.00 LIN FT 83.30 18,909.10 227.00 18,909.10 232.00 19,325.60 19,325.60 102% (416.50)
29 3.00 EACH 780.00 2,340.00 3.00 2,340.00 3.00 2,340.00 2,340.00 100% -
30 26.00 LIN FT 35.00 910.00 26.00 910.00 26.00 910.00 910.00 100% -
31 1,636.00 LIN FT 20.00 32,720.00 1,636.00 32,720.00 1,636.00 32,720.00 32,720.00 100% -
32 139.00 SQ FT 10.10 1,403.90 135.00 1,363.50 135.00 1,363.50 1,363.50 97% 40.40
33 6.00 EACH 7.60 45.60 6.00 45.60 6.00 45.60 45.60 100% -
34 120.00 SQ FT 8.90 1,068.00 115.00 1,023.50 115.00 1,023.50 1,023.50 96% 44.50
35 22.00 SQ FT 72.90 1,603.80 17.00 1,239.30 17.00 1,239.30 1,239.30 77% 364.50
36 1.00 LUMP SUM 89,200.00 89,200.00 1.00 89,200.00 1.00 89,200.00 89,200.00 100% -
37 6.00 EACH 11,960.00 71,760.00 6.00 71,760.00 6.00 71,760.00 71,760.00 100% -
38 6.00 EACH 104.00 624.00 6.00 624.00 6.00 624.00 624.00 100% -
39 1,428.00 LIN FT 55.15 78,754.20 1,428.00 78,754.20 1,428.00 78,754.20 78,754.20 100% -
40 1.00 LUMP SUM 12,500.00 12,500.00 1.00 12,500.00 1.00 12,500.00 12,500.00 100% -
41 1.00 LUMP SUM 15,540.00 15,540.00 1.00 15,540.00 1.00 15,540.00 15,540.00 100% -
42 2.00 EACH 3,640.00 7,280.00 2.00 7,280.00 2.00 7,280.00 7,280.00 100% -
43 2.00 EACH 260.00 520.00 2.00 520.00 2.00 520.00 520.00 100% -
44 4.00 EACH 104.00 416.00 4.00 416.00 4.00 416.00 416.00 100% -
45 421.00 SQ FT 64.50 27,154.50 421.00 27,154.50 421.00 27,154.50 27,154.50 100% -
TRAFFIC CONTROL SUPERVISOR
TRAFFIC CONTROL
PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN
DELINEATOR / MARKER
DELINEATOR / MARKER PANEL
Previous Estimate
AGGREGATE BASE (CV) CLASS 6 (P)
DOWEL BAR
TRUNCATED DOMES
LIGHTING SYSTEM
ANCHORAGE ASSEMBLY - TENSION CABLE
GUIDE POST TYPE SPECIAL
TENSION CABLE GUARDRAIL
4" TP PIPE DRAIN
4" PERF PE PIPE DRAIN
6" CONCRETE WALK
DRILL AND GROUT REINF BAR (EPOXY COATED)
CONCRETE CURB RAMP WALK
DRILL AND GROUT DOWEL BAR (EPOXY COATED)
DRILL AND GROUT REINF BAR (EPOXY COATED)
FINE AGGREGATE BEDDING (CV)
SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) (P)
COMMON EMBANKMENT (CV) (P)
AGGREGATE SURFACING (CV) CLASS 1 (P)
Work Completed
and Materials
Stored to Date
(H + I)
($)
AS BUILT
08/04/25
B
Progress Estimate - Unit Price Work
City of Cottage Grove
Bolton & Menk, Inc.
Pember Companies, Inc.
T.H. 61 Reduced Conflict Intersection (RCI) Project
Owner:
S.P. No 8205-156
0N1.129262Engineer:
Contractor:
Project:
Contract:
BASE BID
% of
Value of
Item
(J / F)
(%)
Balance to Finish
(F - J)
($)
Work Completed
Materials Currently
Stored (not in G)
($)
REMOVE CONCRETE PAVEMENT
REMOVE BITUMINOUS SHOULDER PAVEMENT
EXCAVATION - COMMON (P)
MOBILIZATION
Description
15" CS SAFETY APRON AND GRATE DESIGN 3128
12" RC SAFETY APRON
12" RC PIPE CULVERT DESIGN 3006 CLASS V
15" RC PIPE CULVERT DESIGN 3006 CLASS V
4" PRECAST CONCRETE HEADWALL
SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH)
SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH)
CONCRETE PAVEMENT 8.5"
SUPPLEMENTAL PAVEMENT REINFORCEMENT
SIGN
Contract Information
Bid Item
No.
PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL
REMOVE ANCHORAGE ASSEMBLY - TENSION CABLE
REMOVE PIPE DRAIN
REMOVE TENSION CABLE GUARDRAIL
REMOVE CONCRETE HEADWALL
REMOVE DELINEATOR / MARKER
REMOVE SIGN
Application Date:Application Period:Application No.:
Unit Price
EJCDC C-620 Contractor's Application for Payment
(c) 2018 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved.1 of 2
Docusign Envelope ID: 04F8F10D-A9C4-4F37-8B84-ABCEB6EF29FA
Contractor's Application for Payment
Owner's Project No.:
Engineer's Project No.:
Agency's Project No.:
5 & Final From 01/21/25 to 07/28/25
A C D E F F1 F2 G H I J K L
Item Quantity Units
Unit Price
($)
Value of Bid Item
(C X E)
($)
Quantity Previous
Estimate
Value Previous
Estimate
Estimated
Quantity
Incorporated in
the Work
Value of Work
Completed to Date
(E X G)
($)
Previous Estimate
Work Completed
and Materials
Stored to Date
(H + I)
($)
08/04/25
B
Progress Estimate - Unit Price Work
City of Cottage Grove
Bolton & Menk, Inc.
Pember Companies, Inc.
T.H. 61 Reduced Conflict Intersection (RCI) Project
Owner:
S.P. No 8205-156
0N1.129262Engineer:
Contractor:
Project:
Contract:
% of
Value of
Item
(J / F)
(%)
Balance to Finish
(F - J)
($)
Work Completed
Materials Currently
Stored (not in G)
($)Description
Contract Information
Bid Item
No.
Application Date:Application Period:Application No.:
46 1.00 LUMP SUM 2,000.00 2,000.00 1.00 2,000.00 1.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 100% -
47 3.00 EACH 230.00 690.00 3.00 690.00 3.00 690.00 690.00 100% -
48 491.00 LIN FT 2.90 1,423.90 491.00 1,423.90 491.00 1,423.90 1,423.90 100% -
49 312.00 LIN FT 3.85 1,201.20 312.00 1,201.20 312.00 1,201.20 1,201.20 100% -
50 1.40 ACRE 1,000.00 1,400.00 1.40 1,400.00 1.40 1,400.00 1,400.00 100% -
51 1.40 ACRE 1,000.00 1,400.00 1.40 1,400.00 1.40 1,400.00 1,400.00 100% -
52 1,089.00 CU YD 40.00 43,560.00 - - - - - 43,560.00
53 270.00 POUND 3.00 810.00 270.00 810.00 270.00 810.00 810.00 100% -
54 823.00 SQ YD 2.50 2,057.50 786.00 1,965.00 786.00 1,965.00 1,965.00 96% 92.50
55 1.35 ACRE 3,200.00 4,320.00 1.35 4,320.00 1.35 4,320.00 4,320.00 100% -
56 1.35 ACRE 300.00 405.00 - - - - - 405.00
57 1.35 ACRE 350.00 472.50 - - - - - 472.50
58 0.68 GALLON 160.00 108.80 - - - - - 108.80
59 297.00 POUND 13.00 3,861.00 290.00 3,770.00 290.00 3,770.00 3,770.00 98% 91.00
60 5,267.00 POUND 1.20 6,320.40 5,200.00 6,240.00 5,200.00 6,240.00 6,240.00 99% 80.40
61 4,240.00 LIN FT 1.90 8,056.00 4,012.00 7,622.80 4,012.00 7,622.80 7,622.80 95% 433.20
62 640.00 LIN FT 2.60 1,664.00 600.00 1,560.00 600.00 1,560.00 1,560.00 94% 104.00
63 7,185.00 LIN FT 0.25 1,796.25 9,504.00 2,376.00 9,504.00 2,376.00 2,376.00 132% (579.75)
64 4,994.00 LIN FT 2.05 10,237.70 5,009.00 10,268.45 5,009.00 10,268.45 10,268.45 100% (30.75)
65 1,316.00 LIN FT 12.65 16,647.40 1,527.00 19,316.55 1,527.00 19,316.55 19,316.55 116% (2,669.15)
66 520.00 LIN FT 12.50 6,500.00 520.00 6,500.00 520.00 6,500.00 6,500.00 100% -
67 355.00 LIN FT 39.55 14,040.25 215.00 8,503.25 215.00 8,503.25 8,503.25 61% 5,537.00
68 260.00 SQ FT 46.80 12,168.00 244.00 11,419.20 244.00 11,419.20 11,419.20 94% 748.80
69 1.00 LUMP SUM 3,150.00 3,150.00 - - 1.00 3,150.00 3,150.00 100% -
1,203,803.45$ 1,158,334.30$ 1,162,046.00$ -$ 1,162,046.00$ 97% 41,757.45$
70 1.00 LUMP SUM 3,073.95 3,073.95 1.00 3,073.95 1.00 3,073.95 3,073.95 100% -
71 1.00 LUMP SUM 2,650.00 2,650.00 - 1.00 2,650.00 2,650.00 100% -
5,723.95$ 3,073.95$ 5,723.95$ -$ 5,723.95$ 100% -$
1,209,527.40$ 1,161,408.25$ 1,167,769.95$ -$ 1,167,769.95$ 97% 41,757.45$
6" BROKEN LINE PREFORM TAPE GROUND IN (WR)
24" SOLID LINE PREFORM THERMO GROUND IN CONT
PAVEMENT MESSAGE PREFORM THERMOPLASTIC GROUND
WET RETROREFLECTOMETER MEASUREMENTS
HYDRAULIC REINFORCED FIBER MATRIX
REMOVABLE PREFORMED PAVEMENT MARKING TAPE WR
REMOVABLE PREFORMED PLASTIC MASK (BLACK)
MOBILE RETROREFLECTOMETER MEASUREMENTS
6" SOLID LINE MULTI-COMPONENT GROUND IN (WR)
WEED SPRAYING
WEED SPRAY MIXTURE
SEED MIXTURE 25-131
SUBSOILING (P)
SOIL BED PREPARATION (P)
COMPOST GRADE 2
FERTILIZER TYPE 3
ROLLED EROSION PREVENTION CATEGORY 20
6" SOLID LINE PREFORM TAPE GROUND IN (WR) CONTRAST
SILT FENCE, TYPE MS
SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE WOOD FIBER
SEEDING (P)
MOWING
BASE BID TOTAL:
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT
CULVERT END CONTROLS
PROJECT TOTAL:
DELINEATORS
CHANGE ORDER TOTAL:
BASE BID + CHANGE ORDER
CHANGE ORDER
TRAFFIC CONTROL
Unit Price
EJCDC C-620 Contractor's Application for Payment
(c) 2018 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved.2 of 2
Docusign Envelope ID: 04F8F10D-A9C4-4F37-8B84-ABCEB6EF29FA
Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: 04F8F10D-A9C4-4F37-8B84-ABCEB6EF29FA Status: Completed
Subject: DocuSign: T.H. 61 Reduced Conflict Intersection (RCI) Project - Pay Request No. 5 & Final
Source Envelope:
Document Pages: 3 Signatures: 2 Envelope Originator:
Certificate Pages: 5 Initials: 0 Courtney Maul
AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
Time Zone: (UTC-06:00) Central Time (US & Canada)
1960 Premier Drive
MANKATO, MN 56001
courtney.maul@bolton-menk.com
IP Address: 204.131.244.194
Record Tracking
Status: Original
8/5/2025 12:57:06 PM
Holder: Courtney Maul
courtney.maul@bolton-menk.com
Location: DocuSign
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Ryan Pember
rpember@pembercompanies.com
Project Manager
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 173.245.129.232
Sent: 8/5/2025 12:58:56 PM
Viewed: 8/6/2025 6:34:47 AM
Signed: 8/6/2025 6:38:58 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Accepted: 8/6/2025 6:34:47 AM
ID: 5abb628b-4248-4585-80c8-d49ab97ceee7
Tim Adler
tim.adler@bolton-menk.com
Design Engineer
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)Signature Adoption: Drawn on Device
Using IP Address:
2601:444:801:be10:3153:8ac1:69b5:4a45
Signed using mobile
Sent: 8/6/2025 6:38:59 AM
Viewed: 8/6/2025 6:48:57 AM
