Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-11-05 City Council Regular Meeting Packet (Public)1 COTTAGE GROVE CITY COUNCIL November 5, 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 Mayor for a Day Staff Recommendation: Appoint Kinley Frankfurth as Mayor for a Day on November 5, 2025 B Cottage Grove Lions Club Fitness Equipment Donation Staff Recommendation: Recognize the Cottage Grove Lions Club for their generous donation of fitness equipment in the amount of $4,997.30 C Proclamation - Native American Heritage Month Staff Recommendation: Proclaim November 2025 as Native American Heritage Month. 7 Consent Agenda A City Council Special Meeting Minutes (2025-10-01) Staff Recommendation: Approve the October 1, 2025, City Council Special Meeting Minutes. B City Council Regular Meeting Minutes (2025-10-01) Staff Recommendation: Approve the October 1, 2025, City Council Regular Meeting Minutes. C Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (2025-09-22) Staff Recommendation: Accept and place on file the minutes from the September 22, 2025, Planning Commission meeting. D Open Forum Response Letter — Job Postings Staff Recommendation: Receive a letter in response to the open forum questions from the October 15, 2025, City Council meeting regarding City Job Postings. E Open Forum Response Letter - HERO Center Staff Recommendation: Receive a letter in response to the open forum questions from the October 15, 2025, City Council meeting regarding HERO Center rentals. F Washington County 2026-2030 CIP Response Letter Staff Recommendation: Approve the response letter to the Washington County 2026-2030 Draft CIP. G Gambling License - Strawberry Fest Staff Recommendation: Approve the single occasion Gambling Permit application for the Cottage Grove 2 Strawberry Fest on behalf of Lori Olsen to conduct a bingo event at River Oaks Golf Course (11099 Highway 61, Cottage Grove, MN) on February 21, 2026. H Gambling License - Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Staff Recommendation: Approve the Single Occasion Gambling Permit application for the Mississippi River Valley Beyond the Yellow Ribbon on behalf of Patrick Nickle to conduct the Holiday Helper Big Ticket Raffle event at the Cottage Grove VFW Post 8752 (9260 E. Pt. Douglas Rd) on December 6, 2025. I Approval of Rental Licenses Staff Recommendation: Approve the issuance of rental licenses to the properties in the attached table. J Deputy Public Works Director/Utilities — Chad Donnelly Staff Recommendation: Approve the appointment of Chad Donnelly as Deputy Public Works Director - Utilities, at grade X01, step 6. The start date will be effective as soon as possible. K Coordinated Mental Health Response Agreement Amendment Staff Recommendation: 1) Authorize utilizing the Opioid Settlement to fund Cottage Grove’s 2026 portion of the Coordinated Mental Response Agreement. 2) Authorize the agreement amendment between the City of Cottage Grove and Washington County Community Services for Coordinated Mental Health Response. L Companion Animal Care & Control Impounding Services Agreement Staff Recommendation: Approve the Agreement for Professional Services for Impound Housing Services 2026 between Companion Animal Care & Control (CACC) and City of Cottage Grove. M Fire Cadet Agreement Staff Recommendation: Authorize the Fire Cadet Agreement between the City of Cottage Grove and Leah Panagiotopoulos. N Authorization to Order 2026 Patrol Vehicles Staff Recommendation: Authorization to order three 2026 Dodge Durangos in 2025 during the state contract pricing vehicle ordering window. O Defensive Driving Training Agreement Staff Recommendation: Authorize the Customized Training Income Contract between Dakota County Technical College and the City of Cottage Grove. P Marco VaaS 365, Teams Phone Managed Services Staff Recommendation: Staff recommend approval of the VaaS365 Service agreement with Marco Technologies and approval of additional licensing required for MS Teams Voice. Q Toast Merchant Agreement Staff Recommendation: Approve the Toast Master Service and Processing 24-month agreement and purchase of hardware and implementation associated. R FRSecure Risk Assessment Agreement Staff Recommendation: Staff recommend the approval of the FRSecure 4-year Risk Assessment and Scada Testing agreement in the amount of $154,000 payable in annual installments of $38,500. S Amirize Nelson Mine - Final Environmental Impact Statement Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2025-161, adopting the Final Environmental Impact Statement adequacy for Amrize (formerly Holcim – MWR, Inc.) Nelson Mine Backwater Project. T Summers Landing 5th Addition Final Streets - Final Payment Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2025-158 approving the final payment in the amount of $10,966.90 to OMG Midwest, Inc. dba Minnesota Paving & Materials for the Summers Landing 5th Addition Final Street Improvements Project. U Pine Hill Elementary - Encroachment Agreement Staff Recommendation: Approve the Encroachment Agreement for Independent School District 833, Pine Hill Elementary School located at 9015 Hadley Avenue South and appropriate officials are hereby authorized to sign the Encroachment Agreement to effectuate this action. 3 V Roers Amended Retaining Wall Easements Staff Recommendation: 1) Approve the amended and restated temporary easement agreement with Roers Cottage Grove Apartments LLC for the construction of a retaining wall. 2) Approve the amended and restated permanent easement agreement with Roers Cottage Grove Apartments LLC for retaining wall improvements. W AJ Ecker Water Connection - Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Woodbury and Right of Way and Utility Easement between Andrew J. Ecker and the City of Cottage Grove. Staff Recommendation: Approve the Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Cottage Grove and the City of Woodbury for a residential water service and Approve Right of Way and Utility Easement between Andrew J. Ecker and the City of Cottage Grove. 8 Approve Disbursements A Approve Disbursements Staff Recommendation: Approve disbursements from 10-10-2025 through 10-30-2025 in the amount of $5,608,730.48. 9 Public Hearings 10 Bid Awards 11 Regular Agenda A Site Plan Review for Proposed Additions to Grey Cloud Elementary Staff Recommendation: 1) Adopt Resolution 2025-162 approving the Site Plan Review of an approximate 3,476 square foot classroom addition, an approximate 6,505 square foot gymnasium addition, and reworking of the site stormwater and parking lots at Grey Cloud Elementary School located at 9525 Indian Boulevard South. 2) Approve the amended permanent drainage and utility easement. 3) Approve the Hydrant Access Agreement with Independent School District 833, which allows the city access to the site’s fire hydrants. 4) Approve the Stormwater Maintenance Agreement with Independent School District 833 for the proposed stormwater pond. 12 Council Comments and Requests 13 Workshops - Open to Public A Mobile Food Licensing and Fee Structure Staff Recommendation: Discuss the benefits of the following: 1) Retaining the current dual-fee structure ($50 per day & $250 annual). 2) Simplifying fees for large, multi-unit vendors who contribute significantly to our major community events. 3) Adopting an event fee structure. B 80th Street & East Point Douglas Road Rehabilitation Project – Workshop Staff Recommendation: Receive information on the 80th Street & East Point Douglas Road Rehabilitation Project and provide feedback on the proposed assessments and aesthetic enhancements. 14 Workshops - Closed to Public 15 Adjournment 1 City Council Action Request 6.A. Meeting Date 11/5/2025 Department Communications Agenda Category Presentation Title Mayor for a Day Staff Recommendation Appoint Kinley Frankfurth as Mayor for a Day on November 5, 2025 Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. 2025 Mayor for a Day Winner 1 City Council Action Request 6.B. Meeting Date 11/5/2025 Department Administration Agenda Category Presentation Title Cottage Grove Lions Club Fitness Equipment Donation Staff Recommendation Recognize the Cottage Grove Lions Club for their generous donation of fitness equipment in the amount of $4,997.30 Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. CG Lions Fitness Equipment Council Presentation To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator From: Peter J Koerner, Director of Public Safety Date: October 30, 2025 Subject: COTTAGE GROVE LIONS FITNESS EQUIPMENT/CHECK PRESENTATION INTRODUCTION RECOMMENDATION 1 City Council Action Request 6.C. Meeting Date 11/5/2025 Department Communications Agenda Category Presentation Title Proclamation - Native American Heritage Month Staff Recommendation Proclaim November 2025 as Native American Heritage Month. Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. November 2025_Native American Heritage Month PROCLAMATION FOR NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH NOVEMBER 2025 WHEREAS, The area known today as Minnesota is located on ancestral and contemporary lands that have been called home by Indigenous Peoples since time immemorial; and WHEREAS, Minnesota is home to 11 Tribal Nations and a resilient and robust Native American community; and WHEREAS, Native Americans have made essential contributions to the history, culture, and economy of Minnesota, including traditional knowledge, labor, technology, science, philosophy, industry, and arts; and WHEREAS, The Dakota and Ojibwe resided on this land prior to the arrival of European settlers and experienced a history of interactions with Europeans and European American settlers that was defined by broken promises, violence, deprivation, and disease; and WHEREAS, This is a history that we must reconcile as we actively promote practices and policies to address long-standing inequities and disparities that exist and work to eliminate systemic racism and discrimination towards Indigenous Peoples; and WHEREAS, During Native American Heritage Month, the City of Cottage Grove honors the vibrant and diverse Native American cultures that form part of Minnesota today by renewing our commitment to government-to-government relationships and promoting appreciation, reconciliation, understanding, friendship, and continued partnerships among all Minnesotans and the Native Peoples of this land. NOW, THEREFORE, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, hereby proclaim November 2025, as: NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH Passed this 5th of November, 2025. _____________________________________ Myron Bailey Mayor 1 City Council Action Request 7.A. Meeting Date 11/5/2025 Department Administration Agenda Category Action Item Title City Council Special Meeting Minutes (2025-10-01) Staff Recommendation Approve the October 1, 2025, City Council Special Meeting Minutes. Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. 2025-10-01 City Council Special 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 MINUTES COTTAGE GROVE CITY COUNCIL October 01, 2025 Amphitheatre 12800 RAVINE PARKWAY SOUTH SPECIAL MEETING - 6:00 P.M. St. Croix Room Staff Recommendation: Receive information on the Ice Arena Naming Rights Agreement with Front Burner Sports and Entertainment and provide feedback. • Monthly Professional Fees: The proposal outlines a three-phase structure with fees totaling up to $46,500.00: o Phase I (Discovery & Document Development, up to 3 months): $3,000 per month (max $9,000). o Phase II (Active Outreach & Negotiation, up to 11 months): $2,500 per month (max $27,500). o Phase III (Activation & Sale of Additional Assets, up to 4 months): $2,500 per month (max $10,000). • Commission Payments: The firm proposes a commission of 12.5% on the lifetime value of sold sponsorship programs, payable annually when funds are collected from the partner. The commission rate would be reduced to 11% if the partner elects to pay commissions over three years, or 9.5% for payment in full in the first year. City Council Special Meeting Minutes for the City of Cottage Grove and then negotiate that out with the City to come to terms on a package that is acceptable for both parties. B. Ice Arena Remodel Concept Plan Review Staff Recommendation: Receive a presentation on the Ice Arena Remodel Concept Plan and provide feedback. Staff reviewed concept design plans from Oertel Architects for the Cottage Grove Ice Arena Visitor Experience Renovation. The design focuses on modernizing the main entrance, central corridor, offices and improving the overall visitor flow for the complex, which serves three sheets of ice. The presentation included architectural floor plans and renderings of the proposed changes, highlighting a significant enhancement to the lobby, offices, concession, storage and circulation areas. Additional space is proposed to be added as mezzanine extensions in both the north and south rinks. The Architects provided a high-level conceptual cost estimate of $2M total project cost. The Council received the presentation and offered positive feedback regarding the modern design and focus on the visitor experience. Council members requested clarification on the potential phasing of the project and how the conceptual budget would integrate with the revenue discussed under the Naming Rights Agreement (Item 2.A). Staff noted that this presentation was for directional feedback and that a detailed funding and budget plans would be formalized and presented at a subsequent meeting. Minutes were transcribed by Tamara Anderson, City Clerk and reviewed by Zac Dockter, Parks and Recreation Director. 1 City Council Action Request 7.B. Meeting Date 11/5/2025 Department Administration Agenda Category Action Item Title City Council Regular Meeting Minutes (2025-10-01) Staff Recommendation Approve the October 1, 2025, City Council Regular Meeting Minutes. Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. 2025-10-01 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 October 1, 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 October 1, 2025, at Cottage Grove City Hall, 12800 Ravine Parkway. Mayor Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and said this meeting is being recorded by TruLens Community Media. You can view City meetings live and replay them on Cable Channel 799, and 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; Brad Peterson, Public Safety Captain; Korine Land, City Attorney-LeVander, Gillen & Miller, PA; Brenda Malinowski, Finance Director; Emily Schmitz, Community Development Director; Paul Sponholz, City Engineer. 4. OPEN FORUM Mayor Bailey opened the Open Forum. As no one wished to address the Council, Mayor Bailey closed Open Forum. 5. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion by Council Member Thiede to adopt the agenda; second by Council Member Clausen. Motion carried: 5-0. 6. PRESENTATIONS A. County Attorney Update (Kevin Magnuson) Staff Recommendation: Receive a personal introduction and an update from Kevin Magnuson, Washington County Attorney. Mayor Bailey said we have a guest this evening, our County Attorney, Kevin Magnuson, is here, and we want to welcome him. He’s going to share some statistical information and some data with us. City Council Meeting October 1, 2025 Page 2 of 18 Thank you for having me; my name is Kevin Magnuson, I’m the Washington County Attorney, and it’s a real pleasure to be here. I don’t really have an agenda other than to come and say hi and give you a little bit of overview of what’s going on in the office, maybe some of the things that we’ve noticed over the last couple years. City Council Meeting October 1, 2025 Page 3 of 18 Criminal Sexual Conduct: There’s a little bit of spike at 2021, but those cases are so difficult to pinpoint the reason why we can charge and can’t charge some of those cases; it’s hard to draw a real conclusion from these numbers. City Council Meeting October 1, 2025 Page 4 of 18 this and do the tracking of locations, but it is important to know that all this is pursuant to a warrant, so anyone who thinks this could be an invasion or concerning privacy, it has to be authorized by a judge. Dean; I’ve had a chance to meet him a couple times, and I think that Trafficking Task Force is doing great things right now. We’ve shifted the focus a little bit, we’re still doing the stings and the recovery operations are at a larger scale, but it’s sort of investigating and tracking of individuals that are victims or engaged on either side of it has really ramped up. And I think we’re seeing a lot more bang for your buck, if you will, in that kind of approach. You can get a number of people in a sting, and it’s important to do that because it sends a message that we’re out there, but where we’re really seeing these benefits are the recovery operations or efforts to locate, particularly with runaways, that’s been a big focus of mine. It used to be with a runaway kid, you went down to the Greyhound station to look for them; now it’s their phone, these kids are on some sort of social media well before they leave, and often they’re communicating with someone that they haven’t met before and that’s under false pretenses. City Council Meeting October 1, 2025 Page 5 of 18 now this is the better life that you want, and it’s going to start in this shelter. So, the name of the charity is called Corrie’s House, the group home, and I think it’s just getting the last of its State approvals and it should be operating soon. We’ve already got some folks identified that we’d like to see there. City Council Meeting October 1, 2025 Page 6 of 18 the Drug Task Force popped into my head. I wondered if you might just take a moment or two to explain how that really works to the public because there are all these various officers from different departments coming together under one umbrella, but boy, they seem to be pretty effective. City Council Meeting October 1, 2025 Page 7 of 18 charge, knowing that would keep them in detention for two days. Now, that doesn’t seem like very long, but it’s a lot longer than they’re getting in some other places, and that’s about the right time because if you keep them there long enough, they can figure out what they can do is stand on their head. But there absolutely has to be consequences for actions, whether it’s on the little level, you know, the most minor thing, just people having the rules reinforced is really important, and that goes all the way through our juveniles to our adults. Staff Recommendation: Proclaim the week of October 5-11, 2025 as Fire Prevention Week. 7. CONSENT AGENDA City Council Meeting October 1, 2025 Page 8 of 18 D. Approve the Accelerated Firefighter/Paramedic Recruitment Program Agreement for Ryan Seykora. E. Accept the donation of equipment in the amount of $4,997.30 for the workout room at City Hall from the Cottage Grove Lions Club. F. Adopt Resolution 2025-146 to declare costs and adopt assessments for 110th Street South for water service installation. G. Authorization Resolution 2025-120 awarding the Peter Thompson Park Building Door Installation Project to Twin City Hardware in the amount of $23,250 and authorize the Service Agreement between Twin City Hardware and the City of Cottage Grove. H. Authorize the purchase of patio furniture at River Oaks from By The Yard for $90,183.39. I. Adopt Resolution 2025-147 authorizing the distribution of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Nelson Backwaters Project. J. Approve the Stormwater Management Facilities Agreement between the City and South Washington County School District 833 for the Transition School Site, located at 7000 Jamaica Avenue South; appropriate officials are hereby designated to sign the Stormwater Management Facilities Agreement to effectuate this action. K. 1) Approve the Encroachment Agreement with the Settlers Bluff Homeowner Association for existing irrigation lines installed on Outlots B and E of Settlers Bluff. 2) Approve the Encroachment Agreement with the Settlers Bluff Homeowner Association for existing irrigation lines installed in Outlot B of the Settlers Bluff 2nd Addition. L. Approve the Encroachment Agreement with the Mississippi Landing Liberty Homes Association for existing private irrigation lines installed in Lots 4 and 5, Block 5, Lots 5 and 6, Block 4, and Outlot Q of the Mississippi Landing 1st Addition and proposed private irrigation lines to be installed in Lots 25 and 26, Block 2, and Outlot A of the Mississippi Landing 2nd Addition. M. Approve the Cooperative Agreement between the City of Cottage Grove and the City of Woodbury for Erosion and Sediment Control Inspection Database Migration and Management. Council Member Olsen wished to pull Item E, Cottage Grove Lions Fitness Equipment Donation from the Consent Agenda for further comment and/or discussion. Council Member Olsen said I pulled this item because the Cottage Grove Lions Club, of which I am the current president, is very proud of the work that we do with our Public Safety Team and the City here in Cottage Grove on several different fronts. I wanted to point out that this is our latest donation, which is a donation of fitness equipment in the amount of $4,997.30, for the workout room here in City Hall. Just to kind of make a brief statement that this money was actually raised at the Hometown Heroes Golf Tournament that we had this year, in partnership with our Mississippi River Valley Beyond the Yellow Ribbon team and the Cottage Grove VFW. This was the Cottage Grove Lions’ portion of the proceeds from that tournament, and we’re very proud to be able to take that, round up $5,000, and donate it back to our friends here at the City of Cottage Grove, specifically to our Public Safety Team and our First Responders who I know use that workout space. This was just one of those things where, as we mentioned earlier about the YSB, local nonprofits giving back to the City, this is an expense the City doesn’t have to incur because we were able to fundraise this money and donate it. So, I hope that everybody here at City Hall and anybody who works for the City will enjoy the new equipment. I know Captain Petersen from the Public Safety Team really spent a lot of time and effort trying to ascertain the right equipment and find the pricing that we needed and worked directly with our Lions Club to make this happen. Motion by Council Member Thiede to approve the Consent Agenda; second by Council Member Garza. Motion carried: 5-0. 8. APPROVE DISBURSEMENTS Staff Recommendation: Approve disbursements from 09-12-2025 through 09-25-2025 in the amount of $5,325,127.11. City Council Meeting October 1, 2025 Page 9 of 18 Motion by Council Member Garza to approve disbursements; second by Council Member Olsen. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None. 10. BID AWARDS - None. 11. REGULAR AGENDA - None. 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS AND REQUESTS • Locally Grown Theatre, they are showing Dracula October 17-October 19 at the Cottage Grove City Hall Amphitheater, so that should be a lot of fun. • Cottage Grove Ice Arena is having the Skating Spooktacular on October 29, and there’s two sessions for that, and it’s only $10 per skater, so I think that will be a lot of fun. • Pumpkin Chuck, that comes up right after Halloween where you get to dispose of your pumpkin in a fun way by throwing it off of a fire ladder or down a hill; there’s all kinds of ways you can chuck your pumpkin, so it’s always fun. I’ve gone a couple of years now and I’ve always enjoyed it. City Council Meeting October 1, 2025 Page 10 of 18 everybody to come out, see the vehicles, have some fun, they’ve got some things where you shoot the hose and all that kind of stuff. I know they also have hot dogs there if you want something for a quick bite to eat. It’s always a great turnout seeing the kids there at the Central Fire Station. 13. WORKSHOPS - OPEN TO PUBLIC - CONFERENCE ROOM Staff Recommendation: Receive information on the draft Ravine Parkway (85th Street to Keats Avenue) Feasibility Report and provide feedback to staff. City Council Meeting October 1, 2025 Page 11 of 18 in 2005 to 2011 we constructed Jamaica to Keats in 2018, Idsen to Inwood in 2020, and with the Lochridge Development, we’re starting to work on a little piece west of Jamaica. There’s still a little gap left from that development to Inwood, but that’s not especially common. City Council Meeting October 1, 2025 Page 12 of 18 Project in 2022, we had assessments at about $16,000 an acre; adjusted at today’s dollars, it comes to about $23,000. So, looking at Phase I and II, they’re pretty much in line with those previous projects. After Phase III, there’s less acres in that subdivision or in that area, and a lot higher road costs that contribute to that assessment amount. A big part of that is the 3M property to the north of that is not included in our numbers here, that’s really undevelopable land. And then that roadway, instead of just going straight north and south, it does have a curve to it, curving from 70th to Keats and that adds a lot more length to that compared to all the acres in the parcel, so that adds a lot more to the cost for that Phase. One thing to think about, where we might be able to justify that cost, is this area is planned in our Comprehensive Plan to be high-density Mixed Use development, with the higher volume of those developments may be able to absorb some of those costs, so that’s something to consider. • We’ll be meeting with the landowners here as soon as we supply this information to them. • We’ll be preparing Deferred Assessment Agreements, especially for Phase I as we move forward with that. • Depending on your feedback here, we’ll bring this to Council for review and Final Approval. • At the time of sale of a development coming, then we’ll assess those with collective assessments, and then begin construction. Construction can be done in different ways; it depends on the actual development, it could either be constructed as a City project or by a developer. For example, here we’re looking at a Development here, and that’s the middle piece of this Phase I, except it’s kind of smack dab in the middle, between 70th and 80th. They’re working on it, to be able to connect with either 70th or 80th right away, so then we just kind of throw it at construction; it may be constructed as a City project or built as another development. So, as that becomes more feasible, we’ll do that. • So, then as it progresses, we’ll do an updated report as needed. City Council Meeting October 1, 2025 Page 13 of 18 Now, that pipe did not go in that long ago, so we’ve said that’s a County issue, as they kind of put that back on the City a little bit to figure that out, but that was put in in 2002, in that timeframe. So that’s something we want and we’ll work together on that, but we’ll have to ultimately have a meeting with the County, Met Council, and us to make sure that that road can be expanded appropriately in the future. for that as well. I imagine that as that study goes further along, I imagine they could come and present kind of where they are and ask for feedback from the City Council, I would assume. City Council Meeting October 1, 2025 Page 14 of 18 City Administrator Levitt replied well, one of the things we were struggling with is on the Tank’s, on that flat, you’ve seen the Concept a couple times. They haven’t given us a phasing plan, how they’re going to build it. Lennar is representing Geis, who would really like them to expand faster to bring utilities to them, because one of our guys is trying to buy lots, so we’ve got those two things at play. The challenge, too, on the park plan is we’re entering into an agreement like we did with Posavads so if they develop, they’ll give us the land. I’m estimating that we’re still at least $3 million in land acquisition to build that park. So, you add that with the additional assessment, so that makes that difficult. Just so we set it with Phase III, because of the unwillingness of the landowners in Phase III, they’re unfortunately going to be penalized financially for it because otherwise we would have taken all three Phases and distributed that equally. Because they don’t want to play ball with us, we are going ahead with Phase I as it is, Phase II you saw was very reasonable. So, given we’re at landowners right at Phase III, we’re going in knowing that that will be a more expensive assessment in the future for them, based upon the decisions that they’re making today. City Council Meeting October 1, 2025 Page 15 of 18 Mayor Bailey asked where do you have this, I know it’s out there, but when do we have that park in our CIP? Do we have it out there yet or no? City Council Meeting October 1, 2025 Page 16 of 18 making that happen. And, of course, that’s a parkway, you know that space is a parkway there, too. So, I don't know, I mean, I know you guys are always looking at how can we find these various grant opportunities, pots of money and stuff, but just that park alone makes me very nervous. City Council Meeting October 1, 2025 Page 17 of 18 I’ll say economy of scale, maintenance, and stuff like that. Plus, I know Zac has his study in regards to how many fields and the quota for how many thousands of people in that range, the distance. So, we can go through all of that to make sure it’s the right size. City Council Meeting October 1, 2025 Page 18 of 18 Council Member Olsen asked so what direction do you need from us, Paul? 14. WORKSHOPS - CLOSED TO PUBLIC - None. 15. ADJOURNMENT 1 City Council Action Request 7.C. Meeting Date 11/5/2025 Department Community Development Agenda Category Action Item Title Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (2025-09-22) Staff Recommendation Accept and place on file the minutes from the September 22, 2025, Planning Commission meeting. Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. Planning Commission Minutes 2025-09-22 COTTAGE GROVE PLANNING COMMISSION September 22, 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-Here; John Stechmann-Here; Terrence Woodman-Here. Members Absent: None Staff Present: Emily Schmitz, Community Development Director; Samantha Pierret, Senior Planner; Max Erickson, Planner; Kelly Becker, Associate Planner; Justin Olsen, City Council Liaison. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Fisher made a motion to approve the agenda. Stechmann seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (7-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. Hello, Good Evening. Bonnie Matter, 6649 Inskip Avenue South, Cottage Grove, so are these Public Hearings, and I will be able to speak if I want to? Frazier replied yes, all four of the agenda items we have tonight are Public Hearings. Bonnie said tha nk you, that’s all I had. As no one else wished to address the Planning Commission, 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. 6219 Lamar Lot Split Variance - Case V2025-025 The Estate of Frances Ratzlaff: Benjamin Ratzlaff, Personal Representative, applied for a Variance to subdivide a 47.63-acre parcel located at 6219 Lamar Avenue South into two separate parcels resulting in one parcel under 5 acres, Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting September 22, 2025 Page 2 of 7 which will be under the 5-acre minimum lot size allowed in the AG-1, Agricultural Preservation District, for an existing dwelling. The remainder of the parcel will continue to be used for agricultural purposes. 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 asked if there were any questions for staff; none were asked, then Frazier said I do have a question for you. So, it was in the packet as well as you said today that there are a number of other parcels in the area that are less than 5 acres, and so that’s part of the reason why it wouldn’t change the community. Do we know if those were created prior to the requirement that parcels be 5 acres, or were they also Variance Requests? Pierret replied said that’s a good question, Mr. Chair. So, several of those parcels are in the R-1 District where there is a 3-acre minimum; however, there are a couple of parcels in the AG District that were created prior to our current Zoning Ordinances that are under that 5 acres, that are around 3 acres in size. Frazie r said thank you. Fisher said I’m glad you added that fourth stipulation with the Deed Restriction because we don’t want to ever make it like a landlocked parcel, right? But how, that little strip that’s along Lamar, how did that ever get divided into its own little en tity there, or does it go with another parcel, or how does that figure? Pierret replied Commissioner Fisher, Mr. Chair, that is a very go od question. As I mentioned, that parcel is actually part of a plat and that plat that it is a part of is actually on the west side of Lamar Avenue; so, conceivably at some point this was all one big plat, this sliver, as I call it, was platted and kind of remained as a remnant parcel. The Applicant was able to actually purchase this from the previous owner so they could have road frontage here. Fisher said it sounds like you’re trying to avoid re-platting this particular parcel. Is there a specific reason why a plat wouldn’t make more sense? Pierret replied so plats do take up a considerable amount of time and cost for an Applicant, and in this case, adding that fourth condition that these two pieces be sold together really will save the Applicant, in some time and monetary costs when we do see that this sliver again really does contribute to that road frontage requirement, as specified in the ord inance. Fisher said okay, thank you. Woodman said just to make sure I’m understanding it fully as well, the reason for that 3-acre split is more of just a logical reason that that is the homestead area and we’re not just expanding it to 5 to make up more room; so, that’s the reason for the 3, not some other random requirement, correct? Pierret replied yes, Commissioner Woodman, that is correct. It is the most logical space to split this property, as you can see. Woodman said perfect, thank you. Frazier asked if there were any further questions, there were none, so Frazier thanked Pierret. Frazier asked if the Applicant has anything additional they would like to add, and he asked him if he could just state his name and address for us, please. I’m Benjamin Ratzlaff, I reside at 6225 Lamar Avenue South. Now, I’m obviously going to mention that this is basically to settle my mother’s estate, and it’s going to be split to her descendants . We’re going to continue farming it, and there is going to be absolutely no change in the residence use or anything. I mean, it’s going to essentially stay the same. That’s about the only comment I have, just to settle the estate of Frances Ratzlaff , my mother. He asked if there were any questions. Frazier asked if there were any questions for the Applicant, but there were none. Frazier said thank you very much. Frazier opened the Public Hearing. No one spoke. Frazier closed the Public Hearing. Frazier asked if there was any further comment or discussion from the commission. Stechmann said this seems like a logical result here, so we can avoid destroying some of the tiles property and also maintain the other trees and other things like that. That seems like this is the logical thing to do, so I can’t imagine not voting for it . Thanks. Fisher made a motion to approve the Variance based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report, as well as the condition that was added at the meeting on the Deed Restriction . Woodman seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (7-to-0 vote). B. NorthPoint Preliminary Plat - Case PP2025-023 Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting September 22, 2025 Page 3 of 7 NorthPoint Development (NP BGO Cottage Grove Logistics Park, LLC) has applied for a Preliminary Plat to modify the south and east lot lines of the Cottage Grove Logistics Park plat. This request is being made to fully encompass the improvements on Lot 2 of the existing plat, including private stormwater management, drive access, and utility lines. Becker summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. She said we do have representatives from NorthPoint here tonight as well for any questions. Thank you. Frazier asked if there were any questions for staff. Woodman said I think just one clarifier. This is only approval of the plat and not any of the future buildings or anything like that that’ll be on there, correct? Becker replied correct, Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, this is just the Preliminary P lat, adjusting those lot lines. Woodman said awesome, thank you. Fisher asked at this time if the Applicant would like to add anything additional. Planning Commission, my name is Charlie Cannon, I reside in Chicago, and work for NorthPoint Development. I just want to take a moment to thank Kelly and Emily and the City staff’s hard work , they make it very easy for us to do business here. So, I appreciate your guys’ time and explanation, and I’m here to answer any questions for you guys. Frazier asked if there were any questions for the Applicant; Frazier said I don’t see any, thank you very much for being here . Charlie replied thank you. Frazier opened the Public Hearing. Thank you very much for allowing me to ask some questions. Bonnie Matter, 6649 Inskip Avenue South, Cottage Grove, said I just have a few questions, I’ll just put the questions out there: I’d like to know when the Alternative Urban Areawide, AUAR, will be updated to include the Data Center information, including the environmental information, and when it will be available for review and public comment. I’d like to know if we know who will occupy the Data Center at this time. I’d like to know how muc h water will the Data Center use per day, per year. I’d like to know w here the water’s going to come from. I’d like to know what is Cottage Grove’s current water appropriation amount. Has the developer requested informati on on groundwater availability and local capacity? How many megawatts will the Data Center require? What type of backup power generation will be used during outages and how many? And if you’re interested in learning more about any of this, there are many D ata Center requests in Minnesota EQB Monitor right now. The City of Cannon Falls Industrial AUAR, in the September 16th Monitor, is worth reading. So, those are my questions. Thank you very much. Frazier thanked Ms. Matter and said she provided me with a c opy of her questions, and so we’ll include that in the record for the meeting. No one else spoke. Frazier closed the Public Hearing. Frazier asked Becker if she wanted to come back up, as a lot of Ms. Matter’s questions were about a Data Center, and I know in response to Commissioner Woodman’s question, you indicated that this is just essentially a realignment of lot lines at this p oint, correct? Becker replied yes, correct, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, we don’t have an application for a Data Center now. Frazier said okay, so maybe that comes in the future, but today the application that we’re looking at is should the Prelimina ry Plat be approved by City Council. Becker said correct. Frazier said all right, and any future Data Center that was going to come in or any new building that was going to be built would have to come through again for approval for that building and the Site Plan. Becker said correct. Frazier said okay, and asked if there were any further questions by commission. Bhat said so the existing two buildings, are they Data Centers? Becker replied no, they are not. Bhat said okay, and what happened to the original Lot 1, it’s not showing on the map, so it’s still a lot associated with this, or is it a separate lot now? Becker replied yes, Commissioner Bhat, that lot will still remain separate, and that won’t be included into this new plat. Bhat said okay, t hank you. Frazier asked if there was any discussion or comments by commission ; seeing none, I’ll look for a motion then. Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting September 22, 2025 Page 4 of 7 Woodman made a motion to approve the Preliminary Plat subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Brittain seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (7-to-0 vote). C. Highnorth Dispensary – Case CUP2025-022 Astraeus Investment Group, LLC (DBA Highnorth) applied for a Conditional Use Permit to engage in cannabis retail sales and continue lower-potency hemp edible retail sales at their existing business at 8711 East Point Douglas Road South, Unit #108. 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 and asked if there were any questions for staff. Fisher said so, Highnorth is in that strip mall by Target, I was looking, but my pad is frozen so I’m having a hard time gett ing to the page, but with all the different circles and the radius to the daycare center, it looks like its just right there. So, h ow do you, do you calculate from like the front door? Because I mean I can imagine if it was down by where Chuck & Don’s is, maybe the radius wouldn’t qualify. Like how do you come up with that? Because it does look like it’s pretty close. Pierret replied Commissioner Fisher, Mr. Chair, so on this map, the distance from a daycare is required to be 500 feet, and the yellow circle in the middle of the image is showing that distance to the daycare, and it is labeled as over 1,000 feet away. On this map, we labeled the exact distances, so that the commission and the public would know exactly how far away these businesses were. Fisher said so, where do you measure, do you measure from like the door? I mean, that is a large parcel, and there are multiple. Pierret replied good question. Yes, so, we measure from the storefront of the cannabis business to the property line of the use in question. For parks, we measure from the storefront to the park feature, so whether that be a disk golf hole or a picnic shel ter, we’re measuring to that specific item in the park. Fisher said okay, thanks for clarifying. I see now that it’s double the dista nce that it needs to be, but it does look really close on that. Thank you. Bhat asked what were the two compliance violations? Pierret replied those were age verification compliance violations. There’s more information available from our Public Safety Department; however, the age verification was either not done or done improperly and during the Public Safety’s inspections of the property, items were sold to minors. Bhat said okay, thank you. Where did you say this information was available? Pierret replied through our Public Safety Department, and the most recent violation in May was available, our City Council did take action at that time, in May of 2025. Bhat said okay, thank you. Frazier asked Pierret if she knew if it was City Ordinance that clarifies the 500 feet from a daycare? Pierret replied in the State Statute, 500 feet is the absolute maximum that we could go, and in City Code, they went with the absolute maximum from daycares. All of these distances are actually the absolute maximum allowed by Statute. Frazier said okay, and I couldn’t remember if that’s what we did when we adopted the City Ordinances on it. And is it just daycare centers or does that include licensed in- home daycares as well? Pierret replied it is only daycare centers in Business Districts. Frazier said got it. All right, thank you. Fisher said okay, my question follows up with Commissioner Bhat’s; so, the violations that happened, at what point do we beco me worried about those violations, those repetitive violations? I think you said that the Public Safety Department doesn’t have any issues with this at the moment, but at what point does it become an issue? Pierret replied so, our Public Safety Director has informed us that they, as I mentioned, continue to work with Highnorth on compliance and everything. If there were a third violation within a year span, it would go back to City Council ; the fine and the suspension would be greater. If there were a fourth violation, that’s when the Public Safety Director has indicated that things such as revoking licensure would be implemented. Fisher said so, there is a specific framework in place with time constraints and number of violations? Pierret replied yes. Fisher said okay, perfect, thank you. Frazier asked if there were any further questions for staff, none were asked. Frazier thanked Pierret. Frazier asked if at this time the Applicant would like to add anything additional. Ladies and gentlemen of the commission, thanks for having me today, appreciate it. It’s been a pleasure to work with the City on this. It’s been a long road, we’ve gone through a lot with the changing from hemp to cannabis and things like that. We’ve mov ed locations to stay compliant. It’s been a treat to work with you all, so I appreciate everyone that worked on our project. I j ust Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting September 22, 2025 Page 5 of 7 wanted to open it up; my name is Tyler Thompson, by the way, I’m the co-owner, I grew up here in Cottage Grove, went to Park, but I wanted to open myself up for questions if there are any. Frazier thanked Thompson. Are there any questions for the Applicant? Bhat said so, following up on those violations, what st eps are you going to take to avoid further compliance violations? Thompson replied that’s a great question. So, at the time, we did not have any actual scannable ID software built into our system, and that’s something that after this violation we did add, in two different forms: 1) Our new cannabis specific platform that we use for our point of sale actually requires an ID to be scanned in, in order for a transaction to begin. So, what we will do in our plan is to have a vestibule system where the customer comes in, we have a secretary that will check the ID before the customer then gets buzzed into the rest of the building, which will require verification before entering. 2) We also have an audit trail system built into that, so we can go back and provide any ID ever scanned into our system and the timestamp. Bhat said thank you. Frazier asked if there were any other questions, and none were asked. Frazier thanked Thompson. Frazier opened the Public Hearing. No one spoke. Frazier closed the Public Hearing. Frazier asked if there was any further discussion or comment by commission Stechmann said it seems to me that the Applicant, Mr. Thompson, has adequately addressed the concerns that were raised, and so that’s to his credit, that sounds like a very good and safe mechanism. I do know that there are criminal penalties for peo ple who sell improperly alcohol or what have you, and so, there’s also those types of considerations that also will deter like unauthorized sales. So, otherwise, I think that everything else is in order, I’m prepared to vote in favor of this. Frazier t hanked Stechmann, asked if there were any further comments; seeing none, Frazier said he would look for a motion. Stechmann made a motion to approve the Variance subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Knable seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (7-to-0 vote). D. Grey Cloud Elementary – Case SP2025-024 KOMA Architects and Engineers, on behalf of South Washington School District ISD 833, has applied for a Site Plan Review for building additions at Grey Cloud Elementary, located at 9525 Indian Boulevard South. The site improvements include approximately 6,505 square feet for a gymnasium/storm shelter and a 3,467 new classroom addition. The Site Plan Review request also includes minor reworking of the drive lanes within the northeastern and northwestern parking areas and the relocation of a playground. Erickson 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 Erickson and asked commission if there were any questions for staff. Bhat said so there’s a proposal for moving a playground from an existing location to a new location, right? My question is does it need to be done? I mean, can’t they h ave two playgrounds, is there a requirement to move the playground? Erickson replied no, it is not a requirement. This is something that they have proposed, and I might invite the Applicant up to explain, but the playground is going to be closer to the new classroom addition, which would be utilized by the Special Education students. Bhat said okay, so there is no requirement to te ar down the existing playground? Okay, thank you. Frazier asked if there were any further questions for staff, and none were asked. Frazier thanked Erickson and asked at this time if the Applicant would like to add anything additional; he said I’m seeing shaking heads back there, okay, so seeing none, un less there are questions from commission or the Applicant, and there were none. Frazier opened the Public Hearing. No one spoke. Frazier closed the Public Hearing. Frazier asked if there was any further comment or discussion by commission. Fisher said I’ll just say that the application seems pretty straightforward, so I don’t have any questions. Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting September 22, 2025 Page 6 of 7 Fisher made a motion to approve, subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Bhat seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (7-to-0 vote). 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approval of the August 25, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Knable made a motion to approve the August 25, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Fisher seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). 8. REPORTS A. RECAP OF SEPTEMBER 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS Schmitz summarized the actions taken at the September 3 and September 17, 2025 City Council Meetings. Council Member Olsen said thank you very much. As I typically do, I open myself up for questions from you on anything that may be going on in the community, and I’m happy to answer if I can. Before I do that, though, just a couple of items that I would like to note: First of all, if you’re interested, this coming Thursday, September 25, we have our Public Works and our Parks Open House, that will be held at the Public Works garage, which is located at 8635 West Point Douglas Road , here in Cottage Grove. For those of you who have not been there before, it starts at 3:00 p.m. and it goes until 7:00 p.m. We have a sensory friendl y hour from 3:00 to 4:00 p.m., so if you have members of your family who may struggle with a little bit of senso ry overload, that first hour there won’t be all the flashing lights and the noises and those sorts of things. So, people can still come and enj oy the Open House, look at the trucks, talk to our staff members, etc. without the distraction of all of the othe r goings on that could overload somebody’s senses if they are sensitive to that. There will be games that take place down there, you’ll have the opportunity to spend a little time looking at all of the various Public Works vehicles, including our brand new double-axle trucks that we received after purchasing three years ago. So, we’re really excited that we actually got those in time for this year’s snowplow season so we could an extra snowplow route. But tons of really cool things to do, the Parks Departme nt will be down there, they always have some fun games for the kids; well, I’m a kid, too, I guess, because I like them, too, but there’s cer tainly plenty to do, so I would encourage you all to attend. I also wanted to note that September 15 through October 15 is National Hispanic Heritage Month, and as a City Council we pass ed a proclamation declaring Hispanic Heritage Month here in the City of Cottage Grove. So, we wanted to make sure that we acknowledged the fact that we do have a very vibrant Hispanic population here in the City, it continues to grow, and we’re grateful for all of the contributions, not just here in Cottage Grove but across the State of Minnesota and our nation, on be half of our friends with Hispanic heritage. I am not one of those people, therefore I do sunburn when the moon is out, but I have a great deal of respect for a lot of my friends who have Hispanic background, and I’m grateful that we passed that proclamation . Also, today happens to be Rosh Hashana, so for those of you of the Jewish faith, we want to wish you a happy new year because tonight is when that celebration begins. A couple of other items of note, just with regard to policy issues. As Emily mentioned, we had a 5-0 approval of the 2026 budget with a 2027 preliminary budget. So, what that means is we set the ceiling, we can’t go any higher, but we can certainly come in lower if we choose to with regard to our 2026 Levy. We took a lot of different things into consideration, and I know I mentio ned this at the last Planning Commission meeting as well, we took the Polco survey, the community survey that was done, and reall y put a lot of stock into what our residents said that they value most about our community. For example, Public Safety received a 91% rating for something that the public here in the City of Cottage Grove values; so, when we looked at making investments, making investments in Public Safety was right at the top of the list. Additionally, we had a great deal of approval for our Par ks system, so naturally, we followed suit and we made significant investments in our Parks and our trail system here in the City . Of course, Public Works and making sure that on those snowy days, which we haven’t had many of in the last couple years, but it sounds like we might this year if you believe the old Farmers Almanac, I should have asked Ben when he was here, he knows; Ben is a good friend, and he used to work down at the golf course, and that man has an intuition for weather like nobody you’ve ever met. I don't know if it’s the farmer in him or if he’s just gifted that way, but he’s like Radar from MASH, for those of you old enough to remember when that was, he knows when snow’s coming. But we are very glad to know that we’ve been able to Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting September 22, 2025 Page 7 of 7 invest in the equipment that we need in order to keep our City safe and keep our roads clear and make sure that everybody can get to work, etc. So, with that, I will open myself up for any questions you might have for me. Frazier said thank you and asked if there were any questions for Council Member Olsen. Fisher said we had a resident talk about Data Centers earlier. That’s a little bit out of left field for me, so I’m wondering has the City been approached by anybody who is looking to put in a Data Center? Are there certain, I know th ey’re kind of a hot button topic, are there discussions in place? I mean, what do we do as a City? Council Member Olsen replied in my time as a member of the City Council, we’ve been approached several times by individuals who are interested in having a conversation about Data Centers. Data Centers are a little bit interesting when it comes to development because they don’t generally produce many job s, and they take a significant amount of resources to operate effectively in most cases. I don’t want to paint with too broad of a brush because I’m sure as you know as Planning Commissioners, every application is unique and has its own different details, but up to this point, no, we really haven’t had any major dialogue with anybody a bout a Data Center. So, that was a little bit out of left field for me, too, I guess, but could it happen? Sure. Somebody could put in an application, absolutely; at this point, though, I’m not aware of anything. Fisher said I feel like for cannabis, for example, when that was coming up, nobody really had any regulations or nobody reall y knew like what was going to happen next. Do we feel like that’s kind of where the Data Center thing is at, like if there’s so mething that does come before us, are we going to have a framework to be able to? Council Member Olsen replied yeah, we have a very strong framework for span of control and influence around how a development that might include a Data Center would come to pass. It goes through the same regulatory processes, everything else that comes before us, and that would include involving the Planning Commission. It could certainly include other local and State agencies, it include the County, it all depends on the specifications of the application, of course. So, again, without painting with a broad brush, I feel pretty confident that if somebod y did bring an application forward, we would certainly have the wherewithal to analyze it very closely and determine whether or not it was a good fit for our community. Data Centers are interesting as well because the people who operate Data Centers have to have certain parameters in place before they can even consider that as an end use, and some communities just don’t have that, they don’t have the infrastructure, they don’t have the ability to host a Data Center. So, could we have a conversation? We certainly could, but I can’t even speak to whether or not we would be able to meet their needs until such time as something would become concrete, which at this point, I’m not aware of anything. Fisher said okay, thank you. Frazier asked if there were any further questions for Council Member Olsen, but none were asked. Frazier thanked Council Member Olsen for being here. Council Member Olsen replied thank you guys very much, appreciate your hard work. B. RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION INQUIRIES - None. C. PLANNING COMMISSION REQUESTS Bhat said so, when Bonnie was speaking, she mentioned about AUAR, with the expansions. What is it and can we access it? Schmitz replied Mr. Chair, Commissioner Bhat, an AUAR is a planning tool that we use to do a review of an area with potential development scenarios. In this particular Business Park, an AUAR was completed 15, plus or minus years ago, it’s required by State Statute to update those studies every five years; I believe the last update to the Business Park AUAR was in 2022, so t he next update to that AUAR is in 2027. What that work does, Commissioner Bhat, is it allows us to evaluate from an environmental and any other impact of potential development scenarios, which then really helps us to complete that work ahead of a development coming in, knowing the potential impact; and then we have a mitigation plan that’s tied to that study that any development is required to follow as a part of their development. Bhat asked can we access the 2022 AUAR? Schmitz replied I am happy to send a link; Bhat said thank you. 9. ADJOURNMENT Stechmann made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Brittain seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). The meeting was adjourned at 7:54 p.m. 1 City Council Action Request 7.D. Meeting Date 11/5/2025 Department Administration Agenda Category Action Item Title Open Forum Response Letter — Job Postings Staff Recommendation Receive a letter in response to the open forum questions from the October 15, 2025, City Council meeting regarding City Job Postings. Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. Response Letter - Job Postings 1 City Council Action Request 7.E. Meeting Date 11/5/2025 Department Administration Agenda Category Action Item Title Open Forum Response Letter - HERO Center Staff Recommendation Receive a letter in response to the open forum questions from the October 15, 2025, City Council meeting regarding HERO Center rentals. Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. Response Letter - HERO Center 1 City Council Action Request 7.F. Meeting Date 11/5/2025 Department Engineering Agenda Category Action Item Title Washington County 2026-2030 CIP Response Letter Staff Recommendation Approve the response letter to the Washington County 2026-2030 Draft CIP. Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. Washington County 2026-2030 Draft CIP Response Letter Final CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE  12800 Ravine Parkway  Cottage Grove, Minnesota 55016 www.cottagegrovemn.gov  651-458-2800  Fax 651-458-2897  Equal Opportunity Employer Re: Draft Washington County 2026-2030 CIP th Street Realignment Project. While Cottage Grove continues to aggressively pursue grant opportunities to close the funding gap, we are quickly approaching the point of losing grant funds that have already been secured if the project does not move forward. We appreciate that the final design and environmental process is started, so we can soon have a clear and accurate understanding of project costs and challenges. Also, this will provide more details on potential phasing options, to ensure the project can be started and grant funds can be utilized. Facility Projects • City of Cottage Grove Public Works Facility • Southern Yard Waste (BSD-PHE-2701) Mr. Wayne Sandberg Park Projects • Cottage Grove Ravine Regional Park Lighted Trails (PARK-4006) The City encourages the County continuing to invest in this park to expand its recreational options, through additions like the lighted trails and possible future consideration of winter multi- use trails. The City would support a future state bonding request to fund construction of lighted trails in Ravine Regional Park. • Ravine Regional Park Future Improvements As development continues around the CSAH 19 corridor, demand for park amenities will increase including at Ravine Regional Park. The City currently has no camping opportunities within its borders. The City encourages the County to pursue upper landing master plans for the park including potentially adding a few hike-in primitive campsites at the park. • Grey Cloud Island Regional Park Master Plan The City requests that the County complete an update of the 1994 Grey Cloud Island Regional Park Master Plan. An updated Master Plan with approval from all stakeholders is critical before any physical investment is made. As the mining operations on the island conclude over the next decade or two and an Environmental Impact Study is in progress on its next phase, a plan is critical for the future use of the island. As Cottage Grove develops a large community park on the former Mississippi Dunes Golf Course property, this plan will help to ensure City and County efforts to improve regional recreational opportunities in this area complement each other and inefficiencies of service are avoided. The City also encourages the County to more fully utilize existing County-owned land along the Mississippi River for a small paddle launch to become a part of the proposed water trail being developed by the City and National Park Service. • Park and Trail Long-Range Planning (Park-1001) The City encourages the continuation of efforts between the City, County and State to complete master planning and the pursuit of regional solicitation funds for a trail route that connects Point Douglas Park (via the Point Douglas Trail) to Cottage Grove Ravine Regional Park. We see that missing link in the regional trail system as the next great opportunity for the County to expose residents and visitors to our rivers, park spaces, greenways and the historic Highway 61 corridor. • CSAH 19 (Keats Avenue) & 80th Street Intersection (RB-2667) The City appreciates the continued coordination as the County completes final plans and construction phasing and the City is looking forward to the improved safety and operations of this key intersection. • CSAH 13 (Radio Drive) – CSAH 20 to Hargis Parkway (RB-2672) While this project is not located within Cottage Grove, it is located along a key traffic corridor connecting with the City of Woodbury. Cottage Grove supports the County making these Mr. Wayne Sandberg improvements, currently programmed for construction in 2027. Our team greatly appreciates being involved in discussions as design of the improvements along the County Highway 13 (Radio Drive) corridor are determined. • CR 74 (65th Street) – County 38 (Hastings Avenue) to Geneva Avenue (RB-2675) Cottage Grove supports the County reconstructing CR 74 and making improvements to the adjacent ravine in the City of Newport. The City looks forward to the additional trail connectivity the County is building on this corridor. This is a much-needed improvement, located along and west of the Cottage Grove city limits. Over the years, Cottage Grove has made a concerted effort to work with developers to reduce runoff rates to this ravine compared to the undeveloped condition, including removing the north leg of Geneva Avenue. We appreciate the collaboration on this project between Washington County, City of Newport, City of Cottage Grove, and the South Washington Watershed District. • CR 19A (Innovation Road) & 100th Street Realignment (RB-2685) Cottage Grove continues to strongly support the implementation of the first phase of the SW Arterial Project, through the realignment of CR 19A & 100th Street, and appreciates the ongoing collaboration with Washington County. Cottage Grove continues to see rapid growth in this area of the community, which further drives the need for this improvement. As stated in the introduction to this letter, the County should complete the final design and environmental review in 2025 which is critical to ensuring we are prepared to begin construction and not lose out on the significant grant funding that has been obtained to date. • Southwest Arterial The County completed the Southwest Arterial Planning Study in 2020. In addition to the joint planning for the CR 19A & 100th Street Realignment project mentioned above, the City has recently completed improvements of 100th Street from Hadley Avenue to Jamacia, and improvements of 103rd Street from Grey Cloud Trail to 100th Street. As a significant next step after the CR 19A & 100th Street project will be a project addressing the substandard low vertical and narrow horizontal clearance under the BNSF railroad bridge over 103rd Street. The City has programmed a project to address those issues in our five-year plan, with a feasibility study to start in 2026. The Grey Cloud Trail bridge (Bridge No. L8159) over the river channel is nearing the end of its useful life and is expected to become eligible for replacement funding in the near future. As the City plans for its replacement with consideration of the Southwest Arterial study, the county should consider the future Grey Cloud Island master plans. The City looks forward to the County continuing collaboration with the City as the City looks to complete these upcoming improvements to meet the County’s plans to eventually take jurisdiction of the corridor. • CSAH 19 (Keats Avenue) – Dale Road to US Trunk Highway 61 (RB-2687) While this planning project is now in progress, the City appreciates the continued collaboration to address future needs. With ongoing development in this area of Cottage Grove, and potential development interest ranging from single family homes, multi-use, and commercial, this study is Mr. Wayne Sandberg well timed. The County should consider additional right of way requirements and impacts to the Metropolitan Council sewer interceptor easement. The development of this study will position the County and City of Cottage Grove well for the additional development by proactively planning for the future needs of this major corridor. • CSAH 20 (Jamacia Avenue) – CSAH 22 (70th Street) – Military Road (RB-2691) The City supports this project, including the planning and design efforts now underway. The City anticipates the area around CSAH 20 (Jamaica Avenue) from CSAH 22 (70th Street) to Military Road to be fully developed in the coming years. This project will be a positive improvement to this developing area and help ensure both vehicles and pedestrians are able to travel in this area of the city efficiently and safely. The City encourages the County to coordinate with City of Woodbury with their plans. Woodbury has planned to complete the extension of Pioneer Rd and also a future east-west collector road just north of the city boundary. With the closing of the east leg of Military Road, those corridors are important to the area to complete other connections to the Cottage Grove neighborhoods east of Jamaica and north of Military. • Transit Circulator Support (RB-2811) The City appreciates the county’s financial support to existing and expanded transit circulator routes and greater serviceability to our residents. • CSAH 39 (Hastings Ave and Hadley Ave) & TH 61 Interchange (RB-2815) As this project moves into construction in 2026, the City appreciates the ongoing collaboration with the County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation in making improvements on this critical transportation corridor. • CSAH 22 (70th Street) – CSAH 19 (Keats Ave) to CSAH 13 (Hinton Ave) Study (RB-2817) The City appreciates the inclusion of this study to complete this effort and guide future improvements along the corridor. The County should especially include addressing pedestrian crossing safety concerns. • RB-2835: CSAH 19 (Keats Ave) CSAH 22 (70th Street) to Dale Road The City supports the County planning for improvements to this developing corridor. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Washington County Draft 2026-2030 CIP. Through the continued coordination and cooperation with Washington County, we believe we have been able to provide exceptional amenities, pedestrian facilities, and public infrastructure to increase our level of service, improve the livability of our community, and promote business growth and expansion. Successful projects are hinged on partnerships, the County 19A & 100th Street Realignment project is a great example of this partnership. The ongoing collaboration and coordination between the City and County will be critical as we work to deliver this key infrastructure project. We look forward to continuing the collaboration with Washington County to meet the capital needs in our community. Mr. Wayne Sandberg Sincerely, 1 City Council Action Request 7.G. Meeting Date 11/5/2025 Department Administration Agenda Category Action Item Title Gambling License - Strawberry Fest Staff Recommendation Approve the single occasion Gambling Permit application for the Cottage Grove Strawberry Fest on behalf of Lori Olsen to conduct a bingo event at River Oaks Golf Course (11099 Highway 61, Cottage Grove, MN) on February 21, 2026. Budget Implication Attachments 1. Memo - Public Safety 1 City Council Action Request 7.H. Meeting Date 11/5/2025 Department Administration Agenda Category Action Item Title Gambling License - Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Staff Recommendation Approve the Single Occasion Gambling Permit application for the Mississippi River Valley Beyond the Yellow Ribbon on behalf of Patrick Nickle to conduct the Holiday Helper Big Ticket Raffle event at the Cottage Grove VFW Post 8752 (9260 E. Pt. Douglas Rd) on December 6, 2025. Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. Memo - Public Safety 1 City Council Action Request 7.I. Meeting Date 11/5/2025 Department Community Development Agenda Category Action Item Title Approval of Rental Licenses Staff Recommendation Approve the issuance of rental licenses to the properties in the attached table. Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. Rental License Approvals CC Memo 2. Rental License Approvals Table TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator FROM: Samantha Drewry, Code Enforcement Officer DATE: October 29, 2025 RE: Rental License Approvals Background/Discussion Rental licenses are required for nonowner-occupied residential properties (City Code Title 9-13, Property Maintenance, and Title 9 -14, Rental Licensing) and are issued on a biennial basis. The licensing process includes submittal of the rental license application, payment of the rental license fee, and public criminal history report. Rental inspections are conducted on all rental properties as part of the licensing process. Once all information has been submitted and the inspection satisfactorily completed, the Council must approve the license prior to it being issued. The properties listed in the attached table have completed the licensing process and are ready to have their licenses issued following Council approval. Recommendation Approve the issuance of rental licenses to the properties listed in the attached table. 2025 RENTAL LICENSES CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL - NOVEMBER 5, 2025 RENTAL LICENSE NUMBER PROPERTY STREET #PROPERTY STREET NAME PROPERTY OWNER RENT-002883 7019 Homestead Avenue South Minnesota Prime Real Estate LLC RENT-002884 8851 Ironwood Avenue South Minnesota Prime Real Estate LLC RENT-002886 8465 79th Street South Irabor, Stephen RENT-002887 6714 92nd Bay South Unique Home Rentals LLC. RENT-002896 7150 Jorgensen Lane South Xiong Chue Thao RENT-002912 10269 Goodview Circle South Ekundina, Bose 1 City Council Action Request 7.J. Meeting Date 11/5/2025 Department Administration Agenda Category Action Item Title Deputy Public Works Director/Utilities — Chad Donnelly Staff Recommendation Approve the appointment of Chad Donnelly as Deputy Public Works Director - Utilities, at grade X01, step 6. The start date will be effective as soon as possible. Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. Memo - Dep PW Director Background th, 2025. After that interview, Chad Donnelly was selected to continue in the hiring process. On October 23rd, 2025, Chad toured the Engineering and Utilities facility and met with Engineering and Public Works staff. Staff was impressed with Chad’s work experience. Action Requested Memo 1 City Council Action Request 7.K. Meeting Date 11/5/2025 Department Public Safety Agenda Category Action Item Title Coordinated Mental Health Response Agreement Amendment Staff Recommendation 1) Authorize utilizing the Opioid Settlement to fund Cottage Grove’s 2026 portion of the Coordinated Mental Response Agreement. 2) Authorize the agreement amendment between the City of Cottage Grove and Washington County Community Services for Coordinated Mental Health Response. Budget Implication Approved in the 2026 preliminary budget with opioid fund ($73,509.00) Attachments 1. Council Memo to Approve CoResponder Amendment Oct 27 2025 2. Cottage Grove Amendment 1 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Peter J Koerner, Director of Public Safety Date: October 27, 2025 Subject: COORDINATED MENTAL HEALTH RESPONSE AGREEMENT/AMENDMENT Introduction Figure 1. CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER 1.0 FTE Co-Response Clinical Social Worker 10/21/24-12/31/24 Wages/ Benefits Admin/Operation Cost 1/1/25-9/30/25 Wages/ Benefits Admin/Operation Cost 10/1/25-12/31/25 Wages/ Benefits Admin/Operation Cost Law Enforcement Portion (25%) $8,587.50 (25%) $25,762.50 (50%) $17,175 Community Services Portion (75%) 25,762.50 (75%) $77, 287.50 (50%) $17,175 Total $34,350 $103,050 $34,350 2024 2025 CG Responsibility $8,587.50 $42,937.50 Calendar Year Total $34,350 $137,400 The total compensation as of January 1, 2026 to December 31, 2026 is detailed below in Figure 2: Figure 2. 1.0 FTE Co-Response Team Embedded Clinical Social Worker 2026 includes 7% increase for wage rates and overhead adjustments We will be able to fund our portion 100% for the remainder of 2025 and 2026 using opioid settlement funding. Depending on County funding, we may have to budget the difference beginning in 2027. The agreement was reviewed by our City Attorney Kori Land and suggested revisions were made and agreed upon. The Washington County Attorney has also approved. Upon approval, the agreement will be signed by the County Board. The proposed amendment is attached to this memo. Recommendation 1) Authorize utilizing the Opioid Settlement to fund Cottage Grove’s 2026 portion of the Coordinated Mental Response Agreement. 2) Authorize the agreement amendment between the City of Cottage Grove and Washington County Community Services for Coordinated Mental Health Response. This Amendment No. 1 is entered into by and between Washington County and The City of Cottage Grove, 12800 Ravine Parkway South, Cottage Grove, MN 55016, in order to amend Agreement No. 16883 dated October 21, 2024, thereto as follows: 1. Page 1, Item II., Term of Agreement, is deleted and restated to read: “The term of this Agreement shall be from October 21, 2024 to December 31, 2026, unless earlier terminated as provided in this Agreement.” 2. Page 4, Section 5(a), Funding, is deleted and restated to read: “Funding of Personnel. The CITY shall pay the COUNTY fifty percent (50%) of the total compensations, administrations, and operations for the Coordinated Response Program. The term “total compensation” includes salary, benefits, and overhead as those exist on the Effective Date and as modified from time to time, during the term of this Agreement. These amounts shall be annually adjusted to take into consideration wage rates and overhead adjustments for Community Services Department’s services implemented by the COUNTY. Annual increases in wage rates shall be reflected in invoicing. The total compensation as of the Effective Date of this Agreement is detailed below in Figure 1: Figure 1. CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER 1.0 FTE Co-Response Clinical Social Worker 10/21/24-12/31/24 Wages/ Benefits Admin/Operation Cost 1/1/25-9/30/25 Wages/ Benefits Admin/Operation Cost 10/1/25-12/31/25 Wages/ Benefits Admin/Operation Cost Law Enforcement Portion (25%) $8,587.50 (25%) $25,762.50 (50%) $17,175 Community Services Portion (75%) 25,762.50 (75%) $77, 287.50 (50%) $17,175 Total $34,350 $103,050 $34,350 2024 2025 2025 Calendar Year Total $137,400 $34,350 The total compensation as of January 1, 2026 to December 31, 2026 is detailed below in Figure 2: Figure 2. 1.0 FTE Co-Response Team Embedded Clinical Social Worker 2026 Wages/Benefits/Admin Costs includes 7% increase for wage rates and overhead adjustments Law Enforcement Portion (50%) $73,509 Community Services Portion (50%) $73,509 Total $147,018 CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA 1 City Council Action Request 7.L. Meeting Date 11/5/2025 Department Public Safety Agenda Category Action Item Title Companion Animal Care & Control Impounding Services Agreement Staff Recommendation Approve the Agreement for Professional Services for Impound Housing Services 2026 between Companion Animal Care & Control (CACC) and City of Cottage Grove. Budget Implication Impounding Services in 2026 preliminary budget. Attachments 1. Animal Impound Memo to Council Companion Animal Care & Control Nov 2025 2. 2026 MN CACC Agreement To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Peter J Koerner, Director of Public Safety Brad Petersen, Deputy Director of Public Safety Date: October 27, 2025 Subject: COMPANION ANIMAL CONTROL IMPOUNDING SERVICES AGREEMENT • For the public: offering premium dog daycare, boarding, spa services, and event hosting. • For municipalities: serving as the dedicated home base for Companion Animal Care & Control, providing safe and Fear Free Certified housing for animals under our municipal contracts with the intent to reunite animals with their owners or secure placement for unclaimed animals with local 501c3 rescue partners. Per-Animal Fees (Comparison to AHS) Service Type CACC AHS RECOMMENDATIONS Agreement for Services Companion Animal Control LLC & Companion Animal Care LLC DBA Companion Animal Care & Control at The Companion Animal Center 1480 Helmo Ave North Oakdale, MN 55128 And ______________City of Cottage Grove______________ <Municipality> Scope of Services – IMPOUND BOARDING ONLY Under this agreement, Companion Animal Care & Control (CACC): 1.Animal Intake & Housing a)Provides housing for stray or abandoned animals delivered by law enforcement officers. b)May accept animals dropped off by citizens, provided CACC verifies the animal was found within the jurisdiction and space permits. c)Provides housing and care compliant with licensing by the Minnesota Board of Animal Health. d)Maintains animals for the required MN holding period by intake type, or until owner reclaim. 2.Disposition & Live Outcomes a)Retains sole authority for disposition of animals not reclaimed after the holding period. b)Evaluates all animals during the holding period for appropriate live outcomes, including private adoption, rescue transfer, or other placement, while prioritizing public safety. c)Provides humane euthanasia when deemed necessary, performed by a licensed veterinarian. d)May place animals in foster homes during the hold period to ensure welfare when medically or behaviorally appropriate. e)May accept owner-surrendered animals (not stray/at-large) at no cost to the municipality. 3.Ownership & Release a)May require proof of ownership and compliance with applicable laws prior to release of any animal. b)Impound, boarding and care fees are the responsibility of the owner; failure to comply results in abandonment. CACC retains sole discretion to return animals directly to owners or caretakers, including the ability to waive fees. c)Is not responsible for collecting municipal fees from owners. 4.Health, Safety & Medical Care a)Provides rabies quarantine and diagnostic services for dogs, cats, or ferrets that have bitten a person, as required by Minnesota law. b)May relinquish severely injured animals to a veterinary clinic or approved 501(c)(3) rescue when immediate care is required. In such cases, expenses are the responsibility of the owner if located; recovery of expenses and return of the animal is managed by the treating clinic or rescue. CACC is not responsible for outcomes, including euthanasia. c)CACC is not responsible for sick or injured animals outside hours of operation at the Companion Animal Center, law enforcement must medically be stabilized by seeking care at a veterinary clinic before such an animal can be impounded. 5.Operational & Policy Framework a)Requires LEOs to contact CACC for guidance prior to impounding seized animals that are not stray or abandoned; housing for these cases (hoarding, seizures, etc.) is not guaranteed. b)Will not accept un-handleable feral cats, except for bite quarantines or injured animals with prior approval. c)Shall not be mandated to provide services that contradict CACC’s mission or philosophy of animal welfare. d)Makes CACC policies available to the municipality upon request. e)Posts all stray/at-large animals impounded on www.companionanimalcontro.com. Fee Schedule – IMPOUND BOARDING ONLY Scope of Services – RESERVE ANIMAL CONTROL The purpose of the Reserve Animal Control agreement is to provide occasional, as-needed support to law enforcement and municipal officials, most often in situations involving dangerous dogs, hard-to- capture animals, or concerns related to animal neglect and welfare. This service is designed to supplement, not replace, a jurisdiction’s primary law enforcement response. As this service is also in addition to the impound service, the fees listed below are in addition to the impound fees. Under this agreement, Companion Animal Care & Control (CACC): 1.Call Response & Animal Handling a)Responds only when requested by law enforcement or municipal officials to transport dogs and cats for impoundment at the Companion Animal Center when public safety is at risk. b)Refers stray pickup calls received directly from the public back to the municipality for standard response and transport. Monthly Retainer Pricing by Human Population Human Population Retainer A: <1,000 $25 B: 1,001–2,000 $50 C: 2,001–3,000 $100 D: 3,001–5,000 $150 E: 5,001–10,000 $200 F: 10,001–20,000 $250 G: 20,001–50,000 $300 H: 50,001+ $400 Per Animal Fee Schedule: •Standard stray/seized/abandoned animal (not reclaimed): $200 per dog or cat •Other small domestic animals (rabbits, guinea pigs, birds, etc.): $50 each •Reclaimed animals: no housing fee charged to the municipality (owner pays directly) •Litters of puppies or kittens under 8 weeks: count as one animal fee, not per individual •DOA (deceased on arrival): $75 •Medical stabilization or euthanasia (when necessary): up to $150 •Rabies/bite quarantine (10-day, unclaimed stray): $50 per day, billed to the municipality •Rabies/bite quarantine (if owner known at intake): owner pays full fee upfront; municipality not charged unless owner is unable to pay and quarantine is required. If owner does not pay, animal is relinquished. c)Provides capture and transport of contained dogs and cats, and evaluates requests for other animal species on a case-by-case basis in coordination with law enforcement. d)Ends call response if the rightful owner is identified or a response is cancelled, with service fees still applicable. CACC is not responsible for collecting ownership information provided by a finder. 2.Operations & Availability a)Supplies all necessary equipment to perform contracted services. b)Remains available for call response at all times, however generally responding only to urgent or high-priority cases. 3.Records & Municipal Support a)Maintains accurate records of its activities and makes them available to the municipality upon request. b)Assists municipalities in interpreting and refining animal ordinances or procedures to promote humane treatment and public safety. Fee Schedule – RESERVE ANIMAL CONTROL Scope of Services – FULL-SERVICE ANIMAL CONTROL The purpose of the Full-Service Animal Control agreement is to relieve law enforcement of the day- to-day responsibility of stray animal pickup and to provide direct enforcement of animal-related laws. CACC collaborates closely with law enforcement on investigations involving animal cruelty, neglect, abandonment, outdoor housing, and related issues. Provides extensive support and handling of potentially dangerous & dangerous dog cases, alleviating officers from these cases beyond their initial response and incident report. This approach allows officers to focus on public safety while ensuring animals are managed professionally, humanely, and in compliance with municipal ordinances and state statutes. As this service is also in addition to the impound service, the fees listed below are in addition to the impound fees. Monthly Retainer Pricing by Human Population Population Retainer A: <1,000 $25 B: 1,001–2,000 $40 C: 2,001–3,000 $50 D: 3,001–5,000 $75 E: 5,001–20,000 $100 F: 20,001–50,000 $125 G: 50,001–50,000 $150 H: 50,001+ $200 Call Response/Dispatch Service Fees •Daytime call response (7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m.): $100 per call •Overnight call response (7:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.): $175 per call •Mileage: Round-trip mileage at IRS business rate •Multiple-animal fee: $35 per additional animal when two or more animals are involved in the same call (litters under 3 months count as one animal) •Enforcement duties: $45 per hour for enforcement-related work, including but not limited to: o Court hearings and testimony o Animal welfare checks o Kennel inspections o Bite and dangerous dog investigations o Seizure of animals o Cruelty/neglect case processing o Other enforcement activities as required •Holiday response surcharge: $80 per call Under this agreement, Companion Animal Care & Control (CACC): 1.Call Response & Animal Handling a)Responds directly to requests from law enforcement, municipal officials, and members of the public to investigate and address animal-related complaints. b)Provides capture, collection, and transport of stray or contained dogs and cats, and evaluates response needs for other animal species on a case-by-case basis in coordination with law enforcement. 2.Operations & Enforcement a)Supplies all equipment necessary to carry out contracted services. b)Works alongside municipal law enforcement to enforce ordinances, issue citations, and ensure compliance with animal-related laws. c)Maintains 24/7 availability for call response, including nights and holidays. 3.Records & Municipal Support a)Documents all activities with accurate records and makes them available to the municipality upon request. b)Assists municipalities in the preparation and interpretation of animal ordinances and procedures to promote humane treatment and public safety. 4.Management of Potentially Dangerous & Dangerous Dogs (PDD/DD) CACC provides centralized administration, enforcement, and compliance management of Minnesota’s Potentially Dangerous Dog (PDD) and Dangerous Dog (DD) statutes, as codified under Minn. Stat. §§ 347.50–347.565. These services are available to jurisdictions with a Full- Service Animal Control agreement and include, but are not limited to: a)Officer Support & Consultation – Real-time consultation during bite investigations, including statutory interpretation and investigative guidance. b)Incident Report Review & Classification – Review of all bite reports to determine classification: No Action, PDD, or DD. c)Review of Bite Procedures & Quarantine Forms – Evaluation of current forms and protocols for alignment with statutory requirements. d)Ordinance & Statutory Compliance Review – Cross-referencing ordinances with state law to ensure compliance. e)Property History & Case Review – Review of historical incidents and enforcement actions tied to owners or addresses. f)Owner Notification & Documentation – Drafting and mailing of legally compliant declaration letters, including rights, responsibilities, and appeal procedures. g)Digital Compliance Management – Airtable-based system for submission and monitoring of required owner documentation (e.g., rabies vaccination, microchip, insurance, muzzle, secure enclosure). h)Declaration Records Management – Centralized tracking of declarations, renewals, expirations, and appeals; preparation for integration with statewide registry requirements. i)Public Education & Resource Distribution – Providing owner education regarding responsibilities, aggression prevention, and resources for bite victims. j)Public Safety Mapping – Development of an interactive online mapping tool displaying generalized locations and compliance status of declared dogs. k)Hearing Officer & Due Process Support – Serving as a neutral hearing officer for appeals to ensure fairness and due process. l)Annual Reporting – Providing annual reports by jurisdiction, including declarations, compliance rates, and policy recommendations. m)Legislative Monitoring & Readiness – Ongoing monitoring of state legislation with guidance on implementation requirements. Fee Schedule– FULL-SERVICE ANIMAL CONTROL Municipality Agrees To (applies to all service options) 1.Law Enforcement & Animal Intake a)Ensure law enforcement officers (LEOs) follow Companion Animal Care’s established drop-off procedures, including animal housing and paperwork requirements b)Allow Companion Animal Care to provide training for LEOs on drop-off procedures and paperwork 2.Billing & Payments a)Accept invoices sent via email during the first week of each month b)Submit payment within 30 days of invoice date c)Raise any billing disputes within 10 days of receipt d)Recognize that invoices will include: case number, date, time, call location, animal details, mileage, fee details, animal outcome (if hold completed), and relevant case notes 3.Ordinance & Statutory Compliance a)Adhere to all applicable state laws and local ordinances relating to animals b)Ensure municipal ordinances are not contradictory to this agreement or to Minnesota Statutes c)Align municipal holding periods with the minimum holding periods required by Minnesota State Statutes Monthly Retainer Pricing by Human Population Population Retainer A: <1,000 $25 B: 1,001–2,000 $50 C: 2,001–3,000 $100 D: 3,001–5,000 $150 E: 5,001–10,000 $200 F: 10,001–20,000 $300 G: 20,001–50,000 $350 H: >50,001 $400 Call Response/Dispatch Service Fees •Daytime call response (7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m.): $100 per call •Overnight call response (7:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.): $175 per call •Mileage: Round-trip mileage billed in accordance with the current IRS business rate •Multiple-animal fee: $35 per additional animal when two or more animals are involved in the same call (litters under 3 months count as one animal) •Enforcement duties: $45 per hour for enforcement-related work, including but not limited to: o Court hearings and testimony o Animal welfare checks o Kennel inspections o Bite and dangerous dog investigations o Seizure of animals o Cruelty/neglect case processing o Other enforcement activities as required •Holiday response surcharge: $80 per call Potentially Dangerous & Dangerous Dog Declarations: •Per-Case Owner Fees – Charged directly to owners of declared dogs. o No Declaration Issued: $0 (case review and officer support covered by retainer) o Potentially Dangerous Dog Declaration: $150 per dog o Dangerous Dog Declaration: $500 per dog 4.Community & Governance a)Remain available to community members to address concerns related to the actions of law enforcement officers or municipal policies, procedures, and requirements b)Provide Companion Animal Control with timely notice if any animal-related topic is added to a City Council Meeting agenda 5.Public Communication a)Post the Companion Animal Control website link and phone number on the municipality’s website 6.Documentation & Records Provide Companion Animal Control with the following documentation, if applicable based on municipal ordinances: a)List of existing animal licenses b)List of existing kennel permits Insurance Requirements Companion Animal Care LLC & Companion Animal Control LLC shall procure and maintain, at its expense, general liability insurance coverage in the amounts listed below and shall provide to Municipality a Certificate of Insurance as evidence that the coverages are in full force and effect.: a)General Aggregate: $2,000,000 b)Products and Completed Operations $2,000,000 c)Each Occurrence: $1,000,000 d)Personal and Advertising Injury: $1,000,000 e)Damage to Premises: $100,000 Indemnification a)To the fullest extent permitted by law, Companion Animal Care agrees to defend and indemnify Municipality, and its officers, employees, and volunteers, from and against all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from the performance of work under this agreement; but only to the extent caused in whole or in part by the negligent acts, errors or omissions of Companion Animal Care, Companion Animal Care’s sub, Companion Animal Control(s), or anyone directly or indirectly employed or hired by Companion Animal Care, or anyone for whose acts Companion Animal Care may be liable. Companion Animal Care agrees this indemnity obligation shall survive the completion or termination of this agreement. b)To the fullest extent permitted by law, Companion Animal Control agrees to defend and indemnify Municipality, and its officers, employees, and volunteers, from and against all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from the performance of work under this agreement; but only to the extent caused in whole or in part by the negligent acts, errors or omissions of Companion Animal Control, Companion Animal Control’s sub, Companion Animal Control(s), or anyone directly or indirectly employed or hired by Companion Animal Control, or anyone for whose acts Companion Animal Control may be liable. Companion Animal Control agrees this indemnity obligation shall survive the completion or termination of this agreement. c)To the fullest extent permitted by law, Municipality agrees to defend and indemnify Companion Animal Control, and its officers, employees, and volunteers, from and against all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including attorney fees, arising out of or resulting from the performance of work under this agreement; but only to the extent caused in whole or in part by the negligent acts, errors or omissions of Municipality, or anyone directly or indirectly employed or hired by Municipality, or anyone for whose acts Municipality may be liable. Municipality agrees this indemnity obligation shall survive the completion or termination of this agreement. Term a)This Contract shall become effective upon its execution by both parties and continue annually, subject to termination upon 30-day advance written notification of termination by either party. Fees will be evaluated by Companion Animal Control on an annual basis for cost-of-living adjustments up to 10%, any adjustments will be communicated in writing to Municipality. No amendment or modification of this agreement shall be effective unless made in writing and signed by both parties. All provisions of this contract relating to insurance, indemnity and compliance with the State Data Practices act shall survive termination to the full extent needed for the protection of the Municipality, Companion Animal Control and Companion Animal Care. b)If requested by either party at any time a contractual review shall be completed for the purpose of determining the effectiveness of the program, review costs and to implement improvement measures. Service Selection The Municipality hereby selects the following level of contract services with Companion Animal Care & Control (CACC). Please check one option: ☐Impound Boarding Only This agreement is made pursuant to the authority granted to municipalities under Minn. Stat. § 412.221, subd. 21 (municipal power to regulate animals and establish pounds), Minn. Stat. § 35.71 (authority to establish and regulate animal pounds) ☐Reserve Animal Control + Impound Boarding This agreement is made pursuant to the authority granted to municipalities under Minn. Stat. § 412.221, subd. 21 (municipal power to regulate animals and establish pounds), Minn. Stat. § 35.71 (authority to establish and regulate animal pounds). By this agreement, the Municipality also designates Companion Animal Care & Control (CACC) as its Animal Control Authority for the purposes of Minn. Stat. §§ 347.50–347.565 and other applicable Minnesota Statutes, with all powers and duties therein. ☐Full-Service Animal Control + Impound Boarding This agreement is made pursuant to the authority granted to municipalities under Minn. Stat. § 412.221, subd. 21 (municipal power to regulate animals and establish pounds), Minn. Stat. § 35.71 (authority to establish and regulate animal pounds). By this agreement, the Municipality also designates Companion Animal Care & Control (CACC) as its Animal Control Authority for the purposes of Minn. Stat. §§ 347.50–347.565 and other applicable Minnesota Statutes, with all powers and duties therein. This agreement is entered into on the 5th day of November, 2025 by __________________________________ Mayor _________________________________ City Clerk 1 City Council Action Request 7.M. Meeting Date 11/5/2025 Department Public Safety Agenda Category Action Item Title Fire Cadet Agreement Staff Recommendation Authorize the Fire Cadet Agreement between the City of Cottage Grove and Leah Panagiotopoulos. Budget Implication Approved in 2025 City Budget Attachments 1. Fire Cadet Agreement Council Memo (LP) 10.29.25 2. Fire Cadet agreement (Cottage Grove) LP 10.28.25 signed To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Peter J Koerner, Director of Public Safety Date: October 29, 2025 Subject: FIRE CADET AGREEMENT INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND RECOMMENDATION 1 CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE DIVISION FIRE CADET This Fire Cadet Program Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into by and between the City of Cottage Grove (hereinafter “CITY”) and Leah Panagiotopoulos (hereinafter “Employee”). RECITALS WHEREAS, Employee has been offered employment by the City of Cottage Grove as a full-time Fire Cadet (32 hours per week average) with the understanding that he/she will complete certain specialty training and educational requirements in order to become a Minnesota licensed Firefighter, and Minnesota certified Emergency Medical Technician (“EMT”) and obtain national registration; and WHEREAS, CITY is providing the opportunity for the Employee to complete such specialty training and education in anticipation of Employee continuing to work for the CITY as a full-time, Firefighter, enabling the CITY to recover some of the benefit of the investment in the Employee’s specialty training and certification; and WHEREAS, Employee must obtain a Minnesota Firefighter License, national registration, and Minnesota EMT certification; and WHEREAS, CITY and Employee recognize that this Agreement is not intended to constitute a guarantee of continued employment with the CITY after their Fire Cadet period has concluded; and WHEREAS, Employee understands that the CITY would not provide such specialty training and/or certification unless the Employee intended to continue to work for the CITY, and, therefore, agrees to reimburse the CITY in the event the Employee voluntarily terminates his/her employment with the CITY or fails to abide by the terms and conditions of this Agreement after completion of the specialty training and/or license. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the CITY and Employee agree as follows: (1) The CITY agrees to employ Employee as a full-time Fire Cadet. Employee agrees to pursue and complete the Firefighter and EMT training and 2 certification program within nine (9) months of the date Employee began his/her employment with the City. The Firefighter training program must be approved by the Minnesota Board of Firefighter Training and Education (“MBFTE”) and the EMT program must be approved by the State of Minnesota Office of Emergency Medical Services (“OEMS”) and National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians (“NREMT”). (2) Provided Employee meets the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, the CITY agrees to pay the cost of tuition, books and fees associated with Employee’s completion of the Firefighter and EMT training and certification programs. (3) Employee agrees to obtain Firefighter licensure with the MBFTE within sixty (60) days of eligibility and within nine (9) months of the date Employee began his/her employment with the CITY. Failure to meet this requirement may result in termination of employment as a full-time Fire Cadet with the CITY. The CITY may extend this time requirement based upon availability of approved Firefighter and EMT training and certifications programs. (4) Employee agrees to obtain EMT certification with the NREMT and OEMS within sixty (60) days of eligibility and within nine (9) months of the date Employee began his/her employment with the CITY. Failure to meet this requirement may result in termination of employment as a full-time Fire Cadet with the CITY. (5) Employee agrees to participate in and pursue the Firefighter and EMT training and certification program to the best of their ability and use reasonable efforts to complete the program. Should the Employee not complete the program, fail the program, withdraw or be expelled from the program, the CITY’s obligations under this Agreement shall immediately cease. (6) Employee agrees to work as a full-time Fire Cadet with the Cottage Grove Fire Department while completing his/her Firefighter and EMT training and certification programs. (7) Employee agrees to work as a full-time Fire Cadet for the Cottage Grove Fire Department for a period of one (1) year commencing immediately upon becoming licensed as a Firefighter and obtaining EMT certification. The one (1) year will begin upon completing both required license and certifications for the Fire Cadet position. (8) The CITY agrees to employ Employee as a full-time Fire Cadet with the Cottage Grove Fire Department for up to three (3) years from original hire date. 3 (9) Employee shall be obligated to reimburse the CITY for any and all payments made by the CITY toward the cost of his/her tuition, books, and fees that are associated with Employee’s completion of the Firefighter and EMT training and certification program if any of the following occur: A. Failure to obtain Firefighter license from the MBFTE within sixty (60) days of completion of the Firefighter training program. B. Failure to obtain EMT certification from NREMT and OEMS within sixty (60) days of completion of the EMT training program. C. Termination from the position of Fire Cadet for poor job performance. D. Conviction of a crime or other activity which would prevent him/her from obtaining and maintaining a Firefighter license and/or EMT certification. E. Failure to complete the Cottage Grove Fire Cadet one-year probationary period, which commences on the date of employment as a full-time Fire Cadet. F. Resignation from the position of Fire Cadet with the Cottage Grove Fire Department prior to completing one (1) year of service in that position after obtaining both a Firefighter license and EMT certification. (10) Employee agrees that in the event he/she fails to meet any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement and becomes obligated to reimburse the City for tuition, books and fees, said reimbursement shall be paid in accordance with the following schedule: A. 100% reimbursement if termination occurs prior to completing six (6) months of service as a Fire Cadet with the CITY after obtaining Firefighter license and EMT certification. B. 50% reimbursement if termination occurs prior to completing one (1) year of service as a Fire Cadet with the CITY after obtaining Firefighter license and EMT certification. C. No reimbursement is required after Employee has served as a Fire Cadet for one (1) year with the CITY. D. No reimbursement is required if the Employee is hired as a Full-time Firefighter/EMT prior to the completion of the one (1) year service requirement. 4 If Employee is obligated to repay any amount expended by the CITY for tuition, books and fees, pursuant to this Agreement, the amount reimbursed shall be paid to the CITY in full within one hundred and twenty (120) days of the event triggering the necessity for repayment. The Cottage Grove City Council may, at its sole discretion, allow additional time for Employee to repay the amount due. Employee authorizes CITY to deduct the amount of any reimbursement obligation owed from any compensation due and owing to Employee at the time of separation from employment, including, but not limited to, wages, or Annual Leave pay. (11) Any notice required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and may be given by personal delivery, email or by mail to the following addresses: If to CITY: City of Cottage Grove 12800 Ravine Parkway S Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Attention: Director of Public Safety Or emailed: PKoerner@cottagegrovemn.gov If to Employee: Leah Panagiotopoulos 12800 Ravine Parkway S Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Or emailed: leahpuck12@icloud.com (12) Employee hereby indemnifies and holds harmless the CITY from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, damages and other losses which the Employee suffers or incurs as a result of any governmental taxing authority assessing the reimbursement of the tuition, books, and fee payments made pursuant to this Agreement as a benefit to the Employee. (13) The terms and conditions set forth herein constitute the entire agreement between the CITY and Employee and supersede any communications or previous agreements with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. There are no written or oral understandings directly or indirectly related to this Agreement that are not set forth herein. No change can be made to this Agreement unless made in writing and signed by both CITY and Employee. (14) CITY and Employee agree that any action to interpret or enforce this Agreement shall be governed and enforced according to the laws of the State of Minnesota and any dispute under this Agreement must be venued in Washington County District Court. 5 (15) If any term of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, then this Agreement, including all of the remaining terms, will remain in full force and effect as if such invalid or unenforceable term had never been included. (16) This Agreement shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of CITY and Employee. This Agreement is not assignable without the mutual written agreement of the CITY and Employee. (17) All data collected by the CITY pursuant to this Agreement shall be subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. [The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank] 6 I have read the foregoing Agreement and acknowledge that it is the complete agreement, and by signing below, I affirm that I fully understand and agree to its terms and conditions. CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE EMPLOYEE 1 City Council Action Request 7.N. Meeting Date 11/5/2025 Department Public Safety Agenda Category Action Item Title Authorization to Order 2026 Patrol Vehicles Staff Recommendation Authorization to order three 2026 Dodge Durangos in 2025 during the state contract pricing vehicle ordering window. Budget Implication In 2026 Prelimary Budget Attachments 1. Council Authorization to Order 2026 Squads 10272025 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Peter J Koerner, Director of Public Safety Date: October 27, 2025 Subject: AUTHORIZATION TO ORDER 2026 PATROL VEHICLES INTRODUCTION/JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION 1 City Council Action Request 7.O. Meeting Date 11/5/2025 Department Public Works Agenda Category Action Item Title Defensive Driving Training Agreement Staff Recommendation Authorize the Customized Training Income Contract between Dakota County Technical College and the City of Cottage Grove. Budget Implication $2,000 split between attending public works & parks maintenance divisions. Attachments 1. Council Memo- Defensive Driving 2. Defensive Driving 10_23_2025 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator From: CC: Gavin Hochstetler, Management Analyst Ryan Burfeind, Public Works Director Date: November 5, 2025 Subject: Winter Related Defensive Driving Training Introduction/Background The City of Cottage Grove has previously attended a Winter Related Defensive Driving Training at Dakota County Technical College as part of its ongoing commitment to safety and risk management. Staff recently worked to renew the agreement from Dakota County Technical College for the Winter Related Defensive Driving Class. The proposed Customized Training Income Contract between Dakota County Technical College and the City of Cottage Grove was submitted to both the Office of the Minnesota Attorney General and the City of Cottage Grove Attorney’s Office for legal review. Both offices have since reviewed and approved the contract language. A scheduled date for training of November 26, 2025, has been agreed upon by both Dakota County Technical College and the City of Cottage Grove. Staff Recommendation Authorize the Customized Training Income Contract between Dakota County Technical College and the City of Cottage Grove. 1 F.Y. Cost Center Obj. Code Amount Vendor # P.O. # 2025 216-126 STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES DAKOTA COUNTY TECHNICAL COLLEGE CUSTOMIZED TRAINING INCOME CONTRACT Dakota County Technical College (hereafter “COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY”) by virtue of its delegated authority from the Board of Trustees of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities and City of Cottage Grove Public Works, 8635 W. Point Douglas Rd S, Cottage Grove, MN 55016 (hereafter “PURCHASER”) agrees as follows: I. DUTIES OF THE COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY: The COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY agrees to provide the following: Title of Instruction/Activity/Service: Defensive Driving Snow Plow Date(s) of Instruction/Activity/Service: November 26, 2025 Instructor/Trainer/Consultant: DCTC Location: DCTC – Truck Driver Training/Driver Training Facility Other Provisions: No Charge for weather related cancellations II. DUTIES OF THE PURCHASER: The PURCHASER agrees to provide: Drivers and Vehicles for training, 2 drivers per vehicle. PURCHASER shall be solely responsible for the fuel for the Snow Plow vehicles and for their condition. For this training the PURCHASER shall provide 5 Snow plows and a total of 10 operators. The operators will be PURCHASER employees taking this training as part of their job duties with the PURCHASER. III. SITE OF INSTRUCTION/ACTIVITY/SERVICE: DCTC shall make all of the arrangements, including any payment, for the location to be used for the Instruction/Activity/Service. IV. CONSIDERATION AND TERMS OF PAYMENT: A. Cost. Cost of Instruction/Activity/Service (total or per hour): $200 per operator Other fees: N/A Notwithstanding the thirty (30) day notice period established in paragraph VII, in the event that the PURCHASER desires to cancel or reschedule the Instruction/Activity/Service due to low enrollment, PURCHASER shall give at least seven days notice in writing to the COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY’S authorized agent to cancel or reschedule. If the Instruction/Activity/Service is canceled as provided herein, the COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY shall be entitled to payment calculated according to paragraph VII. If the Instruction/Activity/Service is rescheduled as provided herein, payment shall be according to this paragraph IV. 2 B. Terms of Payment. The COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY will send an invoice for the Instruction/ Activity/Service performed. The PURCHASER will pay within 30 days of receiving the invoice. Please send payment to: Dakota County Technical College Attn Accounts Receivable 1300 145th Street East Rosemount, MN 55068-2999 V. AUTHORIZED AGENTS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CONTRACT: A. PURCHASER’S authorized agent: Gavin Hochstetler, ghochstetler@cottagegrovemn.gov B. COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY authorized agent: Bob Trewartha, Director of Customized Training & Continuing Education or other designated agent. VI TERM OF CONTRACT: A. Effective date: This contract shall commence at 8 AM on November 26, 2025, and terminate at 2:30 PM that same day. Terms of this contract which by their nature should survive termination of this contract shall survive. B. End date:, November 26, 2025, or until all obligations set forth in this contract have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever occurs first. VII. CANCELLATION. This contract may be canceled by the PURCHASER or the COLLEGE/ UNIVERSITY at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other party. In the event of such a cancellation, the COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY shall be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for work or Instruction/Activity/Service satisfactorily performed. VIII. ASSIGNMENT. Neither the PURCHASER nor the COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY shall assign or transfer any rights or obligations under this contract without the prior written approval of the other party. IX. LIABILITY. To the extent allowed by law, the PURCHASER shall indemnify, save, and hold the COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY, its representatives and employees, harmless from any and all claims or causes of action, including all attorneys’ fees incurred by the COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY, arising from the performance of this contract by the PURCHASER or PURCHASER’S agents or employees. This clause shall not be construed to bar any legal remedies the PURCHASER may have for the COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY’S failure to fulfill its obligations pursuant to this contract. The COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY’S liability shall be in conformance with the Minnesota Tort Claims Act, Minnesota statutes section 3.736 and other applicable Minnesota law. X. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COMPLIANCE. The PURCHASER agrees that in fulfilling the duties of this contract, the PURCHASER is responsible for complying with the applicable provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12101, et seq. and regulations promulgated pursuant to it. The COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY IS NOT responsible for issues or challenges related to compliance with the ADA beyond its own routine use of facilities, services, or other areas covered by the ADA. XI. AMENDMENTS. Any amendments to this contract shall be in writing and shall be executed by the same parties who executed the original contract or their successors in office. XII. GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES ACT. The PURCHASER must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statues Chapter 13, as it applies to all data provided by the COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY in accordance with this contract, and as it applies to all data, created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the PURCHASER in accordance with this contract. 