Signed: 8/6/2025 6:49:17 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Accepted: 8/6/2025 6:48:57 AM
ID: b5158d4d-123f-4ca4-9cb2-b17e9db69b0b
In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp
Witness Events Signature Timestamp
Notary Events Signature Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps
Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 8/5/2025 12:58:56 PM
Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps
Certified Delivered Security Checked 8/6/2025 6:48:57 AM
Signing Complete Security Checked 8/6/2025 6:49:17 AM
Completed Security Checked 8/6/2025 6:49:17 AM
Payment Events Status Timestamps
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure
ELECTRONIC RECORD AND SIGNATURE DISCLOSURE
From time to time, Bolton & Menk (we, us or Company) may be required by law to provide to
you certain written notices or disclosures. Described below are the terms and conditions for
providing to you such notices and disclosures electronically through the DocuSign system.
Please read the information below carefully and thoroughly, and if you can access this
information electronically to your satisfaction and agree to this Electronic Record and Signature
Disclosure (ERSD), please confirm your agreement by selecting the check-box next to ‘I agree to
use electronic records and signatures’ before clicking ‘CONTINUE’ within the DocuSign
system.
Getting paper copies
At any time, you may request from us a paper copy of any record provided or made available
electronically to you by us. You will have the ability to download and print documents we send
to you through the DocuSign system during and immediately after the signing session and, if you
elect to create a DocuSign account, you may access the documents for a limited period of time
(usually 30 days) after such documents are first sent to you. After such time, if you wish for us to
send you paper copies of any such documents from our office to you, you will be charged a
$0.00 per-page fee. You may request delivery of such paper copies from us by following the
procedure described below.
Withdrawing your consent
If you decide to receive notices and disclosures from us electronically, you may at any time
change your mind and tell us that thereafter you want to receive required notices and disclosures
only in paper format. How you must inform us of your decision to receive future notices and
disclosure in paper format and withdraw your consent to receive notices and disclosures
electronically is described below.
Consequences of changing your mind
If you elect to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format, it will slow the
speed at which we can complete certain steps in transactions with you and delivering services to
you because we will need first to send the required notices or disclosures to you in paper format,
and then wait until we receive back from you your acknowledgment of your receipt of such
paper notices or disclosures. Further, you will no longer be able to use the DocuSign system to
receive required notices and consents electronically from us or to sign electronically documents
from us.
All notices and disclosures will be sent to you electronically
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure created on: 12/31/2019 11:55:21 AM
Parties agreed to: Ryan Pember, Tim Adler
Unless you tell us otherwise in accordance with the procedures described herein, we will provide
electronically to you through the DocuSign system all required notices, disclosures,
authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made
available to you during the course of our relationship with you. To reduce the chance of you
inadvertently not receiving any notice or disclosure, we prefer to provide all of the required
notices and disclosures to you by the same method and to the same address that you have given
us. Thus, you can receive all the disclosures and notices electronically or in paper format through
the paper mail delivery system. If you do not agree with this process, please let us know as
described below. Please also see the paragraph immediately above that describes the
consequences of your electing not to receive delivery of the notices and disclosures
electronically from us.
How to contact Bolton & Menk:
You may contact us to let us know of your changes as to how we may contact you electronically,
to request paper copies of certain information from us, and to withdraw your prior consent to
receive notices and disclosures electronically as follows:
To contact us by email send messages to: docusign@bolton-menk.com
To advise Bolton & Menk of your new email address
To let us know of a change in your email address where we should send notices and disclosures
electronically to you, you must send an email message to us at docusign@bolton-menk.com and
in the body of such request you must state: your previous email address, your new email
address. We do not require any other information from you to change your email address.
If you created a DocuSign account, you may update it with your new email address through your
account preferences.
To request paper copies from Bolton & Menk
To request delivery from us of paper copies of the notices and disclosures previously provided
by us to you electronically, you must send us an email to docusign@bolton-menk.com and in the
body of such request you must state your email address, full name, mailing address, and
telephone number. If any fees are incurred you will be billed for them at that time.
To withdraw your consent with Bolton & Menk
To inform us that you no longer wish to receive future notices and disclosures in electronic
format you may:
i. decline to sign a document from within your signing session, and on the subsequent page,
select the check-box indicating you wish to withdraw your consent, or you may;
ii. send us an email to docusign@bolton-menk.com and in the body of such request you must
state your email, full name, mailing address, and telephone number. We do not need any other
information from you to withdraw consent.. The consequences of your withdrawing consent for
online documents will be that transactions will take a longer time to process..
Required hardware and software
The minimum system requirements for using the DocuSign system may change over time. The
current system requirements are found here: https://support.docusign.com/guides/signer-guide-
signing-system-requirements.
Acknowledging your access and consent to receive and sign documents electronically
To confirm to us that you can access this information electronically, which will be similar to
other electronic notices and disclosures that we will provide to you, please confirm that you have
read this ERSD, and (i) that you are able to print on paper or electronically save this ERSD for
your future reference and access; or (ii) that you are able to email this ERSD to an email address
where you will be able to print on paper or save it for your future reference and access. Further,
if you consent to receiving notices and disclosures exclusively in electronic format as described
herein, then select the check-box next to ‘I agree to use electronic records and signatures’ before
clicking ‘CONTINUE’ within the DocuSign system.
By selecting the check-box next to ‘I agree to use electronic records and signatures’, you confirm
that:
You can access and read this Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure; and
You can print on paper this Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure, or save or send
this Electronic Record and Disclosure to a location where you can print it, for future
reference and access; and
Until or unless you notify Bolton & Menk as described above, you consent to receive
exclusively through electronic means all notices, disclosures, authorizations,
acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made
available to you by Bolton & Menk during the course of your relationship with Bolton &
Menk.
Contractor Affidavit Submitted
Thank you, your Contractor Affidavit has been approved.
Confirmation Summary
Confirmation Number:0-094-519-008
Submitted Date and Time:3-Jun-2025 9:10:42 AM
Legal Name:PEMBER COMPANIES INC
Federal Employer ID:39-1216720
User Who Submitted:PemberIC134
Type of Request Submitted:Contractor Affidavit
Affidavit Summary
Affidavit Number:104411136
Minnesota ID:2990838
Project Owner:CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MN
Project Number:8205-156
Project Begin Date:17-Jul-2024
Project End Date:05-Mar-2025
Project Location:COTTAGE GROVE, MN
Project Amount:$1,206,877.40
Subcontractor Summary
Name ID Affidavit Number
CENTURY TRAFFIC LLC 9186679 1977233408
KILLMER ELECTRIC CO INC 6718331 769798144
GORMAN SURVEYING INC 2520295 564473856
H & R CONSTRUCTION CO 4592079 1919234048
SAFTEY SIGNS 5139558 340865024
Important Messages
A copy of this page must be provided to the contractor or government agency that hired you.