3 The civil remedies of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.08 apply to the release of the data referred to in this Article by either the PURCHASER or the COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY. In the event the PURCHASER receives a request to release the data referred to in this Article, the PURCHASER must immediately notify the COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY. The COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY will give the PURCHASER instructions concerning the release of the data to the requesting party before the data is released. XIII. RIGHTS IN ORIGINAL MATERIALS. The Dakota County Technical College shall own all rights, including all intellectual property rights, in all original materials, including any curriculum materials, inventions, reports, studies, designs, drawings, specifications, notes, documents, software and documentation, computer based training modules, electronically or magnetically recorded materials, and other work in whatever form, developed by the COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY and its employees individually or jointly with others or any sub PURCHASER in the performance of its obligations under this contract. This provision shall not apply to the following materials: N/A XIV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE. This contract, and amendments and supplements thereto, shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. Venue for all legal proceedings arising out of this contract, or breach thereof, shall be in the state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota. XV. OTHER PROVISIONS. (Attach additional page(s) if necessary): Not Applicable IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this contract to be duly executed intending to be bound thereby. APPROVED: 1. PURCHASER: Cottage Grove Public Works PURCHASER certifies that the appropriate person(s) has executed the contract on behalf of PURCHASER as required by applicable articles, by-laws, resolutions, or ordinances. 2. MINNESOTA STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES Dakota County Technical College By (authorized signature) By (authorized College/University signature) Title Title Date Date By (authorized signature) Title Date MnSCU 003 07/07/03 1 City Council Action Request 7.P. Meeting Date 11/5/2025 Department IT Department Agenda Category Action Item Title Marco VaaS 365, Teams Phone Managed Services Staff Recommendation Staff recommend approval of the VaaS365 Service agreement with Marco Technologies and approval of additional licensing required for MS Teams Voice. Budget Implication Budget — Professional Services and Capital Outlay through savings in 2025. The VaaS365 agreement removes previous annual support agreements with Marco Technologies and Comcast in the amount of $12,595.31 and is replaced with the new agreement. Additionally, IT staff will be retiring 5 phone servers with an approximate annualized cost savings of approximately $5,000 a server (labor, hardware, etc.). * Cost comparison included at end of packet. • VaaS365 SIP services and management services — $2,032 monthly • MS365 Teams Voice Licensing – $1,403 monthly • One-time Setup charges — $11,463 • One-time Hardware (phone and intercom replacement) $10,240 Attachments 1. CityCouncilVaas365RequestV2 Brenda Malinowski, Finance Director Lisa Kalka, System Administrator The City of Cottage Grove internal phone systems have been in place using the Mitel phone system for over 15 years. Though the phone system has served well for the city, it has not kept pace with newer, more efficient phone systems that allow for more flexibility, less resource overhead and ease of use. In 2024, Cottage Grove IT staff began to investigate alternative voice over internet protocol (VoIP) systems that would serve city staff. It was determined that since city staff relies on Microsoft products for day- to-day processes and procedures, Microsoft Teams Voice would be the best solution. IT staff solicited quotes for comparison from two primary city approved Information Technology/Voice providers for the transition to Microsoft Teams and migration of the City’s legacy phone systems. It was determined that Marco Technologies was the best resource for the transition based on features, pricing and historical experience. The City of Cottage Grove has partnered with Marco Technologies as a phone consultant for over 15 years. After researching comparable vendors for voice management expertise, it was determined that continued partnership through Marco’s Vaas365 program was the best program. The VaaS 365 program will assist IT staff to move city systems to a more modern MS Teams voice solution. Services included with the program include but are not limited to: • 24x7x365 monitoring and end-user support • Telephone number porting and migration of current phone systems • End-user training • Administration training • Rapid resolution (triage and remediation) • Onsite Support for issues not resolved remotely Teams Phone Services vs Mitel (Legacy Phone System) Several items were looked at by Cottage Grove IT staff comparing the differences between Teams Voice and the current Mitel phone system. Customer service and efficiency were the key items looked at in the comparison between the two systems. • Resource allocation (staff time and hardware resources) o Mitel requires 5 on-premises servers to provide phone services. These servers consume IT staff time and hardware resources typical with physical virtualization systems such as power, hardware replacements, security, vulnerability patching, updates, etc. o Teams Voice is cloud driven, requiring no on-premises servers and allows for faster remote administrative management by IT staff. • Customization o Mitel has legacy fixed features that require specialized training for software management, network and device management. Features such as voicemail to email are inconsistent. Switching settings at a moment notice to allow for emergency changes require specialized training. o Teams Voice allows system administrators to make immediate changes. Since MS Teams is integrated into the Microsoft environment, email, chat, video and other features are fully integrated into Teams Voice. VaaS365 adds expert support 24x7x365 which gives the city round the clock support when needed without adding additional staff. Migrating to Teams Voice and Vaas365 with Marco Technologies is a planned migration for the 2026 preliminary budget cycle. One-time setup charges and hardware fit under the 2025 budget cycle for Professional Services and Capital Outlay through savings in 2025. The VaaS365 agreement removes previous annual support agreements with Marco Technologies and Comcast in the amount of $12,595.31 and replaces it with the new agreement. Additionally, IT staff will be retiring 5 phone servers with an approximate annualized cost of approximately $5,000 a server (labor, hardware, etc.). • VaaS365 SIP services and management services - $2,032 monthly o Named user accounts come with a DID, a SIP Trunk and Unlimited Support o Supports conference room, common area, breakroom type devices. Can also be used for connection to overhead paging, door phones and other common area devices o Resource accounts are for main numbers that need to route to Auto Attendants or Call Queues from external callers. o Marco - VaaS - Additional DID - Includes an additional DID or Telephone Number. • MS365 Teams Voice Licensing – $1,403 monthly • One-time Setup charges - $11,463 • One-time Hardware (phone and intercom replacement) $10,240 Staff Recommendation Staff recommend approval of the VaaS365 Service agreement with Marco Technologies and approval of additional licensing required for MS Teams Voice. 0 VAAS365 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Prepared for: City of Cottage Grove September 24, 2025 Prepared by: Samantha Easterday Solutions Architect samantha.easterday@marconet.com @ 2024 MARCO. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. CURRENT SITUATION We appreciate the opportunity to present this summary that outlines our VaaS365 Solution. Marco is the largest independently owned technology services provider in the country, servicing over 17,000 customers throughout the upper Midwest, East Coast and nationally. If chosen for this strategic partnership, our commitment is to be your trusted partner. As an integral part of your organization’s critical support team, we will be serving as subject matter experts, working with your core team members through involvement, collaboration, development, and refinement of the following: • Providing ongoing assistance to you and your team through our dedicated support teams. BUSINESS VALUE TO YOUR ORGANIZATION The value of creating this partnership is as follows: • Allows you to focus on your business, not getting bogged down with technology issues, research, or end-user problems. • Access to our large bench of technical experts without having to hire and maintain this costly expertise in-house. MEASUREMENTS OF SUCCESS Success will be determined by: • Improvements in internal end-user experience. • Improved response times resulting in minimal downtime. • Allowing your team to focus on revenue generating activities vs IT. METHODOLOGY The following components will be used to achieve the desired outcomes: • Support: As your team encounters technology related issues, your dedicated remote Support Desk team will be available to help. Your organization will be assigned to our dedicated voice support team. This allows our organizations to best understand company culture, build strong personal relationships and increase efficiency as our teams work more fluently together. You will have the comfort of a small company feel with the peace of mind knowing Marco has a dedicated support team for your needs. When calling Marco’s Support Desk, your employees will get a live person 95% of the time. Other options of gaining support are via email, online chat and through our self-service portal. • On-Site Support: Included in our offering is the on-site support component in the event of an issue requiring on-site service. In the event of a system failure, which cannot be handled remotely, our team will respond with on-site service, helping you get your business back online as soon as possible. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you to make this a successful partnership. Tell me if there are any questions or things, I can do to make this a success. Thank you, Samantha Easterday @ 2024 MARCO. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. VaaS365 Investment Overview Procurement Pricing is based upon 141 total users. • Additional users will incur a $12 per user/month uplift Support Teams • Rapid resolution (initial triage and remediation) • Cloud voice support team • Field engineering team Proactive System Administration • Regular updates Onsite Support • Escalation to field services for issues that cannot be remotely resolved Monitoring • 24x7x365 monitoring • 24x7x365 end-user support Training • End-user training is included (remote) • Administration training is included (remote) On-Boarding • Installation of system • Documentation Monthly Investment $2,032.00 month for 36-months. One-time hardware and professional services fee of $21,702.40. • Above monthly cost includes VaaS managed services. • Microsoft 365 licensing is not included. Stephanie Ward Prepared By: Senior Technology Advisor 651-634-6164 Stephanie.Ward@marconet.com Quote Number: 186019 PROPOSAL FOR CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE BRIAN BLUHM September 29, 2025 SCHEDULE A - SCHEDULE OF PRODUCTS TO PRODUCT AGREEMENT(S) IT - Budget VAAS 365 -- CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE Prepared by:Prepared for:Ship To:Quote Information: Marco - Eau Claire CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE Quote #: 186019 Stephanie Ward 651-634-6164 Stephanie.Ward@marconet.co m 12800 Ravine Parkway COTTAGE GROVE, MN 55016 BRIAN BLUHM 651.458.2880 bbluhm@cottagegrovemn.gov 12800 RAVINE PKWY S COTTAGE GROVE, MN 55016- 6103 BRIAN BLUHM 651.458.2880 bbluhm@cottagegrovemn.gov Version: 3 Date Issued: 09/29/2025 Expiration Date: 12/31/2025 Special Pricing Program: See Quote Notes Implementation Overview ENGAGEMENT OVERVIEW - DESIRED GOALS AND OUTCOMES - CURRENT SITUATION CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE are looking to move to VaaS365 which integrates with Microsoft Teams. No paging needed No faxing Standard timeline Network changes will be made by customer Approximate 141 users Approximate 25 shared devices Up to 8 auto attendants and call queues with outside numbers 2 hours of user training Marco voice engineer will configure 3 Algo door intercom devices for connection to Teams o Customer is responsible for mounting and connecting to network o This is for voice call only, door entry is not included. Two of the common area phones will be configured as hotline phones that will autodial the dispatch center. CLIENT RESPONSIBILITIES Unless specifically included in the Schedule of Products listed below, the customer is responsible for the following: Networking: CAT5 (or greater) network drops to all handset locations Available switch ports and power (either PoE or power outlets) for all connected devices. Voice VLANs and required IP Subnets LAN and WAN Quality of Service (QoS) Working with data circuit provider to ensure proper bandwidth and QoS markings 2 SCHEDULE A - SCHEDULE OF PRODUCTS TO PRODUCT AGREEMENT(S) DHCP scope SSL certificates project related DNS entries Third Party Applications/Devices: BYOD (Bring your own Device) phones, paging devices and door access equipment are supported on a best effort basis and approved prior to installation. Warranty for BYOD phones, paging devices and door access equipment Integration to third party applications are supported on a best effort basis and must be approved prior to installation Marco will ensure the handoff to the third party device/application is properly functioning, but Marco support stops beyond that Marco provided connection/device Number Porting: Please do not contact your current service providers to make changes on your account or disconnect services until specified to do so by Marco Project Management Verifying numbers for all fax, alarm and security lines - these should not be ported unless you are moving your fax to our/a hosted fax service Contact current carrier to remove any PINS, passwords, line and/or PIC/LPIC freezes from all accounts numbers will be ported from The customer must have authorized user sign the Letter of Agency for number porting, which must be the approved contact with all current carriers Obtain current copy (last 30 days) of all invoices for accounts in which numbers will be ported from (including toll free) Obtain a customer service record (CSR) from the accounts of all carriers in which numbers will be ported from (this should list all account information including service addresses). SERVICES ASSUMPTIONS, EXCLUSIONS, AND NOTES Marco will provide the below training services: Project Coordinator led webinar for administrative or knowledge workers for up to two (2) hours done remotely. Phone user guides in digital form. Online access to training videos covering handsets and general features. Every user will receive a direct dial number. Caller ID will be masked with main number for all users. Inaccurate information or delays in responses will impact the Go-Live Date The following tasks and deliverables for our Coordination Team will be considered “in-scope” for the purposes of engagement: o Level 3 Ordering/tracking of product (if applicable) Technical resource assignment Technical resource scheduling Scheduling of internal kick off & customer kick off meetings Project plan / project task list build Digital project communication / project status updates Facilitation of change orders (if applicable) 3 SCHEDULE A - SCHEDULE OF PRODUCTS TO PRODUCT AGREEMENT(S) Project closure VaaS365 Licensing Description Recurring Qty Ext. Recurring VaaS365 Named Users $12.00 141 $1,692.00 Named user accounts come with a DID, a SIP Trunk and Unlimited Support Shared Devices VaaS365 - Shared Devices $10.00 25 $250.00 Supports conference room, common area, breakroom type devices. Can also be used for connection to overhead paging, door phones and other common area devices. Resource Account VaaS365 - Resource Account $10.00 8 $80.00 Resource accounts are for main numbers that need to route to Auto Attendants or Call Queues from external callers.  Additional Items Marco - VaaS - Additional DID $1.00 10 $10.00 Includes an additional DID or Telephone Number. Subtotal:$2,032.00 Microsoft Hardware Description One-Time Qty Ext. One-Time ALGO 8201 POE INTERCOM $547.00 3 $1,641.00 Poly CCX 350 IP Phone - Corded - Corded - Desktop, Wall Mountable - Black - VoIP - 2 x Network (RJ-45) - PoE Ports $159.00 50 $7,950.00 Poly CCX 505 IP Phone - Corded - Corded/Cordless - Wi-Fi, Bluetooth - Desktop, Wall Mountable - Black - 24 x Total Line - VoIP - 5" LCD - IEEE 802.11b/g/n - 2 x Network (RJ-45) - PoE Ports $399.95 1 $399.95 Poly CCX EM60 Expansion Module - For Data Networking, Optical NetworkOptical Fiber $248.95 1 $248.95 Subtotal:$10,239.90 4 SCHEDULE A - SCHEDULE OF PRODUCTS TO PRODUCT AGREEMENT(S) Professional Services Labor Description One-Time Qty Ext. One-Time Marco Professional Services - Fixed Fee - Milestone 1 - Progress Billed Monthly $13,161.50 1 $13,161.50 Subtotal:$13,161.50 Discounts Description One-Time Qty Ext. One-Time One-Time Service Discount ($1,699.00)1 ($1,699.00) One time discount for professional services Subtotal:($1,699.00) 5 SCHEDULE A - SCHEDULE OF PRODUCTS TO PRODUCT AGREEMENT(S) Quote Summary - One-Time Expenses Description Amount Microsoft Hardware $10,239.90 Professional Services Labor $13,161.50 Discounts ($1,699.00) Total:$21,702.40 Quote Summary - Expenses Description Amount VaaS365 Licensing $2,032.00 Total:$2,032.00 Payment Options Description Payments Interval Amount Recurring Payments 36 Monthly $2,032.00 1 One-Time $21,702.40 Summary of Selected Payment Options Description Amount Recurring Payments: 36 Months - Monthly Payments Selected Recurring Payment $2,032.00 6 36 Months - Monthly Payments SCHEDULE A - SCHEDULE OF PRODUCTS TO PRODUCT AGREEMENT(S) Approval Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI): Provider and Customer acknowledge that Provider has a duty to protect the confidentiality of Customer Proprietary Network Information ("CPNI") in accordance with applicable federal law. CPNI includes information relating to the quantity, technical configuration, type, destination, location, and amount of use of the telecommunications Services that Customer purchases from Provider, and that is made available to Provider by Customer solely by virtue of the Provider/Customer relationship hereunder. Provider and Customer understand that Provider may access, use and disclose Customer's CPNI as permitted by applicable law, in order to install and provision the Service and market services that are within the same category of services provided herein without Customer's consent. With Customer's consent, Provider may use Customer's CPNI in order to offer Customer the full range of products and services offered by Provider. By signing this Agreement, Customer consents to Provider using Customer CPNI for the purpose of marketing additional services. Customer may refuse CPNI consent by signing this Agreement and providing to Provider written notice of its intent to opt out of granting such consent. Customer's consent or refusal to consent will remain valid until Customer otherwise advises Provider. Any refusal of consent by Customer will not affect Provider's provision of service to Customer. Provider and Customer agree that Customer is served by a primary dedicated account representative and thereby qualifies for the Business Customer Exemption from the FCC's CPNI authentication requirements. Provider and Customer agree to be bound by the authentication regime in this paragraph. Specifically, Provider and Customer agree that Provider may provide Customer CPNI to representatives authorized by Customer as designated in applicable Service Orders in connection with Customer-initiated calls pertaining to the purchase of new and/or additional services, billing and collection, trouble reports, and other customer care issues. If Customer representatives other than those designated by Customer in Service Orders contact Provider to request or modify information regarding Customer's account, Provider will not provide Customer CPNI unless Provider authenticates the caller. If the caller cannot provide information that enables Provider to authenticate the caller, Provider will not provide Customer CPNI to the caller, but will instead call the Customer back at the Customer's telephone number associated with the services provided herein to provide the requested information or mail the requested information to Customer's business address associated with the account for at least 30 days. Please select an option below*: Opt In__________ (Marco may use CPNI to market to Customer) Opt Out__________ (Marco may not use CPNI to market to Customer) * If No selection is made, an assumption of “OPT IN” is selected on your behalf Client represents that it has reviewed and agrees to be legally bound by this Schedule of Products. Client represents that it has reviewed and agrees to be legally bound by the Relationship Agreement, any Product Agreement(s) referred to herein, and applicable policy(ies) (“Terms and Conditions”) which are located at www.marconet.com/legal for the Products it is obtaining as identified in this Schedule of Products. If the parties have negotiated changes to the Terms and Conditions that have been reduced to writing and signed by both parties, the modified version(s) of such Terms and Conditions, that have not expired or been terminated, shall replace the online version(s). Client agrees to use electronic signatures, electronic communications, and electronic records to transact business under the above documents. The pricing above does not include taxes. Taxes, fees and surcharges shall be paid by Client and will be shown on invoices to Client. Payments made via credit card are subject to a 3% surcharge. A $30 fee will be assessed for any returned payment 7 SCHEDULE A - SCHEDULE OF PRODUCTS TO PRODUCT AGREEMENT(S) Marco Technologies, LLC CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE Signature: Name: Title: Date: Prepared for:BRIAN BLUHM Signature: Signed by: Title: Date: PO Number: Email Address: 8 Microsoft Teams Phone The smart calling solution for Teams Chat Meet Call Collaborate Experience smart communication and seamless collaboration with the only calling solution nativeto Teams Learn more Teams Phone overview Explore Teams Phone how-to videos Plan your Teams voice solution Teams Phone customer storiesTeams Phone is the smart way to bring calling into the flow of work, enabling you to make and receive calls, without having to leave Teams or other Microsoft 365 applications. Whether in-person, remote, or hybrid, Teams Phone connects employees, customers, and partners on a wide range of Teams certified devices for reliable calling wherever work happens. Teams Phone gives you the flexibility to choose the PSTN connectivity approach that’s right for your business, including Microsoft Teams Calling Plans, Direct Routing, Operator Connect, and Teams Phone Mobile – with simplified management through a single admin console. Flexible and easy to use Calling is seamlessly integrated with Microsoft 365 applications, keeping you in the flow of work. Communicate and collaborate effortlessly across devices and spaces on a range of Teams-certified devices that suit varying uses and budgets. Intelligent and connected Create meaningful engagements that connect your business, increase productivity, and save employees’ time. Auto attendants, call queues, voice-enabled channels, and contact center integrations allow you to efficiently route customer calls, while AI-powered features enable calling that is more personalized and productive. Secure, reliable, and simple to manage Save time and enjoy peace of mind with a reliable and secure communications solution that is easy to manage. Deploy, configure, and manage calling from a single admin experience, reducing the burden on your IT team, as well as management costs. ©2023 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. This document is provided “as-is.” Information and views expressed in this document, including URL and other Internet website references, may change without notice. You bear the risk of using it. This document does not provide you with any legal rights to any intellectual property in any Microsoft product. You may copy and use this document for your internal reference purposes. Teams Phone Implementation Date: 9/19/2025 Prepared For: City of Cottage Grove 12800 Ravine Parkway Cottage Grove, MN 55016-3195 bbluhm@cottagegrovemn.gov 6514582880 Prepared By: CIT Brian Olson Senior Account Executive Brian.Olson@citsolutions.net (651) 255-5782 https://www.citsolutions.net Executive Summary Business Objectives The City of Cottage Grove is looking for alternative phone solutions.  After having conversations with the City, CIT has pulled together a Teams and Call Tower solution to address their needs.  Intended Outcome/Deliverable Assign all necessary licensing, port and request needed DID numbers. congure teams call center queues, auto attendants, common phones and  a teams room. Statement of Work Kicko Meeting/Call Validate the following congurations to be migrated from Mitel. Auto-attendant congurations. Greetings, IVR, call routing. Hunt groups. Forwarding rules. Shared lines and common area phones. Call queues. Agents, queue logic and overow settings. Calling plans will be provided by Call Tower. Providing operator connect. Coordinate porting numbers with Call Tower Port 163 phone numbers to Teams. Request 10 DIDs for remaining common area phones. Assign Microsoft Teams phone licenses to 141 Teams Phone system users. Create 26 resource accounts for common area phones. Assign 26 Microsoft Teams shared device licenses to common area phones Assign 16 Teams Premium licenses for call queue users. Assign DID's and ported numbers users. Congure 911 information for each location. Congure 10 auto Attendants Main City line auto attendant will be menu driven to the following auto attendants. Main Public Safety Inspection line Utility Building Public works Hero Center Golf Main Fire Dept Emergency Operations Center (EOC) (Call Queue) Disabled when not in use. Community Service/Reserve Ocer Desk Directed to shared voicemail Customer to provide list of users. Congure workgroups for the auto attendants. Congure Call Queue for EOC in Teams Congure and name auto attendants. Congure menu options to send to voice app. Build resource accounts for queues. Add resource accounts. Assign agents to call queue. Customer will need to provide the list of agents. Congure greetings. Call answering Congure 26 Common area shared phones Congure 26 shared devices with Poly CCX 400 phones Ice Arena Front Desk DESK,CSO 6077 Police Room - Booking 3 6093 Room - EvidenceEntry 6626 Room - Main Lobby Sign Shop 2896 Public Works Room - Hazardous Waste 2861 Club House Bar 7219 Clubhouse Bar 7220 (Quoted as corded phone) Pro Shop RG 8903 Pro shop 8143 (Quoted as corded phone) Pro-Shop desk 1 8142 Pro-shop Front Desk 2 8902 Pro Shop 8165 GOLF Event Center Oce C Range Oce 2815 Room - Conference A 6601 Central FIRE,Fulltime 6695 Central FIRE,Fulltime 6696 Central FIRE,Fulltime 6697 Central FIRE, Fulltime 6698 Room - Upstairs Watch Desk 6694 Room - Conference rm CF 6603 Room - Upstairs Watch Desk 6694 Room - Conference A 6601 Community Service/Reserve Ocer Desk Congure 4 ATAs for the callboxes Post Project QA Checklist Project Closure Meeting/Call. Project information: There has been a list of phone numbers to users and common phones provided. Common phones will all have DID's and have been requested for those that do not have current phone numbers. There is two supporting documents for this project. Subtotal:$35,490.00 Tax:$0.00 Total:$35,490.00 Proposal Summary Teams Phone Implementation Quote information: Quote #3529347-1 Prepared on: 9/19/2025 Expires: 10/19/2025 Account Executive: Brian Olson | Brian.Olson@citsolutions.net | (651) 255-5782 https://www.citsolutions.net Prepared for: City of Cottage Grove 12800 Ravine Parkway Cottage Grove MN 55016-3195 Ship to: City of Cottage Grove 12800 Ravine Parkway Cottage Grove, MN 55016-3195 One-time costs Optional Description Qty Unit Price Price Including Tax CIT Services Fixed $23,540.00 Phones $11,950.00 N Poly CCX 400 IP Phone - Corded - Corded - Desktop, Wall Mountable - Black - 24 x Total Line - VoIP - 5" LCD - 2 x Network (RJ- 45) - PoE Ports 50 $239.00 $11,950.00 Notes: Monthly recurring costs Optional Description Qty Unit Price Price Including Tax Microsoft 365 Teams Licensing $1,352.40 N Microsoft NCE Microsoft Teams Premium (GCC) Annual Paid Monthly 16 $10.50 $168.00 N Microsoft NCE Microsoft Teams Phone Standard (GCC) Annual Paid Monthly 141 $8.40 $1,184.40 N Microsoft NCE Microsoft Teams Shared Devices (Governmental Community Cloud Pricing) Annual Paid Monthly 26 $8.40 $218.40 Monthly Subtotal:$1,570.80 Tax:$0.00 Total:$1,570.80 Notes: Please note: Items marked with "Y" (Yes) in the optional column are not included in the subtotal, tax, or total calculations. Acceptance and Incorporation by Reference This Proposal, together with the terms and conditions set forth in the Master Services Agreement, Service Attachments and all other agreements identified on Exhibit A (the agreements identied on Exhibit A are hereafter collectively referred to as the “Ancillary Agreements”) is between Computer Integration Technologies, a Minnesota corporation (sometimes referred to as “we,” “us,” “our,” or “Provider”), and the customer identied on the signature block at the end of this Proposal (sometimes referred to as “You,” Your,” or “Client”). Client and Provider expressly agree that the terms and conditions set forth in the Ancillary Agreements are hereby incorporated into this Proposal by reference as if fully set forth herein, regardless of whether Client separately executed any of the Ancillary Agreements.  Notwithstanding that certain provisions of the Ancillary Agreements may not facially appear applicable to every transaction or circumstance governed by this Proposal, each such provision shall be interpreted broadly and in context, and shall apply and control to the extent such provision can reasonably be construed to apply to the rights, obligations, or subject matter hereof. This Proposal shall be effective and shall automatically become a legally binding agreement as of the rst date upon which both Provider and Client have signed below (the “Effective Date”). Provider and Client are sometimes referred to separately as a “Party”, or  collectively as the ”Parties.”  Any capitalized terms in this Proposal not defined herein shall have the meaning provided in any Ancillary Agreement(s) dening such capitalized term.  If there is a direct conflict between this Proposal and any term or condition set forth in any of the Ancillary Agreements, the conicting term or condition in this Proposal shall control.  By signing or accepting this Proposal, Client acknowledges, represents, and warrants to Provider that Client has read and agrees to all terms and conditions set forth in the Ancillary Agreements on the Eective Date. The Parties agree that electronic signatures on this Proposal shall be relied upon and shall bind the Parties to the terms and conditions stated or incorporated by reference herein. Each Party hereby warrants and represents that such Party is authorized to execute this Proposal and perform the undertakings set forth or incorporated herein. This Proposal supersedes all prior negotiations, proposals, orders, agreements and communications between the Parties regarding all matters expressly addressed or within the reasonable scope of this Proposal or the Ancillary Agreements.  Client acknowledges and agrees that Provider may, from time to time, revise the terms and conditions of the Ancillary Agreements, provided that any such revision shall be eective only in accordance with applicable law, including prevailing legal standards for enforceable “clickwrap” or equivalent electronic consent mechanisms. Revised terms or conditions shall become binding and eective upon the earlier of: (a) Client’s continued use of the applicable products or services following reasonably conspicuous notice and opportunity for Client to review the revised term(s) or condition(s); or (b) Client’s armative acceptance of the revised term(s) via a click-through or similar method reasonably designed to conrm assent. Provider shall make revised terms reasonably available for Client review which shall indicate the date of last revision. If Client does not agree to any revised term(s), Client must discontinue use of the aected products or services and may terminate this Proposal only in accordance with termination provisions set forth in the Ancillary Agreements.  Any revision(s) to the terms or conditions of the Ancillary Agreements by Provider shall apply only prospectively, unless otherwise required by applicable law or expressly stated in the revised terms. Client further agrees that the terms of the Ancillary Agreements shall apply not only to the specic transaction described in this Proposal, but also to all other current and future transactions between Client and Provider unless and until such terms are superseded by a subsequently executed Proposal or Ancillary Agreement. Both of the Parties, acting through their respectively authorized officers, agents, or representatives hereby execute this Proposal with the intention of being bound hereby. Exhibit A Click the buttons below to view the linked documents. Master Services Agreement Services Attachment for Managed Services Service Attachment for Access Control Services Service Attachment for Managed Video Surveillance Schedule of Services Data Processing Agreement Schedule of Third-Party Services IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Order Form is agreed to by the parties below and entered into as of the Order Eective Date. City of Cottage Grove Signature: Name: Date: STAY CONNECTED, STAY AHEAD SOLUTION & PRICING PROPOSAL Prepared for City of Cottage Grove Since its inception in 2002, CallTower has evolved into a global cloud-based, enterprise-class Unified Communications, Contact Center and Collaboration solutions provider for growing organizations worldwide. CallTower provides, integrates and supports industry-leading solutions, including Operator Connect Microsoft® Teams, Teams Direct Routing, GCC High Teams Direct Routing, Office 365, Cisco® Webex Calling / Dedicated Instance, Cisco® CCPP, Zoom (BYOC), Zoom Phone, Zoom One, CT Cloud UCaaS and four contact center options, including Five9 for business customers. ONE-STOP-SHOP SECURITY, STABILITY, SCALABILITY PROJECT MANAGEMENT Full turn-key solution One invoice One support call Dedicated circuits Fully managed handsets, headsets and conference rooms Benefits of OPEX vs CAPEX One platform to monitor End-to-end private cloud environment Faster troubleshooting No finger pointing between solution providers One project team for design/changes Faster deployment times Easy-to-use solution management tool GLOBAL REACH EXPANDED REACH TO MORE THAN 70+ COUNTRIES www.calltower.com sales@calltower.com (800) 347-5444 +++ Contact Center Contact Center Microsoft 365 Contact Center Mobile Dialer SIP Analog Devices SALES@CALLTOWER.COM WWW.CALLTOWER.COM (800) 347­5444 www.calltower.com sales@calltower.com (800) 347-5444 THE CALLTOWER TEAM. OUR CUSTOMERS MATTER MOST. WE ARE HERE TO HELP! CallTower solution experts are available 24/7/365 via phone - (800) 347-5444, - sales@calltower.com email and chat - www.calltower.com. We also have an array of helpful tips at uc.solutions to help you answer questions fast. CERTIFIED MULI-TIERED SUPPORT TEAMS Our unmatched implementation, training and support teams have deployed and supported thousands of users, enabling solutions around the corner and across the globe. All projects receive a designated product manager who secures a seamless implementation and training success plan. CALLTOWER CONNECT CallTower enables our Customers to manage rapidly changing technologies through Connect - a user-friendly portal, created and developed in-house. This proprietary system ensures our customers can administer services without expertise in any one technology or hiring outside consultants to manage their communication services. CUSTOMER SUCCESS TEAM CallTower customers are further empowered by their Customer Success Team. This team works closely with the customers to deliver streamlined processes. Customer Support Plan https://www.calltower.com/support/client-support-plan/ Network Status https://www.calltower.com/support/network-status/ Support & Implementation Paths https://www.calltower.com/support/escalation-paths/ Client Success Escalation Paths https://www.calltower.com/support/client-success-escalation-path/ CallTower Advantage https://info.calltower.com/hubfs/CallTower%20Advantage.pdf 24/7/365 Support Managed Microsoft 365 Services Contact Center Admin Portal Security Emergency Services Global DID Porting Tools & Report Geo-Redundant Network Attendant Console Call & Emp Analyti Mobile rect Routing erator Connect CC High FAILOVER One Click SIP Prem Artificial Intelligence CCaaSUCaaS CollaborationIntegrations 24/7/365 Support Managed Microsoft 365 Services Contact Center Admin Portal CRM Security Emergency Services Global PSTN DID Porting Tools & Report Geo-Redundant Network Cisco CCP Attendant Console Call & Employee Analytics Mobile Direct Routing Operator Connect GCC High FAILOVER One Click SIP Prem Based Solution Artificial Intelligence AI SALES@CALLTOWER.COM WWW.CALLTOWER.COM (800) 347­5444 CALLTOWER’S PARTNERSHIPS. WHICH SOLUTION FITS BEST? CALLTOWER’S CUSTOMERS Anthony Lopez, Tourneau, Senior Director of Technology To replace our current system would have been $300,000 CapEx plus we were spending $25,000 monthly on calling plans. With CallTower, we invested $15,000 on our monthly recurring license model. www.calltower.com sales@calltower.com (800) 347-5444 SALES@CALLTOWER.COM WWW.CALLTOWER.COM (800) 347­5444 www.calltower.com sales@calltower.com (800) 347-5444 Thank you for choosing CallTower and Welcome to the CallTower family. We want you to have a wonderful experience onboarding with CallTower. Let’s review the next steps are for a successful implementation so everyone is on the same page. All items below must be completed to move into implementation. PLEASE NOTE: AN IMPLEMENTATION MANAGER WILL NOT BE ASSIGNED UNTIL THE ITEMS BELOW ARE COMPLETE: All documents are signed and dated Customer Point of Contact must be completed on the agreement Contact Center form if applicable Once all items above have been completed, CallTower will initiate implementation/onboarding discussions within the next 2 business weeks. Our implementation timelines can vary from one week to a few months, depending on the complexity of the implementation. We will work with your team to implement the services in a timely and acceptable fashion. Please begin to familiarize yourself with CallTower ’s scope of work (SOW) requirements. This SOW will be customized based on the services that have been ordered and discussed with your assigned Implementation Project Manager on your kickoff call. CallTower Scope of Work For porting, specific documents are required based on the country. Please refer to the guide at the following link for the necessary documents: DID Porting Timelines and Process This notice has been provided to set appropriate expectations and ensure a smooth onboarding experience. If you have any questions, please reach out to CallTower Sales Ops Team at salesops@calltower.com. Please review this article for the most recent updates on the different tier levels available for international dialing. These tiers determine which countries your account will be able to place calls to. Additional waivers and/or fees may be necessary based on your international calling needs. SALES@CALLTOWER.COM WWW.CALLTOWER.COM (800) 347­5444 Quote #1042052 Date: 02/24/2025 Exp Date: 03/26/2025 City of Cottage Grove Company Wide Services - Service Order Description Qty Price Monthly Recurring Non Recurring MS Teams OC - Auto Attendant Professional Services 1 $0.00 $0.00 $150.00 Implementation Charge 1 $0.00 $0.00 $1,495.00 DID Activation/Port Fee 210 $0.00 $0.00 $1,037.40 MS Teams OC - DID Assignment Professional Service 1 $0.00 $0.00 $149.95 MS Teams OC - Call Queue Professional Services 1 $0.00 $0.00 $49.95 Gold Training 1 $0.00 $0.00 $800.00 Term:Total MRC Total NRC 36 Months $0.00 $3,682.30 Q - 1 SALES@CALLTOWER.COM WWW.CALLTOWER.COM (800) 347-5444 Quote #1042052 Date: 02/24/2025 Exp Date: 03/26/2025 City of Cottage Grove Default Location - Service Order Description Qty Price Monthly Recurring Non Recurring MS Teams OC - AA or CQ (Resource Account Calling Plan) - Unlimited 5 $7.95 $39.75 $0.00 CT Cloud Voice Basic Line 4 $10.95 $43.80 $60.00 E911 Surcharge 210 $0.69 $144.90 $0.00 MS Teams OC US/CAN - Unlimited 205 $7.95 $1,629.75 $1,808.10 Grandstream 1 port ATA HT801 - Purchase 4 $39.00 $0.00 $156.00 Term:Total MRC Total NRC 36 Months $1,858.20 $2,024.10 Q - 2 SALES@CALLTOWER.COM WWW.CALLTOWER.COM (800) 347-5444 Quote #1042052 Date: 02/24/2025 Exp Date: 03/26/2025 City of Cottage Grove Summary - Service Order Description Monthly Recurring Non Recurring Company Wide Services $0.00 $3,682.30 Default Location $1,858.20 $2,024.10 Term:Total MRC Total NRC 36 Months $1,858.20 $5,706.40 Q - 3 SALES@CALLTOWER.COM WWW.CALLTOWER.COM (800) 347-5444 Quote #1042052 Date: 02/24/2025 Exp Date: 03/26/2025 City of Cottage Grove SELECTED ITEM DESCRIPTIONS Outbound International Rates can be found at https://info.calltower.com/hubfs/CallTower%20International%20DID.pdf International In Country Rates can be found at https://info.calltower.com/hubfs/CallTower-InCountryRateDeck.pdf CT Cloud Voice Basic Line SIP line for an IP phone that can receive inbound calls, place calls to other extensions and outside PSTN numbers but has no voicemail box. CommPortal included for web administration DID Activation/Port Fee Fee to port and/or order new US domestic numbers. Fee is also applicable for port outs and removal of DIDs. E911 Surcharge E911 Surcharge Gold Training This includes (1) Live 1-hour end-user training where one of our expert trainers will guide your users through the key features and functionalities of your product. Also, (1) a Live 30-minute Q&A session after the go-live to have your users’ questions answered in real-time by a trainer. Lastly, an on-demand, self- paced admin training module will be provided, allowing your administrators to learn and configure their services at their own pace without the need for a live trainer. Grandstream 1 port ATA HT801 Grandstream Single port ATA for analog devices - 1 10/100 Ethernet Port - Advanced telephony features: Caller ID, Call Waiting,3-way conference, Transfer, Forward, Do not disturb, Message Waiting Indication, Multi-language voice prompt, T.38 fax- Voice Codecs: G.711a/u, G.723.1, G.729a/b, G.726, iLBC Strong security protection: TLS/SRTP/HTTP Automated provisioning: TR069, HTTP/HTTPS/TFTP Implementation Charge This is a personalized implementation service. CallTower tailors your system and helps you configure features important to you. The service includes: Tenant Set-up, User Set-up, Device Provisioning, Dedicated Implementation Manager & Additional Technical Resources if needed, Project Meetings, Porting Management, and Circuit Ordering. Additional charges may apply for professional services which may include custom scripts, engineering support, etc. MS Teams OC - AA or CQ (Resource Account Calling Plan) - Unlimited Per Auto Attendant or per Call Queue fee Includes inbound DID usage. Toll free inbound available at additional charge. Does not include tenant configuration. CallTower requires a SFB and Teams Administrator Service Account. MS Teams OC - Auto Attendant Professional Services Professional service fee charged per auto attendant. CallTower requires a SFB and Teams Administrator Service Account. Q - 4 SALES@CALLTOWER.COM WWW.CALLTOWER.COM (800) 347-5444 Quote #1042052 Date: 02/24/2025 Exp Date: 03/26/2025 City of Cottage Grove SELECTED ITEM DESCRIPTIONS Outbound International Rates can be found at https://info.calltower.com/hubfs/CallTower%20International%20DID.pdf International In Country Rates can be found at https://info.calltower.com/hubfs/CallTower-InCountryRateDeck.pdf MS Teams OC - Call Queue Professional Services Professional service fee charged per call queue. CallTower requires a SFB and Teams Administrator Service Account. MS Teams OC - DID Assignment Professional Service Professional Service fee per location for setting DID/Phone assignment by CallTower. Customer must provide a spreadsheet for use by engineers. CallTower requires a SFB and Teams Administrator Service Account. This is a one-time event. Additional batches for the location will incur additional fees. MS Teams OC US/CAN - Unlimited Per user fee for MS Teams Operator Connect. Includes a US DID and unlimited US/CAN calling; for Calling plan users in Canada, a Canadian DID is required (not included). Calling plan requires the Phone System and Audio Conferencing with all Office 365 license excluding the Microsoft Office 365 E5 license. Access to international calling per CallTower's international rate plan. THIS SKU CANNOT BE COMBINED WITH METERED USAGE WITHIN THE SAME CALLTOWER CUSTOMER. THIS SKU CAN ONLY BE USED FOR CUSTOMERS WITH 50+ TOTAL SEATS. Q - 5 SALES@CALLTOWER.COM WWW.CALLTOWER.COM (800) 347-5444 Quote #1042052 Date: 02/24/2025 Exp Date: 03/26/2025 City of Cottage Grove Service Agreement This Services Agreement (the "Agreement") between CallTower, Inc. ("CallTower"), a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located at 10701 S River Front Pkwy, South Jordan, UT 84095, and the customer identified in the signature page below (the "Customer"), is entered into as of the date of the last signature in the signature page below (the "Effective Date"). WHEREAS: CallTower provides Unified Communications as a Service and is committed to support its customers with the best technology, people, and communications solutions available. WHEREAS: Customer desires to subscribe to the services offered by CallTower: NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. The following definitions shall apply to this Agreement: 1.1. Services: Services refer to the range of communications applications delivered by CallTower commonly referred to as Unified Communications. 1.2. Service Order: Service Order is a document that specifies a collection of Services to be delivered to Customer's specific location or locations, or to specific users, and may be adjusted from time to time as the Customer's contracted Services increase or decrease. Service Orders are provided as attachments to this Agreement. 1.3. Installation Date: Installation Date refers to the date that is targeted by CallTower and Customer for which Services are to be activated. 1.4. Activation Date: Activation Date is the date on which Services in the Service Order are substantially ready for activation and is independent of number porting, unless otherwise agreed to by CallTower and Customer. Service Orders may have or specify varying Activation Dates with the exception of Cisco Webex Licensing. Billing will begin on the agreed upon date between CallTower and Customer. 2. CallTower agrees to provide to Customer the Services specified in the Service Order(s) attached hereto. Each Service Order will be executed by the Parties and may be amended from time to time as Customer's needs change. 3. This Agreement shall apply to each Service Order and the Term specified in the Service Order shall commence on the Activation Date of the Services (or the applicable Service) in such Service Order. 4. Billing for Services in each Service Order and any applicable fees will commence on the Activation Date(s) for such Service(s). All fees are due and payable within 30 days of invoice date. 5. All stated Installation Dates are approximate; CallTower will not be deemed to be in default, nor shall it be liable for any damages or loss resulting from delays in installation but will use commercially reasonable efforts to achieve the committed Installation Dates. 6. Customer will cooperate fully with CallTower, and Customer will designate CallTower or CallTower's agent to transfer service from Customer's current vendor of telecommunications services to CallTower, including Customer's current telephone numbers, and will provide such other network information required for CallTower to provide service to Customer. Customer will authorize CallTower as its agent for the limited purposes of submitting the Number Portability Authorization Form on Customer's behalf and signing Customer's name on forms of authority to Customer's current vendor of telecommunications services to transfer Customer's number to CallTower as vendor of record. Customer must comply with all current vendor financial and other requirements necessary for porting of numbers to CallTower and is responsible for any charges imposed by Customer's current vendor or CallTower in relation to any porting request up to four dollars and ninety-four cents. CallTower will use commercially reasonable efforts to port Customer's number on or before the requested cut over date but will have no liability to Customer for any delays in porting. 7. Customer is responsible for complying with the Cloud Provider Requirements and Readiness, included in this document and satisfying other technical requirements necessary for CallTower to deliver CallTower Services to Customer. Applicable equipment purchases are final. 8. Customer will comply with CallTower's Terms of Use as posted on CallTower's web site. https://www.calltower.com/resources-training/terms- of-use-for-customers/ 9. Customer confirms the Customer representations and warranties set forth in the Terms of Use. 10. Customer acknowledges that the Terms of Use include, but are not limited to, provisions addressing Emergency Calling, Enhanced 911, Basic 911, and Customer's responsibility in connection with Emergency Calling. CallTower disclaims any and all liability or responsibility in the event Customer-provided registered location information is inaccurate or out of date. Customer shall indemnify and hold harmless CallTower from any claim or action arising out of misrouting of 911 calls, including but not limited to Customer's failure to follow correct procedures for notifying CallTower of the locations of phones for 911 calling or its providing incorrect information to CallTower. 11. The initial term of each Service Order will begin on the Activation Date(s) for the Service(s) and will continue for the period specified in the Service Order(s). Thereafter, each Service Order shall renew automatically for successive twelve (12) month periods if not terminated or extended by either party by written notice of nonrenewal or extension at least thirty (30) days prior to the end of the then current term. If Customer provides such written notice of nonrenewal or extension, CallTower will continue to provide the Services until terminated by Customer on a month to month basis at 110% of the current billing line item in effect at the end of the then current term. 12. All sales, services and use taxes which are imposed by any government entity on the fees for any of the Services (other than taxes relating to CallTower's net income) shall be the sole responsibility of Customer, whether set forth in an invoice or not and regardless of when imposed or assessed, and shall not be considered a part of, or an offset against, fees for the Services. 13. Either party may terminate this Agreement for cause as set forth below or without cause at any time with 30 days written notice. 14. If Customer terminates this Agreement or any Service Order without cause, Customer shall pay (i) CallTower's monthly charge for each month through the expiration date of the last to expire of any then current Service Order in effect (the "Termination Date"), and all Service Orders will terminate on such Termination Date and (ii) CallTower's expenses and fees associated with pre-mature termination. Q - 6 SALES@CALLTOWER.COM WWW.CALLTOWER.COM (800) 347-5444 Quote #1042052 Date: 02/24/2025 Exp Date: 03/26/2025 City of Cottage Grove 15. Customer may terminate this Agreement for cause by providing CallTower written notice of termination in the event that CallTower fails to provide Service consistent with the Service Level Agreement ("SLA") posted on CallTower's web site; provided Customer first provides CallTower with written notice specifying the failure in Service and Service is not re-established to the levels specified in the Service Level Agreement within ten (10) business days of CallTower's receipt of the notice describing such failure. Notwithstanding any such termination by Customer, Customer shall pay for all Services under all Service Orders up to the date of termination, net of any applicable service credits as set forth in the SLA related to failure of CallTower to meet the Service levels specified in the SLA. 16. CallTower shall have the right to terminate this Agreement for cause if all fees due CallTower are not paid in full within ten (10) days after CallTower provides Customer with written notice of non-payment. In the event of termination of Services for cause, (i) CallTower may cease providing any or all of the Services and (ii) Customer shall pay CallTower a lump sum, within fifteen (15) days of the effective date of termination, equal to the sum of (A) CallTower's monthly charge for each month through the expiration date of the last to expire of any then current Service Order in effect and (B) CallTower's expenses and fees associated with pre-mature termination. 17. Customer grants CallTower the authorization to process payments based on the selection made in this document. If Customer does not pay an invoice when due, CallTower may charge a late payment fee on the overdue amount equal to eighteen percent (18%) per annum or the maximum legal rate permitted by law, whichever is less. 18. Customer can reduce Services under any Service Order at any time; however total billing for Services cannot be reduced by more than 10% in any rolling 12-month period. This reduction of Service does not apply to Cisco Flex and Microsoft NCE Licensing. 19. CallTower will not be responsible for any real or reported losses incurred by Customer alleged to result from acts or omissions by CallTower or for any indirect, incidental, consequential, special or exemplary damages. CallTower's full liability is limited to a credit based upon the value of CallTower's Services delivered to Customer, as defined in CallTower's Service Level Agreement. 20. With the exception of CallTower's enforcement of its intellectual property rights, Customer and CallTower agree that any and all controversies, claims, or disputes arising out of, relating to, or resulting from this Agreement, shall be subject to binding arbitration in Salt Lake City, Utah administered by the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) and that the arbitrator will be selected in a manner consistent with the AAA rules. Customer waives any right to participate in class action litigation or class wide arbitration as a class representative, a class member, or in any other capacity whatsoever. 21. This Agreement shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the successors, representatives, administrators and assignees of the parties hereto. 22. The unenforceability of any provision of this Agreement shall not impair the enforceability of any other part of this Agreement. 23. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous agreements or understandings, whether written or oral, between the parties. 24. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Utah (irrespective of its choice of law principles). The parties agree that the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods shall not apply to this Agreement. 25. Customer and CallTower agree that all details of this Agreement, included but not limited to pricing, product bundles, Customer information, and CallTower information shall be considered proprietary and confidential. 26. The relationship of CallTower and Customer is that of independent contractors. Neither party nor its employees, consultants, contractors or agents are agents, employees, partners or joint venturers of the other party, nor do they have any authority to bind the other party by contract or otherwise to any obligation. 27. No delay or default in performance of any obligation by either party, excepting all obligations to make payments, shall constitute a breach of this Agreement to the extent caused by acts of God, war, government action, acts of terrorism, fire, flood, storm, explosion, earthquake or other causes that are not foreseeable and are beyond the reasonable control of the other party. 28. The parties execute this Agreement effective as of the Effective Date. 29. CallTower is committed to maintaining the privacy of its customers. For CallTower's Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) policy, please see https://www.calltower.com/resources-training/customer-proprietary-network-information-policy/. For information on California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) certification, please see https://www.calltower.com/resources-training/california-consumer-privacy-act- certification/ Q - 7 SALES@CALLTOWER.COM WWW.CALLTOWER.COM (800) 347-5444 Quote #1042052 Date: 02/24/2025 Exp Date: 03/26/2025 City of Cottage Grove Terms And Conditions Related To Network Services 1. CallTower will arrange for a private network connection from its data center to Customer's premise(s) delivered through Tier 1 Circuit Providers. The network services are delivered through Tier 1 partners. Service outages resulting from network interruptions are expressly excluded from CallTower's Service Level Agreement ("SLA"). 2. CallTower will also deliver its Services over the Internet to small offices or individual users. Customer understands that delivery of CallTower Services over the Internet are not guaranteed and are thus expressly excluded from CallTower's SLA. 3. CallTower will not be liable for any damages or commercial loss associated with interruptions in network services. 4. Customer will be responsible for any residual network charges, and other disconnection fees incurred by CallTower if Customer terminates this Agreement for any reason prior to the end of the Term. To the extent the provider of network services permits CallTower to transfer the network services account to Customer, upon written request of Customer, CallTower will cooperate in such transfer following termination of this Agreement. 5. The billing for the circuit will commence on the agreed upon Activation Date, notwithstanding delays in the implementation of other Services. 6. There will be a cancellation fee in the case of termination of the network services prior to installation. The cancellation fee will be equal to one month's MRC plus forfeiture of the security deposit relating to the cancelled services. In addition, Customer may be responsible to pay an Early Termination Fee for network services if installed based on CallTower's commitment to the underlying provider. Q - 8 SALES@CALLTOWER.COM WWW.CALLTOWER.COM (800) 347-5444 Quote #1042052 Date: 02/24/2025 Exp Date: 03/26/2025 City of Cottage Grove Cloud Provider Requirements and Readiness Customers must review and be compliant with the CallTower documents below: CallTower's Microsoft Teams support and implementation policies https://www.uc.solutions/Microsoft_Teams/Microsoft_Teams_Technical_Info/Microsoft_Teams_Implementation_and_Support Site Readiness Requirements: Customer facilities must meet minimum requirements pertaining to their telecommunications infrastructure to support CallTower services. The Customer is responsible to ensure that each of their facilities meet, or are upgraded to meet, the minimum requirements as determined by CallTower. The site readiness requirements are, but are not limited to: Client Desktop and Mobile Hardware: Client hardware must meet minimum requirements as specified by each cloud provider. https://www.uc.solutions/General_CallTower_Info/CallTower_Information/Client_Desktop_and_Mobile_Hardware_Requirements Minimum Point of Entry (MPoE) MPOE Access: The MPoE is readily accessible to CallTower & the Local Exchange Carrier. Power/Backboard/lighting: The MPoE meets FCC standards, which allows for safe connection of third-party telephone Customer-premises equipment and wiring to the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN). Circuit Extension: There must be a sufficient number of available copper pairs at the MPoE servicing the Customer server room where the router is racked for the type of network connection installed to support CallTower services. Circuit extensions will utilize the existing house cabling and patch panels and any need for additional buildout or modification of such is the Customer responsibility. Where CallTower is to provide the circuit extension, the Customer will be responsible for any cost exceeding $400. Server Room Equipment Placement: CallTower router and switches are mounted on a rack that meets server room standards and the router and switches are mounted within six feet of each other. Patch cable runs greater than six feet must be provided by the Customer. Equipment Placement: Equipment is adequately ventilated and spaced to allow for maintenance and cooling and both the front and rear panels of the router(s) and switch(es) are accessible. Devices must not be near water sources, electromagnetic interferences sources, nor in closed spaces. A minimum of 5 inches should be available around all sides of the CallTower routers and switches. Once the equipment is placed on the server rack or surface. Operating Temperature: 32 to 104F (0 to 40C), Operating Humidity: 10 to 85% non-condensing Required Operating Power: Each router or switch has a power outlet providing the voltage: AC Input Voltage: 100 to 240 VAC Uninterruptible power supply (UPS) for server room power conditioning (visit http://www.apc.com/tools/ups_selector for info if needed ) Patch Panel: Customer-provided patch panel is within six feet of the switch and is well-labeled. All cabling is properly terminated at the patch panel. Office Suite Cabling: Industry Standard Category 5, Category 5e or Category 6 is run from the patch panel to every IP phone location, with no hubs or other intermediate devices. CallTower does not install suite cabling. Terminated endpoints: Every IP Phones location has wall jack to receive power and proper signaling. Labeled Endpoints: Network Cabling is properly be labeled at the end point (Cubicle/Office) and match the patch panel labeling at the server room. Q - 9 SALES@CALLTOWER.COM WWW.CALLTOWER.COM (800) 347-5444 Quote #1042052 Date: 02/24/2025 Exp Date: 03/26/2025 City of Cottage Grove SIGNATURE PAGE In witness whereof, the parties have caused this Proposal, including the attached Service Agreement, to be duly executed by each of their authorized representatives as of the date of the last signature below. _______________________ CallTower Signature: _______________________ Print Name: _______________________ Title: __________________ Date: _______________________ Customer Signature: _______________________ Print Name: _______________________ Title: __________________ Date: Customer Primary Point of Contact: CONTACT:______________________________________________ TITLE:________________________________________________ PHONE:_____________________ EMAIL:____________________________________ EMAIL(s) to send invoices:____________________________________ Tax Exemption: Customer is Tax Exempt and Agrees to Provide Tax Exemption Forms. _____Yes_____No. Customer will be charged taxes until valid exemption forms are provided. Q - 10 SALES@CALLTOWER.COM WWW.CALLTOWER.COM (800) 347-5444 CURRENT PHONE SERVICES MONTHLY$Annual Maintenance SIP LINES (COMCAST)900.00$ MARCO SUPPORT SERVICES 11,695.31$ 900.00$ MONTHLY$ (3 year support contract)2,032.00$ standard/26 shared 1,402.80$ approximate budgeted monthly 3,434.80$ one time - setup charges 13,161.50$ CCX400 phones - one time discount (4,199.00)$ hardware estimated purchases (phones CCX350)10,239.90$ 12,500.00$ TOWER)MONTHLY$ call tower monthly Recurring (3 year contract)1,575.84$ standard/26 shared 1,402.80$ approximate budgeted monthly 2,978.64$ one-time setup charges CIT 23,540.00$ hardware estimated purchases (phones CCX400)11,950.00$ call tower - porting etc. one time charge 3,682.30$ call tower other - one time charges 1,688.94$ intial expenditure (one-time costs)40,861.24$ approx monthly 974.61$ 1,874.61$ comparison monthly support plus lines 1 City Council Action Request 7.Q. Meeting Date 11/5/2025 Department IT Department Agenda Category Action Item Title Toast Merchant Agreement Staff Recommendation Approve the Toast Master Service and Processing 24-month agreement and purchase of hardware and implementation associated. Budget Implication Toast will be replacing the Food and Beverage (F&B) module from MemberSports as well as the River Oaks Open Table reservation subscription. MemberSports F&B is $100 a month and OpenTable is $299 a month. This results in a monthly increase moving to Toast of $135 plus one- time hardware and implementation charges. MemberSports has agreed to reimburse River Oaks for equipment for a total of $1600, offsetting the cost of the one-time equipment charge with Toast. One-time charges • Hardware $1625 • Implementation and setup — $400 • Monthly Subscription Charge - $534, 24-month agreement. Attachments 1. ToastCouncilSubmittal To: From: Cc: Brian Bluhm, IT Manager Zac Dockter, Parks and Recreation Director Dennis Neitz, General Manager, River Oaks Date: Subject: Introduction In the spring of 2025, River Oaks Municipal Golf transitioned to a new point of sale system called MemberSports that specializes in golf course operations such as course management online tee times and sales as well as point of sale operations. Part of this transition included MemberSports Food and Beverage module. It was discovered during the 2025 golf season that though the golf operations module works well for the course, the food and beverage module was lacking in design and functionality for a modern restaurant and banquet establishment. River Oaks management began researching solutions and created a decision group with representatives from Cottage Grove Finance, IT and golf course staff. It was determined that separating restaurant operational software from the specialized golf software was the best course of action. Doing so would allow staff to utilize a product that provided more efficiency for staff and better customer service for patrons of River Oaks. The solution that stood out the most was Toast. Toast Based out of Boston, MA, Toast provides feature rich point of sale services to over 148,000 restaurants and retail operations across the world. Some of the Toast features include table ordering, credit card processing, online ordering, table management and reservations, contactless ordering and QR code, 24x7x365 support and analytics and sales reporting. Budget Implications Toast will be replacing the Food and Beverage (F&B) module from MemberSports as well as the River Oaks Open Table reservation subscription. MemberSports F&B is $100 a month and OpenTable is $299 a month. This results in a monthly increase moving to Toast of $135 plus one-time hardware and implementation charges. MemberSports has agreed to reimburse River Oaks for equipment for a total of $1600 offsetting the cost of the one-time equipment charge with Toast. • One-time charges o Hardware $1625 o Implementation and setup- $400 • Monthly Subscription Charge - $534, 24-month agreement. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the approval of the Toast Master Service and Processing 24-month agreement and purchase of hardware and implementation associated. TOAST MERCHANT AGREEMENT INITIAL ORDER FORM Software Subscription Total: Hardware & Implementation Totals: Software Subscription: $ Total Hardware Cost(2): $ Software Billing Method: Total Implementation Cost(2): $ Contract Start Date(1): Payment Method: Initial Term: Payment Terms: (1) Software billing for point of sale Software shall commence on the earlier of (i) Contract Start Date which is defined as days from the Effective Date of this Order and (ii) the Go-Live Date. Product Lifetime Policy: Toast products are subject to our Product Lifetime Policy. For details, read (2) Totals above do not include taxes or shipping costs. Prices are estimates and subject to change. Additional fees may apply for cancelations and for services outside M-F, 7am-9pm local time, for more details see: (Non-Refundable) Deposit Total Deposit Amount: Deposit Payment Method: ACH Account Type: Non-refundable deposit: This deposit is non-refundable and is due upon execution of this form. PAYMENT PROCESSING* RATES Payment Processing Pricing Structure: See following page for details American Express Processing Type: Estimated Annual AMEX Volume: Do you want to accept AMEX: Do you have an existing AMEX account: Existing AMEX Merchant ID: Docusign Envelope ID: 53FAA80F-0A66-4EF6-8D02-004DC7A32275 1624.75 ****************** OptBlue 60 533.20 $300.00 Toast’s Product Lifetime Policy Interchange Plus OptBlue - Less than $1M annually by Tax ID 400.00 https://hub.toasttab.com/welcome/installation/service-fees Monthly Processing Fee: $0.00 V/MC/D (Card-Present): 0.5000% + $0.0500 V/MC/D (Card-Not-Present): 0.5000% + $0.0500 American Express (Card-Present): 0.5000% + $0.0500 American Express (Card-Not-Present): 0.5000% + $0.0500 ACH on Shipping Net 2 ACH River Oaks Golf Course and Event Center - SMB POS - New Business Billed Monthly true 24 Months Pricing Conditions: Toast pricing for VISA, MasterCard, Discover, and American Express rates are valid only for merchants located in the United States. Your participation in Toast payment processing is further subject to the Standard Terms and Conditions, which can be found at *Payment processing is facilitated by Toast, supported by Toast’s payment provider(s). American Express Processing Type Pricing Structure Card-Present In a Card-Present (or CP) transaction, card details are captured in person at the time of the sale, and the card is swiped, dipped, or tapped using a card reader device. Card-Not-Present In a Card-Not-Present (or CNP) transaction, card details are not captured by swipe, dip or tap using a physical card reader device. Card details are captured through some other means, such as manual key entry or online. Chargeback Fee Chargeback fee: $15 per occurrence (plus additional amounts or liabilities as further described in the Standard Terms and Conditions). Docusign Envelope ID: 53FAA80F-0A66-4EF6-8D02-004DC7A32275 River Oaks Golf Course and Event Center - SMB POS - New Business https://pos.toasttab.com/merchant-service-agreements In addition to Merchant’s obligations under this Order Form and Merchant Agreement, Merchant’s participation in the American Express (or, where necessary for spatial constraints, “AMEX”) Opt Blue Program is contingent upon Merchant’s acceptance of, and compliance with, the then-current American Express Merchant Operating Guide, the most recent version of which is available at: https://icm.aexp-static.com/content/dam/gms/en_us/optblue/us-mog.pdf. Only Merchant’s with an Estimated Annual AMEX Volume of $1,000,000 or less are eligible to participate in the OptBlue Program. If, during Merchant’s participation in the OptBlue Program: (i) Merchant’s Estimated Annual AMEX Volume exceeds $1,000,000, (ii) Merchant does not meet the eligibility criteria contained in the American Express Merchant Operating Guide, or (iii) for any other reason in AMEX’s discretion, and AMEX notifies Toast that Merchant has been categorized as a “High CV Merchant,” then Merchant will be converted to a “AMEX Direct Merchant” and accordingly will process AMEX transactions directly with AMEX pursuant to the terms and conditions of the then-current American Express Card Acceptance Agreement. “IC +” stands for “Interchange Plus,” a cost-plus pricing structure. Toast passes through to the merchant certain rates and fees established and updated from time to time by third parties such as card brands and card issuers, including all published interchange, assessment, and network rates and fees, as identified by Toast. The percentage rates and fixed fees specified above under the “Payment Processing Rates” section of this Order Form are billed in addition to the rates and fees that are passed through from third parties. MERCHANT APPLICATION & OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Ownership details must be provided for each individual or legal entity owner with a 25% or greater ownership interest. Total percent of ownership on this agreement must total over 50%. Please attach an Additional Owner Addendum, if necessary, t o complete this requirement. Each owner authorizes Toast to obtain and to review third party credit bureau reports on such owne r. Restaurant Location Information Restaurant Name (DBA): Restaurant Location Address: City: State: ZIP Code: Phone: Fax: Email: New or Existing Business? Restaurant Category: Annual Card Volume: $ Average Ticket Amount: $ Business Legal Information Federal Tax ID/EIN (9 digits, no dash): Number of Locations: Business Legal Name: Registered Legal Address: City: State: ZIP Code: Date Business Commenced: Ownership Type: Primary Owner Information First Name: Last Name: Percent of Ownership(3): Title: Phone: Email: Home Address: City: State: ZIP Code: Years at Address: Date of Birth: Social SN: Docusign Envelope ID: 53FAA80F-0A66-4EF6-8D02-004DC7A32275 Cottage Grove Cottage Grove 55016 (651) 438-3627 River Oaks Golf Course and Event Center - SMB POS - New Business MN 55016 Existing - Open for Business MN 5812 Restaurant/Eating Places Owner 2 Contact Information (if applicable) First Name: Last Name: Percent of Ownership: Title: Phone: Email: Home Address: City: State: ZIP Code: Years at Address: Date of Birth: Social SN: Owner 3 Contact Information (if applicable) First Name: Last Name: Percent of Ownership: Title: Phone: Email: Home Address: City: State: ZIP Code: Years at Address: Date of Birth: Social SN: Owner 4 Contact Information (if applicable) First Name: Last Name: Percent of Ownership: Title: Phone: Email: Home Address: City: State: ZIP Code: Years at Address: Date of Birth: Social SN: Primary Contact for Toast Implementation Same as Owner Contact? First Name: Last Name: Title: Phone: Email: Docusign Envelope ID: 53FAA80F-0A66-4EF6-8D02-004DC7A32275 0 River Oaks Golf Course and Event Center - SMB POS - New Business Merchant understands and acknowledges that: One “day” of implementation services shall be equal to 8 hours of service. Implementation services shall be delivered anytime between the hours of 7am and 9pm local time, Monday - Friday (“Toast Standard Hours”). Any additional hours per day, or hours outside of Toast Standard Hours, shall require Merchant to pay additional fees at the then current rate for the total amount of hours and number of technicians necessary to complete implementation. All services and fees shall be in accordance with Toast does not provide cabling services and the estimates provided above do not include cabling costs. If cabling is required Toast may recommend a local partner. More information can be found in the Toast Site Readiness Guide After scheduling service appointments (menu review, installation, training or go -live support), Merchant shall have until 7 days before the scheduled date to cancel the service appointment. Canceling within 7 days of the service appointment will result in Merchant being assessed a service fee for each day canceled in accordance with Docusign Envelope ID: 53FAA80F-0A66-4EF6-8D02-004DC7A32275 https://hub.toasttab.com/welcome/installation/service-fees River Oaks Golf Course and Event Center - SMB POS - New Business https://hub.toasttab.com/welcome/installation/service-fees https://central.toasttab.com/s/article/Site-Readiness-Guide Banking Information / Voided Check Bank Name: Account Type: Routing Number: DDA / Account Number: Merchant hereby authorizes Toast, Inc., StratEx HoldCo, LLC, Toast Processing Services LLC, Strategy Execution Partners, LLC, and their designated agents and representatives (each, as applicable to the activities that such party may perform, “the Originator”), to initiate credits and debits, as applicable, to the bank account listed herein or such substitute bank account as Merchant may designate ("Bank Account") through the Automated Clearing House (“ACH”) Network. Merchant authorizes the Originator to initiate such credits and debits to the Bank Account in the amounts and on the dates in accordance with the Toast Merchant Agreement, and the Toast Payroll & Team Management Service Agreement (collectively, the “Agreements”), as applicable, and to debit, without prior notice and at any time, any Bank Account for amounts sufficient to satisfy any liability incurred by Originator on beha lf of Merchant and/or for any amounts owed to Originator under the Agreement(s). This authorization will remain in effect until five (5) business days after the Originator receives written notice from Merchant of its revocation. Merchant understands and agrees that the services provided under the Agreement(s) are contingent on this authorization. If Merchant revokes this authorization, then (a) such revocation shall be a material breach of the Agreement(s) and the Originator may pursue all rights and remedies availabl e thereunder, (b) Merchant will remain liable for all payment obligations unde r the Agreement(s), and (c) the Originator will not be liable for its failure to perform under the Agreement(s). If any Bank Account information provided by Merchant to the Originator changes at any time, Merchant agrees that it will prov ide updated Bank Account information to the Originator within five (5) business days of the change. Merchant agrees to comply with the operating rules and guidelines of Nacha and all applicable federal and state laws, as in effect from time to time with re spect to ACHs. Merchant agrees to maintain sufficient funds on deposit in the Bank Account for the debiting of amounts owed under the Agreement(s). Merchant agrees that, if there are insufficient funds in the Bank Account to satisfy the amounts owed to the Originator, Merchant shall immediately send the Originator such amounts upon demand by the Originator to the bank account specified by the Originator. Merchant agrees that the Originator shall not be liable to Merchant for any fees or overdrafts (irrespective of cause), delays in receipt of funds, or errors in credit or debit entries caused by third parties including, but not limit ed to, a clearinghouse, Merchant’s financial institution, or any agent of Merchant. Merchant agrees that Originator may charge Merchant a fee for any rejected or returned ACH transactions. PLEASE ATTACH A CLEARLY LEGIBLE PICTURE OF A VOIDED CHECK (Voided check or another form of routing & account number verification is required!) Docusign Envelope ID: 53FAA80F-0A66-4EF6-8D02-004DC7A32275 River Oaks Golf Course and Event Center - SMB POS - New Business TERMS AND CONDITIONS AGREEMENT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT In order to provide Merchant with payment processing services, Toast must enter into agreements with the Payment Networks, pr ocessors, and acquiring banks. The Payment Networks have set certain Card volume thresholds, which require anyone that processes at or above those thresholds to enter into an agreement directly with one or more of Toast’s banking partner(s). These thresholds are as follows: $1,000,000 in Visa transactions and/or $1,000,000 in MasterCard transactions (or such other amount provided by the Operating Regulations) processed in any 12-month period. By accepting or otherwise agreeing to these terms, Merchant agrees to the terms and conditions of each applicable Commercial Entity Agreement, located at as may be amended from time to time, effective as of the date Merchant processes such specified amounts or as otherwise required by Toast’s bank partners. If Merchant fails to comply with any “Commercial Entity Agreement”, Toast may suspend or terminate Merchant’s Toast Account. Similarly, if American Express considers Merchant to be a high value customer, it may require that Merchant enter into a direct agreement with American Express and designate Toast as Merch ant’s agent for American Express payments. If that is the case, Toast will notify Merchant of such requirement. USA PATRIOT ACT NOTICE AND INFORMATION COLLECTION To help the government fight the funding of terrorism and money laundering activities, federal law requires all financial institutions to, obtain, verify and record information that identifies each person (individual or business) that opens an account. Toast collects this information on behalf of its financial institution partners. For this reason, Toast requests your name, address, date of birth and social security number. Toast also requests information about your company. This allows Toast to identify Merchant and its owners. Toast may also ask for your driver’s license or othe r identifying documents and information. Each owner, control person, and/or officer/manager listed herein understands Toast may obt ain and review information from consumer reporting agencies and/or other informational searches on such individual from time to time to validate the authenticity of information provided and conduct criminal background checks. This Merchant Agreement (this “Agreement”) is between Toast, Inc., a Delaware corporation with offices at 333 Summer Street, Boston, MA 02210 (“Toast”), and the company listed above (“Merchant”). This Agreement includes, collectively, (1) this Order Form, and (2) the Standard Terms and Conditions available at . Any documents attached hereto that appear after the Special Terms section of this Order Form are included for reference purposes only and any such document or any other terms, including product, pricing, payment, or discount terms which are noted outside of their respective sections or the Special Terms section, do not form part of the Agreement. Merchant acknowledges the receipt of this Agreemen t. All capitalized, undefined terms used in this Agreement shall have the meaning set forth in the Standard Terms and Conditions. Merchant has read, understands, and agr ees to be bound by this Agreement, as may be amended from time to time in accordance therewith. Merchant acknowledges that this Agreement is a fundamental part of the parties’ agreement without which Toast would not provide services to Merchant. Merchant can request a copy of the Standard Terms and Conditions at any time by contacting a Customer Service Representative at 617-682-0225 or support@toasttab.com. SIGNATURE Merchant Legal Name Signature Authorized Signer Name (please print) Title: _______________ Date: _______________ Docusign Envelope ID: 53FAA80F-0A66-4EF6-8D02-004DC7A32275 River Oaks Golf Course and Event Center - SMB POS - New Business https://pos.toasttab.com/merchant-service-agreements https://pos.toasttab.com/merchant-agreement Special Terms: Docusign Envelope ID: 53FAA80F-0A66-4EF6-8D02-004DC7A32275 Toast, Inc. (“Toast”) merchant customers who (i) sign the Toast Merchant Agreement by September 30, 2025; (ii) are referred to Toast by US Foods prior to signing the Toast Merchant Agreement; and (iii) achieve a Go-Live Date (as defined herein) within one (1) year of execution of the Toast Merchant Agreement (“Eligible Customers”) are eligible to receive a one-time discount of up to $1,000.00 on Toast hardware, implementation and onboarding fees (excluding, however, the following services: Core Implementation (1-2 Tablets), SKU: IMPBA02 and Core Implementation (3+ Tablets), SKU: IMPBA03). The discount may only be applied once per Eligible Customer and may be combined with additional promotions or discounts in Toast’s sole discretion. The discount cannot be redeemed for cash and may not be applied toward Software, shipping, or other fees. This is a limited time offer subject to change. Toast reserves the right to suspend, modify, or cancel this promotion at any time. “Go-Live Date” means the actual date upon which an Eligible Customer is capable of processing card payments and begins using the Toast POS services in a live production environment. If an Eligible Customer does not meet the Go-Live Date criteria set forth above, the Eligible Customer will be responsible for paying Toast’s full list price for the purchased Toast hardware, implementation, and onboarding service fees. Toast retains the right to impose limits on Merchant's use of Toast Tables or Toast Tables Plus, including, but not limited to, the right to limit the total number of SMS messages and the right to suspend or terminate Merchant's access, if Toast reasonably believes that Merchant's use of Toast Tables or Toast Tables Plus is not consistent with normal, fair, and reasonable use of such Services. Any messaging or content that contains or promotes sex, hate, alcohol, firearms, tobacco, fraud, or abuse is expressly prohibited. US Foods Onboarding Promotion Toast, Inc. (“Toast”) merchant customers who (i) sign the Toast Merchant Agreement by September 30, 2025; (ii) are referred to Toast by US Foods prior to signing the Toast Merchant Agreement; and (iii) achieve a POS Go-Live Date* within one (1) year of execution of the Toast Merchant Agreement for Toast customers who are opening a new restaurant location (a “New Customer - NRO”) and within sixty (60) days of execution of the Toast Merchant Agreement for Toast customers whose restaurant is currently in operation (a “New Customer - Existing Restaurant” and together with the New Customer - NRO, the “Eligible Customers”) are eligible to receive the applicable discount set forth below. Eligible Customers are eligible to receive a one-time discount of up to $1,049.00 on applicable Toast implementation / onboarding service fees. *Go-Live Date, with respect to Toast POS, means the actual date upon which an Eligible Customer is capable of processing card payments and begins using the Toast POS services in a live production environment. If an Eligible Customer does not meet the Go-Live Date criteria set forth above, the Eligible Customer will be responsible for paying Toast’s full list price for the purchased Toast hardware and implementation / onboarding service fees. The discount may only be applied once per Eligible Customer and may be combined with additional promotions or discounts in Toast’s sole discretion. The discount cannot be redeemed for cash and may not be applied toward Software, shipping, or other fees. This is a limited time offer subject to change. New Toast, Inc. (“Toast”) SMB merchant customers in the United States who sign a Toast Merchant Agreement Initial Order Form (“Initial Order”) with Toast between July 16, 2025 and August 31, 2025 (“New Customers”) may be eligible to receive the following discounts on items purchased in such New Customer’s Initial Order: (i) a forty percent (40%) off of any Toast Go 2 handheld device (SKU: 779006 and SKU: 779006W); and (ii) a discount on the Software subscription for its Toast Go 2 handheld devices (SKU: SUB120) equal to fifteen percent (15%) if New Customer purchases between two to three Toast Go 2 handheld devices, or a discount equal to twenty percent (20%) on the Software subscription for its Toast Go 2 handheld devices if New Customer purchases four or more Toast Go 2 handheld devices (”Promotion”). This Promotion only applies to the Hardware devices and Software subscriptions described above and may not be applied toward any other Hardware, Software, shipping, or other fees. For the avoidance of doubt, the discounts provided in section (ii) above only apply to the monthly software subscription fee associated with the Software subscription for the Toast Go 2 handheld devices. The Promotion may not be redeemed for cash. This is a limited time offer subject to change. Toast reserves the right to suspend, modify, or cancel the Promotion. “SMB” shall mean a merchant customer with less than fifteen (15) restaurant locations and that signs up for Toast through Toast’s small and midsize business channels. Toast shall determine whether a merchant customer is considered an SMB in its sole discretion. New Toast, Inc. (“Toast”) SMB merchant customers in the United States who sign a Toast Merchant Agreement Initial Order Form (“Initial Order”) with Toast between July 16, 2025 and August 31, 2025 (“New Customers”) may be eligible to receive the following discounts on items purchased in such New Customer’s Initial Order: (i) a forty percent (40%) off of any Toast Go 2 handheld device (SKU: 779006 and SKU: 779006W); and (ii) a discount on the Software subscription for its Toast Go 2 handheld devices (SKU: SUB120) equal to fifteen percent (15%) if New Customer purchases between two to three Toast Go 2 handheld devices, or a discount equal to twenty percent (20%) on the Software subscription for its Toast Go 2 handheld devices if New Customer purchases four or more Toast Go 2 handheld devices (”Promotion”). This Promotion only applies to the Hardware devices and Software subscriptions described above and may not be applied toward any other Hardware, Software, shipping, or other fees. For the avoidance of doubt, the discounts provided in section (ii) above only apply to the monthly software subscription fee associated with the Software subscription for the Toast Go 2 handheld devices. The Promotion may not be redeemed for cash. This is a limited time offer subject to change. Toast reserves the right to suspend, modify, or cancel the Promotion. “SMB” shall mean a merchant customer with less than fifteen (15) restaurant locations and that signs up for Toast through Toast’s small and midsize business channels. Toast shall determine whether a merchant customer is considered an SMB in its sole discretion. THIS PAGE IS INTENDED FOR ADDITIONAL SPECIAL TERMS, IF NECESSARY Docusign Envelope ID: 53FAA80F-0A66-4EF6-8D02-004DC7A32275 Certificate Of Completion Envelope Id: 53FAA80F-0A66-4EF6-8D02-004DC7A32275 Status: Sent Subject: Documents for your DocuSign Signature Template Name (do not edit): Toast Merchant Agreement Start Date Type: Calculated upon booking Template Type (do not edit): Source Envelope: Document Pages: 9 Signatures: 0 Envelope Originator: Certificate Pages: 4 Initials: 0 Kelby Teer AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled Time Zone: (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) 401 Park Dr Ste 801 Boston, MA 02040 kelby.teer@toasttab.com IP Address: 155.226.144.1 Record Tracking Status: Original 9/23/2025 1:16:52 PM Holder: Kelby Teer kelby.teer@toasttab.com Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Dennis Neitz dneitz@cottagegrovemn.gov Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 9/23/2025 1:16:57 PM Viewed: 9/23/2025 1:45:46 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Accepted: 9/23/2025 1:45:46 PM ID: 79181843-8395-4daa-a109-93eb15e1e3e0 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 Sales Ops CC salesops@toasttab.com Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Accepted: 9/30/2022 3:08:37 PM ID: a75a4098-d1c2-409a-ad93-4beeb70ca228 Witness Events Signature Timestamp Notary Events Signature Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 9/23/2025 1:16:57 PM Certified Delivered Security Checked 9/23/2025 1:45:46 PM Payment Events Status Timestamps Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure ELECTRONIC RECORD AND SIGNATURE DISCLOSURE From time to time, Toast, Inc. (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 your DocuSign, Inc. (DocuSign) Express user account. Please read the information below carefully and thoroughly, and if you can access this information electronically to your satisfaction and agree to these terms and conditions, please confirm your agreement by clicking the 'I agree' button at the bottom of this document. 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. For such copies, as long as you are an authorized user of the DocuSign system you will have the ability to download and print any documents we send to you through your DocuSign user account 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. To indicate to us that you are changing your mind, you must withdraw your consent using the DocuSign 'Withdraw Consent' form on the signing page of your DocuSign account. This will indicate to us that you have withdrawn your consent to receive required notices and disclosures electronically from us and you will no longer be able to use your DocuSign Express user account 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 Unless you tell us otherwise in accordance with the procedures described herein, we will provide electronically to you through your DocuSign user account 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. Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure created on: 8/8/2016 3:58:17 PM Parties agreed to: Dennis Neitz, Sales Ops CC How to contact Toast, Inc.: 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: jdack@toasttab.com To advise Toast, Inc. of your new e-mail address To let us know of a change in your e-mail address where we should send notices and disclosures electronically to you, you must send an email message to us at jdack@toasttab.com and in the body of such request you must state: your previous e-mail address, your new e-mail address. We do not require any other information from you to change your email address.. In addition, you must notify DocuSign, Inc to arrange for your new email address to be reflected in your DocuSign account by following the process for changing e-mail in DocuSign. To request paper copies from Toast, Inc. 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 e-mail to jdack@toasttab.com and in the body of such request you must state your e-mail address, full name, US Postal address, and telephone number. We will bill you for any fees at that time, if any. To withdraw your consent with Toast, Inc. To inform us that you no longer want to receive future notices and disclosures in electronic format you may: i. decline to sign a document from within your DocuSign account, and on the subsequent page, select the check-box indicating you wish to withdraw your consent, or you may; ii. send us an e-mail to jdack@toasttab.com and in the body of such request you must state your e-mail, full name, IS Postal Address, telephone number, and account 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 may take a longer time to process.. Required hardware and software Operating Systems: Windows2000? or WindowsXP? Browsers (for SENDERS): Internet Explorer 6.0? or above Browsers (for SIGNERS): Internet Explorer 6.0?, Mozilla FireFox 1.0, NetScape 7.2 (or above) Email: Access to a valid email account Screen Resolution: 800 x 600 minimum Enabled Security Settings: •Allow per session cookies •Users accessing the internet behind a Proxy Server must enable HTTP 1.1 settings via proxy connection ** These minimum requirements are subject to change. If these requirements change, we will provide you with an email message at the email address we have on file for you at that time providing you with the revised hardware and software requirements, at which time you will have the right to withdraw your consent. Acknowledging your access and consent to receive materials 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 verify that you were able to read this electronic disclosure and that you also were able to print on paper or electronically save this page for your future reference and access or that you were able to e-mail this disclosure and consent to an 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 on the terms and conditions described above, please let us know by clicking the 'I agree' button below. By checking the 'I Agree' box, I confirm that: • I can access and read this Electronic CONSENT TO ELECTRONIC RECEIPT OF ELECTRONIC RECORD AND SIGNATURE DISCLOSURES document; and • I can print on paper the disclosure or save or send the disclosure to a place where I can print it, for future reference and access; and • Until or unless I notify Toast, Inc. as described above, I consent to receive from exclusively through electronic means all notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to me by Toast, Inc. during the course of my relationship with you. 1 City Council Action Request 7.R. Meeting Date 11/5/2025 Department IT Department Agenda Category Action Item Title FRSecure Risk Assessment Agreement Staff Recommendation Staff recommend the approval of the FRSecure 4-year Risk Assessment and Scada Testing agreement in the amount of $154,000 payable in annual installments of $38,500. Budget Implication This risk assessment is a budgeted annual item under the IT professional services budget. This 4-year agreement in the amount of $154,000, is payable annually in the amount of $38,500 per year. Attachments 1. FRSecureCouncilSubmittal In an increasingly interconnected and digitized world, cities face a growing array of threats that span the virtual, physical, and operational domains. As stewards of public infrastructure and services, it is imperative for city leadership to proactively identify and mitigate vulnerabilities that could compromise the safety, security, and resilience of municipal systems. Conducting an provides an objective, comprehensive evaluation of the city's digital infrastructure, data governance policies, and physical security measures assuring that blind spots are uncovered and addressed before they can be exploited. A critical component of this assessment must include , which are integral to managing the city's water resources. These systems, while essential for operational efficiency and public health, are increasingly targeted by cyber threats due to their connectivity and often outdated security protocols. A breach in SCADA systems could lead to service disruptions, environmental damage, or even public safety hazards. Including SCADA in the risk assessment ensures that the city's most vital utilities are protected with the same rigor as its digital and physical assets. By engaging external experts to perform a holistic risk assessment, the city demonstrates its commitment to proactive governance, public trust, and long-term resilience in the face of evolving threats. FRSecure is a preferred risk assessment vendor for the City of Cottage Grove that specializes in municipal and SCADA risk assessments. They are a trusted information security consulting firm dedicated to helping organizations of all sizes improve their security posture through practical, measurable, and risk-based approaches. Founded with a mission to fix the broken information security industry, FRSecure provides a wide range of services designed to identify vulnerabilities, reduce risk, and build resilient security programs tailored to each client’s unique needs. Headquartered in Minnesota, FRSecure serves clients across the United States in both the public and private sectors, including municipalities, healthcare providers, financial institutions, and critical infrastructure organizations. The company is known for its vendor-agnostic stance, meaning its recommendations are based solely on what is best for the client—not on selling products. • Risk Assessments (including external, internal, and third-party) • Penetration Testing • Security Program Development • Policy and Procedure Review • Incident Response Planning • Security Awareness Training • SCADA and Industrial Control System (ICS) Security Assessments FRSecure is also the creator of the , a suite of tools used to measure and manage information security risk. The platform includes S2Org, S2Vendor, and S2Team, which help organizations assess their own security, evaluate third-party vendors, and train employees, respectively. With a strong emphasis on education, transparency, and long-term partnership, FRSecure is a valuable ally for any organization seeking to strengthen its cybersecurity defenses and align with best practices. This risk assessment is a budgeted annual item. To ensure an impartial approach to risk management and the City’s data and SCADA systems are assessed as it grows and controls are put in place, staff is recommending a 4-year agreement in the amount of $154,000 payable annually in the amount of $38,500 a year. This is in line with the current approved IT professional services budget and historical past budgets. The 4-year agreement will also ensure costs do not exceed budgeted numbers in proceeding years. Staff recommend the approval of the FRSecure 4-year Risk Assessment and Scada Testing agreement in the amount of $154,000 payable in annual installments of $38,500. A Proposal For Risk Assessment & SCADA Testing Prepared For City of Cottage Grove Prepared for: Brian Bluhm IT Manager City of Cottage Grove Prepared By: Tim Truninger ttruninger@frsecure.com Date: 09 / 22 / 2025 City of Cottage Grove Risk Assessment & SCADA Testing CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION This document may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this document or the information herein is prohibited without prior permission of FRSecure. Copyright 2025 FRSecure LLC, All R ig h Pts Raegsereved2.of 21 09 / 22 / 2025 Brian Bluhm, IT Manager City of Cottage Grove 12800 Ravine Parkway South Cottage Grove MN 55016 Thank you for your time and consideration of this proposal. At FRSecure, we are called to a mission of fixing the broken security industry. Our focus resides in helping our peers and clients master the fundamentals of information security through establishing a common language, providing low or no cost training and resources and by building the very best security professionals in the industry. Our objectivity in guiding you rests in our product agnostic stance and the core values shared by each and every member of our team. Whether or not we formally engage, please count on us to be a resource and help us keep you informed as we make our training and expertise available to the community. Our passion for information security as our sole focus is the driving force to our current and future success. We hope our proposal today adds to our already positive relationship, where our mission is put to work meeting your information security objectives. Respectfully yours, Evan Francen FRSecure Founder City of Cottage Grove Risk Assessment & SCADA Testing CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION This document may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this document or the information herein is prohibited without prior permission of FRSecure. Copyright 2025 FRSecure LLC, All R ig h Pts Raegsereved3.of 21 The information security industry is broken. We are on a mission to fix it. By staying true to our mission, our commitment to product agnostic services and living our core values, we've developed a community of like-minded individuals, clients and partners. All we do is information security. Additional Information Available On FRSecure.Com • Team Certifications • Team Profiles • Industry Expertise • Free Tools • Blogs & Security Advice • CISSP Mentor Program Details City of Cottage Grove Risk Assessment & SCADA Testing CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION This document may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this document or the information herein is prohibited without prior permission of FRSecure. Copyright 2025 FRSecure LLC, All R ig h Pts Raegsereved4.of 21 Statement Of Work The information contained within this document is a proposal and formal statement of work, if accepted by City of Cottage Grove by execution of this document. Engagement Overview Start of project to report delivery Information Security Risk Assessment • Administrative Controls A comprehensive assessment of the organization's information security posture 1 month Roadmap Determine the Who, What and When for addressing identified risks. 1 month after assessment delivery Internal Penetration Test with Segmentation Test To evaluate security controls protecting the internal network including a segmentation check of a restricted network segment. 4-6 weeks City of Cottage Grove Risk Assessment & SCADA Testing CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION This document may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this document or the information herein is prohibited without prior permission of FRSecure. Copyright 2025 FRSecure LLC, All R ig h Pts Raegsereved5.of 21 Information Security Risk Assessment FRSecure's information security risk assessment is meant to find the measurable baseline for your security posture and prioritize remediation efforts for the most impactful items. A security assessment is always the first step to building a functioning, measurable security strategy. City of Cottage Grove Risk Assessment & SCADA Testing CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION This document may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this document or the information herein is prohibited without prior permission of FRSecure. Copyright 2025 FRSecure LLC, All R ig h Pts Raegsereved6.of 21 Security Program Roadmap Engagement Summary The primary purpose of the Security Program Roadmap is to empower you to be able to choose which tasks you want to take on and which tasks you want to assign to external resources, and provide a strategic Roadmap for completion of all tasks. All actions are measurable and easily communicated. Improvement comes through putting the recommendations from the assessment into practice by: 1. Making risk-based decisions about what to do with each recommendation. 2. Assigning responsibility for actions that must be taken. 3. Determining the priority for such actions and assigning deadlines/timelines. Activities for the Roadmap are driven from the S2Org® assessment. The FRSecure Analyst creates the initial roadmap (or plan) for your information security program over the next 12-18 months City of Cottage Grove Risk Assessment & SCADA Testing CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION This document may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this document or the information herein is prohibited without prior permission of FRSecure. Copyright 2025 FRSecure LLC, All R ig h Pts Raegsereved7.of 21 Internal Penetration Testing Objectives Assuming an attacker has internal access via a beacon, FRSecure assess how easily they could escalate privileges, move laterally, and access sensitive data. The focus is on identifying vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and weak controls that could enable a deeper compromise. About us Our award winning testing team - https://frsecure.com/team-ambush Standards we follow Penetration Testing Execution Standard - http://www.pentest-standard.org/ Enterprise MITRE ATT&CK® - https://attack.mitre.org/matrices/enterprise/ OffSec Certified Professional (OSCP) Our Methodology • Establish Persistence: This involves launching a beacon which allows the tester to communicate with the host system. • Elevate Access: By exploiting vulnerabilities or misconfigurations, the tester aims to gain administrative or higher-level access rights, providing greater control over the systems. • Move Laterally Through the Network: The tester attempts to move laterally within the network, seeking ways to access and compromise other systems and resources. This mimics the lateral movement tactics used by real attackers. • Gain Domain Administrator Access: Achieving domain administrator access signifies a significant compromise, allowing manipulation of Active Directory and other critical components. • Access Sensitive Data: This includes proprietary business information, personal data, financial records, or any other information that, if exposed, could have serious consequences for the organization. • Crack Passwords: Demonstrating the importance of strong and well-protected passwords, the tester attempts to crack passwords from hashed or encrypted formats. • Reporting and Recommendations: Findings are detailed in a report outlining successful and failed attempts, key strengths and weaknesses, and recommendations to enhance security. Deliverables • Executive Summary - Overview of testing objectives, scope, and timeframe. • Finding Summary - Brief description of areas of concern & recommendations • Detailed Finding - In-depth analysis of persistence, Lateral Movement, Gaining Domain Admin, Data Mining, Password Cracking • Additional Testing Setup Details - Examples of command and control traffic example, testing infrastructure setup, file hashes • Best Practices - Additional helpful information for the organization to consider City of Cottage Grove Risk Assessment & SCADA Testing CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION This document may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this document or the information herein is prohibited without prior permission of FRSecure. Copyright 2025 FRSecure LLC, All R ig h Pts Raegsereved8.of 21 SCADA Internal Network Testing with network segmentation verification Supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) networks typically consist of devices that have vulnerabilities that are not or can not be patched. This fact might be difficult to overcome anytime soon. Isolating these vulnerable networks might be your best line of defense. The main objective is to test the infrastructure to determine that the SCADA network is not reachable even if an attacker does gain access to the corporate network. We accomplish this by performing an internal network penetration test with a focus on network segmentation verification between the corporate network and the SCADA networks. FRSecure's pen testing team competes in Defcon's black-badge event Warl0ck Gam3s and have placed in the top three the last several years. The Warl0ck Gam3s are a direct test of the elements of holistic attack simulation on an organization. Total time of engagement: 4-6 weeks Detailed information available in the Approach and Process section at the end of the proposal. City of Cottage Grove Risk Assessment & SCADA Testing CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION This document may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this document or the information herein is prohibited without prior permission of FRSecure. Copyright 2025 FRSecure LLC, All R ig h Pts Raegsereved9.of 21 Engagement Scope Details Engagement Scope Kickoff Date based on SOW signature and availability Security Risk Assessment and Roadmap - L2 - Number of users - Number of physical locations - Number of internal IP addresses Laptops/Workstations/Servers/Network Devices - Number of external IP addresses Approximately 300 Employees 2 physical locations / Onsite Approximately 350 internal addresses 0 Agent Scanning Licenses Approximately 10 external addresses 2-3 months Internal Penetration Test with Segmentation Test Up to 40 Servers Up to 320 Workstations Up to 40 Subnets 1 AD Domain 1 /24 SCADA network Most activity will be conducted during business hours 3-4 months Engagement Planning The success of this engagement will be assured by your Key Account Manager in partnership with our Information Security Experts and Project Management Team. We encourage you to include the entire team in relevant communications, but please consider your Key Account Manager as your go-to for anything you need. Every engagement begins with formal initiation procedures. 