Contact Us
If you need further assistance, contact our Withholding Tax Division at 651-282-9999, (toll-free) 800-657-3594, or (email)
withholding.tax@state.mn.us. Business hours are Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Central Time.
Please print this page for your records using the print or save functionality built into your browser.
Contractor Affidavit Submitted
Thank you, your Contractor Affidavit has been approved.
Confirmation Summary
Confirmation Number:0-230-317-792
Submitted Date and Time:21-May-2025 7:55:27 AM
Legal Name:CENTURY TRAFFIC LLC
Federal Employer ID:93-4532870
User Who Submitted:TGriswoldCT
Type of Request Submitted:Contractor Affidavit
Affidavit Summary
Affidavit Number:1977233408
Minnesota ID:9186679
Project Owner:CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE
Project Number:8205-156
Project Begin Date:02-Oct-2024
Project End Date:05-Oct-2024
Project Location:COTTAGE GROVE
Project Amount:$59,189.60
Subcontractor Summary
Name ID Affidavit Number
BECK & CO ENGINEERING INC 2373542 1678651392
Important Messages
A copy of this page must be provided to the contractor or government agency that hired you.
Contact Us
If you need further assistance, contact our Withholding Tax Division at 651-282-9999, (toll-free) 800-657-3594, or (email)
withholding.tax@state.mn.us. Business hours are Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Central Time.
Please print this page for your records using the print or save functionality built into your browser.
5/21/25, 7:57 AM Pember 24-30531.htm
file:///C:/Users/TGriswold/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/Content.Outlook/M3S3S1R0/Pember 24-30531.htm 1/1
Contractor Affidavit Submitted
Thank you, your Contractor Affidavit has been approved.
Confirmation Summary
Confirmation Number:0-251-031-264
Submitted Date and Time:15-May-2025 7:55:40 AM
Legal Name:GORMAN SURVEYING INC
Federal Employer ID:41-1827941
User Who Submitted:dgorman
Type of Request Submitted:Contractor Affidavit
Affidavit Summary
Affidavit Number:564473856
Minnesota ID:2520295
Project Owner:CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MN
Project Number:24-463
Project Begin Date:10-Jul-2024
Project End Date:15-May-2025
Project Location:COTTAGE GROVE TH61 REDUCED CONFLICT
INTERSECTION
Project Amount:$4,000.00
Subcontractors:No Subcontractors
Important Messages
A copy of this page must be provided to the contractor or government agency that hired you.
Contact Us
If you need further assistance, contact our Withholding Tax Division at 651-282-9999, (toll-free) 800-657-3594, or (email)
withholding.tax@state.mn.us. Business hours are Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Central Time.
Please print this page for your records using the print or save functionality built into your browser.
1
City Council Action Request
7.K.
Meeting Date 9/3/2025
Department Parks and Recreation
Agenda Category Action Item
Title Hearthside Park Sports Lighting System Change Order
Staff Recommendation Authorize Change Order for Hearthside Park Sports Lighting Project
to contract Killmer Electric to drill and/or install a spread footing for
the light pole at a cost not to exceed $14,000.
Budget Implication There are sufficient funds in the Park Improvement Fund to pay for this change order.
Attachments 1. Memo-Heartshide Lighting Change Order
2. Killmer Change Order
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator
From:
Zac Dockter, Parks and Recreation Director
Brenda Malinowski, Finance Director
Date: August 27, 2025
Subject: Hearthside Park Sports Lighting System Change Order
Introduction
Council approved replacement of the Hearthside Park sports lighting system in June for a total cost of
$63,730. The project commenced work in August. Upon footing excavation for the aluminum pole
system, rock was encountered in the northwest corner that is impenetrable with a standard auger.
There are two potential options to mitigate this issue:
1. Pressure drill through rock
2. Convert standard pole system to a spread footing on top of rock
Drilling through the rock (option 1) would be the most desirable approach for both cost and longevity of
the system. However, the contractor cannot guarantee the ability to drill through the entire 3-4 feet of
rock given unknowns below the ground. As such, staff is recommending the City proceed with
authorizing a change order to have Killmer Electric attempt to pressure drill through the rock for $7,200.
If that effort is unsuccessful in gaining the right footing depth, Killmer will quickly adapt to a spread
footing installation on a time and material basis at a net project cost not to exceed $14,000.
The following alternative quotes were received:
Gunnar Electric (option 2 only) $30,660.90
Electrical Mechanical Contracting (Option 1 only) $11,880.00 (no guarantee they can drill through)
This project is sourced from the Park Improvement Fund. There are sufficient funds in the account to
pay for this change order.
Staff Recommendation
Authorize change order for Hearthside Park Sports Lighting Project to contract Killmer Electric to drill
and/or install a spread footing for the light pole at a cost not to exceed $14,000.
1
City Council Action Request
7.L.
Meeting Date 9/3/2025
Department Public Works
Agenda Category Action Item
Title 2025 Fall Boulevard Tree Planting
Staff Recommendation Adopt Resolution 2025-124 awarding the Base Quote plus Alternate
1 for the 2025 Tree Planting Contract to Wilson’s Nursey in the total
amount of $52,705 for the material and labor to install 155
boulevard trees and authorize the service agreement between
Wilson’s Nursery and the City of Cottage Grove.
Budget Implication $52,705 - Savings in the 2025 Forestry Budget
Attachments 1. Council Memo- Fall Boulevard Tree Planting
2. RESOLUTION AWARDING THE 2025 FALL TREE PLANTING CONTRACT
3. ServiceAgreement_Fall_Planting_2025
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator
From:
CC:
Gavin Hochstetler, Management Analyst
Ryan Burfeind, Public Works Director
Date: September 3, 2025
Subject: 2025 Fall Boulevard Tree Planting
Introduction/Background
The Forestry Department maintains and cares for approximately 15,000 boulevard trees city wide. Tree
replacement from several significant storm events is needed to maintain and improve the community’s
urban forest. The Public Works Department will implement a fall boulevard tree planting project for 155
replacement trees.
Staff has pursued available urban forestry grant opportunities to offset costs for this project. The City of
Cottage Grove does not rank high on the Supplemental Demographic Index (SDI), which is a key
scoring factor for these grant programs, therefore grant funding was not awarded. The boulevard tree
planting project will be funded entirely through existing savings in the 2025 Forestry Budget.
Contractor Base Quote Alternate 1 Total
Wilson’s Nursery $42,595 $10,110 $52,705
Hoffman & McNamara Nursery and Landscape $55,295 $12,964 $68,259
Budget Implications
The estimated cost to replace 155 boulevard trees is $52,705 which is included in the 2025 Forestry
Budget.
Staff Recommendation
Authorize resolution 2025-124 awarding the Base Quote plus Alternate 1 for the 2025 Tree Planting
Contract to Wilson’s Nursey in total amount of $52,705 for the material and labor to install 155
boulevard trees and authorize the service agreement between Wilson’s Nursery and the City of Cottage
Grove.
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION AWARDING THE BASE QUOTE PLUS ALTERNATE 1 FOR THE 2025
FALL TREE PLANTING PROJECT
WHEREAS, quotes were requested to provide the necessary work for the 2025
Fall Tree Planting Project according to City standards; and
WHEREAS, quotes were requested to provide the necessary work; and
WHEREAS, two firms submitted quotes; and
WHEREAS, it appears that Wilson’s Nursery provided the lowest responsible
quote; and
WHEREAS, it is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the quote
be awarded to Wilson’s Nursery.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Cottage
Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, that the 2025 Fall Tree Planting
Project awarding the Base Quote plus Alternate 1 to Wilson’s Nursery in total amount of
$52,705
Passed this 3rd day of September 2025.
Myron Bailey, Mayor
Attest:
Tamara Anderson, City Clerk
1
City Council Action Request
7.M.
Meeting Date 9/3/2025
Department Administration
Agenda Category Action Item
Title Designated Hunting Areas
Staff Recommendation Approve the proposed 2025-2026 archery and firearms hunting
area maps.
Budget Implication N/A
Attachments 1. Designated Hunting Areas Council 2025
2. Firearm Hunting 2025_2026
3. Archery Hunting Area Map 2025_2026
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Peter J Koerner, Director of Public Safety
Date: September 2, 2025
Subject: APPROVAL OF DESIGNATED HUNTING AREAS
Introduction
unable to locate) of gunshots heard that were not specifically associated with hunting. In
addition, Public Safety had 4 hunting/trapping questions.
Recommendation
Cottage Grove Firearm Hunting Area
Cottage Grove, MN
Date: 8/20/2025
IN
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
100TH ST
LA
M
A
R
A
V
E
IN
N
O
V
A
T
I
O
N
R
D
LE
H
I
G
H
R
D
80TH ST
KI
M
B
R
O
A
V
E
70TH ST (C.S.A.H. 22)
85TH ST
65TH ST (CR 74)
100TH ST
103RD ST
80TH ST80TH ST
HILLSIDE TRAIL
HA
D
L
E
Y
A
V
E
HI
N
T
O
N
A
V
E
JA
M
A
I
C
A
A
V
E
HA
D
L
E
Y
A
V
E
JA
M
A
I
C
A
A
V
E
ID
E
A
L
A
V
E
77TH ST
JA
M
A
I
C
A
A
V
E
85TH ST
E PT
D
O
U
G
L
A
S
R
D
E PT
D
O
U
G
L
A
S
R
D
KE
A
T
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
S
(
C
.