1. Introductions to respective teams and their roles in the engagement 2. Establishment of communication preferences 3. Confirmation of scope and service levels expectation 4. Confirmation of timing and constraints 5. Engagement completion expectations and due date for deliverables Support Team Name Title Contact Tim Truninger Account Executive ttruninger@frsecure.com Key Account Management Team Key Account Manger kam-manager@frsecure.com Charles Killmer Senior Security Analyst & Solution Architect ckillmer@frsecure.com Executive Leadership Team Oscar Minks President ominks@frsecure.com Vanae Pearson Chief Financial Officer vpearson@frsecure.com Drew Boeke Chief Revenue Officer dboeke@frsecure.com Incident Response Team In case of Information Security Incident csirt@frsecure.com City of Cottage Grove Risk Assessment & SCADA Testing CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION This document may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this document or the information herein is prohibited without prior permission of FRSecure. Copyright 2025 FRSecure LLC, All Ri g Ph t saRges eerv e1d .0 of 21 Invoiced Annually $47,000 Engagement Investment Security Services Bundle Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Risk Assessment - L2 ✔ ✔ Update Risk Assessment ✔ ✔ Roadmap ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Internal Penetration Test with Segmentation Test ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Name Terms Annual Price Security Services Bundle 1 Year - Security Services Bundle 4 Years - Security Services Bundle Invoiced Annually $38,500 Total (USD) See Invoicing Details section below $154,000 This Proposal Expires October 18, 2025 Client Acceptance Contact Information City of Cottage Grove Signature of Authorized Agent Date: Upon completion, information regarding payment details will be sent to you. Your finance department will need this. Your billing email address FRSecure LLC 6550 York Ave S #500 Edina, MN 55435 Email: legal@frsecure.com City of Cottage Grove Risk Assessment & SCADA Testing CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION This document may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this document or the information herein is prohibited without prior permission of FRSecure. Copyright 2025 FRSecure LLC, All Ri g Ph t saRges eerv e1d .1 of 21 Assumptions FRSecure will provide all of the materials required for the completion of this engagement. FRSecure will rely upon experience, testing, observation, and interviews with City of Cottage Grove employees to assess the completeness and effectiveness of City of Cottage Grove’s information security program. FRSecure will follow all guidance provided by the previously referenced standards for the completion of the work. The FRSecure information security analyst will review a variety of information including, but not necessarily limited to prior working papers, reviews and current City of Cottage Grove diagrams, policies, processes, and procedures. Assessments that have been conducted follow the standards as noted in the National Institute of Standards in Technology Cybersecurity Framework (NIST CSF), ISO/IEC 27002:2013 international standard, Center for Internet Security (CIS) Controls, & NIST Special Publication 800-53 (NIST SP 800-53). Change Management Process Changes can be made to the scope of this engagement and Statement of Work. Any changes requested by either party must be in writing and signed by both parties indicating acceptance. Invoicing Details • For Incident Response Retainer agreements, the balance is due upon acceptance of this SOW by City of Cottage Grove. • A payment schedule will be invoiced annually, quarterly, or monthly starting on the 1st day of the first month services begin. • A down payment invoice of 50% will be sent approximately 30 days prior to the start of each deliverable. The balance is due upon completion of each deliverable to City of Cottage Grove. • For one-time project agreements (i.e. assessments, pen tests), a down payment invoice of 50% will be sent approximately 30 days prior to the start of each deliverable. The balance is due upon completion of each deliverable to City of Cottage Grove. • For Incident Response Retainer agreements, the balance is due upon acceptance of this SOW by City of Cottage Grove. • For one-time project agreements (i.e. assessments, pen tests), a down payment invoice of 50% will be sent approximately 30 days prior to the start of each deliverable. The balance is due upon completion of each deliverable to City of Cottage Grove. • A down payment invoice of 50% will be sent approximately 30 days prior to the start of each deliverable. The balance is due upon completion of each deliverable to City of Cottage Grove. • A payment schedule will be invoiced annually, quarterly, or monthly starting on the 1st day of the first month services begin. • City of Cottage Grove may cancel this engagement at any time pursuant to Section 2.D of the Master Services Agreement between City of Cottage Grove and FRSecure. • Meetings cancelled by City of Cottage Grove less than five (5) business days prior to a FRSecure resource commitment of four (4) or more hours will result in a reschedule fee of $1,000 for time and expenses lost. Note: Prices shown do not include sales tax, if applicable. City of Cottage Grove Risk Assessment & SCADA Testing CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION This document may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this document or the information herein is prohibited without prior permission of FRSecure. Copyright 2025 FRSecure LLC, All Ri g Ph t saRges eerv e1d .2 of 21 Practice Lead Megan Larkins Director Of Consulting Services Certifications • CISSP - Certified Information Systems Security Professional • PCIP - Payment Card Industry Professional • CompTIA Network+ With 15+ years in technology and information security, Megan quickly established herself as a key contributor to the FRSecure team. Megan discovered her passion for technology and leadership in college, increasing her knowledge and influence at each organization she worked at. Customers working with Megan will feel supported by her calm mentoring style. Her organizational skills and focus on detail help keep IT teams on track, reducing the greatest risks to the organization. As a creative problem solver, she brings a unique approach to addressing roadblocks standing in the way of a more mature and prepared team, ready to handle security challenges that come their way. Megan is passionate about helping everyone understand what they can do to prevent and prepare for any crisis they may encounter. She believes that the strongest organizations are those that adopt a culture of cybersecurity and resiliency- understanding that good security practices save time and resources when strategically executed. Eric Hanson Director Of Technical Services Certifications • GXPN - GIAC Exploit Researcher and Advanced Penetration Tester • GCPN - GIAC Cloud Penetration Testing • OSCP - Offensive Security Certified Professional Eric Hanson is an integral part of the FRSecure team, managing offensive service offerings and operations. With over twenty years of experience spread across application & web development, system administration, and penetration testing, Eric is uniquely qualified for his role as Offensive Services Manager. To Eric, FRSecure’s mission to fix a broken industry means constantly maintaining a focus on improving security: “With the increase in industry service offerings and compliance requirements, it’s easy to lose focus on security and just make sure the box gets checked. Always ask how a project improves security. If it serves no purpose other than to satisfy a requirement, then the project is a poor fit.” City of Cottage Grove Risk Assessment & SCADA Testing CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION This document may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this document or the information herein is prohibited without prior permission of FRSecure. Copyright 2025 FRSecure LLC, All Ri g Ph t saRges eerv e1d .3 of 21 Value Proposition Based on the conversations between FRSecure and City of Cottage Grove to date, we believe we are an excellent fit for your engagement. Here are some additional reasons we believe you should select FRSecure: • FRSecure’s Methodology – FRSecure has developed a proprietary approach to assessing information security risks. It’s more than a checklist of questions and recorded answers. Our approach gives you a full picture of your risks - prioritized and rated - with recommended solutions, so you know which security investments will have the greatest impact. • FRSecure’s Project Leader – All of our project leaders have more than 15 years of information security experience as a leader in, and consultant for hundreds of companies ranging from the Fortune 100 to SMBs. BIO’s for our project leaders are available upon request. • Full Transparency – FRSecure strongly believes in empowering our customers. The more knowledge transfer that occurs during our engagement, the more value our customers recognize. FRSecure fully discloses the methods, tools, and configurations used to perform analysis work for our customers in the hope that they can easily adopt our processes for their future benefit. • Product Agnostic – FRSecure does not represent any third-party products or services; on purpose. Our projects and recommendations stand on their own, with no ulterior motive to sell you things you don’t really need. FRSecure Information Security Principles Our Information Security Principles are fundamental to our everyday work and help us to stay focused on our mission to “Fix the Broken Industry”. All our Principles are able to stand by themselves, but they are also solidly interrelated. 1. A business is in business to make money Information security must align with business objectives. 2. Information Security is a business issue Information security is NOT an IT issue. 3. Information Security is fun That’s right, we said “FUN”! 4. People are the biggest risk Not technology. 5. “Compliant” and “secure” are different We shouldn’t confuse the two. 6. There is no common sense in Information Security If there were, we would have better information security. 7. “Secure” is relative One of many reasons for ongoing measurements and comparisons. 8. Information Security should drive business Identify and focus on information security benefits. Information security shouldn’t just be a cost-center. 9. Information Security is not one size fits all No two businesses are exactly alike. 10. There is no “easy button” So stop looking for one. Client references available upon request City of Cottage Grove Risk Assessment & SCADA Testing CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION This document may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this document or the information herein is prohibited without prior permission of FRSecure. Copyright 2025 FRSecure LLC, All Ri g Ph t saRges eerv e1d .4 of 21 FRSecure LLC Master Services Agreement Document Name: FRSQ 11463 City of Cottage Grove This MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made as of the date specified at the end of this Agreement (the “Effective Date”) by and between FRSecure LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company having its principal place of business at 6550 York Ave S #500 Edina, MN 55435 (“FRSecure”) and City of Cottage Grove, having its principal place of business at 12800 Ravine Parkway South,Cottage Grove,MN 55016 (“Client”). FRSecure and Client may be individually referred to as a “Party” or collectively as the “Parties”. WHEREAS, FRSecure provides a variety of security assessment services that its client’s make selections from. WHEREAS, Client desires to retain FRSecure to render certain professional services under the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement and related Statements of Work; and WHEREAS, FRSecure hereby agrees to perform such professional services for Client pursuant to and in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement and related Statements of Work. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises which are incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement, the respective covenants and commitments of the Parties set forth in this Agreement, and for such other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, FRSecure and Client agree as follows: 1. DEFINITIONS. A. Affiliate is defined as any entity (now existing or hereafter formed or acquired), which, directly or through one or more intermediaries, controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, Client. “Control” and its derivatives mean: (a) the legal, beneficial, or equitable ownership, directly or indirectly, of (i) at least 50% of the aggregate of all voting equity interests in an entity or (ii) equity interests having the right to at least 50% of the profits of an entity or, in the event of dissolution, to at least 50% of the assets of an entity; (b) the right to appoint, directly or indirectly, a majority of the board of directors; (c) the right to control, directly or indirectly, the management or direction of the entity by contract or corporate governance document; or (d) in the case of a partnership, the holding by an entity (or one of its Affiliates) of the position of sole general partner. B. Confidential Information is defined in Section 7 (“Confidential Information”). C. FRSecure Materials is defined as individually or collectively certain procedures, software or programs that are either owned by or licensed to FRSecure, any expression or result of FRSecure's Services, or the work, findings, analyses, conclusions, opinions, recommendations, ideas, techniques, know-how, designs, programs, tools, applications, interfaces, enhancements, software code, and other technical information developed or conceived of by FRSecure prior to or in performance of any Services or developed by FRSecure independently of any Services (“FRSecure’s Materials”). D. Intellectual Property is defined as all patents (including originals, derivatives, continuations, continuations-in-part, extensions, foreign applications, utility models, and re-issues), patent applications, copyrights (including all registrations and applications therefore), trade secrets, trademarks, trademark applications and other proprietary information that would be considered intellectual property or treated with the same confidentiality and value of intellectual property under applicable law, and Intellectual Property Rights, including moral rights. E. Services is defined as the professional services Client requests FRSecure to perform pursuant to this Agreement and includes any Work Product delivered pursuant to this Agreement or a Statement of Work. F. Statement of Work (“SOW”) is defined as a document signed by both Parties, that describes the specific and mutually agreed upon Services ordered under this Agreement, in a form substantially similar to that attached hereto as Exhibit A. Upon execution by both Parties, each SOW will be incorporated by reference and governed by the terms of this Agreement. G. FRSecure Personnel is defined as any employees, representatives, agents, subcontractors, independent contractors, third party advisors or any other persons, whether legal or natural, who may act on behalf of, or otherwise represent, FRSecure. H. Work Product is defined as all final reports, documentation and any other deliverables created or prepared by FRSecure for Client pursuant to this Agreement, that are made, proposed, or developed by FRSecure, alone or with others, specifically City of Cottage Grove Risk Assessment & SCADA Testing CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION This document may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this document or the information herein is prohibited without prior permission of FRSecure. Copyright 2025 FRSecure LLC, All Ri g Ph t saRges eerv e1d .5 of 21 identified as Deliverables in any related Statement of Work. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, Work Product does not include ownership of FRSecure’s Materials; should any FRSecure Materials be incorporated in the Deliverables, a license as outlined hereunder or in the SOW will govern Client’s continued use. 2. TERM/TERMINATION. A. Term. This Agreement will commence on the Effective Date and will continue in full force and effect until terminated in accordance with this Section 2. The term of each SOW shall be set forth in the applicable SOW and will continue in full force and effect until terminated by either Party pursuant to the termination rights in this Agreement. In the event the term of a SOW extends beyond the termination of this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect with respect to such SOW until the termination thereof. B. Termination for Cause. Either Party may terminate this Agreement or any SOW immediately upon notice to the other Party if: 1. The other Party materially breaches any provision of this Agreement or any SOW, and fails to cure or remedy such breach within twenty (20) calendar days of receiving written notice specifying in reasonable detail the nature of such breach; 2. The other Party has committed more than three (3) material breaches of this Agreement or any SOW in a twelve (12) calendar month period, whether or not said breaches have been cured; 3. The other Party materially breaches this Agreement or any SOW in a manner that cannot be remedied; or 4. Either Party may terminate this Agreement immediately for cause upon written notice of termination if the other Party makes an assignment of all or substantially all of its assets for the benefit of creditors, or becomes the subject of a voluntary or involuntary petition in bankruptcy or any proceeding relating to insolvency, receivership, liquidation or composition for the benefit of creditors (collectively “Petitions”). C. Termination for Convenience. Either Party may terminate this Agreement or any SOW upon 30 (thirty) days' written notice to the other Party. D. Effect of Termination. Termination of one or more SOW will not affect the validity or enforceability of this Agreement, nor the Parties’ rights and obligations under any other SOW executed by the Parties, and all such other SOW will remain in full force and effect unless and until terminated in accordance with their terms of this Agreement. Client shall pay FRSecure for all Services performed and all expenses incurred prior to the Effective Date of termination. In addition, in the event a terminated SOW contains an Amortized Payment Schedule or a Multi-Year Discount, Client agrees to pay the termination fees specified in the applicable SOW. If said SOW does not specify the termination fees, then Client agrees to pay FRSecure for all Services performed and all expenses incurred as of the termination date as well as the Multi- Year Discount that was applied. 3. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED. A. In consideration of the fees to be paid by Client pursuant to the terms of this Agreement and all SOW, FRSecure agrees to provide the Services outlined in the Parties’ SOW; any amendment to an SOW will be in a signed, written agreement of the Parties. B. Following a request by Client for FRSecure’s Services, FRSecure shall submit a SOW for the Services. Client shall review and accept the SOW by signing and returning it to FRSecure. Upon full execution of this Agreement and the SOW, FRSecure shall perform the Services in accordance with the terms of this Agreement and the SOW. C. Client shall perform, in a timely manner, such duties and tasks set forth in a SOW to facilitate FRSecure's performance of the Services outlined thereunder and provide FRSecure with reasonable and necessary access to Client's facilities, as requested by FRSecure. D. Except for Fixed Fees Services, Client acknowledges and agrees that FRSecure’s quoted total time and costs associated with each SOW represent FRSecure’s good faith estimates based on information supplied to FRSecure by Client. If the project needs or requires change after Services have commenced on a SOW, the SOW may be amended or revised upon mutual agreement of the Parties outlined in writing and signed by both Parties. FRSecure specifically understands and agrees that in no event shall the total fees and/or costs related to Services performed under a SOW exceed, without the prior written consent of Client, any maximum to which the Parties have agreed, as stated on such SOW. City of Cottage Grove Risk Assessment & SCADA Testing CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION This document may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this document or the information herein is prohibited without prior permission of FRSecure. Copyright 2025 FRSecure LLC, All Ri g Ph t saRges eerv e1d .6 of 21 E. If a SOW requires a physical security assessment of Client’s physical location(s) and if Client and FRSecure agree that the physical security assessment will be performed from a remote location, then Client agrees to provide the services of an employee who perform a virtual walkthrough of Client’s location, using third-party software, at the direction of FRSecure (“Location Video”). Client agrees that the Location Video will be used for security analysis and consultation services during an online video conference between Client and FRSecure. Client hereby acknowledges and consents to FRSecure recording the video conference including, without limitation, the Location Video, and saving the same on FRSecure’s servers. Client agrees that its employee will not record or include any personally identifiable information (PII) or protected health information (PHI) or similar information in the Location Video. FRSecure agrees to use the Location Video solely for purposes of Client work and agrees that the Location Video is the Confidential Information of Client. F. Client understands and acknowledges that FRSecure uses a team of a professionals, each of whom it has a relationship with. FRSecure may utilize third parties, contractors, employees, or other professionals or professional entities to perform its obligations hereunder, at its sole discretion. In any such instance, FRSecure will ensure that its relationship with any person or entity working with it, is aware of and bound to at least the equivalent of FRSecure’s obligations to Client hereunder. 4. PAYMENT, INVOICES AND TAXES. For all Services performed under a SOW or related Adendum, Client shall: (i) pay FRSecure in accordance with each Statement of Work or at the then current FRSecure standard rates, whichever are applicable; (ii) reimburse FRSecure for all reasonable and necessary travel and living expenses FRSecure incurs performing such Services, provided such expenses are incurred in compliance with FRSecure's travel and expense policy, and provided further that such expenses are incurred pursuant to an applicable SOW or other request for Services by Client; and (iii) pay FRSecure upon receipt of each invoice or as otherwise set forth in the applicable SOW. All payments pursuant to this Agreement are non-refundable and non- transferable. Client is responsible for sales taxes, use taxes and other taxes whatever kind, and all duties, and customs fees which may be assessed on the amounts paid for Services performed hereunder, excluding taxes based on FRSecure's income or payroll. Client shall pay a service charge equal to the lesser of twelve percent (12%) annual interest or the highest interest rate allowable under applicable laws for any outstanding, undisputed invoices not paid within thirty (30) days after the invoices were sent. FRSecure invoices shall describe the following: (i) the time period for which the work and expenses are billed; (ii) the quantity of work performed; (iii) the hourly rates charged, if applicable; (iv) travel and living expenses by type and amount; and (v) totals. 5. SCOPE OF AUTHORITY/RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES. Except as expressly stated in a Statement of Work, or as authorized in writing by Client, FRSecure shall have no authority or power, express or implied, to make any representations or warranties regarding Client or to bind or obligate Client or its Affiliates, either directly or indirectly, in any manner or thing whatsoever. In rendering Services pursuant to this Agreement, FRSecure (and FRSecure’s Personnel) shall be acting as an independent contractor, not as an employee, fiduciary, or agent of, or joint venturer or partner with, Client or its Affiliates. Client is only interested in the results to be achieved, and the conduct and control of FRSecure’s work within the scope of this Agreement shall lie solely with FRSecure, except that Client shall have a general right of supervision to secure the satisfactory completion thereof. 6. INSURANCE. FRSecure shall maintain statutory minimum Worker's Compensation and Employer's Liability Insurance as required by the laws of any state or country in which Services are performed. 7. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. 7.1 DEFINITION. The term "CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION" shall mean: (i) any and all non-public information which is disclosed by either Party ("OWNER") to the other ("RECIPIENT") verbally, electronically, visually, or in a written or other tangible form which is either identified or should be reasonably understood to be, confidential or proprietary; and (ii) the terms, including without limitation, the pricing, of this Agreement and any proposals or other documents that preceded this Agreement. Confidential Information may include, but not be limited to, trade secrets, computer programs, software, code, documentation, formulas, data, inventions, techniques, marketing plans, strategies, forecasts, client lists, employee information, and financial information, proprietary information concerning Owner's business or organization, as Owner has conducted it or as Owner may conduct it in the future. In addition, Confidential Information may include information concerning any of Owner's past, current, or possible future products or methods, including information about Owner's research, development, engineering, purchasing, manufacturing, accounting, marketing, selling, leasing, and/or software (including third party software). 7.2 TREATMENT OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. The Disclosing Party’s Confidential Information shall be treated as strictly confidential by Recipient and shall not be disclosed by Recipient to any third party except to those third parties operating under non-disclosure provisions no less restrictive than in this Section and who have a justified business "need to City of Cottage Grove Risk Assessment & SCADA Testing CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION This document may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this document or the information herein is prohibited without prior permission of FRSecure. Copyright 2025 FRSecure LLC, All Ri g Ph t saRges eerv e1d .7 of 21 know" or used by Recipient other than as authorized by this Agreement. Recipient agrees to use the same degree of care in protecting the Disclosing Party’s Confidential Information as it employs in the protection of its own Confidential Information, but in no event less than industry standard of care. Client agrees to exercise the same degree of custodial care in handling and protecting any materials that incorporate FRSecure’s materials and intellectual property as they do with their own materials and intellectual property. This includes, but is not limited to, implementing security measures that meet or exceed reasonably high industry standards to prevent unauthorized access, use, or disclosure of FRSecure’s intellectual property. This Agreement imposes no obligation upon the Parties with respect to Confidential Information which either Party can establish by legally sufficient evidence: (a) was in the possession of, or was rightfully known by the Recipient without an obligation to maintain its confidentiality prior to receipt from Owner; (b) is or becomes generally known to the public without violation of this Agreement; (c) is obtained by Recipient in good faith from a third party having the right to disclose it without an obligation of confidentiality; (d) is independently developed by Recipient without the participation of individuals who have had access to the Confidential Information; or (e) is required to be disclosed by court order or applicable law, provided notice is promptly given to the Owner and provided further that diligent efforts are undertaken to limit disclosure. 7.3 CONFIDENTIALITY AND DISCLOSURE OF PATIENT INFORMATION. Healthcare Clients Only: FRSecure does not expect to have access to confidential individually identifiable health information ("IIHI"), as that term is used in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA") in connection with its services. Because FRSecure has many healthcare clients and may inadvertently receive IIHI, it is FRSecure's policy that it will: (i) treat all individually identifiable information in compliance with all applicable federal and state laws; and (ii) implement and use any and all reasonable means and appropriate safeguards to prevent the use or disclosure of IIHI and will immediately notify Client of any unauthorized use or disclosure of IIHI. 7.4 RIGHTS AND DUTIES. The Recipient shall not obtain, by virtue of this Agreement, any right, title, or interest in any Confidential Information of the Owner. Within fifteen (15) days after termination of this Agreement or the written request of a Party, each Party shall certify in writing to the other that all copies of Confidential Information in any form, including partial copies, have been destroyed, returned, or used solely as the Owner so directs, except that Recipient may keep an archival copy of Confidential Information for legal purposes. 7.5 Injunctive Relief. The receiving Party acknowledges and agrees that that monetary damages will not fully compensate the disclosing Party in the event of a breach of the terms and conditions of this Section 7 and that upon any such breach or threatened breach, the disclosing Party shall be entitled as a matter of right to specific performance, injunctive relief and/or other equitable relief in addition to all other remedies at law, without the necessity of proving damages or posting bond or other security for the order. 7.6 SURVIVABILITY. The terms of this Section 7 shall survive termination of this Agreement. If the Parties have executed a separate agreement that contains confidentiality terms prior to or contemporaneously with this Agreement, those separate confidentiality terms shall remain in full force to the extent they do not conflict with the provisions of this Agreement. 8. INDEMNITY. 8.1 PATENT AND COPYRIGHT INDEMNITY. Except as otherwise provided herein, FRSecure shall indemnify and defend Client against any claims that the Work Product (defined below) delivered to Client pursuant to a Statement of Work infringes any United States or Canadian patent or copyright, provided that FRSecure is given prompt notice of such claim and is given information, reasonable assistance, and the sole authority to defend or settle said claim. In the defense or settlement of any claim FRSecure shall, in its reasonable judgment; and at its option and expense: (i) obtain for Client the right to continue using the Work Product; (ii) replace or modify the Work Product so that it becomes non-infringing while giving equivalent performance; or (iii) if FRSecure cannot obtain the remedies in (i) or (ii), as its sole obligation, terminate the license for the infringing Work Product and return only the Services fees paid by Client for such Work Product. FRSecure shall have no obligation or liability to indemnify and/or defend Client to the extent (i) the alleged infringement is based on infringing information, data, software, applications, services, or programs created, furnished or requested to be used, by or on behalf of Client, (ii) the alleged infringement is the result of a modification made by anyone other than FRSecure; (iii) Client’s combination of the Services or Work Product with (a) hardware, software, materials, content or data not provided to Client by FRSecure, or (b) the infringing services or processes were not performed by FRSecure, or (iv) Client uses the Work Product other than in accordance with this Agreement, any delivered documentation under a Statement of Work, or the underlying software license to use such Work Product. 8.2 INDEMNITY. Each Party ("INDEMNIFYING PARTY") shall indemnify and hold the other Party ("INDEMNIFIED PARTY") harmless against any third Party claim, including costs and reasonable attorney's fees, in which the Indemnified Party is named as a result of the negligent or failure to act by the Indemnifying Party, its employees or agents, while performing its obligations hereunder. This indemnification obligation is contingent upon the Indemnified Party providing the Indemnifying City of Cottage Grove Risk Assessment & SCADA Testing CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION This document may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this document or the information herein is prohibited without prior permission of FRSecure. Copyright 2025 FRSecure LLC, All Ri g Ph t saRges eerv e1d .8 of 21 Party with prompt written notice of such claim, information, all reasonable assistance in the defense of such action, and sole authority to defend or settle such claim. The Indemnified Party has the right to approve any proposed settlement prior to the Indemnifying Party’s acceptance thereof, that affirmatively places on the Indemnified Party an obligation that has a material adverse effect on the Indemnified Party other than requiring the Indemnified Party to cease using all or a portion of the Services or to pay sums eligible for indemnification under this Agreement. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 8.3 SURVIVAL. The terms of this Section 8 shall survive termination of this Agreement. 9. WARRANTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS. 9.1 Each Party warrants that (i) this Agreement has been validly signed and delivered by the Party and that this Agreement constitutes the legal, valid and binding obligation of the Party enforceable against the Party in accordance with its terms; (ii) the Party has all requisite authority to enter into this Agreement and to carry out the transactions contemplated by this Agreement, and that the signature, delivery and performance of this Agreement and the consummation of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement have been duly authorized by all requisite action on the part of the Party; (iii) the Party’s signature and delivery of this Agreement and the Party’s performance or compliance with the terms of this Agreement will not conflict with, result in a breach of, constitute a default under, or require the consent of any third party under any license, sublicense, lease, contract, agreement or instrument to which the Party is bound or to which the Party’s properties are subject; and (iv) there are no pending or threatened lawsuits, actions or any other legal or administrative proceedings against the Party which, if adversely determined against the Party, would have a material adverse affect on the Party’s ability to perform its obligations under this Agreement. 9.2 FRSecure warrants that the Services will be performed in a professional and workmanlike manner in accordance with recognized industry standards. Provided, however, to the extent Services provided by FRSecure are advisory, no specific result is assured or guaranteed. 9.3 FRSECURE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL OTHER REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED, OR STATUTORY (BY ANY TERRITORY OR JURISDICTION) TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, AND FURTHER FRSECURE EXPRESSLY EXCLUDES ANY WARRANTY OF NON-INFRINGEMENT, TITLE, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR MERCHANTABILITY TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW. 10. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. EXCEPT FOR THE INDEMNIFICATION OBLIGATIONS SET FORTH IN SECTION 8 (INDEMNITY) AND EXCEPT AS SET FORTH BELOW, FRSECURE'S MAXIMUM LIABILITY FOR ANY CLAIM OR ACTION ARISING UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, REGARDLESS OF THE FORM OF CLAIM OR ACTION AND WHETHER IN TORT OR CONTRACT, SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT OF AVAILABLE LIMITS OF INSURANCE. IN NO EVENT SHALL FRSECURE BE LIABLE FOR INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, LOST DATA OR LOST PROFITS, HOWEVER ARISING, EVEN IF CLIENT HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. THE PARTIES AGREE TO THE ALLOCATION OF RISK SET FORTH HEREIN AS PART OF THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE SERVICES. NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY IN THIS AGREEMENT, FRSECURE'S MAXIMUM LIABILITY FOR ANY CLAIM OR ACTION ARISING UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS OR ACTIONS, SHALL NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF FRSECURE’S INSURANCE POLICY LIMITS FOR THE TYPE OF CLAIM OR ACTION IN QUESTION. ANY CLAIM BROUGHT HEREUNDER MUST BE BROUGHT WITHIN SIX (6) MONTHS OF THE DATE OF INCIDENT, GIVING RISE TO THE CLAIM. 11. OWNERSHIP OF WORK PRODUCT. Subject to payment in full of all amounts due to FRSecure in accordance with any applicable SOW and no material breach of the Agreement, the Work Product when delivered for the applicable SOW shall be the property of Client. However, Client shall not license, sub-license, resell, transfer or make other commercial use of any Work Product. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, FRSecure’s Materials shall at all times remain the sole and exclusive property of FRSecure. To the extent that FRSecure’s Materials are used in developing, or are incorporated into, any Service or Work Product, and to the extent that ownership of the Work Product or Service is vested in Client, FRSecure shall and hereby does grant to Client a perpetual, irrevocable, transferable, nonexclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up and unrestricted right and license to use, display, reproduce, perform and make modifications to and derivative works based on, FRSecure’s Materials only as part of the Services or Work Product and all iterations thereof. 12. MAINTENANCE OF DEVELOPMENT WORK. City of Cottage Grove Risk Assessment & SCADA Testing CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION This document may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this document or the information herein is prohibited without prior permission of FRSecure. Copyright 2025 FRSecure LLC, All Ri g Ph t saRges eerv e1d .9 of 21 Standard maintenance and support services offered by FRSecure do not cover any customized software, code or new development created under a Statement of Work. If available, maintenance and support may be addressed under a separate services agreement or in the applicable Statement of Work. 13. NOTICE. Any notice or other communication required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be made in writing and sent to the address designated in the first paragraph of this Agreement, designated in the applicable Statement of Work, or designated from time to time in writing by the Parties. All notices shall be deemed given to the other Party if delivered receipt confirmed, using one of the following methods: personal delivery, registered or certified first class mail, postage prepaid; recognized courier delivery; or electronic mail. 14. WAIVER. No modification to this Agreement or any Statement of Work, nor any failure or delay in enforcing any term, exercising any option, or requiring performance shall be binding or construed as a waiver unless agreed to in writing by both Parties. 15. FORCE MAJEURE. Except for Client’s obligation to pay FRSecure, neither Party shall be liable for any failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement or any Statement of Work if prevented from doing so by a cause or causes beyond its control, including, without limitation, acts of God or public enemy, failure of suppliers to perform, fire, floods, storms, earthquakes, riots, strikes, war, and restraints of government. A Party whose performance is affected by such an event shall promptly notify the other Party of the delay and use commercially reasonable efforts to mitigate the adverse effects of such an event so as that performance can be achieved as soon as reasonably feasible. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if such a force majeure event continues for more than thirty (30) days, the other Party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement or any applicable Statement of Work upon ten (10) days written notice to the other Party. 16. DISPUTE RESOLUTION. Any dispute, claim, action or proceeding seeking to enforce any provision of this Agreement or its breach shall be submitted to and resolved exclusively by arbitration conducted in accordance with American Arbitration Association rules. One arbitrator appointed under such rules shall conduct arbitration which shall be in Minneapolis, MN and the laws of Minnesota shall be applied without application of its conflicts of law provisions. Any decision in arbitration shall be final and binding upon the parties and judgment may be entered thereon in any court of competent jurisdiction. Further, disputes, claims, actions or proceedings relating to infringement, misuse of intellectual property rights, unpaid invoices or other financial matters, or equitable relief, each party agrees that prior to commencing any action or proceeding, to make a reasonable attempt to settle any dispute by informal negotiations with other party for not more than twenty (20) days. If such informal negotiations are unsuccessful, the parties agree to resolve these matters in the courts of the State of Minnesota. 17. AFFILIATES. FRSecure understands and agrees that Client Affiliates may procure Services under this Agreement via execution of a Statement of Work. By executing a Statement of Work, the Parties acknowledge and agree that such Affiliate is bound by the terms and conditions under this Agreement solely for the purposes of the work to be performed under the Statement of Work. With regard to Statement of Works entered into by an Client Affiliate: (a) all references to “Client” in this Agreement shall be deemed to mean the Affiliate which entered into the Statement of Work, except where otherwise stated as “Affiliate”, (b) each Statement of Work shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and legally binding exclusively upon the respective Affiliate entering into such Statement of Work and FRSecure and (c) Client shall have no liability under such Statement of Work. 18. RESTRICTION ON HIRE. During the term of this Agreement and all applicable Statements of Work, neither Party shall: (i) solicit employment and/or employ, any employee, agent or independent contractor of the other party if such potential employment interferes with or is detrimental or harmful in any manner to the other Party’s relationship with its employees, agents, independent contractors, or business partners; or (ii) participate or facilitate or assist in any way in soliciting or hiring an employee, agent or independent contractor of the other Party if such solicitation is detrimental or harmful in any manner to the other Party’s regular course of business. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing shall prevent the other Party from employing an employee of the other Party who: (i) responds to a general employment advertisement when such solicitation is not specifically directed at that individual; or (ii) is directed to the individual by employment search firms where such employment search firms are not directed by the other Party to initiate discussions with respect to the prospective employment of that individual. 19. GENERAL. City of Cottage Grove Risk Assessment & SCADA Testing CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION This document may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this document or the information herein is prohibited without prior permission of FRSecure. Copyright 2025 FRSecure LLC, All Ri g Ph t saRges eerv e2d .0 of 21 This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota, excluding choice of law principles. Except as otherwise specifically stated herein, remedies shall be cumulative and there shall be no obligation to exercise a particular remedy. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be unenforceable, the other provisions shall nevertheless remain in full force and effect. This Agreement and all Statements of Work constitute the entire understanding between the Parties with respect to the subject matter herein and may only be amended or modified by a writing signed by a duly authorized representative of each Party. This document may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which shall constitute one document that is binding upon all Parties hereto, notwithstanding that all Parties are not signatories to the same counterpart. The Parties agree that execution of this Agreement by industry standard electronic signature software and/or by exchanging PDF or facsimile signatures shall have the same legal force and effect as the exchange of original signatures, and that in any proceeding arising under or relating to this document, each Party hereby waives any right to raise any defense or waiver based upon execution of this document by means of said signatures or maintenance of the executed document electronically. This Agreement replaces and supersedes any prior verbal or written understandings, communications, and representations between the Parties regarding the subject matter contained herein. No purchase order or other ordering document that purports to modify or supplement the printed text of this Agreement or any Exhibit shall add to or vary the terms of this Agreement or Exhibit. All such proposed variations, edits, or additions (whether submitted by FRSecure or Client) to this Agreement or to a Statement of Work, are objected to and deemed non-binding unless otherwise mutually agreed to in writing. Client represents and warrants that (i) it has all right and authority necessary to enter into and perform this Agreement; (ii) it owns all rights in and to data provided to FRSecure for use in and in connection with the Services; (iii) FRSecure's use of such materials in and in connection with the Services will not violate the rights of any third party or infringe upon the intellectual property of any third party. The terms and conditions of this Agreement apply in full to the services and products provided under a fully executed Statement of Work. ACCEPTANCE AND AUTHORIZATION IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement effective as of the Effective Date. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each party hereto has caused this NDA to be duly executed as of the date of the last signature below. ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED: City of Cottage Grove Vanae Pearson, CFO FRSecure, LLC Reference Number: FRSMSA FRSQ 11463 City of Cottage Grove City of Cottage Grove Risk Assessment & SCADA Testing CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION This document may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this document or the information herein is prohibited without prior permission of FRSecure. Copyright 2025 FRSecure LLC, All Ri g Ph t saRges eerv e2d .1 of 21 Exhibit A - Example Statement of Work NOTE: This is an example only. Formal Statements of Work will follow this or a similar format. Statement of Work The information contained within this document is a proposal and formal statement of work, if accepted by execution of this document. Project Overview Client Name: Project Name: Engagement Duration: Begin Date: End Date: Approach and Process Project Scope: Project Constraints Project Constraints: Pricing and Payment Terms Pricing and Payment Terms: Customer Acceptance Signatures: 1 City Council Action Request 7.S. Meeting Date 11/5/2025 Department Community Development Agenda Category Action Item Title Amirize Nelson Mine - Final Environmental Impact Statement Staff Recommendation Adopt Resolution 2025-161, adopting the Final Environmental Impact Statement adequacy for Amrize (formerly Holcim – MWR, Inc.) Nelson Mine Backwater Project. Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. Memo - Nelson Mine FEIS - Request to Publish 2025-10-1 2. Resolution - FEIS Adequacy Determination 3. Letters - Combined FEIS comment letters TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Background • 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. Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt Project Location Map EIS Process 1. Scoping – Council adopted the Final Scoping Document (SDD) on May 4, 2022 Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt 2. Draft EIS – City Council Adopted the Determination of Completeness for the Draft EIS and authorized Distribution for public comment on November 20, 2024 a. The Draft EIS was published on December 3, 2024, following the RGU’s determination that the Draft EIS was complete. The publication initiated a 45-day comment period, and an Informational Public Meeting was held on December 19, 2024. Note: the comment period was expanded from 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. 3. Final EIS – Current phase a. The current phase is the Final EIS. The Final EIS is responsive to substantive com- ments received during the Draft EIS 45-day comment period. With the RGU’s decision on completeness and authorization for distribution on October 1, 2025, the Final EIS was published/distributed for a public comment period for the required no less than 10 days from October 14, 2025, through October 28, 2025. The RGU must thereafter consider a determination of “adequacy” for the EIS. Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Comments Based on Minnesota Rules in 4410.2700, the Final EIS responded 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 identified the Draft EIS commenter, their individual comment, and the response. Some comments resulted in changes to the EIS document, leading to the FEIS. Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) Content Summary of FEIS Comments Below is a summary of the main points from 24 comment letters received during the FEIS 10-day public comment period. MN Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) - DNR recommends a broader project purpose for downstream regulatory decisions as well as identifying that while impacts to upland sites (Alternative D and the Lakeland Site) would be temporary and could be returned to agriculture post-mining, Alternatives B, C, and E include impacts to public waters, wildlife habitat, and state- listed species. Related to MRCCA consistency, DNR states any new “expansion” or “relocation” of a mining “facility” would, by definition, still be considered new nonmetallic mining. DNR also questions the mitigation measures, including that suitable mitigation will be challenging due to the scope and scale of potential impacts. Minnesota Indian Affairs Council – MIAC raises concerns about erosion from the project as erosion is a leading factor in the damage of American Indian Cemeteries and Burial Sites and may lead to a massive recovery effort. The Area of Potential Effects (APE) for Alternatives B and E are located within/adjacent American Indian cemetery site 21WA0001, a National Registered Historic Property (NRHP) that is protected under several archaeological laws, including the Minnesota Private Cemeteries Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt US Army Corps of Engineer (USACE) - The project purpose as defined in the FEIS under Minnesota Rules cannot be used for federal permitting. MN State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) - The Final EIS does not appropriately describe the environmental consequences of Alternative B in relation to historic properties and SHPO does not view an unanticipated discovery plan to be an appropriate form of impact minimization or mitigation. They recommend that the project be re-designed to avoid impacting the Schilling Archaeological District, site 21WA0110, and two anomalous features. Metropolitan Council - Due to potential impacts to the Regional Parks and Trails System, the Council advises the City to find the FEIS inadequate. The proposed Project is likely to adversely impact the use of Spring Lake Park Reserve specifically and the Regional Parks and Trails System more broadly. Washington County – The County requests continued proactive coordination with affected Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs) prior to federal consultation, a detailed shoreline reclamation and restoration plan, a comprehensive natural resource inventory, and early integration of visual mitigation. Dakota County – The FEIS does not adequately analyze and address mitigation measures related to visual impacts from Schaar’s Bluff, the 24-hour noise impacts of the facility, and wildlife and environmental impacts. Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community - The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community is in concurrence with the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office findings and recommendations as mentioned in their correspondence regarding the Nelson Mine Backwaters Project. It requests the City to consider the fact that the final resting place of our ancestors are at risk potentially proposed to be disturbed when they should be avoided. Friends of the Mississippi River - The proposed project is a new expansion of nonmetallic mining in the Shore Impact Zone and therefore prohibited. The FEIS fails to establish that Amrize has legal nonconforming rights. Concerned Nearby Residents – Residents from Lower Grey Cloud Island, River Acres, nearby St. Paul Park, and other areas raise concerns that the project will permanently alter river landscapes, degrade views on both sides of the river, reduce property values, degrade water quality, and eliminate critical wildlife habitat. Government Permits or Approvals Government Permits or Approvals Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt Council Action The intended action for the Cottage Grove City Council is to determine adequacy of the FEIS. The Final EIS is available for review on the City’s website and will be available in the EQB Monitor after the determination of adequacy. Recommendation That the City Council adopt Resolution 2025-161 authorizing adopting the Final Environmental Impact Statement adequacy for Amrize (Fromerly Holcim – MWR, Inc.) Nelson Mine Backwater Project. CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ADEQUACY FOR AMRIZE (FORMERLY HOLCIM – MWR, INC.) NELSON MINE BACKWATER PROJECT WHEREAS, Minnesota Rules 4410.2000 Subpart 2 provides guidance on the circumstances that require an EIS; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Scoping Decision Document (SDD) and a Draft Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet (SEAW) for Amrize (formerly Holcim – MWR, Inc.) Nelson Mine Backwater Project; and WHEREAS, the Notice of Availability of the SDD and SEAW was published in the Environmental Quality Board Monitor on March 15, 2022, and the City held a scoping meeting on March 28, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a final Scoping Decision Document based on the SEAW and on consideration of all comments received on the project during the EIS scoping period; and WHEREAS, the City adopted the final Scoping Decision Document and authorized preparation of a Draft EIS on May 4, 2022, with Resolution 2022-076; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) for Amrize (formerly Holcim – MWR, Inc.) Nelson Mine Backwater Project; and WHEREAS, the Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS was published in the Environmental Quality Board Monitor on December 3, 2024 for a 45-day comment period; and WHEREAS, a public meeting on the Draft EIS was held on December 19, 2024; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) based on the SEAW and Draft EIS and on consideration of all comments received on the project during the EIS scoping period and Draft EIS comment period; and WHEREAS, Minnesota State Rules require distribution of the Final EIS for a 10- day comment period; and WHEREAS, Minnesota State Rules require the Final EIS to be published in the Environmental Quality Board (EQB); and WHEREAS, The Notice of Availability of the Final EIS was published in the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Monitor on October 14, 2025 for the 10-day comment period; and City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Final EIS 10-day comment period has concluded and the City has considered the comments received; and WHEREAS, the City has determined the Final EIS to be adequate; it addresses the potential for significant issues and alternatives raised in scoping, provides responses to the substantive comments received during the Draft EIS and is compliant with the procedures set out in Minnesota Rules 4410.2000-.2800. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLIVED, the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, authorizes city staff to distribute the Notice of Adequacy for the Final EIS for the Amrize (formerly Holcim – MWR, Inc.) Nelson Mine Backwater Project pursuant to the applicable rules of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board and Minnesota Rules 4410.2800 Subpart 6. Passed this 5th day of November 2025. Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: Tamara Anderson, City Clerk From:dfredrickson45@comcast.net To:Environmental Impact Study; Ted Fredrickson Subject:Nelson Mine Backwaters Project Date:Monday, October 20, 2025 2:04:49 PM [You don't often get email from dfredrickson45@comcast.net. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING: This email originated from an outside organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. We are opposed to the Nelson Mine Backwaters Project and do not want this project approved. We raised our family in River Acres and have loved living here since 1980. It’s a peaceful and naturally beautiful neighborhood. Its unlit sky provides views of the stars and magic of the sparkling dragonflies. We can sleep with our windows and drapes open in summer and enjoy a big sky view in winter. Trains seldom blow their horns, there is no road traffic, and not even barking dogs interrupt the quiet. Bird calls wake us in spring and honking geese call to us in fall. We kayak the backwaters and enjoy the unspoiled islands. Fishing is great right off the dock. All this would be spoiled with mining disturbing the soil and sand river bottoms. Animal habitats would be ruined. Blanding turtles are rare in MN, but live in this area of the river. The fly way for thousands of migrating birds would be interrupted. They rest in the exact area of the proposed mine. Who knows what other wildlife would be destroyed. Our unlit and quiet neighborhood would have lights and mechanical sounds ALL THE TIME. Who wants to live near continuous light plus sound reverberating through this wide river valley? We ask you to not allow this project to go forward for the sake of all the animals and plants that live in this part of the river as well as for residents who love this unique neighborhood. Sincerely Ted and Diane Fredrickson Sent from my iPhone From:Doug Orton To:Environmental Impact Study Subject:Objections to mining near our home Date:Wednesday, October 22, 2025 1:55:30 PM You don't often get email from doug.doris.orton@gmail.com. Learn why this is important EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING: This email originated from an outside organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. We are very concerned about and do object to the likely increase in noise and river usage which would be caused by this mining operation. Please protect us from this problem by and near our house at 7995 River Acres Rd, Cottage Grove, MN 55016. Thank you. Doug and Doris Orton From:TOM E DRUDE To:Environmental Impact Study Subject:Nelson Mining propose project response Date:Wednesday, October 22, 2025 5:22:02 PM EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING: This email originated from an outside organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Nelson mine backwater project response Intro: I have lived on the Mississippi River near the proposed mining project for 51 years observing over those years the ebb and flow of the river with ever changing natural changes caused primarily by spring floods and sediment shifting. Considering those years of natural river changes I respectfully challenge the mining’s contention that islands directly adjacent to the proposed mining project were created by the Corp of Engineers and further challenge that the Corp ever asserted so. The idea that this mining area is critical to the metro area ignores other deposits in and near with far less environmental affray. Frankly there is little or nothing in this proposed plan that bares any direct or specific input from the Corp and I respectfully challenge Nelson’s project “Gaslighting” influence. Too, the project area is adjacent and connected to SRING Lake, feed not only by the Mississippi river, but equally by natural springs and watershed through the breadth of Washington county and beyond. Truly concerning is mining of this depth and breadth in this sensitive area. Contrary, this project area lies within one of Cottage Grove’s and greater twin cities area greatest treasures of recreation, wildlife, and pristine nature beauty. * On the migratory fly way for millions of waterfowl serving hunter enthusiast from in and around our community. Summers filled with graceful swans, nesting Eagles and majestic black winged tipped pelicans here to visit and all to enjoy. * Boaters and fishermen enjoy access to a wide variety of species mostly forgotten that the river holds true trophies to catch and release for others to experience. While my response here are mostly my personal/emotional views the scientific review attached may offer further analysis for your consideration. https://grok.com/c/9fbac8bd-c5a2-4e88-885a-f0a886bdc5ff Respectfully, I truly challenge what benefit the city of CG gains while echoing all we have to lose. Tom Drude 8005 River Acres Rd Tom E Drude Cell:612-719-6773 TomEDrude@MSN.com From:Joe Busch To:Environmental Impact Study Subject:Nelson Mine Backwaters Project "public comment) Date:Friday, October 24, 2025 5:59:50 PM Attachments:image001.png You don't often get email from joe.b@justmanfreight.com. Learn why this is important EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING: This email originated from an outside organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good evening, I am just emailing to comment on the Nelson Mine project. I currently live at 7243 Hyde Ave, Cottage Grove, MN 55016. I don’t want to write a long explanation on my view here so will keep it short. We have know for years that the materials available at the pit would come to an end date. If I have one question it would be ownership of the land proposed in this project? I drive my boat through there and am very familiar with the area. The plot book map below shows only portions of this land available to PSA . Is the existing river portion and land not available to PSA being purchased?? PSA currently does not own all the area in the plans from what I can see. Thank you, Joe Busch Operations Justman Freight Lines and Logistics 4855 S Robert Trl Eagan MN 55123 C-651-600-1040 O- 651-423-1040 MC-175222 & 175096 From:DELETEDUSERNAME To:Environmental Impact Study Subject:Nelson Mine Backwater IES Date:Friday, October 24, 2025 7:48:54 AM [You don't often get email from deletedusername@comcast.net. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING: This email originated from an outside organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. As a longtime resident of Grey Cloud Island I’m intimately aware of what living close to a large scale mining operation means. Whether it’s the truck traffic, barge boating traffic, noise or explosive blasting that shakes my entire house. It also causes undue financial strain as replacing well pumps has become increasingly expensive. I feel like our region has fielded the brunt of the metro areas need for long enough. Let the metro area find a different mine to provide its sand/gravel. Thanks, Lance Stariha 9260 Grey Cloud Trail Grey Cloud Island Twp Sent from my iPhone From:B Matter To:Environmental Impact Study Cc:cemvp-pa@usace.army.mil; Collins, Melissa (DNR) Subject:Nelson Backwaters" Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) Date:Sunday, October 26, 2025 10:09:04 AM Attachments:Subject_ Nelson Mine Backwaters Project - FEIS - Google Docs.pdf You don't often get email from matterbonnie@gmail.com. Learn why this is important EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING: This email originated from an outside organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Attached please find my comments regarding the Holcim / Amrize Nelson Backwaters' Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Thank you. Bonnie Matter From:B Matter To:Environmental Impact Study Subject:Holcim / Amrize / Nelson Backwaters" Project FEIS Date:Monday, October 27, 2025 2:30:58 PM You don't often get email from matterbonnie@gmail.com. Learn why this is important EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING: This email originated from an outside organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Nelson Backwaters' Project - Maybe Holcim / Amrize / Nelson Backwaters' Project could pick up one of these locations allowing it to stay out of the Mississippi River riverbed: Minnesota Paving & Materials - OMG Midwest, Inc. - A CRH Company Minnesota asphalt, aggregate company to lay off nearly 300 workers. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2025/10/21/minnesota-paving-materials-asphalt-aggregate- company-layoffs OMG Midwest, Inc. letter to State of Minnesota DEED Office with affected locations: https://mn.gov/deed/assets/warn-2025-omg-midwest-inc_tcm1045-710199.pdf Thank you. Bonnie Matter Thank you. TRANSMITTED VIA EMAIL 6649 Inskip Avenue South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 October 25, 2025 Ms. Emily Schmitz, Community Development Director City of Cottage Grove 12800 Ravine Parkway South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 651/458-2874 email: eis@cottagegrovemn.gov Subject: Nelson Mine Backwaters’ Project FEIS I oppose the Holcim / Amrize Nelson Backwaters Project in the Mississippi River riverbed. There is no new information in the updated Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) that changes any of the concerns outlined in my January 16, 2025 relating to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The updated FEIS confirms my reasons why this project should not move forward. Keep mining out of the Mississippi River, the riverbed, the surface waters, the aquifers, the wetlands and the groundwater. ● Groundwater contamination - this question has been sidestepped from the beginning. The company representative / consultant with groundwater expertise did not show up at the public meeting to answer questions. The FEIS response to see the 4.5 Groundwater section explains why this FEIS should not move forward. “If groundwater is not used but the work may affect groundwater, the potential impact to groundwater needs to be investigated.” 1 4.5.1 Affected Environment and 4.5.1.1 Alternative B along with Figure 4-50 are straightforward. The FEIS states that the proposed project in the riverbed is underlain by the Upper Tunnel City Aquifer and Lower Tunnel City Aquitard. Figure 4-50 indicates the Upper Tunnel City Aquifer has high permeability with high permeability bedding fracture known to be common. By mining in the riverbed, there is the potential for contamination of the Upper Tunnel City Aquifer, the groundwater and the drinking water for down river Mississippi homes, Hastings and other eastern Dakota towns. Was the City of Hastings on the list of reviewers? Add the Minnesota Department of Health to the list of required permits for drinking water. The Tunnel City Aquifer is not present across the entire metro area. Met Council management concerns include: ● Productivity varies greatly across the region and is highest where it is fractured or weathered ● Connected to some protected surface waters ● Vulnerable to contamination where fractured and where bedrock above it has been eroded Regional Groundwater and Aquifers - Metropolitan Council 2025 Groundwater Policy Report | Minnesota Environmental Quality Board ● Wetlands - The Nelson Mining Backwaters Project calls for the destruction and “mitigation” of 296 wetland acres. (Please read the section on WETLANDS in my attached letter of January 16, 2025.) The importance and benefits of wetlands are extensive. There is no “mitigation” that can replace or offset the damage that will be done to 2 these wetlands and the local environment if this riverbed mining is allowed to move forward. The Wetland responses in 4.4.3.2 and page 4-120 only offer something in lieu of. There is nothing that can be done that will make this Mississippi River riverbed’s destruction whole again. The ecosystem will be changed forever. . ● Mining in the Mississippi River riverbed - My research could find no company that has been allowed to conduct sand and gravel mining in the Mississippi River riverbed. Due to the many environmental consequences that are known and UNKNOWN, this is a precedent that should not be allowed. I have many other concerns about this project. The more I learn, the longer the list grows. Thank you. Respectfully, /signed Bonnie Matter 6649 Inskip Avenue South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 651/459-6463 matterbonnie@gmail.com Email Copy to: Public Affairs, US Army Corps of Engineers Mississippi Valley St. Paul, 651/290-5807 email: cemvp-pa@usace.army.mil Melissa Collins, Minnesota DNR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist, Region 3 (Central) 651-259-5755 email: melissa.collins@state.mn.us 3 This page is blank. 4 TRANSMITTED VIA EMAIL 6649 Inskip Avenue South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 January 16, 2025 Ms. Emily Schmitz, Community Development Director City of Cottage Grove 12800 Ravine Parkway South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 651/458-2874 email: eis@cottagegrovemn.gov Subject: Nelson Mine Backwaters Project 1 DEIS I am opposed to the Nelson Mine Backwaters Project. The first question is why is the Nelson Mine Backwaters DEIS request in process when Holcim, Inc., a Swiss Company, announced on January 28, 2024, that it was spinning off its North American Operation? 2 The spin-off company will be an “ Independent public company ”. The new publicly-held company’s plans will be finalized in the first half of 2025. 3 It was misleading to brand project communications as “Holcim, Inc.” without also informing the public of the upcoming spin-off since there will be a new “publicly-held” company assuming responsibility and liability for the 3 North America Business Spin-off:: https://www.holcim.com/investors/listing-north-america-business-us 2 Holcim, Inc. website https://www.holcim.com/media/media-releases/holcim-appoints-board-and-ceo-for-planned-north-america n-company 1 https://cottagegrovemn.gov/598/Nelson-Mine-Backwaters-Project-EIS 5 operations. It is very important to understand who will assume liability for any past and current environmental damages should they arise. As it relates to the 200 foot mining pit in the Mississippi River riverbed, a considerable investment of time and money have been - and will continue to be - invested into the City of Cottage Grove’s water infrastructure to help ensure that its residents have clean drinking water. Approval of this mining-in-the-riverbed project by the City of Cottage Grove and Washington County would call into question the City’s and the County’s commitment to ensure clean drinking water for the future. Keep mining out of the Mississippi River, the riverbed, the surface waters, the aquifers, the wetlands and the groundwater. The Mississippi River is too vital of a national resource to allow the digging of a 200 ft pit into the riverbed to extract sand and gravel. There is too much that is unknown regarding the irreparable environmental harm that may occur with this project. What if this Mississippi River riverbed mining project causes irreparable damage to the aquifer(s)? Where has a 200 foot pit mining operation ever operated in the Mississippi River riverbed? Research finds no examples. Dredging performed by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) is deep enough to keep a 9 foot depth open for barge traffic. Harm to the natural environment and the impact on wildlife, aquatic biota, are, of course, of concern as they would be sorely impacted by this mining operation but this type of mining in the riverbed raises even far more serious consequences. The Mississippi River, the aquifers, the wetlands and the source waters are all interconnected and provide an ecosystem for the survival of human life … which means you and me. That we would be willing to destroy this ecosystem for this purpose is irresponsible and reprehensible. 6 Mississippi River, Surface Water, Groundwater, Aquifers and Wetlands and their importance in our ecosystem. They are interconnected and work together as a system to literally support human life: ● Source Water Protection ○ Source water refers to drinking water from streams, rivers, lakes, or underground aquifers that provide water for public water supplies and private wells. Source water protection is a community effort to prevent water pollution before it can reach our drinking water and become a public health problem. Metro area drinking water sources: Drinking water source protection has been identified as a management goal for about 50% of the metro area. Of the region’s 186 communities, 163 contain a source water protection area. Water flowing through these areas is the source for over 90% of the region’s population (almost 3 million people). Metro area land use: Since land use is so tied to drinking water quality, the state has found it important 1) to assess the likelihood that aquifers are subject to impacts from overlying land and water uses, and 2) to help entities manage these areas through wellhead protection plans. 4 ● Surface Water: ○ Of the major rivers in the metropolitan area, only the Mississippi River is currently used as a source of drinking water. 5 ○ Minnesota’s primary drinking water sources are groundwater and surface water. Surface water is the water in lakes, rivers, 5 Met Council - Surface Water https://metrocouncil.org/Wastewater-Water/Planning/Water-Supply-Planning/Basics/Surface-Water.aspx 4 Met Council - Source Water Protection: https://metrocouncil.org/Wastewater-Water/Planning/Water-Supply-Planning/Basics/Source-Water-Protect ion.aspx 7 and streams above the surface of the land. Surface water supplies 25 percent of Minnesota’s drinking water. Minneapolis' source water is the Mississippi River, a surface water. 6 ● Groundwater - The Groundwater portion of the EIS was not covered in the Public Meeting presentation and the agency expert was not at the December 19, 2024, Public Hearing to answer questions. 7 As the 200 foot pit is mined, what existing riverbed contamination would be disturbed and dispersed in the river and the aquifers? ○ Groundwater is water that fills the cracks and pores of rocks and sediments that lie beneath the surface of the earth – much the way water saturates a sponge. In the Twin Cities metropolitan area, this is an abundant but finite and vulnerable resource. 8 Groundwater is the source of drinking water for 75% of the people in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Groundwater also flows into many of our lakes and rivers, supporting the recreational parks and natural ecosystems that are so unique and valuable to our metropolitan area. 9 Current use reflects a long-term shift in the balance between surface water and groundwater, and a growing body of 9 Ibid 8 Met Council: Twin Cities Metropolitan Groundwater Digest https://metrocouncil.org/Wastewater-Water/Publications-And-Resources/WATER-SUPPLY-PLANNING/G ROUNDWATER-SURFACE-WATER/Groundwater-Digest,-Twin-Cities-Metropolitan-Area,.aspx 7 Nelson Mining Backwaters Project Public Meeting Presentation December 19, 2024 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBXLZCeXrdA ) 6 Source: https://www2.minneapolismn.gov/media/content-assets/www2-documents/residents/420085-1-MPLS_202 3-CCR_v6.pdf ) 8 evidence indicates that a “business as usual” approach to groundwater management may not be sustainable: 10 • Water level and flow records show downward trends in groundwater-connected lakes, wetlands, and trout streams • Groundwater contamination has been documented in many locations • Groundwater observation well records show a downward trend at many locations • Well interference complaints are increasing ○ Whether public or private, all water supplies are drawn from these essential natural resources that are shared by the entire region. Over half of Minnesota’s population – more than 3 million people – relies on these sources. Approximately 90% are provided with water by the region’s 100 municipal water supply systems; the remaining 10% are supplied by private wells. 11 While sufficient water supplies may exist in the seven-county metro area to meet future demand, the uneven distribution of drinking water sources consigns communities in some part of the region to an ongoing concern about water supply. For others, the competing demand between groundwater withdrawal and surface water protection poses a challenge. 11 Met Council: Water Supply in the Twin Cities https://metrocouncil.org/Wastewater-Water/Publications-And-Resources/WATER-SUPPLY-PLANNING/W ATER-SUPPLY-PLANNING-FACTS/WaterSupply-TCMA_WEB.aspx 10 Met Council: Twin Cities Metropolitan Groundwater Digest https://metrocouncil.org/Wastewater-Water/Publications-And-Resources/WATER-SUPPLY-PLANNING/G ROUNDWATER-SURFACE-WATER/Groundwater-Digest,-Twin-Cities-Metropolitan-Area,.aspx 9 Contamination is a concern for all, as is the inevitability of occasional droughts. 12 ● Regional water demand totals more than a billion gallons a day. Almost half of that is municipal demand, the fastest growing water use. By 2030, municipal water demand is projected to increase 25% to support the region’s larger economy and population. 13 ● About 115 million people—more than one-third of the Nation’s population—rely on groundwater for drinking water. As the Nation’s population grows, the need for high-quality drinking-water supplies becomes even more urgent. 14 Aquifers 15 Provide a diagram of the aquifers in the proposed mining riverbed area. How / where do these aquifers fit within the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system? ● The Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer system ranks ninth in the nation as a source of groundwater for public supply, providing 631 million gallons per day for this use. The aquifer underlies an area with a population of about 26 million people in parts of seven states and includes the metropolitan areas of Chicago, 15 OFR12-01, Geologic Atlas User's Guide: Using Geologic Maps and Databases for Resource Management and Planning, Setterholm, Dale, R., 2019 https://conservancy.umn.edu/items/c4dacc6d-96b0-423d-95f7-adee5356d395 14 US Geological Service, The Quality of the Nations Groundwater https://www.usgs.gov/news/featured-story/quality-nations-groundwater# 13 Ibid 12 Met Council: Water Supply in the Twin Cities https://metrocouncil.org/Wastewater-Water/Publications-And-Resources/WATER-SUPPLY-PLANNING/W ATER-SUPPLY-PLANNING-FACTS/WaterSupply-TCMA_WEB.aspx 10 Illinois; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota. 16 Provide a diagram and describe the project’s understanding of how these aquifers work for the regeneration of groundwater and how the groundwater will move through the various aquifers and be dispersed to areas away from the initial location — typically downstream. Indicate the groundwater flow towards any pumping location. When digging a 200 foot pit in the riverbed, how many aquifers are entered? Provide diagram of aquifers entered and at what depth? As these aquifers are entered would the aquifer(s) become contaminated with any hazardous sediment disturbed by the digging? How are contaminated aquifers tracked and remediated? Can a contaminated aquifer be remediated? Can the new, publicly-held, to-be-named company afford the remediations? Have aquifers been entered and mined in other nearby locations in the past? Please advise the location and the aquifer(s). Wetlands The Nelson Mining Backwaters Project calls for the destruction and “mitigation” of 296 wetland acres! Wetland Acreage Types - 296 total acres 2 acres, <1% - Fresh Wet Meadow 39 acres, 13% - Floodplain Forest (Grey Cloud Island) 42 acres, 14% - Shallow marsh 80 acres, 27% - Deep Marsh 133 acres, 45% - Shallow open water (aka Riverine) Floodplain Forest Islands 16 US Geological Service Groundwater Quality in the Midwest https://www.usgs.gov/news/technical-announcement/groundwater-quality-midwest-cambrian-ordovician-a quifer-system) 11 Note: This project requires a 2:1 ratio for wetland mitigation - 1 acre of wetland requires 2 acres of mitigation. 17 I asked and was told that there are not enough credits in the entire United States available for purchase for mitigation! These wetlands are an integral part of the existing ecosystem and should not be destroyed for a 200 foot mining pit in the riverbed. Wetlands are a critical component of the ecosystem. The general population does not appear to have an understanding of the wetlands importance. For ease of reference, following are excerpts from the EPA “Why are Wetlands Important?” web page that provides a brief overview of wetlands importance to the ecosystem and human life. 18 ● Why are Wetlands Important? Wetlands are important features in the landscape that provide numerous beneficial services for people and for fish and wildlife. Some of these services, or functions, include protecting and improving water quality, providing fish and wildlife habitats, storing floodwaters and maintaining surface water flow during dry periods. These valuable functions are the result of the unique natural characteristics of wetlands. Wetlands and Nature Wetlands are among the most productive ecosystems in the world, comparable to rain forests and coral reefs. An immense variety of species of microbes, plants, insects, amphibians, reptiles, birds, fish and mammals can be part of a wetland ecosystem. Climate, landscape shape (topology), 18 EPA Why are wetlands important https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/why-are-wetlands-important ): 17 Nelson Mining Backwaters Project Public Meeting Presentation December 19, 2024 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBXLZCeXrdA 12 geology and the movement and abundance of water help to determine the plants and animals that inhabit each wetland. The complex, dynamic relationships among the organisms inhabiting the wetland environment are called food webs. This is why wetlands in Texas, North Carolina and Alaska differ from one another. Wetlands can be thought of as "biological supermarkets." They provide great volumes of food that attract many animal species. These animals use wetlands for part of or all of their life-cycle. Dead plant leaves and stems break down in the water to form small particles of organic material called "detritus." This enriched material feeds many small aquatic insects, shellfish and small fish that are food for larger predatory fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds and mammals. The functions of a wetland and the values of these functions to humans depend on a complex set of relationships between the wetland and the other ecosystems in the watershed. A watershed is a geographic area in which water, sediments and dissolved materials drain from higher elevations to a common low-lying outlet or basin a point on a larger stream, lake, underlying aquifer or estuary. Wetlands play an integral role in the ecology of the watershed. The combination of shallow water, high levels of nutrients and primary productivity is ideal for the development of organisms that form the base of the food web and feed many species of fish, amphibians, shellfish and insects. Many species of birds and mammals rely on wetlands for food, water and shelter, especially during migration and breeding. 13 Wetlands' microbes, plants and wildlife are part of global cycles for water, nitrogen and sulfur. Scientists now know that atmospheric maintenance may be an additional wetlands function. Wetlands store carbon within their plant communities and soil instead of releasing it to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Thus wetlands help to moderate global climate conditions. Wetlands and People Far from being useless, disease-ridden places, wetlands provide values that no other ecosystem can. These include natural water quality improvement, flood protection, shoreline erosion control, opportunities for recreation and aesthetic appreciation and natural products for our use at no cost. Protecting wetlands can protect our safety and welfare. Natural Products for Our Economy We use a wealth of natural products from wetlands, including fish and shellfish, blueberries, cranberries, timber and wild rice. Some medicines are derived from wetland soils and plants. Many of the nation's fishing and shellfishing industries harvest wetland-dependent species. In the Southeast, for example, nearly all the commercial catch and over half of the recreational harvest are fish and shellfish that depend on the estuary-coastal wetland system. Louisiana's coastal marshes are tremendously valuable for their commercial fish and shellfish harvest. Wetlands are habitats for fur-bearers like muskrat, beaver and mink as well as reptiles such as alligators. Fish and Wildlife Habitat More than one-third of the United States' threatened and endangered species live only in wetlands, and nearly half use wetlands at some point in their lives. Many other animals and plants depend on wetlands for survival. 14 For many animals and plants such as wood ducks, muskrat, cattails and swamp rose, inland wetlands are the only places they can live. Beaver may actually create their own wetlands. For others, such as striped bass, peregrine falcon, otter, black bear, raccoon and deer, wetlands provide important food, water or shelter. Many of the U.S. breeding bird populations-- including ducks, geese, woodpeckers, hawks, wading birds and many song-birds-- feed, nest and raise their young in wetlands. Migratory waterfowl use coastal and inland wetlands as resting, feeding, breeding or nesting grounds for at least part of the year. Indeed, an international agreement to protect wetlands of international importance was developed because some species of migratory birds are completely dependent on certain wetlands and would become extinct if those wetlands were destroyed. Flood Protection Wetlands function as natural sponges that trap and slowly release surface water, rain, snowmelt, groundwater and flood waters. Trees, root mats and other wetland vegetation also slow the speed of flood waters and distribute them more slowly over the floodplain. This combined water storage and braking action lowers flood heights and reduces erosion. Wetlands within and downstream of urban areas are particularly valuable, counteracting the greatly increased rate and volume of surface- water runoff from pavement and buildings. The holding capacity of wetlands helps control floods and prevents water logging of crops. Preserving and restoring wetlands together with other water retention can often provide the level of flood control otherwise provided by expensive dredge operations and levees. The bottomland hardwood- riparian 15 wetlands along the Mississippi River once stored at least 60 days of floodwater. Now they store only 12 days because most have been filled or drained. ● Wetlands are the link between the land and the water. They are transition zones where the flow of water, the cycling of nutrients, and the energy of the sun meet to produce a unique ecosystem characterized by hydrology, soils, and vegetation—making these areas very important features of a watershed. Using a watershed-based approach to wetland protection ensures that the whole system, including land, air, and water resources, is protected. 19 ● Wetland hydrology and flood control: Wetlands are transition zones between uplands and deeper water, unique ecosystems characterized by their hydrology, soils and vegetation. They function like natural tubs, storing flood waters that overflow riverbanks and surface water that collects in depressional areas. In this way, wetlands can help protect adjacent and downstream property from flood damage. 20 How Do Wetlands Help Reduce Flooding? 21 The effectiveness of wetlands for flood abatement may vary, depending on the size of the area, type and condition of vegetation, slope, location of the wetland in the flood path and the saturation of wetland soils before flooding. A one-acre wetland can typically store about three-acre feet of water, or 21 EPA Wetlands protecting life and property from flooding https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-01/documents/wetlands_protecting_life_and_property_from_fl ooding.pdf 20 EPA Wetlands Protecting Life and Property From Flooding https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-01/documents/wetlands_protecting_life_and_property_from_fl ooding.pdf 19 EPA Wetlands Overview: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-01/documents/wetlands_overview.pdf 16 one million gallons. An acre-foot is one acre of land, about three-quarters the size of a football field, covered one foot deep in water. Three acre-feet describes the same area of land covered by three feet of water. Trees and other wetland vegetation help slow the speed of flood waters. This action, combined with water storage, can actually lower flood heights and reduce the water ’s destructive potential. (Source: EPA) The Wetlands Initiative completed an 18-month study, “Flood Damage Reduction in the Upper Mississippi River Basin: An Ecological Means.” The study revealed that restoring the 100-year flood zone of the Upper Mississippi five-state watershed could store 39 million acre-feet of floodwater, the volume that caused the Great Flood of 1993, and save over $16 billion in projected flood damage costs. In Minnesota, an additional study by The Wetlands Initiative noted that flood peaks and damage costs would be decreased by restoring the natural hydrology of the floodplain. The cost of replacing the flood control function of the 5,000 acres of wetlands drained each year in Minnesota alone would be $1.5 million, compared to the potentially millions of dollars lost to flooding. Preserving wetlands in the first place and restoring some of those that have been drained could help reduce future flood losses. (Source: The Wetlands Initiative) Required Permits and Approvals Why is the Minnesota Department of Health not listed on the Table 1-1 Required Permits and Approvals? 17 Yes, this letter is long but the Draft EIS request to mine a 200 foot pit in the Mississippi River riverbed tells a story about how natural resources can be destroyed and, then, “mitigated”. This letter is a story that must be told about what these natural resources are, how they are an interconnected system, the importance in our lives, and why this type of destruction should not be allowed to happen. Water is life. I look forward to your response. Respectfully, /signed Bonnie Matter 6649 Inskip Avenue South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 651/459-6463 matterbonnie@gmail.com Email Copy to: Public Affairs, US Army Corps of Engineers Mississippi Valley St. Paul, 651/290-5807 email: cemvp-pa@usace.army.mil Melissa Collins, Minnesota DNR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist, Region 3 (Central) 651-259-5755 email: melissa.collins@state.mn.us Washington County Public Works (Larson Quarry - Info only) PublicWorks@co.washington.mn.us Daniel Elder, Zoning Administrator (Larson Quarry - Info only) RGU: Washington County (651) 430-4307 daniel.elder@co.washington.mn.us 18 From:naomi tiger To:Environmental Impact Study Subject:Mine opposition Date:Sunday, October 26, 2025 7:05:49 PM You don't often get email from tigerlady732@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING: This email originated from an outside organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am writing to formally state that myself and family oppose minning the Mississippi River at lower grey cloud island. As residents of St Paul Park we enjoy the quiet and peaceful nature that is left. In addition to the tragedy that would occur within the natural habitat this project would also create undesirable traffic, noise, water and air pollution. Please, please consider the next generation of children to grow up here and what we will be leaving them (if anything) of what was once a beautiful natural and green habitat. Signed a concerned resident. Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer From:Wierzbinski, Daryl W CIV USARMY CEMVP (USA) To:Environmental Impact Study Cc:patty.bestler@amrize.com; Collins, Melissa (DNR); Wilde, William (MPCA); Weaver, Kerryann; Utrup, Nick J; Henriksen, Holly R Subject:2007-03505-DWW 20251027 COM FEIS.pdf Date:Monday, October 27, 2025 2:26:09 PM Attachments:2007-03505-DWW 20251027 COM FEIS.pdf EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING: This email originated from an outside organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please see the attached Corps of Engineers response letter for the Final EIS review about the Nelson Mine Project. No hardcopies will be mailed. Please save for your records. Daryl W. Wierzbinski U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Duluth office 11 East Superior Street, Suite 260 Duluth, Minnesota 55802 Phone: ☎ 218 350-1491 Email: daryl.w.wierzbinski@usace.army.mil Requests for action (pre-application consultations, permit applications, requests for delineation concurrences, requests for jurisdictional determinations, and mitigation bank proposals) should be sent directly to the following email: usace_requests_mn@usace.army.mil. Please include the county name in the subject line of the email (e.g. Washington County). DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, ST. PAUL DISTRICT 332 MINNESOTA STREET, SUITE E1500 ST. PAUL, MN 55101 -1323 October 27, 2025 Regulatory File No. 2007-03505-DWW City of Cottage Grove Emily Schmitz, Community Development Director 12800 Ravine Parkway South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Dear Emily Schmitz: This letter is in response to the request for comments for the state Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) f or the Amrize (formerly “Holcim – MWR, Inc.”), Nelson Mine Backwaters proposal in Washington County, Minnesota. We understand the F EIS has been prepared and submitted as a requirement of Minnesota Rules under Minnesota Environmental Protection Act (MEPA). This letter addresses the responses to our initial comments from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), Appendix F (Letter number 92, Page 80 -86). We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments related to federal permitting requirements. We appreciate the acknowledgement that the FEIS is being prepared according to the RGU’s authority under MEPA, and recognition of differences between state and federal environmental review requirements. Amrize has clarified the project will be evaluated separately under the federal review process and additional analysis is anticipated to satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (33 CFR part 325), Public Interest Review (33 CFR § 320.4), and compliance with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (Guidelines) (40 CFR part 230). While we have provided numerous comments directly to the applicant and consultant, and during the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings, would like to continue to highlight the importance of project purpose and need under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) due to numerous responses related to the purpose and need through Appendix F of the FEIS . The project is not a water dependent project; therefore, Amrize must rebut the presumption that there is an upland alternative that is less environmentally damaging. The project purpose, defined in the FEIS, limits the range of alternatives to the applicant’s preferred alternative to mining gravel in the Mississippi River. We understand the applicant’s project purpose in the FEIS may satisfy MEPA requirement ; however, the project purpose defined in the FEIS cannot be used for federal permitting, specifically for CWA Section 404 purposes, as it precludes any off -site alternatives. Regulatory Branch (File No. 2007-03505-DWW) Page 2 of 2 We appreciate the opportunity to provide our comments and look forward to continuing to work with the Amrize to develop a permittable alternative. If you have any questions, please contact me in our Duluth office at (218) 350-1491 or daryl.w.wierzbinski@usace.army.mil. We look forward to continuing close coordination during the review of this proposal. Sincerely, Daryl W Wierzbinski Lead Project Manager From:Beth Zaiken To:Environmental Impact Study Subject:Comments on the FEIS — Nelson Mine Backwaters Project Date:Monday, October 27, 2025 1:34:23 PM You don't often get email from bzaiken@gmail.com. Learn why this is important EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING: This email originated from an outside organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To: Emily Schmitz Community Development Director City of Cottage Grove 12800 Ravine Parkway South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Email: eis@cottagegrovemn.gov Dear Ms. Schmitz and City of Cottage Grove Officials, I am writing as a concerned community member to strongly oppose the Nelson Mine Backwaters Project. After reviewing the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), it is clear that this project would cause serious and long-lasting harm to the Mississippi River backwaters, surrounding communities, and future generations. This project will create more dust, water sediment pollution, and longterm industrial noise and barge traffic that will affect residents living near the river now and those who move to the area in the future (particularly with the development of the Mississippi Dunes land into what will become a very full neighborhood with a large tax base, whose residents will have every expectation of use and access to the river for recreation as a major benefit to living there). Dredging and mining operations will also increase the risk of changes in water levels, silt deposition downstream, and greater distribution of PFAS, which could affect private property and public recreational access. Residents’ quality of life, health, and safety will be negatively impacted throughout the 20–25 year project lifespan. The Mississippi River backwaters are a public resource that future generations deserve to enjoy for recreation, fishing, and nature experiences. This project will permanently alter river landscapes, degrade views on both sides of the river, degrade water quality, and eliminate critical wildlife habitat (FEIS, Chapters 4.3, 4.5) as well as limit public access and navigation of the river. No "mitigation" effort undertaken during permitting will be enough to change that reality. Children, families, and future residents will be denied the opportunity to experience and benefit from a healthy river ecosystem. The river is a major benefit to our community and we should be endeavoring to protect and increase access and enjoyment of it, instead of limiting access to allow for unnecessary industrial exploitation. This project will simply make Cottage Grove a less attractive place to live and raise a family in the long term. Chapter 4.3 documents the destruction of wetlands and backwater areas that provide essential habitat for fish, birds, and other wildlife. Even with proposed seasonal restrictions, the FEIS does not guarantee these species can survive the project. These areas also protect residents from flooding and erosion. The FEIS mentions mitigation but does not guarantee these cause snowballing effects to the local ecology that are impossible to anticipate. Mitigation is discussed at a programmatic level, but it is not clear whether specific mitigation sites, performance standards, monitoring protocols, or long-term enforcement mechanisms are in place. Once wetlands are destroyed, they cannot be replaced. The project will change groundwater levels, surface water flows, and river hydrology (FEIS, Chapters 4.4 & 4.10). The FEIS itself admits that cumulative effects over decades are uncertain. In addition, it admits that there may be a slight increase in flood water highs surrounding the project, which include residential properties that already sit close to recent flood maximums. These changes could impact the safety, enjoyment, and property values of nearby flood-risk residences. The proposer does not appropriately demonstrate the market necessity of this project in their preferred backwater location. Sand and gravel are common resources far less valuable and rare than the riparian land in its current natural condition, opened further to public access. Additionally, the company is not in fact an important "job creator" for this region, with only 18 employees, many of whom will be well positioned to find employment elsewhere and who have always understood that operations in that location could begin to close by 2030. The primary motivator for this project is to protect the company's operations and profits in the least expensive (for them) possible way, without regard to the greater community. Although reduced-scale and other site alternatives were mentioned (FEIS, Chapter 3), the FEIS does not convincingly show why these less destructive options cannot meet the company’s needs. Choosing the backwaters over other alternatives sacrifices residents’ health and river resources for industrial benefit (for an international mining conglomerate no less, not even a local minnesota based corporation). Furthermore, the company has proven itself to be an untrustworthy neighbor, frequently misrepresenting facts and laws in order to get their way, and has become adversarial with the surrounding community, even to the point of recent legal action against duly elected municipal units upholding very reasonable boundaries around their operations. The Nelson Mine Backwaters Project will permanently harm wetlands, water quality, wildlife, and the Mississippi River backwaters. It will negatively affect residents living nearby now and in the future, while denying future generations the ability to enjoy and use this critical river ecosystem. There is no way to fully mitigate these impacts. For the sake of the community, wildlife, and future river users, I strongly urge the City of Cottage Grove to reject this project. Sincerely, Beth Zaiken 10700 Grey Cloud Island Dr S, St Paul Park, MN 55071 10/27/2025 -- From:Kim Heuer To:Environmental Impact Study Subject:Nelson Mine Backwaters Project EIS Date:Monday, October 27, 2025 6:27:33 PM You don't often get email from froggy12@live.com. Learn why this is important EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING: This email originated from an outside organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To whom it may concern, I submitted concerns on the last EIS study and I reviewed the revised study and it appears that still none of my concerns have been addressed. My name is Kim Heuer and I live at 8285 River Acres Rd in Cottage Grove. I had previously been looking for a home by water for over 10 years but I could never find the right location due to light and noise pollution. I finally found this home and was ecstatic because it was one level living and did not have light nor noise pollution. Recently, I found that my mother would needs to move in due to her declining health. I was about to go through a major home addition to allow for her to move in. That is when I found out about the mining project. All possibilities of a renovation have ceased because now I need to know if I need to sell my home due to the light and noise pollution that are associated with the mining project because my home value is going to plummet. At the meeting, Holcim talked about how the current job would be completed and then money would cease for them as well as the workers. I am not sure why this is a concern for them considering that when they signed on for the project the proposed expansion was never discussed or proposed. And considering that they tried twice to do this on Grey Cloud Island and were denied should mean something. Holcim is not concerned about MN, they are concerned about profits pure and simple. They do not care about the river, the wildlife, or the residents. Chapter 4 fails to mention the proposed mining area is within a zone identified by the DNR as a critical spawning area. So critical that no Walleye, Pike or Bass can be kept by anglers. Seeing the fish are so challenged to reproduce, losing hundreds of acres of aquatic habitat would have to adversely impact reproduction of these fish. I went to the meeting and heard how the woes of the aggregate company but at no point did I hear anything about how it would negatively impact the people in the River Acres area including way of life, noise pollution for them specifically like my sister who had misophonia which is why it took over 10 years to find this location, light pollution and trying to sleep through lights blaring at their homes all night long, sediment in yards, damage to personal property including docks, lifts, boats, ect, and of course the value of property decreasing. All of these properties are valued on not the home but instead the view and location of the home. None of this was discussed. In regards to noise and light pollution, the wildlife will significantly decline on the river in this area. I was out on the river last year and saw an average of 15 eagles at a time in this location not to mention ALL the bird populations that nest and live in this area. It is sometimes white with birds. They will all be displaced due to this project. I reviewed that alternative to Baldwin Lake and that appears to be a better option residentially at least. By going to Baldwin Lake, there is no residential impact with noise and light pollution because it is so far away. If they can get the same benefit without disrupting the residential neighborhoods that it would hurt in the River Acres subdivision, then that would be a much better location. It would be a win win. From:Leann Leeson To:Environmental Impact Study Subject:Fw: Nelson Mine Backwaters Project EIS Date:Monday, October 27, 2025 7:04:47 PM You don't often get email from lskhan@hotmail.com. Learn why this is important EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING: This email originated from an outside organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, I wrote this information before and did not get more than generic and bottled answers that never directly answered with specific details what will be done about my concerns. We all know that Grey Cloud Island has already said NO twice to their proposal because people understand that their property values will go down and that there will be too much noise for people to live next to this mine. So, here it is again::: I live at 8285 River Acres Road, Cottage Grove, MN 55016. My sister, Kim Heuer, bought the house less than 2 years ago for $650,000. We looked at other locations, but several of those locations were rejected due to noise. There was a dog kennel next to a location, there was the freeway next to another location, and a third location was next to a mine. We could not buy any of those properties because I have a condition called Misophonia. If you are not familiar with misophonia it is a disorder in which certain sounds trigger emotional or physiological responses that some might perceive as unreasonable given the circumstance. Those who have misophonia might describe it as when a sound “drives you crazy.” Their reactions can range from anger and annoyance to panic and the need to flee. One such sound is that of mining. Hence, the third house that we had to reject because a mine was next to it. In allowing this proposal to go through would drive me from my home. I COULD NOT stay in this location with a mine directly across from me. In addition to the noise, my house value would significantly suffer from the diminished view. The value of the home, is, in GREAT part, to the unimpeded view of the Spring Lake Park Reserve. The mine would be an eye sore and would greatly impact the view that my home now has of the Mississippi. We actually paid more due to this view - a lot more. I would think that the mining company would be responsible for buying the homes of those who could no longer stay due to their mining operation with their 24 hour lights and 24 hour a day noise. The value of my home and those along side me will all be greatly impacted by this mine – if we would even be able to sell once people know that the mine is going in and will be in operation 24 hours a day for 20 to 25 years!! I will not be able to live here and, even if we will be able to sell, we will lose $100s of $1000s First, there was no information that spoke about the properties next to the proposed site. Do we just have to eat the cost of our properties going down in value? I know that I, for one, would have never bought this property if I had known that the mine was going to be done this close to this property. The house itself is only an average house - probably not worth more than $400K if it wasn't on the river. It is the view and the quiet neighborhood that is worth MUCH MORE. NOISE - So, at the meeting, the mining company said that the noise level - Will be within normal range???? What does that even mean? Normal range for what else can be found across other neighborhoods? Which neighborhoods? How much are the homes valued in the areas that have the higher noise levels? Because - again - I guarantee you that I would NOT have purchased this property if there was even a small amount of noise more than what is currently present. Nelson mining states that they use electric equipment to keep the noise level lower. However, this is not true of the trucks and gas-powered vehicles that they use on site. I have gone past their current site many times this summer and can hear the mine over the noise of my boat motor. It's one thing if you bought your house with a mine already next to it. You would be prepared and understand that there will be mining noises constantly all day 7 days a weeks. It's quite another to have purchased a house with the noises that you already knew existed such as the railroad and air traffic that reverberates across the water to be then told that you will now have to suffer with the constant noise of a mine for the next 25 years. The noise level might be fine for the workers who will wear safety equipment and expect to have noise the entire day while they are at work, but for a person trying to enjoy their residential property - quite another thing indeed. Plus, when they are talking about the "small" increase in noise did they take into consideration that noise reverberates across this area of the river. We can hear noises on top of the valley where the other small neighborhood is located on the bluffs above us. We can hear barrages once they pass the lock and dam at Hastings on enter into this part of the river. AND those noises can be LOUD. At least they areYfor a short period of time and not all day for hours and hours. Then, as the mine moves closer and closer to the homes the noise is bound to go up significantly. Noise pollution, as we all know, affects the value of homes. LIGHTS - In the meeting we were told that the extra use of lights will have little impact the light pollution in the area. However, the lights on Inman around the water plant have already affected the area and those lights are much further away and not as strong as the ming lights will be. So, how can they falsely say that the light pollution will not increase? Plus, they use 40 ft lights - how can lights this height and with this strength not affect the light pollution in the area? Anyone just needs to go to a golf driving range at night or an outdoor sports area to see how much those lights make a difference in the area. VIEW - Their paperwork did indicate that the view will be affected negatively. However, they did not address any compensation for those whose property values will be negatively impacted by having a loud noisy lighted mine right in front of where they live within a couple of hundred feet of their shoreline. Who wants to look at a mine? Could you imagine renting one of these homes for a nice weekend on the lake and finding this mine across from where you rented? If you wouldn't want to rent from a place like that what makes you think that you would want to live in a place like this for 20-25 years??? AND that the value would not be affected by this? PROPERTY VALUE - They did not - AT ALL - address the negative impact that their mine will have on our property values....even though they know that it will. They have already been rejected twice from Grey Cloud Island to expand their site due to the affect that their mine will have on property values, but, somehow their mines are going to not affect our property values? SEDIMENT - They showed us how they are going to reduce the flow of water in the mining area, but never addressed what will happen if (when) our shorelines get covered will the extra sediment that will be sure to be stirred up and come our way. We already have a shallow channel to get out from our homes and bring our boats into the Mississippi to use the river. In one place it goes down to 2 feet. If this becomes more shallow we won't be able to get our boats out. My neighbor down the street has lived here since 1973 and has never had to do anything to his shoreline, but is not concerned that the sediment from the mining will accumulate along our shoreline and make it difficult, if not impossible, to use our docks and boats. (again one reason that you pay more for these homes is the access to the river). It seems to me that they are flashing all of their glitter that isn't all gold and don't want to take any consideration or responsibility for the homes and the values of the homes that will be affected by their operations. Thanks, Leann Leeson 612-986-4843 From:Lisa Meyer To:Environmental Impact Study Subject:Nelson Backwaters Mining Project Date:Monday, October 27, 2025 1:40:12 PM You don't often get email from meyerfamily1995@gmail.com. Learn why this is important EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING: This email originated from an outside organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Cottage Grove City Council Members, I am writing as a concerned resident of Cottage Grove to express my strong opposition to the proposed expansion of the Nelson Mine to include river mining. This project would have serious and lasting impacts on our community, our natural environment, and the character of the area we call home. The Final Environmental Impact Study has already indicated significant environmental impacts associated with this expansion. These findings alone are reason enough to halt the project. Approving the expansion despite these documented risks would endanger sensitive ecosystems, threaten water quality, and undermine years of local and regional environmental protection efforts. If the expansion moves forward, it will directly affect the wetlands and surrounding ecosystems that support a wide variety of wildlife, including many species of migrating birds. These wetlands are not only ecologically important but also a treasured part of our community's natural heritage. The loss of these habitats would be irreversible. Beyond the environmental impact, this project would diminish recreational use of the river, increase the risk of flooding, and degrade the natural beauty and tranquility that draw residents and visitors alike. The expansion would also introduce increased noise and industrial activity to new residential areas, further reducing the quality of life for many in our community. In addition, the proposal poses economic concerns. With few trucks hauling material, local jobs could be lost, and nearby businesses-such as gas stations and restaurants-would likely see reduced activity and revenue. Rather than contributing to our local economy, this project risks creating an economic setback for small businesses that rely on steady, local commerce. Protecting our environment and maintaining a balanced approach to growth is essential to sustaining a healthy and vibrant Cottage Grove. I respectfully ask the Council to deny approval for the mine expansion into river mining. The environmental impacts outlined in the Final Environmental Impact Study, combined with the loss of natural resources, and community value, clearly show this project is not in the best interest of cottage Grove or its residents. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration of this important issue. Sincerely, 7641 113th St S Cottage Grove, MN From:Leonard Wabasha (TO) To:Harrington, Lucy (She/Her/Hers) (ADM); Environmental Impact Study Cc:Cheyanne St. John; Samantha Odegard; Noah White; Franky Jackson; Dianne Desrosiers (SWOLTR); Schirmer, Ron C; Weston, Isaac (He/Him/His) (MIAC); Tworzyanski, Jennifer (ADM); Max Erickson Subject:RE: Nelson Mine Backwaters Project: Final Environmental Impact Statement Public Comment Period, Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota Date:Monday, October 27, 2025 4:19:20 PM Attachments:image004.png image001.png 2025-0303b_Final_EIS.pdf 2025-0303 20250114.pdf 2025-0303a 20250717.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from leonard.wabasha@shakopeedakota.org.Learn why this is important EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING: This email originated from an outside organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Lucy Harrington, Thank you for sharing the position of the State Historic Preservation Office as we at the SMSC THPO have not yet been asked to consult with this proposed project. The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community is in concurrence with the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office findings and recommendations as mentioned in their correspondence regarding the Nelson Mine Backwaters Project. Please consider the fact that the final resting place of our ancestors are at risk potentially proposed to be disturbed when they should be avoided… Thank you. LEONARD WABASHA Tribal Historic Preservation Officer • Hocokata Ti Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community d: 952.496.6120 shakopeedakota.org Leonard.Wabasha@shakopeedakota.org The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community is a federally recognized, sovereign Indian tribe located southwest of Minneapolis/St. Paul. With a focus on being a good neighbor, good steward of the earth, and good employer, the SMSC is committed to charitable donations, community partnerships, a healthy environment, and a strong economy. From: Harrington, Lucy (She/Her/Hers) (ADM) <Lucy.Harrington@state.mn.us> Sent: Monday, October 27, 2025 3:57 PM To: EIS@cottagegrovemn.gov Cc: Leonard Wabasha (TO) <leonard.wabasha@shakopeedakota.org>; Cheyanne St. John <cheyanne.stjohn@lowersioux.com>; Samantha Odegard <samanthao@uppersiouxcommunity- nsn.gov>; Noah White <noah.white@piic.org>; Franky Jackson <fjackson@piic.org>; Dianne Desrosiers (SWOLTR) <dianned@swo-nsn.gov>; Schirmer, Ron C <ronald.schirmer@mnsu.edu>; Weston, Isaac (He/Him/His) (MIAC) <Isaac.Weston@state.mn.us>; Tworzyanski, Jennifer (ADM) <Jennifer.Tworzyanski@state.mn.us>; Max Erickson <MErickson@cottagegrovemn.gov> Subject: RE: Nelson Mine Backwaters Project: Final Environmental Impact Statement Public Comment Period, Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota This message came from outside the organization. Do Not click on links, open attachments or respond unlessyou know the content is safe. Good afternoon, Find attached the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office comments on the Final EIS (2025- 0303b_Final_EIS.pdf). As described in the attached letter, I have also enclosed our previous comments letters for continuity. I have copied several people on this letter for shared understanding and in consideration of a potential future undertaking that the US Army Corps of Engineers may need to initiated consultation on. Thank you, Lucy Lucy Harrington (she/her) | Environmental Review Archaeologist State Historic Preservation Office Minnesota Department of Administration 50 Sherburne Avenue, Suite 203 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 (651) 201-3283 | lucy.harrington@state.mn.us From: Bot, Courtnay <Courtnay.Bot@stantec.