S
.
A
.
H
.
1
9
)
HA
R
K
N
E
S
S
A
V
E
90TH ST
GREY
C
L
O
U
D
T
R
L
JA
M
A
I
C
A
A
V
E
INDIAN BLVD
W PT
D
O
U
G
L
A
S
R
D
STA
T
E
H
W
Y
6
1
KEA
T
S
A
V
E
(
C
.
S
.
A
.
H
1
9
.
)
110TH ST
90TH ST
HA
R
D
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
STA
T
E
H
W
Y
6
1
95TH ST
STAT
E
H
W
Y
6
1
70TH ST (CSAH 20)
MA
N
N
I
N
G
A
V
E
(
S
T
A
T
E
H
W
Y
9
5
)
Firearm Use Permitted
School Property
Park and Open Space
Firearm Hunting Rules 2025-2026 Season
1. Forty acres contiguous or more. (AG1 & AG2 zoning)
2. Discharge of shotgun slugs only allowed during big game
season.
3. Recreational target shooting is not permitted within the
city.
4. Discharge of firearms for hunting is only permitted in
designated areas.
5. Discharge of firearms is prohibited within 500' of any
residence.
6. Hunting is prohibited in all public park or open-space.
7. All hunters must have written permission from landowner,
proper ID and licenses in possession.
±0 1.50.75
Miles
Disclaimer: This map is intended for reference purposes only
and is
not a legally recorded map or survey. The City of Cottage
Grove shall
not be liable for any damages or claims that arise due to
accuracy,
availability, use or misuse of the information herein pursuant
to MN
Statute 466.03 Subd 21. Upated: 5/9/22
Cottage Grove Archery Hunting Area
Cottage Grove, MN
±
Date: 8/20/2025
IN
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
100TH ST
LA
M
A
R
A
V
E
IN
N
O
V
A
T
I
O
N
R
D
LE
H
I
G
H
R
D
80TH ST
KI
M
B
R
O
A
V
E
70TH ST (C.S.A.H. 22)
85TH ST
65TH ST (CR 74)
100TH ST
103RD ST
80TH ST80TH ST
HILLSIDE TRAIL
HA
D
L
E
Y
A
V
E
HI
N
T
O
N
A
V
E
JA
M
A
I
C
A
A
V
E
HA
D
L
E
Y
A
V
E
JA
M
A
I
C
A
A
V
E
ID
E
A
L
A
V
E
77TH ST
JA
M
A
I
C
A
A
V
E
85TH ST
E PT
D
O
U
G
L
A
S
R
D
E PT
D
O
U
G
L
A
S
R
D
KE
A
T
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
S
(
C
.
S
.
A
.
H
.
1
9
)
HA
R
K
N
E
S
S
A
V
E
90TH ST
GREY
C
L
O
U
D
T
R
L
JA
M
A
I
C
A
A
V
E
INDIAN BLVD
W PT
D
O
U
G
L
A
S
R
D
STA
T
E
H
W
Y
6
1
KEA
T
S
A
V
E
(
C
.
S
.
A
.
H
1
9
.
)
110TH ST
90TH ST
HA
R
D
W
O
O
D
A
V
E
STA
T
E
H
W
Y
6
1
95TH ST
STAT
E
H
W
Y
6
1
70TH ST (CSAH 20)
MA
N
N
I
N
G
A
V
E
(
S
T
A
T
E
H
W
Y
9
5
)
Legend
Archery Permited
No Archery Hunting
School Property
Park and Open Space
±0 10.5
Miles
1. Five acre minimum required. (AG1, AG2, and R1 Zones)
2. Hunting not allowed within 300 feet of any public park,
trails, open space or right-of-way.
3. Hunt from a stand with a minimum elevation of 6 feet.
4. No arrows to leave the property being hunted.
5. All hunters must have written permission from land owner,
proper ID and licenses in possession.
Archery Hunting Rules 2025-2026 Season
1
City Council Action Request
8.A.
Meeting Date 9/3/2025
Department Finance
Agenda Category Action Item
Title Approve Disbursements
Staff Recommendation Approve disbursements from 08-15-2025 through 08-28-2025 in the
amount of $6,616,996.90.
Budget Implication N/A
Attachments 1. Expense Approval Report 09-03-2025 Council Meeting
2. Payroll Check Register 09-03-25 Council Meeting
1
City Council Action Request
9.A.
Meeting Date 9/3/2025
Department Community Development
Agenda Category Presentation
Title Frattalone’s Southpoint Ridge Easement Vacations and New
Easements (Roers)
Staff Recommendation 1) Hold the public hearing to vacate certain easements in
Frattalone’s Southpoint Ridge. 2) Adopt Resolution 2025-119
vacating, rescinding, terminating, and releasing certain easements
over Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, and Outlots A, C, and D of Frattalone’s
Southpoint Ridge. 3) Approve the establishment of a temporary
construction easement for a retaining wall. 4) Approve the
establishment of a permanent retaining wall easement.
Budget Implication N/A
Attachments 1. Roers Easement Vacations and New Easements CC Memo
2. Roers Easement Vacation Resolution
3. Roers Temp Construction Easement
4. Roers Permanent Easement Agreement
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator
FROM: Samantha Pierret, Senior Planner
DATE: August 28, 2025
RE: Frattalone’s Southpoint Ridge Easement Vacations and New Easements (Roers)
Discussion
Roers Companies were approved for a preliminary and final plat (Camel’s Hump Addition), site
plan review, and Planned Unit Development for a 144-unit apartment building at 6850 East Point
Douglas Road on January 17, 2024 (Resolutions 2024 -006 and 2024-007). A revised site plan
was approved on December 18, 2024 (Resolution 2024 -191). The property Roers will be platting
is currently platted as the Frattalone’s Southpoint Ridge Addition (2007).
Frattalone’s Southpoint Ridge Existing Easements
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt
Roers Easement Vacations, Temporary Construction Easement, and Retaining Wall Easement
August 28, 2025
Page 2 of 4
Roers is ready to proceed to closing on the properties by September 30, 2025. The City of Cottage
Grove owns Outlots A, C, and D of Frattalone’s Southpoint Ridge. To close on the property and
record the new plat (Camels Hump Addition), existing drainage and utility easements, an access
easement, and a trail easement must be vacated. New drainage and utility easements will be
platted in the Camels Hump Addition, and the public will have access to the new trail via sidewalks
on the Roers property.
Proposed Camels Hump Addition
Site Plan
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt
Roers Easement Vacations, Temporary Construction Easement, and Retaining Wall Easement
August 28, 2025
Page 3 of 4
New Easements
Part of Roers’ proposed development includes the construction of a large retaining wall along the
north and east property lines. To construct the wall, crews will need temporary access via a tem -
porary construction easement onto City-owned property for grading, sloping, and construction
purposes.
Temporary Construction Easements
A permanent retaining wall easement is also necessary for the retaining wall and structural com -
ponents to be located on City-owned property. The permanent easement allows the owner access
for maintenance of the wall and structural components.
Permanent Retaining Wall Easement
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt
Roers Easement Vacations, Temporary Construction Easement, and Retaining Wall Easement
August 28, 2025
Page 4 of 4
Recommendation
1. Hold the public hearing to vacate certain easements in Frattalone’s Southpoint Ridge.
2. Adopt Resolution 2025-119 vacating, rescinding, terminating and releasing certain easements
over Lots 3 and 4 Block 1 and Outlots A, C, and D of Frattalone’s Southpoint Ridge .
3. Approve the establishment of a temporary construction easement for a retaining wall.
4. Approve the establishment of a permanent retaining wall easement.
1
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2025-119
RESOLUTION VACATING
CERTAIN EASEMENTS LOCATED
WITHIN THE CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 412.851, the City Council may vacate
any street, alley, public grounds, public way or any part thereof within the City by
Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City initiated the vacation of certain easements over that
certain real property in Cottage Grove, Minnesota, legally described on Exhibit A
and Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, a notice of a public hearing on said vacation was duly published
and posted in accordance with applicable Minnesota Statutes and a public hearing
was held on said vacation; and
WHEREAS , the City Council of Cottage Grove then proceeded to hear all
persons interested in said vacation and all persons interested were afforded an
opportunity to present their views and objections to the granting of said vacation;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Cottage Grove has determined that the
vacation would be in the public’s interest.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota:
That the City of Cottage Grove, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 412.851, hereby vacates
the following easements:
1. Drainage and utility easements shown on the Plat of Frattalone’s Southpoint
Ridge, approved on August 14, 2007 and recorded as Document No.
3658599 in the Washington County Recorder’s Office, over that certain real
property legally described on Exhibit A.
2. A Permanent Easement dated May 26, 2016 and recorded as Document
No. 1241542, and a Grant of Easement dated August 21, 2007 and
recorded as Document No. 1181133, in the Washington County Recorder’s
Office and recorded with the Registrar of Titles, over that certain real
property legally described on Exhibit B.
2
3. That said vacation has no relationship to the City’s Comprehensive Plan
and therefore the Cottage Grove City Council has dispensed with the
requirements of Minn. Stat. § 462.356, Subd. 2, that may require the
Cottage Grove Planning Commission to perform a Comprehensive Plan
compliance review of said vacation that may constitute a disposal of real
property pursuant to § 462.356, Subd. 2.
4. That the City Clerk shall prepare a notice to be presented to the Washington
County Auditor reflecting the completion of the proceedings herein.
Passed this 3rd of September, 2025.
__________________________
Myron Bailey, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________
Tamara Anderson, City Clerk
A-1
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
That certain real property located in County of Washington, State of Minnesota,
legally described as follows:
Outlot A, Frattalone’ s Southpoint Ridge, according to the plat thereof on file and
of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Washington County,
Minnesota.
PID No.: 07.027.21.44.0019
Torrens Certificate 74138
Outlot C, Frattalone’s Southpoint Ridge, according to the plat thereof on file and of
record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Washington County,
Minnesota.
PID No.: 07.027.21.44.0021
Torrens Certificate 74140
Outlot D, Frattalone’s Southpoint Ridge, according to the plat thereof on file and of
record in the Washington County Recorder’s Office in and for Washington County,
Minnesota.
PID No.: 07.027.21.44.0022
Abstract Property
Lot 3, Block 1, Frattalone’s Southpoint Ridge, according to the plat thereof on file
and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Washington County,
Minnesota.
PID No.: 07.027.21.44.0025
Torrens Certificate 64684
Lot 4, Block 1, Frattalone’s Southpoint Ridge, according to the plat thereof on file
and of record in the Washington County Recorder’s Office in and for Washington
County, Minnesota.
PID No.: 07.027.21.44.0026
Abstract Property
B-1
EXHIBIT B
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
That certain real property located in County of Washington, State of Minnesota,
legally described as follows:
Lot 3, Block 1, Frattalone’s Southpoint Ridge, according to the plat thereof on file
and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Washington County,
Minnesota.
PID No.: 07.027.21.44.0025
Torrens Certificate 64684
1
City Council Action Request
11.A.
Meeting Date 9/3/2025
Department Finance
Agenda Category Action Item
Title Adopt Preliminary Property Tax Levy
Staff Recommendation Adopt Resolution 2025-121, Adopting the Proposed Preliminary
2025 Property Tax Levy Collectible in 2026.
Budget Implication N/A
Attachments 1. Memo Preliminary Property Tax Levy Adoption
2. 2025-121 Resolution Adopting Preliminary Tax Levy
To: Mayor and City Council Members
Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator
From: Brenda Malinowski, Finance Director
Date: September 3, 2025
Subject: 2025 Preliminary Property Tax Levy Collectible 2026
INTRODUCTION
The City is required to adopt a preliminary property tax levy each year by September 30th. The
preliminary levy is used by Washington County to prepare the notices of estimated property taxes.
These notices are mailed to each property owner in November. The notice will include the public
meeting where the budget will be discussed. This meeting will take place on December 3rd at 7:00 pm
at Cottage Grove City Hall. At the December 3rd meeting, the final tax levy will be adopted. The final
tax levy can be lower than the preliminary levy, but it cannot be more than the preliminary levy.
The annual budget process is guided by policies, ordinances, and the Strategic Plan which have been
adopted by the City Council. Four Strategic Directions have been used throughout the budget process.
• Engaging residents where they are
• Continuing sustainable growth
• Making Cottage Grove a recreation destination
• Remaining an employer of choice
A ten-year Financial Management Plan (FMP) was completed in 2023 that included all current and
future operating costs, equipment replacement, the capital improvement plan, existing and future
debt, and tax base growth. The FMP is based on certain assumptions such as expenditure increases at
4% and non-property tax revenue increases at 2%. The FMP also included a 2% increase in taxable
value on the median home. The outcome of the FMP was to target a city property tax increase of $100
per year on the median home although an increase of $100 was needed in the first year. The FMP was
used in the preparation of the 2026 property tax levy and budget.
The 2026 budget process began in January with the strategic planning session. In addition, there were
four budget workshops held from April through August. During these workshops budget requests were
reviewed by the Council and the impacts of these requests on the property tax levy were analyzed
including the effects on future budgets.
DISCUSSION
Washington County sets the taxable values for the City. Preliminary estimates from Washington
County include an increase in taxable values of 6.47%. Approximately 50% of this change is due to
new construction and 50% of this change is due to increases in existing values. The median home
increased in value by 3.39%.
Preliminary Values Final Pay 2025
August Estimate
for Pay 2026 % Change
Estimated Market Values $6,369,508,200 $6,764,223,100 6.20%
Taxable Market Values $6,120,695,600 $6,507,597,500 6.32%
New Construction $175,296,900 $168,170,700 -4.07%
Tax Capacity $68,560,468 $72,930,034 6.37%
Local Taxable Value $62,300,128 $66,333,212 6.47%
The property tax levy for 2026 is proposed to increase by 14.92%.
City of Cottage Grove Levy
2025
Budget
2026
Proposed
2027
Proposed
General Fund Levy $21,667,300 $23,781,200 $25,958,900
EMS Levy 70,000 74,700
Equipment Levy 321,000 927,700 927,700
Municipal Building Levy 300,000 450,000 450,000
EDA Levy 137,500 187,500 237,500
Park Capital Levy 190,000 190,000
Debt Levy 3,564,800 4,278,600 4,864,250
Total Property Tax Levy $25,990,600 $29,885,000 $32,703,050
14.98% 9.43%
HRA Levy
2025
Budget
2026
Proposed
2027
Proposed
HRA Levy $137,500 $142,500 $146,000
Combined Property Tax Levies
2025
Budget
2026
Proposed
2027
Proposed
Total $26,128,100 $30,027,500 $32,849,050
14.92% 9.40%
Changes in the property tax levy are as follows.
• The chief operating budget is the General Fund and contains the cost centers for police, fire,
public works, and parks & recreation. The property tax levy for the General Fund will increase
9.76% to fund current operating costs, including salaries and benefits per settled union
contracts.
• A property tax levy for EMS is included for the first time in the 2026 tax levy. Due to declining
reimbursements for EMS services, a property tax levy is now necessary to fund this service as
discussions continue on how to operate and fund the EMS service.
• The Equipment levy is necessary to fund the equipment that is needed to be replaced in 2026
to provide the same level of service to the community.
• The Municipal Building levy will fund the interfund loan for the PS/CH building, and building
maintenance repairs identified in the PS/CH and Central Fire facilities maintenance study
completed in 2025.
• The EDA levy is necessary to fund the current year operating costs of the EDA fund.
• The Park Improvement levy is a new levy to fund park improvements as identified in the
preparation of the FMP.
• The Debt levy is necessary to fund the principal and interest payments for bonds that have
been issued in the past for various pavement management, building projects, and equipment
purchases.
Property Tax Rate and City Property Taxes
43.812
41.591
43.139
43.012
40.583
38.958
39.182
37.351
37.251
33.914
32.909
37.42 40.294
0
10
20
30
40
50
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
City Tax Rate
History of City Tax Rate
Based on the preliminary values from the County and the proposed property tax levy, the 2026 tax
impacts for the median home is shown below:
Median Home $357,100 $1,282 $369,200 $1,434 3.39% $152
Based on the proposed property tax levies and the assumptions in the FMP, the impact to the median
home is as follows through 2035.
Median
Home
$71 $85 $152 $111 $107 $97 $86 $106 $84 $80 $87 $67
2024 through 2026 totals $308. The FMP targeted $110 for 2024 and $100 per year after 2024. While
the 2026 increase is higher than the FMP, the 3-year change is lower than the FMP.
The 2026 proposed budget accomplishes several important objectives:
• Continues to provide the same level of city services including but not limited to police, fire,
street, snowplowing, parks, and recreation services.
• City continues to be well positioned to respond to changes in the economy and economic
uncertainty.
• Demonstrates stewardship of capital assets by including the replacement of capital equipment
and city infrastructure that have been identified in the Financial Management Plan and Capital
Improvement Plan.
• Maintains the distinction to be an employer of choice.
• Provides managed growth in staffing positions needed for a growing community, by including
new positions in the 2026 budget.
• Meets the debt service requirements for all existing debt by funding these requirements with
the property tax levy.
• Maintains the fund balance target for the General Fund.
Personnel
• The 2026 Budget includes the following new positions:
o Police Officer (49th position)
o Building Inspector (fund with permit revenue). This position has been left vacant
since the 2024 budget.
o Engineering Technician (fund with ROW permit revenue)
o Recreation seasonal positions (offset with revenues)
o Three six-month seasonal positions for parks
o Replace EDA Director position with EDA Manager position.
o Utilities Manager (funded by utility funds)
• Salaries for existing employees are included in budget as per the settled union contracts
of 3% COLA and 3% Market adjustment.
o Labor contracts for all unions will expire on 12/31/2026.
• .44% for Paid Family and Medical Leave have been included in the budget. The other
50% of this expense will be paid by the employees per the arranged agreement in the
union contracts and the Personnel Policy for the Non-represented employees.
• Funds have been included in the 2026 budget for a compensation study to be
completed in 2026, and for labor negotiation services that will be used to settle the
contracts that will expire at the end of 2026.
Commodities and Contractual
• Commodities and contractual services have been included at a 2.5% increase. Internal
service fund allocations have been included in the amount needed to fund current
operating expenditures. In recent budgets, a 3% increase was included for commodities
and contractual services but was lowered in the 2026 budget in order to balance the
budget. A budget contingency has been included in the budget that can be utilized to
fund these services if unexpected cost increases arise during the year.
Capital
• Included in the Equipment Replacement Fund is $2.37 million of equipment purchases
for 2026 with $1.7 million of this to be funded with equipment certificates and $927,700
will be funded with the property tax levy. The equipment replacement is necessary for
providing the same level of service as in the past.