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 8:01 AM Cc: Patricia Bestler <patty.bestler@amrize.com>; EIS@cottagegrovemn.gov; govdoc@hclib.org; Chris Steller <reports@lrl.leg.mn>; Roos, Stephan (MDA) <stephan.roos@state.mn.us>; Kirsch, Raymond (PUC) <raymond.kirsch@state.mn.us>; MN_MDH_Review <Health.Review@state.mn.us>; Townley, Jill (She/Her/Hers) (DNR) <jill.townley@state.mn.us>; Green, Chris (MPCA) <chris.green@state.mn.us>; MN_BWSR_waterprograms <waterprograms.BWSR@state.mn.us>; Lind, Katherine (DOT) <Katherine.Lind@state.mn.us>; OSA, MN (ADM) <mn.osa@state.mn.us>; Weston, Isaac (He/Him/His) (MIAC) <Isaac.Weston@state.mn.us>; MN_ADM_ENV Review SHPO <ENReviewSHPO@state.mn.us>; govdoc@hclib.org; US Army Corps of Engineers-MEPA Distribution (usace_requests_mn@usace.army.mil) <usace_requests_mn@usace.army.mil>; R5NEPA@epa.gov; miss_planning@nps.gov; reviewscoordinator@metc.state.mn.us; TwinCities@fws.gov; King, Melissa (BWSR) <Melissa.King@state.mn.us>; Kratz, David (DOT) <David.Kratz@state.mn.us>; wshomej1@outlook.com; leslierotter@hotmail.com; Nancy_duncan@nps.gov; angela.torres@metc.state.mn.us; davidredtow@gmail.com; buetowbute@comcast.net; grinde.britt@live.com; garynmclean@gmail.com; lesliemartinpr@gmail.com; thagerpr@gmail.com; 1andrewwester@gmail.com; anitaoakman@msn.com; emy_chapman72@yahoo.com; lskhan@hotmail.com; b42jturner@gmail.com; anthony.nemcek@rosemountmn.gov; jwgiefer@gmail.com; amybeth.crawford621@gmail.com; brlifford@gmail.com; chrisjonharrington@gmail.com; bieoe.ffe@gmail.com; read.jayson@gmail.com; jalubkey@gmail.com; jillgiefer@gmail.com; madelinemorton614@gmail.com; This message may be from an external email source. Do not select links or open attachments unless verified. Report all suspicious emails to Minnesota IT Services Security Operations Center. trevor.l.lund@outlook.com; jpollard@local49.org; allisonjhynes@gmail.com; djbernardy@gmail.com; bronwenmorgan@sbcglobal.net; scaturia@gmail.com; lorigiefer@gmail.com; GraggJohnson, Kelly (ADM) <kelly.graggjohnson@state.mn.us>; Collins, Melissa (DNR) <Melissa.Collins@state.mn.us>; Drake, James F (DNR) <James.F.Drake@state.mn.us>; laurelawinter@gmail.com; froggy12@live.com; matterbonnie@gmail.com; Elliott, Beth <Beth.Elliott@stantec.com>; dawn.duffy@piic.org Subject: Nelson Mine Backwaters Project: Final Environmental Impact Statement Public Comment Period, Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota This serves as notification of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) comment period for the Amrize Project in Cottage Grove, Minnesota. Proposed Project: Amrize (formerly “Holcim – MWR, Inc.” and “Aggregate Industries”) currently mine land leased from a private landowner on Lower Grey Cloud Island in Cottage Grove, Washington County, MN, and processes materials nearby. The existing facility will exhaust its current reserves in approximately four years. Amrize is proposing to shift mining operations over a 20 to 25-year period to adjacent private property located in the backwaters area of the Mississippi River between Lower Grey Cloud Island and barrier islands created by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The proposed project would allow Amrize to continue use of their mechanical dredge, processing facilities and barge system to supply the Twin Cities and other local markets with construction quality natural aggregate. The State of Minnesota requires an EIS is prepared for this project as it exceeds the thresholds identified in Minnesota Rules 4410.4400, Subpart 9B and 4410.4400, Subpart 9C. The references for the mandatory EIS categories can be found here: 4410.4400 - MN Rules Part The designated Responsible Government Unit (RGU) for the EIS is the City of Cottage Grove. State Environmental Review Details: Draft EIS December 2024, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) was published in the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Monitor and a Draft EIS Information Meeting was held during a 45 day comment period. January 17, 2025, the Draft EIS comment period concluded. Final EIS The Final EIS including Response to Comments on the Draft EIS can be accessed at Nelson Mine Backwaters Projectdelay EIS | Cottage Grove, MN Refer to Final EIS Appendix F for the Draft EIS Response to Comments October 28, 2025, the Final EIS comment period will conclude Please submit comments to EIS@cottagegrovemn.gov November 5, 2025, Cottage Grove (Responsible Governmental Unit) City Council November 5, 2025 agenda will include Determination of Adequacy for the Final EIS. Courtnay Bot Senior Project Manager She/Her ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The information contained in this message is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, dissemination or copying of this information is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete the message from your system. Thank you! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From:Harrington, Lucy (She/Her/Hers) (ADM) To:Environmental Impact Study Cc:Leonard Wabasha; Cheyanne St. John; Samantha Odegard; Noah White; Franky Jackson; Dianne Desrosiers (SWOLTR); Schirmer, Ron C; Weston, Isaac (He/Him/His) (MIAC); Tworzyanski, Jennifer (ADM); Max Erickson Subject:RE: Nelson Mine Backwaters Project: Final Environmental Impact Statement Public Comment Period, Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota Date:Monday, October 27, 2025 3:57:27 PM Attachments:image001.png 2025-0303b_Final_EIS.pdf 2025-0303 20250114.pdf 2025-0303a 20250717.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from lucy.harrington@state.mn.us. Learn why this isimportant EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING: This email originated from an outside organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good afternoon, Find attached the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office comments on the Final EIS (2025- 0303b_Final_EIS.pdf). As described in the attached letter, I have also enclosed our previous comments letters for continuity. I have copied several people on this letter for shared understanding and in consideration of a potential future undertaking that the US Army Corps of Engineers may need to initiated consultation on. Thank you, Lucy Lucy Harrington (she/her) | Environmental Review Archaeologist State Historic Preservation Office Minnesota Department of Administration 50 Sherburne Avenue, Suite 203 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 (651) 201-3283 | lucy.harrington@state.mn.us From: Bot, Courtnay <Courtnay.Bot@stantec.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 8:01 AM Cc: Patricia Bestler <patty.bestler@amrize.com>; EIS@cottagegrovemn.gov; govdoc@hclib.org; Chris Steller <reports@lrl.leg.mn>; Roos, Stephan (MDA) <stephan.roos@state.mn.us>; Kirsch, Raymond (PUC) <raymond.kirsch@state.mn.us>; MN_MDH_Review <Health.Review@state.mn.us>; Townley, Jill (She/Her/Hers) (DNR) <jill.townley@state.mn.us>; Green, Chris (MPCA) <chris.green@state.mn.us>; MN_BWSR_waterprograms <waterprograms.BWSR@state.mn.us>; Lind, Katherine (DOT) <Katherine.Lind@state.mn.us>; OSA, MN (ADM) <mn.osa@state.mn.us>; Weston, Isaac (He/Him/His) (MIAC) <Isaac.Weston@state.mn.us>; MN_ADM_ENV Review SHPO This message may be from an external email source. Do not select links or open attachments unless verified. Report all suspicious emails to Minnesota IT Services Security Operations Center. (usace_requests_mn@usace.army.mil) <usace_requests_mn@usace.army.mil>; R5NEPA@epa.gov; miss_planning@nps.gov; reviewscoordinator@metc.state.mn.us; TwinCities@fws.gov; King, Melissa (BWSR) <Melissa.King@state.mn.us>; Kratz, David (DOT) <David.Kratz@state.mn.us>; wshomej1@outlook.com; leslierotter@hotmail.com; Nancy_duncan@nps.gov; angela.torres@metc.state.mn.us; davidredtow@gmail.com; buetowbute@comcast.net; grinde.britt@live.com; garynmclean@gmail.com; lesliemartinpr@gmail.com; thagerpr@gmail.com; 1andrewwester@gmail.com; anitaoakman@msn.com; emy_chapman72@yahoo.com; lskhan@hotmail.com; b42jturner@gmail.com; anthony.nemcek@rosemountmn.gov; jwgiefer@gmail.com; amybeth.crawford621@gmail.com; brlifford@gmail.com; chrisjonharrington@gmail.com; bieoe.ffe@gmail.com; read.jayson@gmail.com; jalubkey@gmail.com; jillgiefer@gmail.com; madelinemorton614@gmail.com; michael.tintes@hotmail.com; noraregis@gmail.com; seth.gupton@gmail.com; trevor.l.lund@outlook.com; jpollard@local49.org; allisonjhynes@gmail.com; djbernardy@gmail.com; bronwenmorgan@sbcglobal.net; scaturia@gmail.com; lorigiefer@gmail.com; GraggJohnson, Kelly (ADM) <kelly.graggjohnson@state.mn.us>; Collins, Melissa (DNR) <Melissa.Collins@state.mn.us>; Drake, James F (DNR) <James.F.Drake@state.mn.us>; laurelawinter@gmail.com; froggy12@live.com; matterbonnie@gmail.com; Elliott, Beth <Beth.Elliott@stantec.com>; dawn.duffy@piic.org Subject: Nelson Mine Backwaters Project: Final Environmental Impact Statement Public Comment Period, Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota This serves as notification of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) comment period for the Amrize Project in Cottage Grove, Minnesota. Proposed Project: Amrize (formerly “Holcim – MWR, Inc.” and “Aggregate Industries”) currently mine land leased from a private landowner on Lower Grey Cloud Island in Cottage Grove, Washington County, MN, and processes materials nearby. The existing facility will exhaust its current reserves in approximately four years. Amrize is proposing to shift mining operations over a 20 to 25-year period to adjacent private property located in the backwaters area of the Mississippi River between Lower Grey Cloud Island and barrier islands created by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The proposed project would allow Amrize to continue use of their mechanical dredge, processing facilities and barge system to supply the Twin Cities and other local markets with construction quality natural aggregate. The State of Minnesota requires an EIS is prepared for this project as it exceeds the thresholds identified in Minnesota Rules 4410.4400, Subpart 9B and 4410.4400, Subpart 9C. The references for the mandatory EIS categories can be found here: 4410.4400 - MN Rules Part The designated Responsible Government Unit (RGU) for the EIS is the City of Cottage Grove. State Environmental Review Details: Draft EIS December 2024, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) was published in the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Monitor and a Draft EIS Information Meeting was held during a 45 day comment period. January 17, 2025, the Draft EIS comment period concluded. Final EIS The Final EIS including Response to Comments on the Draft EIS can be accessed at Nelson Mine Backwaters Projectdelay EIS | Cottage Grove, MN Refer to Final EIS Appendix F for the Draft EIS Response to Comments October 28, 2025, the Final EIS comment period will conclude Please submit comments to EIS@cottagegrovemn.gov November 5, 2025, Cottage Grove (Responsible Governmental Unit) City Council November 5, 2025 agenda will include Determination of Adequacy for the Final EIS. Courtnay Bot Senior Project Manager She/Her MINNESOTA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 50 Sherburne Avenue ▪ Administration Building 203 ▪ Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 ▪ 651-201-3287 mn.gov/admin/shpo ▪ mnshpo@state.mn.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND SERVICE PROVIDER October 27, 2025 VIA EMAIL ONLY City of Cottage Grove RE: Nelson Mine Backwaters Project: Final Environmental Impact Statement Washington County SHPO Number: 2025-0303 Dear City of Cottage Grove: Thank you for sharing a copy of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared for the Nelson Mine Backwaters Project on October 14, 2025. We previously provided comments on the draft environmental impact statement on January 14, 2025 and, after receiving copies of additional information we requested, again on July 17, 2025. We have attached our previous comment letters here for your reference. While the majority of our comments from our July 17, 2025 letter were incorporated into the Final EIS, some of them were not. Regarding Alternatives B and E: As currently proposed, these alternatives appear to intersect the Schilling Archaeological District (21WA0001, WA- CGC-00239), which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places and archaeological site 21WA0110. The Final EIS states in Section 4.10.3.2, “Alternative B would adversely affect both sites if they cannot be avoided by Project activities.” The text goes on to explain that impacts could be minimized through project design and also that Amrize will prepare an unanticipated discovery plan. We do not believe that this section of the Final EIS appropriately describes the environmental consequences of Alternative B in relation to historic properties and we do not view an unanticipated discovery plan to be an appropriate form of impact minimization or mitigation. We recommend that the project be re-designed to avoid impacting the Schilling Archaeological District and site 21WA0110. As currently proposed in the Final EIS, these alternatives will likely result in an adverse effect to the Schilling Archaeological District. The same is true of Alternative E. While Alternative E is proposed as a reduction in scale in comparison to Alternative B, it is proposed in the same footprint within the Schilling Archaeological District as Alternative B. In addition to previously documented archaeological site impacts, our previous comments referenced the two anomalous features identified in a 2010 archaeological survey report that appear to intersect Alternative B an E. Based on the description of these features, we recommend consultation with the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council and the Office of the State Archaeologist to determine whether these represent burials or cemeteries. This has not been addressed in the Final EIS at all. Regarding Alternative C: Our July 17, 2025 comment letter provided recommendations for recognizing the past actions and cumulative effects of mining and dredging on archaeological site 21WA0048, which is within the location of proposed Alternative C. We provided a description of past actions based on our previous review files, archaeological survey reports, and modern aerial imagery showing extensive disturbance to this significant archaeological site. This information has not been incorporate into the Final EIS. As we previously stated, we remain seriously concerned that the significant archaeological sites on Lower Grey Cloud Island are not currently being well preserved and are at serious risk of being lost forever related to future mining. This comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36 CFR § 800. Since this project may require a federal permit, consultation under Section 106 will need to be initiated by the federal agency, or the applicant, if the federal agency decides to delegate this responsibility. Be advised that comments and recommendations provided by our office for this state-level review may differ from findings and determinations made by the federal agency as part of review and consultation under Section 106. If you have any questions regarding our review of this project, please contact Lucy Harrington, Environmental Review Archaeologist, at (651)201-3283 or lucy.harrington@state.mn.us. Sincerely, Amy Spong Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer CC: Leonard Wabasha, Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Cheyanne St. John, Lower Sioux Indian Community Samantha Odegard, Upper Sioux Community Noah White, Prairie Island Indian Community Franky Jackson, Prairie Island Indian Community Dianne Desrosiers, Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate Ron Schirmer, Minnesota State University, Mankato Max Erickson, City of Cottage Grove Minnesota Indian Affairs Council Minnesota Office of the State Archaeologist Enclosed: • 2025-0303 20250114.pdf – SHPO comments on the draft EIS dated 1/14/25 • 2025-0303a 20250717.pdf – SHPO comments on the draft EIS dated 7/17/25 MINNESOTA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 50 Sherburne Avenue ▪ Administration Building 203 ▪ Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 ▪ 651-201-3287 mn.gov/admin/shpo ▪ mnshpo@state.mn.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND SERVICE PROVIDER January 14, 2025 Emily Schmitz Community Development Director 12800 Ravine Parkway South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Nelson Mine Backwater Project Washington County SHPO Number: 2025-0303 Dear Emily Schmitz: Thank you for providing this office with a copy of Draft EIS for the Nelson Mine Backwater project. At this time, our comments are to be considered as technical assistance only as the regulatory framework for this project is unclear. We recommend avoidance of all historic properties, including archaeological sites. We also recommend avoidance of all burial sites. Please provide copies of all the archaeological survey reports referenced in the Draft EIS or reference the SHPO report numbers if you obtained copies from our office. We agree with the recommendation in the Draft EIS that if Alternatives C or D are chosen, an archaeological survey should be completed to identify archaeological sites that may be affected by the proposed project. Pending review of the previously completed archaeological surveys referenced above, we will be able to provide additional comments on the proposed alternatives. According to the Draft EIS, the proposed Project may require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permit and, therefore, may be subject to review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. As the Project’s scope is further defined, additional consultation between the USACE and the SHPO may be necessary in order to define an appropriate area of potential effects (APE) for the federal undertaking as well as the necessary historic property identification and evaluation efforts required for a federal review. As noted above, this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36 CFR § 800. If this project will require a federal permit, consultation under Section 106 will need to be initiated by the lead federal agency. Be advised that comments and recommendations provided by our office for this state- level review may differ from findings and determinations made by the federal agency as part of review and consultation under Section 106. If you have any questions regarding our review of this project, please contact Kelly Gragg-Johnson, Environmental Review Program Specialist, at 651-201-3285 or kelly.graggjohnson@state.mn.us. Sincerely, Kelly Gragg-Johnson Environmental Review Program Specialist MINNESOTA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 50 Sherburne Avenue ▪ Administration Building 203 ▪ Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 ▪ 651-201-3287 mn.gov/admin/shpo ▪ mnshpo@state.mn.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND SERVICE PROVIDER July 17, 2025 VIA EMAIL ONLY Veronica Parsell Barr Engineering Co. vparsell@barr.com RE: Additional Information regarding Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Nelson Mine Backwater Project Washington County SHPO Number: 2025-0303 Dear Veronica Parsell: We received the additional information we requested in our January 14, 2025 letter on May 28, 2025. We understand that the proposed project will likely require one or more permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and, therefore, will be subject to review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. As the Project’s scope is further defined, additional consultation with the USACE and the SHPO will be necessary in order to define an appropriate area of potential effects (APE) for the federal undertaking as well as the necessary historic property identification and evaluation efforts required for a federal review. The eligibility of any properties that are identified within the Project’s APE, will need to be addressed as part of any federal Section106 review. Below, we are providing comments as technical assistance on the development of an Environmental Impact Statement under Minnesota Statute Chapter 116D and Minnesota Administrative Rules Chapter 4410. We believe these comments will also assist in future consultation between SHPO and the USACE on future federal undertakings. We have also copied potential consulting parties for any future federal undertaking. Regarding Alternatives B and E: Two previously documented archaeological sites overlap Alternative B, the Schilling Archaeological District (21WA0001, WA-CGC-00239) and 21WA0110. We have serious concerns about the preservation of these significant archaeological sites within Alternative B if the mining company proceeds with that option. The proposed alternative is on private land and while one of the archaeological sites is listed in the National Register of Historic Places and the other has been determined to be a significant archaeological site eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), lacking a federal or state undertaking, the mining company has no requirement to continue to preserve these sites, with the exception of the portions of the Schilling Archaeological District that contain a Native American cemetery. Cemeteries are protected by the Minnesota Private Cemeteries Act (MN Statute 307.08) even if they are located on private land. The listed Schilling Archaeological District is somewhat protected under Minnesota Statute 138.665-666, which requires: “The state, state departments, agencies, and political subdivisions [e.g. a Responsible Government Unit], including the Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota, have a responsibility to protect the physical features and historic character of properties designated in sections 138.662 and 138.664 or listed on the National Register of Historic Places created by Public Law 89-665. Before carrying out any undertaking that will affect designated or listed properties, or funding or licensing an undertaking by other parties, the state department or agency shall consult with the State Historic Preservation Office pursuant to the State Historic Preservation Office's established procedures to determine appropriate treatments and to seek ways to avoid and mitigate any adverse effects on designated or listed properties.” Even if the currently proposed mining expansion will not affect either of these sites, if future mining expansion occurs and does not trigger a required environmental review under state law or federal law, these significant archaeological sites are at risk. We recommend the consideration of an appropriate way to minimize or mitigate this risk if Alternative B is selected. We suggest that this can be addressed in Section 4.10.3.2. The Draft EIS makes no mention of two anomalous features identified in the 2010 report and we recommend that Section 4.10.1.1 be edited to include reference to these features. The 2010 report describes two anomalous features that are not well documented. These are one “possibly significant boulder formation” and “stockpiled gravey soil” (Harrison 2010). We recommend consultation with the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council and the Office of the State Archaeologist to determine whether these anomalous features are burials or cemeteries. Based on the report, we understand that at the time the Office of the State Archaeologist was consulted regarding the boulder formation, they commented that it could be an animal burial. Under current state statute, these possible burial features should likely be assessed by the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council, but we defer to them and the Office of the State Archaeologist because those entities have authority for unplatted cemeteries under the Minnesota Private Cemeteries Act (MN Statute 307.08). We also recommend that Section 4.10.1.1 be edited to reference any ethnohistorical accounts documenting traditional cultural places on Lower Grey Cloud Island. Based on a review of the Draft EIS, we note that earlier consultation between the USACE and Indian Tribes is referenced in Section 2.2.1. A review of our own files indicates that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet was previously prepared for the Nelson Mine Backwater Expansion and a permit application or pre-application consultation with the USACE was initiated for the same project. The USACE then initiated consultation with Indian Tribes pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations 36 CFR 800 and comments received from the Tribes consulted included concerns about (SHPO File 2008-2231): “ (a) the extent to which tribal representatives will be able to monitor archaeological research activities; (b) what measures will be taken to identify any Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP) that may be present in the area as well as any project-related affects [sic] to tribal cultural traditions or tribal history.” We understand that the development of an ethnohistory of Grey Cloud was deemed appropriate. The Draft EIS states that continuing consultation on this topic did not result in any responses. We do not have any additional information about this beyond letters from the USACE in our files and recommend that the Draft EIS address this topic in Section 4.10.1.1 if appropriate. If any traditional cultural places are known or suspected within Alternative B, we recommend that Section 4.10.3.2 be edited to address potential impacts, minimization, and mitigation to those places. In Section 4.10.3.2, the Draft EIS proposes that Alternative B was completely surveyed and only two significant archaeological sites were identified and that project activities would adversely affect both sites if they cannot be avoided through project design. While it appears that the survey report from 2010 covered the area within Alternative B that overlaps the listed archaeological district, we recommend that this area be revisited with additional survey due to the age of the report. While the archaeology manuals in Minnesota have not changed since 2010, the way the survey was reported makes it unclear if this area was comprehensively investigated for other activity areas within the listed district. Additionally, documentation over time has suggested that the eastern end of Lower Grey Cloud Island, where the NRHP listed Schilling Archaeological District is located, has been subject to extensive erosion and has been partially inundated due to the construction of Lock and Dam 2 on the Mississippi River. While the 2010 report attempted to determine the presence of archaeological material within the inundated portion of the island, we are not convinced that the investigation methods were appropriate to determine this. We recommend an underwater archaeologist review and provide recommendations to determine the potential for submerged portions of this district within the proposed mining area (to be addressed in Section 4.10.1.1) and the potential effects of proposed mining (to be addressed in Section 4.10.3.2) on the district. Regarding Alternative C: One previously documented archaeological site, 21WA0048 the Grey Cloud Townsite, overlaps the location of proposed Alternative C. Based on a review of the Draft EIS, we believe that Section 4.10.1.2 is missing a substantial amount of information and previous research about this site. The Grey Cloud Townsite has been investigated archaeologically several times. One of the early excavations was conducted by the Minnesota Historical Society and is reported in Volume 32 of The Minnesota Archaeologist (Birk 1973). We are sharing this volume with you. The Grey Cloud Townsite was also investigated in the 1980s by the Minnesota Archaeological Society and the University of Minnesota, the results of these investigations have never been reported, but apparently the records and artifacts are still within their collections, we have not confirmed this and know this only from 1995 and 1996 reports in our files (Mather 1995; Vogel and Shaffer 1996). The Grey Cloud Townsite was again investigated in 1995 by Loucks & Associates, Inc. in relation to a proposed expansion of the Nelson Mine at that time (Mather 1995) and this investigation is associated with SHPO File 1995-2755. Our office concurred with the recommendation to erect protective fencing along the portion of the field edge prior to the expansion of mining near 21WA0048 (Letter from Britta L. Bloomberg to Mark Suel dated July 12, 1995). A 1996 study examined the previously documented archaeological reports and collections and recommended that the site be locally designated in the City Register of Historic Sites and Landmarks (Vogel and Shaffer 1996). According to our records and the City of Cottage Grove’s records, the site was never actually designated. We appreciate you sharing the 2008 investigations at site 21WA0048. Our office has no record of previously receiving and reviewing these reports. Therefore, please edit Section 4.10.1.2 to reflect that the Minnesota Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA) and not the SHPO concurred with the recommendations in the addendum report as indicated in the “Original OSA Site Form” with the file name 21WA0048_OSA.pdf uploaded to the OSA Portal. The report titled, Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Aggregate Industries Expansion Area at the Nelson Plant on Grey Cloud Island, Washington County, Minnesota prepared by 10,000 Lakes Archaeology, Inc. July 15, 2008 recommended that the “farmstead located within the project area also does not appear to contain significant (below ground) archaeological deposits, although loss of the barn foundations would diminish the value of the farmstead as a whole. Thus, 10,000 Lakes Archaeology recommends that the proposed project would have an adverse impact on the farmstead and that Aggregate Industries should avoid these features. If avoidance is not possible, the farmstead should be evaluated, as a whole, to determine if it is eligible for the NRHP, and if so, which elements are contributing and which are non-contributing.” (Gronhovd 2008). It is unclear to our office why this report was prepared or if the recommendations were reviewed by any relevant state agency. What we do understand is that the farmstead is no longer extant (see enclosed modern aerial imagery dating 1991-2024). We recommend revising Section 4.10.1.2 to accurately reflect the recommendations in the report regarding this farmstead. Section 4.10.3.3 recommends that, “If historic properties cannot be avoided by the alternative advanced for permitting, mitigation in the form of data recovery would be required.” We do not agree. We believe, based on a review of modern aerial imagery, that this site has been subject to substantial and invasive ground disturbance, and we are not certain whether any portion of the site remains at this time, despite efforts locally to preserve it and recommendations from our office to avoid impacting it. Thankfully, there have been several previous archaeological investigations at this site resulting in the recovery of hundreds, if not thousands, of artifacts and the analysis of these artifacts has never been completed. Further, the results of the 1980s investigations by the Minnesota Archaeological Society and the University of Minnesota have never been formally reported at all. We would recommend that mitigation of this alternative should involve the synthesis of all previous archaeological investigations and an analysis of the previously recovered artifacts into a formal archaeological report and additional public interpretation materials which could include conference presentations, journal articles, newspaper articles, interpretation in local historical societies, or other material to be decided at a future date. We recommend revising Section 4.10.3.3 to include these mitigation options. We also recommend revising Section 4.15.1 to include the past effects of previous mining actions on the farmstead identified in the 2008 report referenced above, the expansion of mining activities referenced in the 1995-2755 SHPO file and a description of whether or not protective fencing around 21WA0048 was ever erected, the past repeated placement of dredge material by the USACE on Lower Grey Cloud Island within site 21WA0048 referenced in SHPO files 2018-1013 and 2012-1438 (the 2012 file is included in the 2018-1013 pdf), and the obvious cutting of new roads within site 21WA0048 observed on aerial imagery dating to 2013 and 2023. We also recommend revising this section to address present and reasonably foreseeable future projects related to the future placement of dredge material by the USACE within site 21WA0048. Based on observed impacts to site 21WA0048, we have serious concerns about the preservation of this site and archaeological site 21WA0009, the Grey Cloud Mounds. As we stated in reference to Alternative B, the proposed Alternative C is on private land and lacking a federal or state undertaking, the mining company has no requirement to continue to preserve these sites, with the exception of the portions of the Grey Cloud Mounds that contain a Native American cemetery. Cemeteries are protected by the Minnesota Private Cemeteries Act (MN Statute 307.08) even if they are located on private land. Even if the currently proposed mining expansion will not affect either of these sites, if future mining expansion occurs and does not trigger a required environmental review under state law or federal law, these significant archaeological sites are at risk. We recommend the consideration of an appropriate way to minimize or mitigate this risk if Alternative C is selected. We suggest that this can be addressed in Section 4.10.3.3. Regarding Alternative D: We have no additional comments at this time. As noted above, this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36 CFR § 800. Since this project will require a federal permit, consultation under Section 106 will need to be initiated by the federal agency, or the applicant, if the federal agency decides to delegate this responsibility. Be advised that comments and recommendations provided by our office for this state- level review may differ from findings and determinations made by the federal agency as part of review and consultation under Section 106. If you have any questions regarding our review of this project, please contact Lucy Harrington, Environmental Review Archaeologist, at (651)201-3283 or lucy.harrington@state.mn.us. Sincerely, Amy Spong Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer CC: Paul Leffler, US Army Corps of Engineers Daryl Wierbinski, US Army Corps of Engineers Vanessa Alberto, US Army Corps of Engineers Leonard Wabasha, Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Cheyanne St. John, Lower Sioux Indian Community Samantha Odegard, Upper Sioux Community Noah White, Prairie Island Indian Community Franky Jackson, Prairie Island Indian Community Dianne Desrosiers, Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate Ron Schirmer, Minnesota State University, Mankato Max Erickson, City of Cottage Grove Minnesota Indian Affairs Council Minnesota Office of the State Archaeologist Peggy Veregin, Mississippi National River & Recreation Area Jade Ryerson, Mississippi National River & Recreation Area Enclosed via Sharefile: • SHPO File 1995-2755 • SHPO File 2000-3427 • SHPO File 2008-2231 • SHPO File 2018-1013 • SHPO Report WA-1995-03 • SHPO Report WA-1996-03 • The Minnesota Archaeologist Volume 32 Issues 1 & 2 • Modern Aerial Imagery of Archaeological Site 21WA0048 dating from 1991-2024 (Source: Google Earth) From:Collins, Melissa (DNR) To:Emily Schmitz; Environmental Impact Study Cc:Smith, Katie (She/Her/Hers) (DNR); Doneen, Randall (DNR); Scollan, Daniel (DNR); Wierzbinski, Daryl W CIV USARMY CEMVP (USA); Cary, Robert (DNR); Lais, Dan R (DNR); patty.bestler@amrize.com; Jennifer Levitt; SBraun@barr.com Subject:Nelson Mine Backwater Project Final EIS - DNR Comments Date:Tuesday, October 28, 2025 4:40:07 PM Attachments:Outlook-Title_ Min.png Outlook-Facebook l.png Outlook-Twitter lo.png Outlook-Email Subs.png 2025-10-28-Holcim Nelson Mine FEIS-DNR comments-Final.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from melissa.collins@state.mn.us. Learn why this isimportant EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING: This email originated from an outside organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Emily Schmitz, On behalf of DNR Division Director of Ecological and Water Resources, Katie Smith, please see the attached Nelson Mine Backwater Project Final EIS comment letter. A confirmation of receipt would be most appreciated. Thank you, Melissa Collins Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist | Ecological and Water Resources Pronouns: She/her/hers Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 55106 Phone: 651-259-5755 Email: melissa.collins@state.mn.us mndnr.gov 2025-10-28 Schmitz 1 Division of Ecological and Water Resources Transmitted by Email Region 3 Headquarters 1200 Warner Road Saint Paul, MN 55106 October 28, 2025 Emily Schmitz Community Development Director City of Cottage Grove 12800 Ravine Parkway South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 RE: Amrize’s Nelson Mine Backwaters Final EIS Dear Emily Schmitz, Thank you for the opportunity to review the Nelson Mine Backwaters Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Amrize’s Nelson Aggregate mining proposal to conduct nonmetallic mining in the Mississippi River in Washington County and in an area adjacent to the navigational channel. As of the date of this letter, three future Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regulatory decisions have been identified as required for Amrize’s Nelson Aggregate proposed project. These regulatory decisions include a work in public waters permit, a threatened and endangered species taking permit, and Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) replacement plan per DNR’s agreement with the Local Government Unit (LGU). DNR acknowledges the need for more aggregate mining to supply the materials necessary for concrete infrastructure, and we support sustainable utilization of natural resources. DNR regulatory decisions on this project must comply with Minn. Stat. § 116D.04, subd. 6, which states, “No state action significantly affecting the quality of the environment shall be allowed, nor shall any permit for natural resources management and development be granted, where such action or permit has caused or is likely to cause pollution, impairment, or destruction of the air, water, land or other natural resources located within the state, so long as there is a feasible and prudent alternative consistent with the reasonable requirements of the public health, safety, and welfare and the state's paramount concern for the protection of its air, water, land and other natural resources from pollution, impairment, or destruction. Economic considerations alone shall not justify such conduct.” Alternative Analysis The purpose statement used in the EIS is overly narrow, yet it appears the project purpose was not used to screen alternatives to be evaluated in the EIS. This is evidenced by evaluation of alternatives 2025-10-28 Schmitz 2 that do not meet the stated purpose. It is unclear how other governmental units would use the alternative analysis contained in the EIS to inform needed regulatory decisions. DNR recommends a broader project purpose for downstream regulatory decisions such as, “supplying quality aggregate resources to the Twin Cities and other local markets.” The proposed project (Alternative B) is not an expansion of an existing facility to adjacent upland. It is an expansion into a public water with high quality natural communities that existed prior to the construction of Lock and Dam 2 and persist today as part of a dynamic river system. The proposed project area within the side channel of the Mississippi River provides high quality habitat for an estimated 1.6 million mussels, and a host of wildlife, fish and plant species, including many that are rare, threatened, or endangered. Mining within a public water under Alternatives B and C and E will disturb and impact fish and wildlife within the project areas, remove exposed gravel and mussel beds, submersed and emergent aquatic vegetation and coarse woody habitat, all of which are important habitats for a diverse and healthy ecosystem. In addition, the impact of the mining in the public water will create the potential for fish kills. The post-mining plan for the project area would leave behind a 100-foot-deep mine pit within the waterway that would become thermally stratified. The deeper portions of the water column would likely go anoxic over the course of the summer causing fish kills in the fall and general avoidance of the area by fish until oxygen levels recover post mixing. These conditions could impact all biota within the project area and potentially outside the project area. This impact would occur long after mining and reclamation are completed. Alternatives B, C, and E would also remove approximately 200 acres of public waters that are currently freely accessible to the public for boating, wildlife viewing, hunting and angling. The public’s interest in this resource must be balanced against the private use of this resource. By contrast, the two upland alternatives analyzed in the EIS would have minimal impact to public waters, wildlife habitat, or recreational use by the public. The impacts to upland sites (Alternative D and the Lakeland Site) would also be temporary and could be returned to agriculture post-mining, while Alternatives B, C, and E include impacts to public waters, wildlife habitat, and state-listed species that would be long-lasting due to the loss of habitat and population levels. The greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) for the upland alternatives would be greater as trucking miles increase, however these calculations are only estimates since this is based on the current business model and customers. There is uncertainty in the aggregate market that makes cumulative environmental effects of aggregate transport difficult to predict, while there are many known environmental effects to mining in a public water. The upland alternatives would require more acres overall to support an economically feasible facility. In this case, a greater quantity of land mined in an upland agricultural setting would be far less impactful than a smaller mine within an ecologically sensitive area of the Mississippi River according to the analysis presented in the EIS. For these reasons, of the alternatives presented in the EIS, including the new Lakeland Alternative presented in Appendix C of the Alternatives Screening Report, DNR considers the upland Coates Site (Alternative D) and the Lakeland Site Alternative to be the least impactful alternatives based on the information presented in the EIS. 2025-10-28 Schmitz 3 MRCCA The City asserts that the ordinances governing the Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area (MRCCA) do not prohibit expansion of nonmetallic mining operations). The City is mistaken. The City’s MRCCA ordinance prohibits the new nonmetallic mining. Nonmetallic mining as “construction, reconstruction, repair, relocation, expansion, or removal of any facility for the extraction, stockpiling, storage, disposal, or reclamation of nonmetallic minerals such a stone, sand, and gravel.” The definition notably includes “expansion” and “relocation.” The ordinance further explains that “’facility’ includes all mine pits, quarries, stockpiles, basins, processing structures and equipment, and any structures that drain or divert public waters to allow mining.” Alternative B includes expansion and relocation to mining within the Mississippi River, as well as construction of new nonmetallic mining facilities within the Shore Impact Zone (SIZ) and the required structure setback from the ordinary high-water level, including a (1) winter slip for the floating dredge unit, (2) a conveyor system for transporting mined aggregate from the proposed mining area to the plant, and (3) barrier dikes. These activities are thus prohibited by the City’s MRCCA ordinances. The response to DNR comments provided in Comment 53-37 agrees that the definition of new nonmetallic mining includes expansion of the facility (which is prohibited by MRCCA within the SIZ, as discussed above). However, the City then argues that the proposed project is not prohibited because it is an expansion of an existing mine. But there is simply no exception in the MRCCA ordinances that allow for nonmetallic mining in the SIZ when such activity is an expansion of an existing mine. As discussed above, the definition of “nonmetallic mining” explicitly includes “expansion” and “relocation.” Accordingly, any new “expansion” or “relocation” of a mining “facility” would, by definition, still be considered new nonmetallic mining. The City attempts to ignore this plain fact by asserting that “the definition is simply that, a definition and does not operate as a prohibition on expansion of such a facility.” To the contrary, the defined terms make clear that “expansion” and “relocation” of mining “facilit[ies]” within the SIZ, bluff impact zone, and required setback are prohibited under the MRCCA ordinances. The City’s response goes on to reference and mischaracterize Hawkins v. Talbot, the Minnesota Supreme Court case concerning nonconforming uses that involved diminishing assets like quarries, gravel pits, and landfills. 248 Minn. 549 (Minn. 1957). In Hawkins, the court recognized that the gravel pit in question was a diminishing asset and its owners did not violate a land use ordinance merely by enlarging the size of the pit. The court went on, however, to explain that its opinion does not mean that such assets can be expanded without limits. Importantly, the court clarified that if an expansion is such that it constitutes “a change in the nature and purpose of the original use” then it cannot be considered a legal nonconformity. Here, the original mine was from 1950 in an upland area. It did not, as now proposed, include mining within the bed of the Mississippi River. Moving from a dry upland, private site to mining within the bed of a public resource like the Mississippi River represents a “change in the nature and purpose of the original use.” Accordingly, the proposed expansion into the Mississippi River would not be allowed under Hawkins. Additionally, the nonconforming land use application ends at the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of a public water. The project is proposing to excavate gravel from the bed of a public water below the OHWL, and so that portion of the project doesn't fall under land use, and public waters regulations apply. The public waters statutes and rules regulate activities that change or diminish the course, 2025-10-28 Schmitz 4 current or cross section of the bed, and the concept of a nonconforming use is not found in state public water regulation. Analysis Lacking in EIS Sediment Transport The response to Comment 53-43 states that the modeling completed for the EIS evaluated potential for sediment transport generated by river flow and how it would be influenced by the barrier berms that are intended to shelter the proposed mine from river flows less than a 10-year flood event. The modeling did not consider suspended sediment generated by mining activity. It will be important that accurate sediment transport data is used to fully assess the zone of impact for the project so that relevant ecological surveys, such as mussel, cricket frog, fish and rare plants, can be completed for the entire area impacted by the project. It is not possible to understand the full level of mitigation required for the project without knowing the zone of impact. DNR regulatory decisions will require additional analysis of how the proposed project would affect hydrology and flow in the navigational channel and other areas of the river outside the project area. Areas of anticipated scour and deposition outside of the project area will need to be further evaluated for resources in those areas, such as state listed species, that could be impacted. Ecological Surveys and Studies Fish Sampling The City’s response to DNR Comment 53-55 states, “The fisheries subconsultant and the MDNR point person (Joel Stiras) exchanged multiple emails regarding the fisheries sampling plan from February 2024 through May 2024 and had a phone call to discuss the 2024 sampling plan as well. The 2024 surveys followed the Work Plan that was developed in coordination with the MDNR (Joel Stiras) prior to fish survey work in 2023. The methods used for the 2023 and 2024 surveys were agreed upon by the MDNR in that Work Plan prior to initiation of field survey efforts. There was no record in either phone calls or the Work Plan for a gamete extrusion request by the MDNR.” Please note that this statement is incorrect. This request to include identification of sex during sampling was made in an email from DNR Fisheries Specialist, Joel Stiras, to Amrize’s consultants regarding the proposed Fish Survey Work Plan on March 1, 2023. DNR then received the revised Fish Survey Plan from Holcim on March 27, 2023, which included, “All fish collected will be processed and returned to the river with as little out-of-water and handling stress as possible. The processing for each individual will include identification to species-level taxonomic representation, measurement (total length) and sex by visual observation (page 4)”. The permit issued to EnviroScience, Inc., (Special Permit No. 35937) for fish sampling, based on the approved work plan, stated that, “All fish collected will be recorded per transect location with identification to species-level taxonomic representation, total length measurement, and sex by visual observation.” 2025-10-28 Schmitz 5 Despite DNR recognition of the need to identify the sex of fish species, and the fact that collection of this data was proposed in the work plans, this data was not collected. Response to Comment 53-57 implies that DNR failed to provide any information on fish surveys in the Baldwin Lake Alternative project area during the EIS development Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) coordination process. The Baldwin Lake Alternative was not introduced to the TAC until late in the EIS process. At the October 12, 2023 TAC meeting, DNR expressed concerns about the alternative analysis and the discrepancy in the level of environmental studies being carried out between alternatives. Amrize reiterated their intention to conduct studies for the Nelson Site (Alternative B), while the other alternatives would be evaluated using desktop review only, despite the expressed concerns of TAC members. Response to Comment 53-59 acknowledges that the movement of fish in and out of the mining area is expected and assumes that fish will move away from the active mining area. Yet, it is still unclear from the fish survey data collected so far if this is an important area for spawning and juvenile habitat, which would result in greater impacts to fish populations. The response also does not address the direct impacts to fish that could result from the placement of the barrier berms. Passage through the area would be impeded when water levels are low enough that the barrier berms impede fish movement and passage into or out of the site. The response to DNR comments does not address the significant impacts to fish expected from the deep 100-foot hole that is proposed to remain post-mining. Mussels Additional mussel surveys may be needed after the full zone of impact beyond the project boundary is determined. The DNR has requested more information regarding sediment transport in order to understand the full scope of the potential impact. Without this information the DNR cannot assess the impact of the proposed alternative on mussels nor determine whether impacts to mussels can be sufficiently mitigated. Cricket Frogs Coordination with the DNR regarding state-listed as endangered cricket frogs is identified as needed in Natural Heritage Review letters for Alternative B, C, and E. Potential impacts are possible from Alternative B, C, and E, and likely impacts from Alternative C are noted, and would require Amrize to apply for a DNR Permit to Take. Potential impacts to this species and suggestions for mitigation are absent from the EIS. The likelihood of cricket frogs being present and impacted by Alternatives B and E requires further investigation. Any future mitigation proposals and permitting decisions will need to account for impacts to this species. Rare Natural Community The EIS considers and evaluates a single wetland community type across the entire 395-acre project area. During the September 7, 2022, Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) site visit, multiple areas were observed with high plant diversity, and it is likely that the quality of wetland types varies geographically across the project area. The DNR requested that areas of high quality be identified and evaluated for the presence of a Rare Natural Community (RNC) under the WCA and any potential impacts to those communities. This evaluation has yet to be completed. 2025-10-28 Schmitz 6 Areas of wetland and formed uplands within the riverine system would be recognized as native plant community (NPC) types as they have arisen primarily in the absence of direct human influence and include a majority of native flora. Four state-listed threatened or endangered plant species have been found, with hundreds of individuals occurring throughout the project area. The rare plant survey notes that some areas appear to have human influences, where others appear to be “of native origin.” To sufficiently determine the scope of the proposed project impacts to native plant communities and the potential presence of RNCs, further in-field assessments by a qualified botanist or ecologist are necessary. Assessments to date do not provide sufficient data for the DNR to assess NPCs at the site nor RNCs. NPC assessment and typing typically includes vegetation sampling using the relevé method which is the standard for characterizing or classifying native vegetation. Any future mitigation proposals and permitting decisions will need to account for impacts to state-listed species, habitat, and any potential RNCs. Mitigation During participation in the TAC, the DNR emphasized the importance of mitigation in determining whether this project could meet permitting criteria. The DNR provided feedback on initial mitigation concepts proposed by Amrize and stressed that purchasing wetland banking credits would not be sufficient to mitigate for the proposed level of adverse impact to a public water. Mitigation requirements are dependent on the scale, nature and location of the impact. The level and nature of impacts identified within the EIS should inform the level of mitigation required for the project, but the EIS is lacking in the areas of analysis described above. The EIS mentions several general ideas, but does not present a specific, well-formed mitigation concept. The response to the DNR comments defers the development of mitigation to the permitting process. However, a reasonable mitigation proposal is meant to be part of an EIS pursuant to Minn. Rule 4410.2300 CONTENT OF EIS., Subp. I, which states: Mitigation measures: this section shall identify those measures that could reasonably eliminate or minimize any adverse environmental, economic, employment, or sociological effects of the proposed project. DNR regulatory decisions will only consider mitigation if it is determined that potential impacts cannot be avoided or minimized. Suitable mitigation will be challenging due to the scope and scale of potential impacts. Factors that need to be considered include permanent loss of riverine habitat, impacts to rare resources, loss of public recreation opportunities, and off-site impacts due to changes in hydrology and sedimentation. Conclusion The DNR recognizes the need for aggregate resources in the Twin Cities metro area and, as the regulatory authority for Public Waters in the State of Minnesota, it is the responsibility of the DNR to manage our water resources in trust for the benefit of the public. DNR must also ensure that these impacts are compatible with applicable state rules and regulations. The Final EIS is lacking with respect to its statement of need/purpose, a meaningful comparison of alternatives, assessment of impacts that are likely to occur due to project implementation, and a clearly defined mitigation concept that addresses those impacts. 