Discussion:
Adopt Resolution 2025-121, Adopting the Proposed Preliminary 2025 Property Tax Levy Collectible in
2026.
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
, the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove,
County of Washington, State of Minnesota, that the following amounts are the proposed
to be levied for the current year, collectible in 2026, upon the taxable property in the City
of Cottage Grove for the following purposes:
Total
General Fund $23,781,200
Public Safety/City Hall Interfund Loan 450,000
Economic Development 187,500
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) 70,000
Park Capital 190,000
Equipment Levy 927,700
2016A GO Refunding Bonds (Ice Arena) 200,000
2017A GO Capital Improvement Plan Bonds (Fire Station) 510,000
2019A GO Capital Improvement Plan Bonds (HERO) 294,200
2019B GO Equipment Certificates (Ice Arena) 350,100
2015A GO Improvement Bonds (Pavement Management) 318,300
2016B GO Improvement Bonds (Pavement Management) 200,000
2018A GO Improvement bonds (Ravine Parkway) 100,000
2021B GO Improvement Refunding Bonds (PM & Hinton) 536,600
2021A GO Improvement Bonds (Pavement Management) 230,000
2023A GO Improvement & Abatement Bonds (PM & Glacial Valley) 341,000
2024A GO Improvement Bonds (PM, SROP, & Equipment) 549,400
2025A GO Improvement Bonds (PM & Equipment) 649,000
that there are sufficient sums of money in the Debt Service
funds of the City which are irrevocably pledged, together with the above Debt levies to pay
principal and interest in 2026 on all outstanding bond issues and internal loan obligations
established by previous City Council resolutions and the deferred annual tax levies
previously certified to the County Auditor are hereby cancelled and replaced by the above
debt service levies.
Passed this 3rd day of September 2025.
__________________________
Myron Bailey, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________
Tamara Anderson, City Clerk
1
City Council Action Request
11.B.
Meeting Date 9/3/2025
Department Administration
Agenda Category Action Item
Title Hazardous Building Demolition - 8274 Hemingway Avenue South
Staff Recommendation Adopt Resolution 2025-134 ordering the removal of a hazardous
building located at 8274 Hemingway Avenue South.
Budget Implication N/A
Attachments 1. CC Memo re 463 Action 8274 Hemingway - 09-03-2025
2. Resolution 2025-134 - 463 Action - 8274 Hemingway ES
3. EXHIBIT A 463 Action violation evidence - 8274 Hemingway Ave S.
4. EXHIBIT B 8274 Hemingway Ave S Demo Memo 08-28-25 FINAL
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
BACKGROUND
st and 9th 2022, staff inspected the Property. There were large sections of
soffit hanging from the front of the home, extreme wear on the shingles of the roof, and large
holes in the rotting wood of the fascia. No repairs were made by the Owner on the Property.
Parks Department secured the home. A letter was sent to the Owner at his last known address.
The letter was returned to sender, and the Owner’s current whereabouts are unknown.
City Process to Authorize and Undertake a 463 Action
6. Contested Case. If the Owner does file and serve an answer, the action follows the Rules
of Civil Procedure which requires discovery, trial, and a judgement. If the Order is upheld
following the trial, the court enters a judgement and sets a deadline to comply before the
hazardous structure must be demolished or removed.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Based on the hazardous condition of the Property, the exposed interior of the home, and the
severe risk to public health, we recommend that the Council approve the resolution and issues
the Order requiring the Owner to demolish, raze, and remove the remaining portion of the
Property.
Adopt the Resolution and Order to Remove the Hazardous Building
Enclosures:
Resolution and Order to Correct or Remove the Hazardous Building at 8274 Hemingway Ave.
Exhibit A – 8274 Hemingway Ave S 463 Action Evidence Packet
Exhibit B – Building Official Demolition Memo
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2025-134
WHEREAS the following Findings of Fact support the Order to Raze and
Remove the hazardous structure located at 8274 Hemingway Avenue S, Cottage
Grove, MN:
1. The Property is identified as that certain real property and its improvements,
located at 8274 Hemingway Avenue, Cottage Grove, Washington County,
Minnesota, legally described as:
Lot 18, Block 4, THOMPSON GROVE ESTATES 1ST ADDITION
(the “Property”).
2. The Property is owned by Jeffrey S. Brown (“Owner”).
3. The Property contains a single-family residential home.
4. On 4/24/19, staff inspected the front and exterior of the Property and noted
deterioration and holes in the roof and shingles, soffit, facia, and siding. The
home was determined to be in violation of the International Property
Maintenance Code (IPMC) section 304.1.1, Exterior Structure, Potentially
Unsafe Conditions.
5. On or about 5/1/19, the City contacted the Owner about violations at the
Property regarding unlicensed/inoperable vehicles and structure
maintenance.
6. On 4/22/21, City staff inspected the front exterior of the property and
determined that there had been no maintenance or repairs made to the
home. The property remained in violation of IPMC code 304.1.1. A
compliance letter was sent on 4/30/21. Additional exterior inspections were
completed on 7/01/21 and 10/15/21. Staff did not notice that any
maintenance or repairs had been made to the Property.
7. On 7/8/22, the Code Enforcement Officer reached out to the Owner by email
to request an update and plan of action to bring the Property into
compliance. City Staff exchanged multiple emails over a period of several
months with the Owner attempting to bring the Property into compliance
with all city codes. Mr. Brown stopped responding to emails and no further
communication was had with him.
8. On or about October 28, 2022, the City sent a Violation and Compliance
Order to the Owner demanding that the Owner bring the Property into
compliance.
9. On 11/1/22 and 11/9/22, City Staff inspected the Property. It was
determined that no repairs had been made to the home. There were large
sections of soffit hanging from the front of the home, extreme wear on the
shingles of the roof, and large holes in the rotting wood of the fascia.
10. On 4/12/24, Public Safety completed a welfare check at the Property in
response to a citizen complaint. The Building Official was called to the
Property due to the structure being unsecure, and police noted damage to
the home from the front entry.
11. On 4/17/24, the City posted a notice of condemnation on the Property and
a letter was sent to the last known address of the Owner. The City secured
the Property. The exterior of the Property is in disrepair and is lacking
maintenance.
12. Soffit and fascia are rotten and hanging off the home and have several
holes. There is a large hole in the roof of the garage and the shingles are
extremely deteriorated with moss growth throughout.
13. The deck at the rear of the Property has almost completely collapsed due
to rot and is structurally unsafe.
14. The sliding glass door on the deck as well as the back door leading into the
basement are broken and were left open, allowing water and animal
intrusion.
15. The interior of the Property was open and accessible for several years, from
holes in the roof, as well as the unsecured basement and patio doors. Mice,
birds, squirrels and other animals had easy access to the home through
these entry points and holes in the soffit and fascia.
16. The ceiling of the basement has collapsed in several areas, and mold is
prevalent throughout the entire home, likely due to water intrusion and being
open to the elements for an extended period.
17. The electricity has been shut off making the home uninhabitable. Electrical
systems are likely damaged beyond repair due to water intrusion and
damage from rodent infestation. Turning on electricity could potentially
cause an electrical fire.
18. The heating system is likely unsafe and beyond repair due to the water
intrusion from both the holes and deterioration to the roof, as well as burst
water pipes throughout the home.
19. The unoccupied Property had extremely high-water usage in December
2023, indicating the pipes had frozen and burst. The water to the property
was shut off at the curb on 10/22/24, by Cottage Grove Public Works. Due
to lack of water, the home is uninhabitable.
20. In March 2025 Cottage Grove Public Safety attempted to locate the current
residence of the Owner, which found an address in Belmont, North Carolina.
City staff sent a letter to this address requesting that the Owner discuss
options for the home with the City. The letter was returned to sender.
21. Currently the home is unfit for human occupancy and likely structurally
unsound. The exterior is in extreme disrepair and the interior is hazardous
due to the water intrusion, mold growth, collapsed ceiling and lack of
electricity, heat and water. The cost to return the Property to a livable
condition likely far exceeds the current value of the Property.
WHEREAS, on September 3, 2025, at the regular meeting of the Cottage
Grove City Council, the City Council held a hearing on this matter and considered
the evidence presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based on the hearing and the
information and evidence presented, the Cottage Grove City Council adopts the
aforementioned Findings of Fact and finds that due to the significant damage and
deterioration of the remaining portion of the structure, they create a hazardous
condition that constitutes a hazard to the public safety, health and welfare, as
defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 463, and therefore, the structure must be
razed and removed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDERED by the Cottage Grove City Council as
follows:
1. Jeffrey S. Brown, Owner of the Property at 8274 Hemingway Avenue S.,
Cottage Grove, MN, must demolish, raze and remove all portions of the
structure, as well as any remaining debris by October 3, 2025.
2. Unless corrective action is taken or an Answer is filed within twenty (20)
days of service, as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 463.18, a
motion for summary enforcement of this Order will be made to the District
Court of Washington County. If there is no compliance, the City will be
authorized to enter the Property and immediately raze and remove the
structure, including the foundation, located on the Property. All costs
associated with this action and of razing and removing structure may be a
lien against the real estate, which may be levied and collected as a special
assessment, as provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 463.
Passed this 3rd day of September, 2025.
__________________________
Myron Bailey, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________
Tamara Anderson, City Clerk
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE ⚫ 12800 Ravine Parkway ⚫ Cottage Grove, Minnesota 55016
www.cottagegrovemn.gov ⚫ 651-458-2800 ⚫ Fax 651-458-2897 ⚫ Equal Opportunity Employer
May 1, 2019
Mr. Jeffrey Brown
8274 Hemingway Avenue South
Cottage Grove, MN 55016
Dear Mr. Brown:
Your property has been brought to our attention based on conditions in violation of the
following City Codes:
Unlicensed/Inoperable Vehicle (Title 6-2-4)
All vehicles must be properly licensed and operable. Please ensure all vehicles parked on
your property are properly licensed and operable at all times or stored within a building such
as a garage or shed.
Structure Maintenance (Title 9-7-13)
The exterior walls and roof shall be substantially watertight and protected against vermin
and rodents and be kept in sound condition and repair. Every exterior wall must be free of
deterioration, holes, breaks, loose or rotting boards or timbers, and any other condition that
could allow water intrusion within the interior portion of the walls or to the exterior spaces of
the structure. The roof needs to be tight and have no defects that would allow water intrusion.
Roof drainage shall be adequate to prevent moisture from causing dampness within the
walls. All exterior wood surfaces, other than decay resistant woods, shall be protected from
the elements and decay by paint or other protective covering or treatment. The roof soffit
and fascia along with the siding on the bottom corner of the garage need to be repaired.
Please take the necessary steps to bring your property into compliance with the City’s
ordinances by May 16, 2019.
If you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact me at 651 -458-2898 or
jcarlson@cottagegrovemn.gov.
Sincerely,
Jim Carlson
Code Enforcement
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE ⚫ 12800 Ravine Parkway ⚫ Cottage Grove, Minnesota 55016
www.cottagegrovemn.gov ⚫ 651-458-2800 ⚫ Fax 651-458-2897 ⚫ Equal Opportunity Employer
April 30, 2021
Jeffery Brown
8274 Hemingway Ave S
Cottage Grove, MN 55016
Dear Property Owner:
Your property has been brought to our attention based on conditions in violation of the following
City Codes:
Trash Container Storage (Title 4-2-15B.1)
All trash containers must always be stored completely out of public view other than during trash
collection. Trash containers may be placed out for collection no earlier than 6:00 p.m. the night
prior to trash collection and must be stored away no later than 6:00 p.m. the night of trash
collection.
This is regarding the trash container in front of the garage at the time of inspection. Please ensure
the trash container is being stored completely out of public view. Please take the necessary steps
to bring your property into compliance with the above ordinance by May 14, 2021.
Structure Maintenance (Title 9-13-2 & IPMC Section 304)
The exterior of a structure shall be maintained in good repair, structurally sound and sanitary so
as not to pose a threat to the public health, safety, or welfare.
The exterior walls and roof shall be substantially watertight and protected against vermin and
rodents and be kept in sound condition and repair. The roof needs to be tight and have no defects
that would allow water intrusion. Roof drainage shall be adequate to prevent moisture from
causing dampness within the walls.
Dangerous Buildings (Title 9-1-2)
All buildings or structures which are structurally unsafe or are otherwise dangerous to human life,
or which, in relation to existing use, constitute a hazard to safety or health or public welfare, by
reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, obsolescence, fire hazard, disaster damage or
abandonment, as specified in the Building Code or any other effective ordinances, are, for the
purpose of this section, unsafe buildings. All such unsafe buildings are hereby declared to be
public nuisances and shall be abated by repair, rehabilitation, demolition, or removal in
accordance with the procedure specified in the Building Code or by any other procedure provided
by law.
This is regarding the roof and soffit of the house. Please repair or replace the roof and soffit so
as to be substantially watertight and kept in sound condition and good repair.
Please take the necessary steps to bring your property into compliance with the City’s ordinances
by either obtaining a permit for roof repairs or contacting me with a plan for compliance by May
14, 2021.
If you are in need of funding assistance for the roof repair/replacement, the Washington County
CDA offers multiple loan programs that could be of interest to you. Among these is the Home
Improvement Loan Program. Further information can be found at
https://washingtoncountycda.org/housing-resources/home-improvement-programs/ or by
contacting Elena Shulman via email at elenas@washingtoncountycda.org or via phone by calling
651-202-2823.
If you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact me at 651-458-2876 or
cjakes@cottagegrovemn.gov.
Sincerely,
Conner Jakes
Code Enforcement Officer
CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE ⚫ 12800 Ravine Parkway ⚫ Cottage Grove, Minnesota 55016
www.cottagegrovemn.gov ⚫ 651-458-2800 ⚫ Fax 651-458-2897 ⚫ Equal Opportunity Employer
October 28, 2022
Jeffery Brown
8274 Hemingway Ave S
Cottage Grove, MN 55016
Dear Property Owner:
This letter is serving as a Violation Warning and Compliance Order as the conditions noted on your
property remain in violation of City ordinances.
Structure Maintenance (Title 9-13-2 & IPMC Section 304)
The exterior of a structure shall be maintained in good repair, structurally sound and sanitary so as not to
pose a threat to the public health, safety, or welfare.
The exterior walls and roof shall be substantially watertight and protected against vermin and rodents and
be kept in sound condition and repair. The roof needs to be tight and have no defects that would allow water
intrusion. Roof drainage shall be adequate to prevent moisture from causing dampness within the walls.
Dangerous Buildings (Title 9-1-2)
All buildings or structures which are structurally unsafe or are otherwise dangerous to human life, or which,
in relation to existing use, constitute a hazard to safety or health or public welfare, by reason of inadequate
maintenance, dilapidation, obsolescence, fire hazard, disaster damage or abandonment, as specified in the
Building Code or any other effective ordinances, are, for the purpose of this section, unsafe buildings. All
such unsafe buildings are hereby declared to be public nuisances and shall be abated by repair,
rehabilitation, demolition, or removal in accordance with the procedure specified in the Building Code or
by any other procedure provided by law.
This is regarding the roof and soffit of the house. Please repair or replace the roof and soffit so as to be
substantially watertight and kept in sound condition and good repair.
Please take the necessary steps to bring your property into compliance with the City’s ordinances by
either obtaining a permit for roof repairs or contacting me with a plan for compliance by November 4,
2022 avoid a Criminal Citation and court appearance.
If you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact me at 651-458-2876 or
sdrewry@cottagegrovemn.gov.
Sincerely,
Samantha Drewry
Code Enforcement Officer
12800 Ravine Parkway Cottage Grove, Minnesota 55016
www.cottagegrovemn.gov 651-458-2800 Fax 651-458-2897 Equal Opportunity Employer
April 19, 2024
BROWN JEFFREY S
8274 HEMINGWAY AVE S
COTTAGE GROVE, MN 55016
Re: Unsafe Conditions, 8274 Hemingway Ave S, Cottage Grove, MN 55016
Dear Property Owner,
On April 12, 2024, I was notified of the structural damage and unsanitary conditions at the
above-mentioned property. A condemnation Notice has been posted which must remain on
site while the structure remains a hazard.
No occupancy or use of this structure is allowed until the Condemnation Notice has been
removed by the Cottage Grove Building Division.
Please contact me with a plan of action for the home by May 3, 2024. I can be reached at
651-458-2892 or amclean@cottagegrovemn.gov with any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Andy McLean
Building Official
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator
Emily Schmitz, Community Development Director
From: Andy McLean, Building Official
Date: August 26, 2025
Re: 8274 Hemingway Avenue South
Background:
The following report is based upon the investigation of Andy McLean, Building Official for the
City of Cottage Grove:
Exterior inspections were conducted several times over the course of five years. A visual
inspection from the unsecured doors was conducted to evaluate the interior.
Findings of Fact:
Inspections of the property were conducted from the exterior between 2019 and 2024 identifying
significant exterior decay and damage. An interior visual inspection was conducted in April 2024
from the unsecured doorways and identified additional interior damage.
Heating/Ventilation:
The heating system is likely unsafe and beyond repair due to the water intrusion from both the
holes and deterioration to the roof, as well as burst water pipes throughout the home.
Electrical:
The electricity has been shut off making the home uninhabitable. Electrical systems are likely
damaged beyond repair due to water intrusion and damage from rodent infestation. Turning on
electricity could potentially cause an electrical fire.
Plumbing:
The unoccupied property had extremely high water usage in December 2023, indicating the
pipes had frozen and burst. The water to the property was shut off at the curb on October 22,
2024, by Cottage Grove Public Works. Due to lack of water, the home is uninhabitable.
Interior:
The interior of the home was open to the outdoors for an unknown period, from holes in the roof,
as well as the unsecured basement and patio doors. Mice, birds, squirrels and other animals
had easy access to the home through these entry points and holes in the soffit and fascia.
The ceiling of the basement has collapsed in several areas, and mold is prevalent throughout
the entire home, likely due to water intrusion and being open to the elements for an extended
period.
Exterior:
The exterior of the home is in disrepair and is lacking maintenance. Soffit and fascia are rotten
and hanging off the home and have several holes. There is a large hole in the roof of the
garage and the shingles are extremely deteriorated with moss growth throughout. The deck at
the rear of the home has almost completely collapsed due to rot and is structurally unsafe. The
sliding glass door on the deck as well as the back door leading into the basement are broken
and were left open, allowing water and animal intrusion. The City of Cottage Grove Parks
department secured these access points when the home was condemned in April 2024.
Currently the home is unfit for human occupancy and likely structurally unsound. The exterior is
in extreme disrepair and the interior is hazardous due to the water intrusion, mold growth,
collapsed ceiling and lack of electricity, heat and water. The cost to return the home to a livable
condition likely far exceeds the current value
Please see all relevant photos attached below.
04/24/19 Inspection Photos
04/17/24 Inspection Photos and Condemnation placard
1
City Council Action Request
13.A.
Meeting Date 9/3/2025
Department Community Development
Agenda Category Presentation
Title Amrize Nelson Mine – Final Environmental Impact Statement
Staff Recommendation Receive the presentation and offer feedback to staff.
Budget Implication N/A
Attachments 1. Nelson Mine FEIS CC Memo 2025-9-3
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Meeting Purpose
• May 4, 2022 – Adoption of the Final Scoping Decision Document (SDD)
• November 13, 2024 – Determination of completeness for the Draft EIS and distribution for
public comment.
EIS Schedule.
Background/Proposal
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt
early 1950s when the J.L. Shiely Company (then known as Aggregate Industries, now known as
Amrize) entered into a lease agreement with the private landowner. A form of this lease agree-
ment remains in place between the private landowner and Amrize today.
• 4410.4400, Subpart 9B – development of a facility for the extraction or mining of sand,
gravel, stone, or other nonmetallic minerals other than peat, which will excavate 160 acres
of land or more to a mean depth of 10 feet or more during its existence, the local govern-
mental unit is the RGU.
• 4410.4400, Subpart 9C – development of a facility for the extraction or mining of sand,
gravel, stone, or other nonmetallic minerals other than peat, which will excavate 40 or
more acres of forested or other naturally vegetated land in a sensitive shoreland area or 80
or more acres of forested or other naturally vegetated land in a non-sensitive shoreland
area, the local governmental unit is the RGU.
EIS Schedule
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt
the required 30-day comment period to 45 days in recognition of the Christmas and New Year
holidays. Seventy-six comment letters, emails, or meeting cards were received and responses
developed in a new appendix to the document.
Project Location Map
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Content
Project Purpose and Need
The proposed Project’s purpose is to exercise Holcim’s lease to continue mechani-
cal dredging operations in an adjacent backwaters area of the Mississippi River to
supply to the Twin Cities and other local markets with construction quality natural
aggregate for an additional 20 to 25 years.
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt
ject is to provide a continued local supply of construction-quality aggregate from a local, accessi-
ble source. Project beneficiaries include projects that require aggregate materials, such as road-
way and other infrastructure projects, by providing a cost-competitive, local aggregate source.
Project Alternatives
DEIS Comments and Responses
Commenters
• Governmental Agencies
o MN Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)
o Minnesota Indian Affairs Council
o MN Pollution Control Agency
o National Park Service
o US Army Corps of Engineer (USACE)
o MN State Historic Preservation Office
o Metropolitan Council
• Local Government
o City of Rosemount
o Washington County
o Dakota County
• Sovereign Nation
o Prairie Island Indian Community
• Organizations
o Friends of the Mississippi River
o MN Center for Environmental Advocacy
o Upper Mississippi Waterway Association
o Union of Operating Engineers
o Aggregate & Ready Mix Association of MN
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt
o Delta Waterfowl
• Concerned Nearby Residents
o River Acres residents
o Lower Grey Cloud Island residents
• Concerned Recreationalists/Additional Residents
Summary of Comments
Based on Minnesota Rules in 4410.2700, the Final EIS needs to respond to timely comments on
the Draft EIS in a manner consistent with the scoping decision. An appendix (Appendix F) was
added to the Final EIS that identifies the commenter, their individual comment, and then the re-
sponse. Some comments resulted in changes to the EIS document, leading to the FEIS. There
were three topics that received numerous comments that required review of the EIS content and
revisions, and also a variety of other substantive comments necessitating thoughtful responses.
The main topics are described below with the number of people who commented on that topic.
The number of commenters does not include the numerous comments on the respective topics
that may have come from one letter or email, only the number of actual commenters.
• Purpose and Need Statement
o Concerns: Six (6) people commented on the purpose and need statement. Com-
menters raised concern about the statement being overly narrow and focused on
private interests over the public interest. Concerns from the MDNR, Friends of the
Mississippi River, and others have concerns that a potentially narrow statement
limited the scope of the alternatives analysis.
o Responses: At the request of the City of Cottage Grove and MDNR, the proposer
studied an additional alternative called the Lakeland site that is adjacent to another
Amrize mining operation. This has been added to Appendix A in the Final EIS. Addi-
tionally, responses to comments on this topic highlighted the reasonable range of
alternatives studied without regard to whether they satisfy the proposer’s business
purposes. The alternatives screening report (Appendix A) describes a detailed,
multifactor analysis performed to review a large portion (20-mile circumference) of
the metro area for potential alternative sites.
• Cultural Resources and Tribal Engagement
o Concerns: Nineteen (19) people commented on cultural resources and tribal en-
gagement. Many commentors, whether state agencies, sovereign nations, or other
interested parties, voiced concerns about possible impacts to potential burial
mounds, on land and underwater. Similar comments expressed worry about the
project using outdated investigation methods and guidelines. Other commenters
asked about the use of an unanticipated discovery plan. Additionally, commenters
were concerned about the level of interaction with sovereign nations during the EIS
scoping and analysis process.
o Responses: As a first step, additions were made to the EIS to better articulate the
steps taken during the process to collect historic and archaeological data and how
and when engagement took place with state agencies and sovereign nations. An
unanticipated discovery plan has also been referenced in the EIS and responses
clarify its details will be developed during agency permitting processes. Other re-
sponses to comments clarified Minnesota state EIS requirements compared to a
federal environmental review process, including formal government-to-government
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt
consultation. Upon initiation of a federal environmental review by the USACE, addi-
tional cultural resource review and tribal consultation may occur under USACE. As
well, additional cultural resource review and tribal coordination may occur under the
authority of other applicable permits/permitting agencies.
• Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA)
o Concerns: Seven (7) people commented on MRCCA. The MDNR, National Park
Service, and other agencies questioned the definition of “expansion” versus “new”
mining facility. MRCCA rules prohibit “new nonmetallic mining” and the commenters
believe the Nelson Mine proposal fits that definition.
o Responses: Alternative B proposes expansion of mining operations that have oper-
ated continuously on an adjacent site since the 1950s. Additionally, the City’s
MRCCA regulations do not prohibit expansion of nonmetallic mining operations.
State law recognizes the principle that a diminishing asset, such as a mineral de-
posit, should be permitted to be mined to the extent of the entire deposit and not
merely that area in which operations were being conducted at the time of the adop-
tion of the ordinance (Hawkins v. Talbot, 248 Minn. 549 (1957).
• Property Values
o Concerns: Five (5) people commented on property values. Residents, particularly
those living in the River Acres community, commented on how potential Nelson
Mine noise and views will reduce their property values. They addressed the quiet
and solitude of living on the river, ability to observe wildlife frequently, and enjoy
river recreation with their families. Concerns related to the facility moving closer to
their neighborhood, unnatural berms stark in their views, and losing the backwaters
as a recreation location were also relayed.
o Responses: Responses to these comments reflected that property values are af-
fected by a number of factors best understood by the residential and real estate
market and beyond the authority and expertise of the City of Cottage Grove as the
RGU. Responses referred to the City of Cottage Grove establishment of compre-
hensive planning, zoning, and other tools that guide land use decisions. Addition-
ally, Appendix C in the Final EIS includes vantage points in the viewshed analysis
from the water adjacent to the River Acres community.
• Visual Impacts
o Concerns: Twenty-Nine (29) people commented on views and visual impacts. As
with the topic of property values, many commenters focused on how proposed
berms would look from nearby parks and residential neighborhoods. Some com-
menters raised concerns about the view of the facility and light pollution from Spring
Lake Park, including from Schaar’s Bluff.
o Responses: Appendix C includes an analysis of vantage points taken in Spring
Lake Park, including from Schaar’s Bluff. The top elevation of the berms is pro-
posed to be approximately three feet higher than normal river level – this detail has
been updated in the Final EIS. More details about the berm design will be devel-
oped as project design progresses through state and federal permitting.
• Recreation
Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt
o Comments: Twelve (12) people commented on recreation. Commenters expressed
concern about losing valuable recreation spaces and hunting opportunities. This in-
cluded concerns about duck hunting, boating in the backwaters, and enjoying the
use of Spring Lake Park.
o Responses: The responses reflect the use of the land becoming industrial, and the
proposed mining areas would be unavailable to the public for recreational use dur-
ing project operations. Access to the boat launch, kayak trail, and island campsites
will not be directly affected by the proposed project.
• Noise
o Comments: Seventeen (17) people commented on noise. Comments identified con-
cerns about moving the facility from an inland location to a water location, and how
aquatic species may be impacted by the facility being moved to backwaters, particu-
larly during spawning periods.
o Responses: Responses were prepared for Final EIS Appendix F. The RGU had
neutral subject matter specialists review the comments and it was deemed that the
Draft EIS content and analysis was satisfactory.
• PFAS
o Comments: Nine (9) people commented on PFAS. Some commenters expressed
concern for PFAS seeping into groundwater from the dredging process.
o Responses: The responses point commenters to the section of the EIS that ana-
lyzes contamination issues and reiterates that the Nelson Mine does not have any
known PFAS sources on-site and sampling indicates there would likely be no re-
strictions on reuse or placement of dredged materials. Additionally, there is no
groundwater/aquifer pumping associated with the project.
Next Steps
The intended action for the Cottage Grove City Council is to distribute the Final EIS during the
October 1, 2025, meeting. It will be published in the EQB Monitor on October 14, 2025, for a
public comment period that will end on October 28, 2025. Simultaneous with the Final EIS publi-
cation, responses to parties providing substantive comments would be delivered by the RGU (in
the form of the comment/response table that will be the Final EIS, Appendix F). The City Council
will act on the Final EIS’s Determination of Adequacy on November 5, 2025.