2025-10-28 Schmitz 7 DNR must weigh all the environmental, natural resource, legal, recreational, economic, social and institutional impacts when considering whether or not this project can comply with state rules and is within the best interest of the public and this natural resource. The DNR will require significant additional information when evaluating permit applications for Threatened and Endangered Species takings, Wetland Conservation Act, and Work in Public Waters. Sincerely, Katie Smith Division Director, Ecological and Water Resources CC: Patty Bestler, Amrize Shanna Braun, Barr Engineering Jennifer Levitt, City of Cottage Grove Robert Cary, DNR Staff Attorney Randall Doneen, DNR CAR Section Manager Dan Lais, DNR Central Region Manager Dan Scollan, DNR Area Hydrologist Melissa Collins, DNR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist Daryl Wierzbinski, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Equal Opportunity Employer From:Colleen O"Connor Toberman To:Environmental Impact Study Cc:Whitney Clark Subject:Nelson Mine Backwaters Project EIS comments Date:Tuesday, October 28, 2025 9:21:56 AM Attachments:FMR Comments Nelson Mine FEIS 1025.pdf You don't often get email from ctoberman@fmr.org. Learn why this is important EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING: This email originated from an outside organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning Emily, I've attached comments on the Nelson Mine FEIS. Thank you. --- Colleen O'Connor Toberman / Land Use & Planning Program Director ctoberman@fmr.org / 651.477.0923 (call/text) (she/her) Friends of the Mississippi River 106 W. Water St., Ste. 600 St. Paul MN 55107-2032 FMR.org Support Our River Campaign: fmr.org/our-river-campaign 1 October 28, 2025 Emily Schmitz, Community Development Director City of Cottage Grove 12800 Ravine Parkway South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Director Schmitz: Friends of the Mississippi River (FMR) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed Nelson Mine Backwaters Project. FMR is a non-profit organization with a mission to engage community members and other stakeholders to protect, restore and enhance the Mississippi River and its watershed in the Twin Cities region. We represent thousands of people in the metropolitan area who care deeply about the river, including over 6,000 who participate as FMR advocates, volunteers, and members each year. We continue to have serious concerns about this proposed Nelson Mine expansion into the Mississippi riverbottom. The Mississippi River is a natural, cultural, and historic wonder that helps define our metro area. In recognition of this, its 72-mile stretch through the Twin Cities is not only a state- designated Critical Area but also a national park afforded special protective policies. We submit that the FEIS is inadequate for reasons set out in our previous comments, comments of other parties, and the comments below. In particular, the City must reject the FEIS, and the project as proposed, because there is no legal basis for the company to mine nonmetallic minerals in the Shore Impact Zone or riverbed of the Mississippi River. The company has not supplied information necessary to substantiate analyses fundamental to the project and the EIS. See Minn.R. 4410.2300, subp. J2. Thank you for your attention to the following comments. I. The Proposed Expansion Is Prohibited by the Plain Language of the Applicable Ordinance. We disagree with Amrize’s response to several Draft EIS (DEIS) comments questioning the legality of Alternatives B, C, and E under Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) regulations: “The City’s MRCCA regulations do not prohibit expansion of nonmetallic mining operations. Nor do the MRCCA regulations prohibit expansion of existing nonmetallic mines. Rather, the MRCAA rules prohibit only ‘new nonmetallic mining’ in certain locations. The definition of 2 ‘nonmetallic mining’ is found in Section 11-13-14 of Chapter 13 of the City Code, which is the codification of the City’s MRCCA regulations, as adopted. While the definition includes expansion of ‘any facility for the extraction, stockpiling, storage, disposal, or reclamation of nonmetallic minerals such a stone, sand, and gravel,’ the definition is simply that, a definition and does not operate as a prohibition on expansion of such a facility. The expansion of an existing mine is not ‘new nonmetallic mining.’” Amrize’s explanation makes no sense. As noted by Amrize, the ordinance prohibits “new nonmetallic mining” in the shore and bluff impact zones. Ordinance, Ch. 13 § 11.-13-7. The ordinance also supplies a definition of “nonmetallic mining” which includes “expansion . . . of any facility for the extraction . . . of nonmetallic minerals.” Ordinance, Ch 13 § 11-13-4. Where the legislative body has provided a definition of a term, the definition is used to interpret the law. In other words, the prohibition on “new nonmetallic mining” means, by the plain terms of the ordinance, a prohibition on “new [expansion of a facility for the extraction of nonmetallic minerals].” See U.S. Jaycees v. McClure, 305 N.W.2d 764, 766 (Minn. 1981) (courts must use definition supplied by legislature to interpret statute). The proposed project is a new expansion of nonmetallic mining in the Shore Impact Zone. Therefore it is prohibited. Amrize has provided no factual or legal basis for approval of the project. II. The Project Cannot Proceed As a Legal Nonconforming Use. We’d also like to respond to this part of Amrize’s response to our DEIS comments: “Alternative B proposes expansion of mining operations that have operated continuously on an adjacent site since the 1950s. State law recognizes the principle that a diminishing asset, such as a mineral deposit, 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 adoption of the ordinance. See Hawkins v. Talbot, 248 Minn. 549 (1957).” This argument is misguided. Hawkins and later cases do not offer a freestanding allowance for companies to mine “to the extent of the entire deposit” of any diminishing asset. Rather, Minnesota courts have articulated a limited doctrine about legal nonconforming uses. The FEIS has not demonstrated that Amrize even has a legal nonconforming right to mine the Shore Impact Zone of the MRCCA. Furthermore, even if Amrize demonstrates that its current mining operations constitute a legal nonconforming use, Minnesota law does not permit Amrize to relocate that use into the Mississippi riverbed. A. The FEIS Fails To Establish That Amrize Has Legal Nonconforming Rights. Nonconforming use rights are "defined by the uses lawfully existing at the time of the adverse zoning change." Aim Dev. (USA), LLC v. City of Sartell, 946 N.W.2d 330, 333 (Minn. 2020). The adverse zoning change relevant to this proposal goes back to at least 2021, when the MRCCA regulations prohibited new nonmetallic mining in the Shore Impact Zone. Given that timeline, Amrize can claim a nonconforming right to the mining activities it was lawfully engaged in within the Shore Impact Zone, if any, in 2021, or whenever the City first restricted nonmetallic mining in this area. 3 Those facts have not been established. According to the City, Amrize has mined "since the early 1950s" and has a lease with PAS Associates that "remains in place." But the FEIS omits any information about whether the company or its predecessors (1) held the necessary property interests in the Shore Impact Zone when MRCCA protections or any other local restrictions took effect, and (2) were in fact using those property interests to conduct mining in the Shore Impact Zone at that time. Without providing that foundation, there is no basis for the City to claim that Amrize has a legal nonconforming right to violate MRCCA rules, and the FEIS lacks “information needed by a governmental unit for making final decisions on permits or other actions required for a proposed project.” Minn. Stat. § 116D.04, subd. 2a(i). The City must amend the FEIS to justify Amrize’s claim to a nonconforming right. B. If Amrize Has a Legal Nonconforming Right, the City’s Preferred Alternative Is an Unlawful Expansion of that Right. If Amrize is engaging in a legal nonconforming use under the MRCCA, the company may continue that use into the future, but it cannot expand that use. Expansions of nonconforming uses are prohibited in the City’s ordinance, a prohibition permitted by Minnesota law. Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 1e; see AIM Dev., 946 N.W.2d 330 at 333. The City references one mid twentieth century judicial opinion, Hawkins v. Talbot, 248 Minn. 549 (1957), to argue that Amrize can move its mining operation into the Mississippi riverbed without expanding a nonconforming use. This claim ignores modern precedent. When the Minnesota Supreme Court revisited Hawkins in 2020, the court clarified that a nonconforming use becomes an unlawful expansion if it “unreasonably prolonged the lifespan of the nonconformity and made it more difficult to convert the land to a different use when the nonconformity was eliminated.” See AIM Dev., 946 N.W.2d 330 at 340; see Cty. of Freeborn v. Claussen, 203 N.W.2d 323, 325 (Minn. 1972). Under both elements of this standard, Amrize’s proposal is an unlawful expansion. Moving the company’s mining operation further into the Shore Impact Zone would indefinitely “prolong the lifespan of the nonconformity,” contradicting the “well-established rule that nonconforming uses are to be restricted in a way which will be conducive to their ultimately being phased out.” Hawkinson v. County of Itasca, 231 N.W.2d 279, 282 (Minn. 1975); see also Claussen, 203 N.W.2d at 325 (“The public policy behind that doctrine is to increase the likelihood that such uses will in time be eliminated due to obsolescence, exhaustion, or destruction.”). With regard to the second criterion, the Supreme Court articulated in AIM the principle that nonconforming uses should not grow in ways that interfere with the long-term purpose of affected land. In Claussen, that meant ensuring land remained amenable to eventually joining “a uniform residential area.” 203 N.W.2d at 327. Here, the long-term intended “use” of the Mississippi riverbed is preservation to ensure use and enjoyment of a public water for which the state holds title in trust for all citizens. If Amrize’s proposal moved forward, it would interfere with rare and endangered species while threatening sediment transport, water quality, and many other environmental effects. The proposal would adversely impact the use and enjoyment of the River as a designated public water resource under state and federal law. See 16 U.S.C. § 460zz (establishing the Mississippi National River 4 and Recreation Area). These impacts would last for decades or more, making it “difficult to convert the land” to its intended status as a healthy and protected riverbed. AIM Dev., 946 N.W.2d 330 at 340. Taken in context, state law supports a commonsense conclusion: Even if Amrize has nonconforming rights in its existing mining operations (which this record does not establish), relocating their mine into the Mississippi riverbed would expand this use. That expansion must conform to modern environmental standards and the long-term intended uses of the area. It does not. For that reason, the City must correct the FEIS to recognize that Alternatives B, C, and E of Amrize’s proposal are subject to MRCCA prohibitions against new nonmetallic mining in the Shore Impact Zone. Thank you for your consideration. For the river, Colleen O’Connor Toberman Land Use & Planning Director From:Dingle, Sandi To:Emily Schmitz Cc:Tod Sherman; melissa.collins@state.mn.us; daryl.w.wierzbinski@usace.army.mil; Jenkins, Mark; Barajas, Lisa; Dvorak, Emma; ReviewsCoordinator Subject:Cottage Grove 2025 Nelson Mine Backwater Project Final EIS Inadequate with Comments 22736-3 Date:Tuesday, October 28, 2025 1:18:16 PM Attachments:image001.png image003.png image004.png image005.png Cottage Grove 2025 Nelson Mine Backwater Project Final EIS Inadequate with Comments 22736-3.pdf EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING: This email originated from an outside organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. The attached letter is being sent to you electronically on 10/28/2025. Sandi Dingle Program Technical Specialist | Regional Planning sandi.dingle@metc.state.mn.us P. 651.602.1312 | C. 651.329.0373 390 North Robert Street | St. Paul, MN | 55101 | metrocouncil.org Metropolitan Council (Regional Office & Environmental Services) 390 Robert Street North, Saint Paul, MN 55101-1805 P 651.602.1000 | F 651.602.1550 | TTY 651.291.0904 An Equal Opportunity Employer October 28, 2025 Emily Schmitz, Community Development Director City of Cottage Grove 12800 Ravine Parkway South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 RE: City of Cottage Grove – Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) – Nelson Mine Backwater Project Metropolitan Council Review No. 22736-3 Metropolitan Council District No. 12 Dear Emily Schmitz: The Metropolitan Council received the Final EIS for the Nelson Mine Backwater project in the City of Cottage Grove on October 14, 2025. Amrize Midwest, Inc. (formerly Holcim and Aggregate Industries), who owns and operates the existing Nelson Sand & Gravel Mine Facility, is proposing to increase the mining area to mine additional aggregate reserves on a privately owned parcel adjacent to the existing facility in the backwaters area of the Mississippi River on Lower Grey Cloud Island. The staff review finds that the Final EIS is inadequate, as defined in Minn. Rules, 4410.2800, subp. 4, with respect to regional concerns. Due to potential impacts to the Regional Parks and Trails System, the Council strongly advises the City to similarly find the FEIS inadequate and to revise the EIS to address the concerns herein and as stated by other commenting agencies (Minn. R., 4410.2800, subp. 5). In addition to our comments below, we share and reiterate the concerns that have been communicated by Dakota County, Washington County, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In our review of the FEIS, we find that it includes responses to agency and public comments, but from the perspective of the Council, it does not fully or sufficiently address the comments. Item 4.1 – Parks (Colin Kelly, 651-602-1361) The proposed project area (Alternative B) is directly adjacent to Lower Grey Cloud Island and the planned Grey Cloud Island Regional Park (Washington County). It is approximately 0.4 miles northwest of Spring Lake Park Reserve (Dakota County). The Nelson Mine Backwater Project is likely to impact scenic views, recreation, natural environment and wildlife, water quality, and cultural resources in the vicinity of these units of the Regional Parks and Trails System and potentially have cumulative and long-term effects. Page - 2 | October 28, 2025 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL From a visual or aesthetic standpoint, the project could visibly alter scenic views from Spring Lake Park Reserve, especially from Schaar’s Bluff, a designated scenic viewpoint protected under Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area visual quality rules. The detailed viewshed analysis in Appendix C found that berms, equipment, and disturbed surfaces would be visible from multiple vantage points in Spring Lake Park Reserve. Both agency and public comments relative to the Draft EIS (DEIS) request stronger mitigation that does not appear to be addressed in the Final EIS (FEIS). From a recreational standpoint, temporary impacts to fishing, kayaking, wildlife viewing, and scenic enjoyment near Lower Grey Cloud Island and Spring Lake Park Reserve are expected during operations. It is assumed that “temporary” means 20 to 25 years, which was noted as the project life (FEIS, pg. 1-6). With regard to Alternative B, “the project would conflict with the resource protection and land use management, public access, recreation and open space, and environmental protection and pollution control goals and policies” (FEIS, pg. 4-34). From a natural environment and wildlife standpoint, the project site is primarily within the Mississippi River “backwaters” and wetlands, an area which supports high-quality aquatic and riparian habitat including wild rice, bulrush, arrowhead, and habitat for estimated 1.6 million native mussels, fish, and migratory birds (FEIS, pdf pg. 640). Disturbance from construction noise and human activity could cause temporary abandonment of local habitat by birds and mammals (FEIS, pg. 4-167). Similar to other commenting agencies, the Council disagrees with the description of “backwaters” to describe the project area. From a water quality standpoint, mining within inundated areas could resuspend sediments and affect turbidity and aquatic life. Barrier berms are proposed to contain suspended solids and prevent migration into the main river channel (FEIS, pg. 4-82), but Draft EIS reviewers noted insufficient quantitative analysis of sediment generation and water quality effects (FEIS, pdf pg. 679). This additional analysis does not appear to be addressed in the FEIS. From a cultural resources standpoint, two significant archaeological sites lie within the proposed project area (Alternative B) including the Schilling Archaeological District (21WA0001) and Precontact habitation and clamshell midden site (21WA0110) (FEIS, pg. 4-226). Both sites would be adversely affected if they are not avoided. The FEIS notes that cumulative effects on wildlife and aquatic biota could occur but are assessed as “minor” (FEIS, pg. 4-287). Agency and public comments raise significant concerns about impacts to wildlife and aquatic biota and appear to disagree with the FEIS’s assessment of these being “minor” impacts. Further, noise and visual intrusion could extend for the 20- to 25-year project life, affecting recreation and scenic quality (FEIS, pgs. 4-289, 4-291). The life of the project is not a “temporary” timeframe. This is a generational span and could result in significant, perhaps permanent, shifts in wildlife patterns/behaviors, altered natural features, or changed aquatic and biological conditions that may not simply return to previous condition after the project concludes. The FEIS does not adequately address cumulative impacts. Page - 3 | October 28, 2025 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL The System Protection Policy of the 2050 Regional Parks and Trails Policy Plan states that, “The Met Council will review local comprehensive plan amendments and environmental documents to ensure that Regional Parks and Trails System locations and facilities are protected from land uses or projects that represent substantial departures from the Regional Parks and Trails System Plan, or are likely to have a substantial impact on the system” (2050 RPTPP, pg. 92). Additionally, “Substantial departures from the Regional Parks and Trails System Plan or impacts on the Regional Parks and Trails System may include but are not limited to… projects that impair the use and enjoyment of the system unit due to excessive visual, noise, air pollution, or water pollution” (2050 RPTPP, pg. 92). The proposed Nelson Mine Backwater Project is likely to adversely impact the use of Spring Lake Park Reserve specifically and the Regional Parks and Trails System more broadly because of the impacts outlined above. The Met Council also offers the following minor technical comment. Item 4.12– Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions (Mackenzie Young Walters, 651-602- 1373) Greenhouse gas emissions associated with the electricity used to operate the conveyor, processing operations, and floating dredge should be considered in addition to the identified transportation emissions. The decrease in those emissions from the cessation of operations should be weighed against the identified increase in transportation emissions in scenarios A and D to fully understand the impact of the various scenarios on GHG emissions. Additionally, acknowledging the emissions associated with the operation’s onsite electricity uses can inform available mitigation measures. For example, in alternative B the operator could purchase energy from renewable sources or investigate the feasibility of onsite solar or wind energy generation. Council staff request that the City and proposer fully address issues and concerns raised by Dakota County, the Regional Park Implementing Agency responsible for Spring Lake Park Reserve, and other agencies – including, but not limited to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – and members of the public who have expressed significant concerns over the proposed mine expansion project. While the FEIS includes responses to agency and public comments, from the perspective of the Council, it does not fully or sufficiently address the comments. Furthermore, the FEIS only contains alternatives that would be suitable for Holcim to operate. Under that approach, and despite the advice of other agencies, it did not use the scope of supply of the Twin Cities market with aggregate. Without a meaningful assessment of the adequacy of the existing supply of aggregate to the Twin Cities market, the potential merits of the proposed alternatives cannot weigh against the substantial impacts that have been outlined in this letter and in the communications shared by other commenting agencies and residents. . We also emphasize the direction in Minnesota Statutes, section 116D.04, subd. 6: No state action significantly affecting the quality of the environment shall be allowed, nor shall any permit for natural resources management and development be granted, where Page - 4 | October 28, 2025 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL such action or permit has caused or is likely to cause pollution, impairment, or destruction of the air, water, land or other natural resources located within the state, so long as there is a feasible and prudent alternative consistent with the reasonable requirements of the public health, safety, and welfare and the state's paramount concern for the protection of its air, water, land and other natural resources from pollution, impairment, or destruction. Economic considerations alone shall not justify such conduct. Given the concerns stated in this letter and communicated by others, it is imperative for the protection of the environment that the City find the EIS inadequate and work to sufficiently address the concerns described in this and the communications of other agencies. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Emma Dvorak, Principal Reviewer, at 651-602-1399 or via email at emma.dvorak@metc.state.mn.us. Sincerely, -FOR- Angela R. Torres, AICP, Senior Manager Local Planning Assistance CC: Tod Sherman, Development Reviews Coordinator, MnDOT - Metro Division Melissa Collins, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Daryl W. Wierzbinski, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Lead Project Manager Mark Jenkins, Metropolitan Council District 12 LisaBeth Barajas, Executive Director of Community Development, Metropolitan Council Emma Dvorak, Sector Representative/Principal Reviewer Reviews Coordinator N:\CommDev\LPA\Communities\Cottage Grove\Letters\Cottage Grove 2025 Nelson Mine Backwater Project Final EIS Inadequate with Comments 22736-3.docx From:Weston, Isaac (He/Him/His) (MIAC) To:Environmental Impact Study Cc:Emily Schmitz Subject:Nelson Mining Backwater Expansion EIS Date:Tuesday, October 28, 2025 5:06:32 PM Attachments:Nelson Mine Backwater-MIAC.pdf EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING: This email originated from an outside organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. City of Cottage Grove, Attached is the letter response to the Final EIS report for the Nelson Mining Backwater Expansion project and alternatives. Please do not hesitate to reach out if there are any questions or concerns. Isaac J. Weston Cultural Resource Manager Minnesota Indian Affairs Council 161 Rondo Avenue, Ste. 919 Saint Paul, MN 55103 612-512-8391 isaac.weston@state.mn.us Mn.gov/indianaffairs October 28th, 2025 City of Cottage Grove 12800 Ravine Parkway South, Cottage Grove, MN 55016 EIS@cottagegrovemn.gov Minnesota Indian Affairs Council Comment on Nelson Mine Backwater Expansion Final EIS Dear City of Cottage Grove, Thank you for providing us the opportunity to comment on the Final EIS for the Nelson Mine Backwaters Project. I have reviewed this project pursuant to the responsibilities given to the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council by the Private Cemeteries Act (Minn. Stat. § 307.08), and the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act (Minn. Stat. § 138.31-.42). The Minnesota Indian Affairs Council commented on the Draft EIS on January 17 th, 2025. MIAC stated our concerns regarding the culturally sensitive sites associated with Dakota Communities in the State of Minnesota and the surrounding region. The Area of Potential Effects (APE) for Alternatives B and E are located within/adjacent American Indian cemetery site 21WA0001, a National Registered Historic Property (NRHP) that is protected under several archaeological laws, including the Minnesota Private Cemeteries Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. As stated in the January 17th comment from MIAC, “[N]o mining activities or ground disturbance is permitted within cemetery site boundaries”. The Final EIS still has plans to have mining development constructed within cemetery boundaries (i.e. conveyor belt). Under Minn. Stat. § 307.08, Subd. 7(a), landowners need “permission to develop or disturb nonburial areas within assessed or recorded burial grounds”. Constructing the conveyor belt as currently proposed is illegal. It is a felony offense to disturb a cemetery. Non-compliance with regulatory decisions can result in legal action. The Minnesota Indian Affairs Council has additional concerns for the highly probability of potential sites that are located outside of the 21WA0001 site boundaries, situated along the mining operation development. A previous archaeological investigation identified potential mortuary features within the project APE. Further investigation is necessary at this location under per Minn. Stat. § 307.08 Subd. 3a and 3a(d). If the features are determined to be mortuary, avoidance will be required. It is a felony offense to disturb a cemetery. Non- compliance with regulatory decisions can result in legal action. In regard to Alternative C; if there is ground-altering construction planned for the temporary dredge unit transfer channel, the Office of State Archaeologist and State Historic Preservation Office comments are required for site 21WA0048, a NRHP site . On January 17th, 2025, MIAC stated further archaeological investigation must occur for Alternative C; MIAC remains firm with this comment. Additionally, if water levels will rise due to constructed berms per Alternatives B and E; there must be consideration for all cemetery sites that may be impacted by the undertaking. Particularly, those located along the length of the river between the USACE lock and dams. MIAC is concerned that over time, the higher water levels will lead to the erosion of the riverbank. Erosion is a leading factor in the damage of American Indian Cemeteries and Burial Sites and may lead to a massive recovery effort. The developer may be held financially and criminally liable if this occurs, as it is a direct impact of the mining operation. Proper consultation with Dakota Tribal Communities should maintain a priority regarding Alternatives B, E, and C, due to their cultural and spiritual relation to the island for thousands of years. If any question or concerns arise, please do not hesitate to contact the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council Cultural Resource Team. Sincerely, Isaac J. Weston Cultural Resource Manager Minnesota Indian Affairs Council 161 Rondo Ave, Suite 919 St. Paul, MN 55103 isaac.weston@state.mn.us miac.culturalresources@state.mn.us 612-512-8391 From:Michael Zaiken To:Environmental Impact Study Subject:Response to Nelson Mine Backwaters Project Final EIS Date:Tuesday, October 28, 2025 2:10:43 PM Attachments:Analysis of Nelson Mine Backwaters Project Final EIS.docx You don't often get email from zaike002@umn.edu. Learn why this is important EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING: This email originated from an outside organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, In accordance with the public comment period, please find attached my complete comments and analysis of the Nelson Mine Backwaters Project Final EIS document. Best Regards, -- Dr. Michael Zaiken PhD Assistant Professor | ORCID Division of Blood and Marrow Transplantation Department of Pediatrics University of Minnesota - Twin Cities zaike002@umn.edu | (507)-358-4527 Zoom (702 123 5102) P a g e | 1 To whom it may concern, My name is Dr. Michael Zaiken, Ph.D. I am professor at the University of Minnesota and a resident of Grey Cloud Island Township. It is as both a resident of the Island and a professional scientist with an expertise in data analysis and statistical extrapolation that I am writing today to voice my profound concerns with the severe insufficiency of the proposed Nelson Mine Backwaters Project EIS. I have prepared in my professional capacity a detailed review of the complete EIS and have found that across all eight chapters and the numerous appendences there are distinct patterns of biased impact minimization, deficient mitigation planning, incomplete and outdated data, distinct regulatory non-compliance, and critical information gaps. Distressingly the EIS itself acknowledges clear and often catastrophic impacts of their proposed project while dismissing these with impossible or speculative mitigation strategies and defers clearly essential preliminary analyses to the ‘permitting’ phase. As a result, the EIS fails to meet basic NEPA/MEPA requirements for specificity and completeness. Ultimately these numerous and repeated deficiencies render the document inadequate to aid in informed decision making. Ultimately this theoretically final EIS should be returned with request for substantial additional information (RAI) which should require the completion of all required surveys, independent review to address obvious expertise gaps, reasonable and rational mitigation strategies with realistic feasibility estimates and detailed plans, complete financial assurance mechanisms, updated data sources, complete data for alternatives prepared to comparable depth of detail, and resolution of the numerous failures to meet basic NEPA and MEPA requirements. To outline my specific grievances with the study I have provided the following chapter by chapter commentary pointing out distinct and concrete errors and gaps throughout the document and provided recommendations for the necessary corrections. This includes a list of no less than 64 critical deficiencies in the EIS that must be addressed prior to approval. It is my sincere hope, as both a resident of the impacted community, and as a professional researcher with a passion for data integrity, that the Amrize corporation will accept these criticisms in the spirit of constructive feedback that they are provided and move to correct the flaws that I have identified. Best Regards, Dr. Michael Zaiken, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Department of Pediatrics Division of Blood and Marrow Transplantation and Cellular Therapy University of Minnesota October 28th, 2025 P a g e | 2 Critical Analysis Summary: Nelson Mine Backwater Project EIS Executive Overview This comprehensive critique reveals that the Final EIS for the Nelson Mine Backwater Project suffers from fundamental structural deficiencies that render it inadequate for informed decision-making. Across all eight chapters and appendices, patterns emerge of systematic impact minimization, incomplete data, deficient mitigation planning, regulatory non-compliance, and critical information gaps. Most distressingly, the EIS acknowledges certain impacts while proposing impossible or speculative mitigation, defers essential analysis to “permitting,” and fails to meet basic NEPA/MEPA requirements for specificity and completeness. CROSS-CUTTING DEFICIENCIES IDENTIFIED ACROSS ALL CHAPTERS 1. FUNDAMENTAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST Chapters Affected: 1, 2, 7 The Issue: Barr Engineering works “under contract with Amrize” (the applicant) while the EIS pretends neutrality. This creates inherent bias because the consultant’s financial interest is in project approval rather than environmental protection. Chapter 7 reveals that Barr’s preparers lack specialized expertise for this unprecedented project, and Chapter 2 shows consultants serving on the “Technical Advisory Committee” as if they were independent advisors. Moreover, Chapter 8 demonstrates self-citation where Barr cites its own 2010 EIS to validate current conclusions. Regulatory Violation: NEPA requires independent analysis by lead agency or its consultants, not applicant-funded analysis presented as objective. 2. SYSTEMATIC IMPACT MINIMIZATION Chapters Affected: 1, 4, 5, 6, Appendices The Pattern: Throughout the EIS, catastrophic impacts are described in minimizing language. Chapters 4 and 5 describe the killing of approximately 1.6 million mussels as merely a “potential to impact.” Chapter 4 characterizes 216.7 acres of high-quality wetlands destruction as “potential to directly impact,” and 4.5 feet of main channel P a g e | 3 erosion is labeled as “localized erosion anticipated.” Chapter 5 treats the removal of recreational opportunities with the same weight as 1.6 million mussel deaths. Chapters 1 and 2 rely on outdated 2000 market data predicting a 2029 crisis to justify the project. The Reality: The project will cause the largest freshwater mussel mortality ever proposed in Minnesota and the largest wetland destruction in recent state history. It will create erosion violating “No Rise” flood requirements by five times, with the potential for permanent ecosystem collapse. 3. INCOMPLETE DATA FOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Chapters Affected: 3, 4, 5, Appendices A, E The Critical Gap: The EIS evaluates alternatives with essential missing data: Alternative B (Proposed): While it received extensive analysis, the assessment remains inadequate. Alternative C has NO wetland delineation conducted as admitted in Chapter 4.1, NO geotechnical analysis for underwater slope stability, and NO hydraulic analysis for flow and sediment transport. The EIS admits these would need to be evaluated if the alternative advances to permitting. Alternative D has NO drilling to confirm reserves exist despite being evaluated in Chapters 3, 4, and Appendices, evaluates a 20-25 year mining operation without verifying the resource exists, and has NO groundwater appropriation feasibility analysis, with this critical assignment given to a staffer with only 2 years of experience. Alternative E is purely a scaled-down version of B with NO independent analysis conducted. Regulatory Failure: CEQ regulations require all alternatives analyzed to “comparable level of detail.” C and D cannot be adequately compared. 4. MITIGATION “TO BE DETERMINED” - EIS INCOMPLETE Chapters Affected: 4, 6, Appendices E, F The Fatal Flaw: Critical mitigation details deferred to “permitting”: Mussel Mitigation (1.6 million individuals): Chapter 6.8.1 states that “mitigation decisions would ultimately be made during Project permitting,” with no relocation methodology specified, no survival rates provided, and no cost estimates. The scientific basis is that relocation at this scale has never been successfully demonstrated. Wetland Mitigation (433+ acres required): Chapter 4.4 lists vague options but admits they would be “ultimately made during permitting.” Chapter 4.10 notes that the project would consume 93% of all available Minnesota wetland bank credits. Chapter 4.9 shows P a g e | 4 options include conditional phrases like “if landowner willing,” “depends on other projects,” and “may include” - none of which are binding commitments. Groundwater Protection: Chapter 6.5.1 states “Mitigation is not proposed due to low impact potential,” yet Chapter 4 documents that groundwater flows INTO the project area from upgradient where PFAS contamination has been documented, and no monitoring plan has been proposed. Off-Site Reclamation Material: Chapters 3.7, 4.18, and 6.8 require an unknown volume of material from unspecified sources, noting that materials “may include USACE-dredged materials” which is not guaranteed. There are NO cost estimates, NO quantity calculations, and NO feasibility assessment. Regulatory Violation: CEQ 40 CFR 1502.14(f) requires “specificity” of when, where, and how mitigation occurs. EIS lacks this. 5. COST AND FINANCIAL ASSURANCE COMPLETELY MISSING Chapters Affected: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 The Gap: NO financial information is provided for capital costs for any alternative, operation cost differentials, or mitigation costs which could potentially reach tens of millions. These include unknown costs for mussel relocation, wetland creation of 433+ acres, off-site backfill material, slope stabilization emergency measures, and long-term monitoring. The document lacks information on reclamation bond requirements, financial assurance mechanisms, and what would happen if Amrize goes bankrupt mid-project. Chapter 7 Reveals: No financial expertise on preparer team Regulatory Requirement: NEPA requires disclosure of costs so decision-makers can evaluate feasibility. 6. OUTDATED AND INADEQUATE DATA USED Chapters Affected: 1, 2, 4, 8, Appendices Examples: Chapter 1.1 relies on the 2000 Aggregate Resources Inventory, now 24 years old, predicting a 2029 crisis. Chapter 2 bases scoping on 14-year-old guidance (2010 beta version MnRAM). Chapter 8 uses 1994 fisheries data (30 years old), 1997 macroinvertebrate data (27 years old), and 1989 mussel surveys (35 years old). Appendix D uses 2008 EPA emission factors that are 16 years old, and Appendix F relies on 2010 noise measurements that are 14 years old for current operations. The Impact: EIS based on environmental conditions and regulations from 14-35 years ago. P a g e | 5 7. TRIBAL CONSULTATION SEVERELY DEFICIENT Chapters Affected: 1, 2, 4, Appendices B, E, F The Pattern: There was a 12-year gap between extensive tribal outreach from 2008-2010 and nothing until 2022 as documented in Chapters 2.3 and 2.4. A single 2022 letter was sent only to the Prairie Island Indian Community with no documented responses. The current status is vague, with “coordination meetings initiated” but no outcomes documented. Concerns about burial mounds have been dismissed: the public believes burials exist on site, while the EIS claims “no evidence,” though the Phase I survey may be insufficient for underwater areas. Cultural desecration has not been addressed, with responses focusing only on legal compliance rather than spiritual and cultural impacts. Appendices B and E list endangered and traditional cultural properties, but the EIS treats impacts merely as “potential.” Regulatory Failure: Federal Section 106 and Minnesota law require “ongoing meaningful consultation” - not single outreach after 12-year hiatus. 8. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS INADEQUATELY ANALYZED Chapters Affected: 1, 2, 4, 5 The Gap: There is no baseline of past impacts despite the project area being subject to 70+ years of mining since the 1950s. There is no cumulative analysis, with the EIS treating the project as a new operation rather than a continuation of existing impacts. No regional context is provided, though Pool 2 is subject to multiple mines, urban development, agriculture, and climate change. Chapter 4.16 acknowledges that the “affected environment” should document cumulative impacts to date, yet this documentation is absent. Chapter 7 reveals that cumulative impact analysis has been assigned to 5 generalists with no specialized expertise. Regulatory Requirement: Cumulative impacts defined as “past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.” 9. MISSING CRITICAL SURVEYS AND ANALYSIS Chapters Affected: 2, 4, 7, Appendices E, F Surveys Required by MDNR (Appendix E) But NOT Conducted: These include mussel surveys for Alternatives C and D, botanical surveys for state-listed plants, habitat surveys for endangered species, breeding bird surveys, and recent cultural resource surveys (the EIS relies on 2010 data instead). P a g e | 6 Analysis Gaps: Chapter 4.2 shows Alternative C has NO slope stability analysis despite the 220-acre underwater mine. Chapter 4.3 shows Alternative C has NO hydraulic analysis. Chapters 3 and 4 show Alternative D has NO reserve verification drilling. Chapter 6 shows NO soil gas sampling for contamination despite PFAS concerns. Regulatory Violation: Cannot complete Final EIS without required survey data. 10. REGULATORY NON-COMPLIANCE REPEATED Throughout Multiple Chapters: CEQ NEPA Violations: Chapter 5.23 does not identify the “environmentally preferable alternative” as required. Chapter 6.29 violates the specificity requirement by deferring mitigation “to be determined during permitting.” Chapter 4.1 violates “accurate scientific analysis” by evaluating alternatives without adequate data. Chapters 3 and 4 violate the “reasonable range” requirement by not analyzing alternatives to comparable depth. Minnesota MEPA Violations: Chapter 1.2 has a purpose and need statement written too narrowly to favor the proponent’s alternative. Chapter 3 did not allow the public to comment on alternatives screening before finalization. Chapter 2 engaged in scoping “to reduce scope” rather than conducting proper environmental review. Chapters 5 and 7 lack a “public benefit” assessment weighing benefits against massive environmental costs. CHAPTER-BY-CHAPTER SUMMARY Chapter 1 (Introduction) Critical Issues: The purpose and need statement is based on a 24-year-old market analysis (2000 data predicting 2029 crisis) with no current market analysis provided. The permit list is incomplete without feasibility analysis. Baseline contamination and cumulative impact documentation are missing, and there is a tribal consultation gap from 2010-2022. Major Gaps: Current demand data, baseline environmental conditions, tribal consultation outcomes Chapter 2 (EIS Development) Critical Issues: Tribal consultation was abandoned for 12 years from 2008-2022. Scoping decisions assign most issues “B/C” treatment using only existing information. The TAC contains the proponent’s contractors posing as “advisors.” A public meeting was held P a g e | 7 early in the comment period (day 13 of 30), and 95 public comments were received but not summarized in the chapter. No TAC meeting minutes are available to the public. Major Gaps: Agency concerns documentation, public comment themes, alternatives screening transparency Chapter 3 (Alternatives) Critical Issues: Only 5 alternatives are presented (4 variations of the same basic project), with no analysis of alternative aggregate sources, recycled materials, or different locations. Alternative C is not a genuine alternative (same landowner, same method), and Alternative D is evaluated without drilling data to verify reserves exist. There is no economic comparison of alternatives, no technical specifications for barrier berms or the transfer channel, and the reclamation plan requires unknown off-site material. Major Gaps: Economic feasibility analysis, reclamation financial assurance, construction risk assessment Chapter 4 (Impacts) Critical Issues: Alternative C has NO wetland delineation, NO geotechnical analysis, and NO hydraulic analysis. Alternative D has NO drilling data despite proposing a 600-acre mine. Mussel mortality would be catastrophic at 1.6 million individuals including 171,479 protected. Wetland destruction would total 216.7 acres of high-quality wetlands, and the project would consume 93% of available state mitigation credits. Flood elevation exceeds the “No Rise” limit by 5x (0.02 ft vs. 0.004 ft permitted). Erosion is underestimated at 4.5 ft in the main channel and 4.1 ft downstream. PFAS contamination concerns are acknowledged but not fully analyzed, and there is NO cumulative baseline documenting 70 years of past mining. Major Gaps: Complete data for Alternatives C and D, adequate mitigation planning, cumulative baseline, climate vulnerability assessment Chapter 5 (Summary Comparison) Critical Issues: There is no quantitative comparison matrix with weighted impacts, and the environmentally preferable alternative is not identified, as required by regulation. Catastrophic impacts are minimized in language (“potential,” “anticipated”) with no ranking or scoring system. Benefits are not quantified, and there are no cumulative impact summaries or risk assessment summaries. Missing information includes costs, financial assurance, permitting feasibility, and monitoring requirements. P a g e | 8 Major Gaps: Decision-support framework, environmentally preferable alternative identification, quantitative comparison Chapter 6 (Mitigation) Critical Issues: The EIS attempts to mitigate unmitigable impacts (1.6M mussel mortality, permanent habitat loss), with all critical mitigation deferred to “to be determined during permitting.” There are NO cost estimates for any mitigation measure and NO financial assurance mechanisms. Mussel relocation at a 1.6M scale has never been successfully demonstrated. Off-site backfill material has unknown volume from unspecified sources. Wetland mitigation sites are unidentified and landowners may refuse. Emergency measures for slope failure are undefined, and there are NO comprehensive monitoring plans with enforcement. Major Gaps: Specific mitigation details, cost estimates, financial assurance, enforcement mechanisms, feasibility demonstrations Chapter 7 (Preparers) Critical Issues: There is a fundamental conflict of interest with Barr working “for applicant” (Amrize), with no specialized expertise for unprecedented challenges. The 1.6M mussel mortality assessment was assigned to a general malacologist with 11 years experience subcontracted from another firm. No underwater mining specialist was assigned for 100-foot underwater slopes. No wetland restoration specialist was assigned for 433-acre wetland creation. Cumulative impacts were assigned to 5 generalists with no specialist. Junior staff with 2 years of experience was assigned to groundwater appropriation for complex Alternative D. There was no independent peer review and no conflict disclosure. Major Gaps: Expertise for project scale, independent review, conflict disclosure, quality assurance Chapter 8 (References) Critical Issues: The EIS contains extensive self-citation with Barr citing its own 2010 EIS, and 14-35 year old data is presented as current conditions. Missing citations exist for critical claims including mussel relocation at a 1.6M scale, wetland creation of 433+ acres, and underwater slope stability engineering. Unpublished data, private emails, and draft documents are cited along with internet URLs that may break. Newspaper articles and industry propaganda are cited as science. P a g e | 9 Major Gaps: Current data sources, scientific basis for mitigation claims, accessibility of cited materials Appendices A-F Critical Issues: Appendix A (Alternatives Screening): - 24-year-old market analysis (2000 predicting 2029 crisis) - Eliminates alternatives without demonstrating infeasibility - Conservative 20-mile radius artificially favors river-based alternative Appendix B (Species Lists): - Marked “NOT FOR CONSULTATION” but used in EIS - Automated tool, not site-specific surveys Appendix C (Visual Simulations): - Only from public access points, not actual residences - Leaf-off conditions only (not summer views) - No nighttime visual analysis despite 24- hour operation - Doesn’t show progression over 20-25 years Appendix D (Air Emissions): - 16-year-old emission factors (2008 EPA) - Only transportation emissions, not operational - Missing barge emissions details Appendix E (MDNR Reviews): - Multiple permits required but feasibility unknown - Surveys required but NOT conducted for Final EIS - 1.6 million mussel mortality explicitly acknowledged - Avoidance seasons conflict with operational needs Appendix F (Public Comments): - Responses dismiss core concerns or refer to other sections - Tribal concerns treated only as legal compliance - Property value impacts “beyond RGU’s authority” - PFAS warnings from MPCA not adequately addressed Major Gaps: Required surveys, permit feasibility assessment, public concern resolution, mitigation site identification OVERALL ASSESSMENT Fatal Deficiencies That Must Be Addressed: 1. Complete Data for All Alternatives: Cannot approve without wetland delineation for C, drilling data for D 2. Specify All Mitigation: Cannot approve with “TBD during permitting” - must have specifics in EIS 3. Financial Feasibility: Must provide cost estimates and financial assurance 4. Identify Environmentally Preferable Alternative: Required by CEQ regulations 5. Independent Analysis: Cannot approve with inherent conflict of interest - needs independent review P a g e | 10 6. Required Surveys: Final EIS incomplete without MDNR-required surveys 7. Cumulative Baseline: Must document 70 years of past impacts 8. Tribal Consultation: Must complete ongoing meaningful consultation Recommended Action: The Final EIS is inadequate and incomplete. It should be returned with request for substantial additional information (RAI) requiring completion of all required surveys, independent peer review addressing expertise gaps, specific mitigation plans with cost estimates, financial assurance mechanisms, complete data for all alternatives to comparable depth, cumulative baseline documentation, updated data sources (not 14-35 years old), resolution of the 93% wetland credit consumption problem, demonstration that 1.6M mussel relocation is feasible, and compliance with all NEPA/MEPA/CEQ requirements. P a g e | 11 Critical Analysis: Chapter 1 - Introduction Executive Summary Chapter 1 provides the introduction, background, and regulatory framework for the Nelson Mine Backwater Project. While the chapter establishes basic context, it contains significant weaknesses in purpose and need statements, baseline data presentation, and public involvement documentation. 1. Purpose and Need Statement - CRITICAL WEAKNESSES Issue 1.1: Vague and Unsubstantiated Demand Claims Location: Section 1.2.2 (Pages 1-6 to 1-7) Problem: The EIS relies heavily on a 2000 Aggregate Resources Inventory (references 1995-2000 data) to justify “depletion by 2029” without addressing: - Current trends in aggregate demand (nearly a quarter-century later) - Changes in construction practices - Alternative aggregate sources that have emerged - Recycled materials markets Critical Gap: No current market analysis is provided. The 70% “covered by development” statistic is from year 2000 and may no longer be relevant given infrastructure changes. Recommendation: Request updated market analysis using current data. Issue 1.2: Inadequate Alternatives Analysis Foundation Location: Section 1.2.2 (Page 1-7) Problem: The need statement focuses on supporting “three ready-mix concrete plants” as if these are the sole beneficiaries, creating a narrow justification that may not meet MEPA’s broader “public benefit” test. Critical Gap: No quantitative analysis of: - Economic benefits to the region - Comparison with alternative aggregate sources - Cost-benefit analysis of truck vs. barge transport 2. Regulatory Framework - INSUFFICIENT DETAIL Issue 2.1: Incomplete Permit List Location: Table 1-1 (Pages 1-9 to 1-10) P a g e | 12 Problem: The table lists permits as “to be completed” without: - Specific deadlines or timelines - Potential conflicts between permit requirements - Agency coordination protocols - Resource requirements for permit acquisition Critical Gap: No analysis of potential permit denials or conditions that could fundamentally change the project. Issue 2.2: Missing NEPA Coordination Location: Section 1.4.1 Problem: While this is a state MEPA EIS, the document acknowledges federal permits (Section 408, 404, etc.) are required, yet no mention is made of whether a federal NEPA EIS would also be triggered. Critical Gap: No discussion of potential NEPA review requirements under federal jurisdiction. 3. Baseline Conditions - INADEQUATE Issue 3.1: Limited Site History Location: Section 1.1 (Pages 1-1 to 1-6) Problem: Historical operations since 1950s are mentioned but: - No historical environmental impacts documented - No baseline contamination studies cited - No past compliance issues mentioned - No cumulative impact from 70+ years of operation Critical Gap: Without a complete baseline, it’s impossible to assess whether impacts are new or cumulative. Issue 3.2: Incomplete Site Description Location: Section 1.1 Problem: The 395-acre project area is described but: - No detailed maps in Chapter 1 - No ecological baseline inventories - No hydrological baseline data - Habitat types not identified Critical Gap: Makes it impossible to assess pre-project conditions. P a g e | 13 4. Public Involvement - INSUFFICIENT DISCLOSURE Issue 4.1: Tribal Consultation Timeline Shows Gaps Location: Section 1.4.2.1 and references to Chapter 2 Problem: Tribal consultation efforts in 2008-2010 are described but: - No updated consultation since 2022 described in Chapter 1 - Most recent described action is May 5, 2025 (date appears to be a future date?) - No summary of tribal concerns Critical Gap: Appears tribal consultation has been largely abandoned for a decade between 2010 and 2022. Issue 4.2: No Public Scoping Summary Location: Chapter 1 Problem: While Chapter 2 discusses scoping, Chapter 1 references it without providing: - Number of public comments received - Summary of major concerns - Public input on alternatives - Agency concerns summary Critical Gap: Chapter 1 doesn’t explain how public input shaped the EIS structure. 5. Project Description - LACKING ESSENTIAL DETAILS Issue 5.1: Vague Transportation Description Location: Section 1.1 (Pages 1-8 to 1-9) Problem: Describes 600,000-750,000 tons transported by barge but: - No air quality impact analysis for barge emissions - No consideration of alternative energy sources - No assessment of barge fleet emissions - Formula “one barge = 45 trucks” provides no source documentation Critical Gap: Transportation benefits are claimed without environmental impact quantification. Issue 5.2: Uncertain Operation Timeline Location: Section 1.1 Problem: States operations will “exhaust current reserves in approximately five years” based on: - “Current rate of mining” - “Market trends” - “Geologic variations” P a g e | 14 But provides no data to support these variables. Critical Gap: The five-year timeline appears speculative without supporting data. 6. Environmental Review Scope - INSUFFICIENT Issue 6.1: No Climate Change Assessment in Chapter 1 Location: Chapter 1 Problem: While Chapter 4 mentions greenhouse gases, Chapter 1 makes no mention of: - Climate adaptation requirements - Resilience planning - Federal climate policy compliance - Sea level rise impacts (even if minor) Critical Gap: No integration of climate considerations into purpose and need. Issue 6.2: Cumulative Impact Mentioning Only Location: Chapter 1 Problem: Cumulative impacts are mentioned as a topic but Chapter 1 provides no discussion of: - Past operations’ cumulative effects (70 years) - Regional development patterns - Other mining in the corridor - Infrastructure development Critical Gap: Chapter 1 provides no context for cumulative analysis. 7. References and Documentation Issues Issue 7.1: Outdated References Problem: Many key references are 15-25 years old: - Aggregate Resources Inventory (2000) - Multiple 1990s references - No updated market studies - Many citations lack date ranges Critical Gap: Reliance on outdated data for critical decisions. SUMMARY OF CRITICAL FINDINGS Must Be Addressed Before Approval: 9. Purpose and Need: Provide current market analysis (not 2000 data) to justify project need P a g e | 15 10. Baseline Data: Provide complete environmental baseline for all impacted resources 11. Tribal Consultation: Document complete tribal consultation process with responses 12. Cumulative Impacts: Acknowledge and document 70 years of historical operations 13. Permit Feasibility: Analyze potential permit denials and their impacts 14. Public Input: Summarize public concerns and how they were addressed Gaps Requiring Response: • Market demand analysis is 24 years old • No quantification of claimed transportation benefits • Incomplete tribal consultation documentation • Missing baseline environmental data • No climate impact integration in introduction • References to future dates (May 2025) suggest document is dated incorrectly P a g e | 16 Critical Analysis: Chapter 2 - EIS Development Executive Summary Chapter 2 describes the scoping process and public involvement for the Nelson Mine Backwater Project. While it documents procedural steps, it reveals significant deficiencies in tribal consultation, public engagement, agency coordination, and documentation of concerns raised during scoping. The chapter demonstrates a pattern of dismissing public concerns and inadequate follow-up on critical issues. 1. Scoping Process - CRITICAL METHODOLOGICAL FLAWS Issue 2.1: Inadequate Scoping Criteria Application Location: Sections 2.1.2 (Pages 2-1 to 2-3) Problem: The City evaluated SEAW topics using four criteria (A-D), classifying most issues as: - “B” (minor) - Topics discussed briefly using existing SEAW information - “C” (significant but adequate) - Using only SEAW information Critical Weakness: This represents “scoping to reduce scope” rather than proper environmental review. Issues identified as significant were treated as if existing information was sufficient without independent verification or additional study. Specific Examples: - Historic Properties: Classified as “C” - significant but SEAW information adequate - Visual: Classified as “C” - significant but SEAW information adequate - Noise: Classified as “C” - significant but SEAW information adequate Impact: This approach allowed the proponent to minimize analysis of important resources without justification. Issue 2.2: Arbitrary Assignment of Significance Levels Location: Table 2-1 (Pages 2-2 to 2-3) Problem: No rationale is provided for why certain topics received “D” treatment (requiring new information) while others received “C” or “B” treatment. The criteria appears to be: - Topics the proponent doesn’t want deeply analyzed: B or C - Topics unavoidable or politically sensitive: D Critical Gap: No peer review or independent expert panel to validate these categorizations. The City acting as RGU appears to have simply accepted the proponent’s categorization. P a g e | 17 2. Native American Tribal Consultation - SEVERE DEFICIENCIES Issue 2.3: Decade-Long Gap in Tribal Consultation Location: Sections 2.2.1 and Preface (Pages 2-4 to 2-6) Problem: The chapter documents extensive tribal outreach from 2008-2010 for a 2010 DEIS that was never finalized. However: - NO CONSULTATION is documented from 2010 to 2022 (12-year gap) - A single outreach letter sent March 10, 2022, only to Prairie Island Indian Community - No responses from tribes documented for the 2022 process Critical Failure: Federal Section 106 consultation requires ongoing meaningful consultation, not a single outreach letter after a 12-year hiatus. Issue 2.4: Tribal Responses from 2008-2010 Ignored Location: Section 2.2.1 (Pages 2-4 to 2-6) Problem: The 2008-2010 process showed: - 10 tribes “wished to enter into consultation” - Tribes provided comments and expressed concerns - One tribe even proposed to “conduct an ethnohistory of the area” - No outcomes or responses to tribal concerns are documented Critical Gap: The chapter describes outreach but provides no documentation of: - What tribal concerns were raised in 2008-2010 - How those concerns were addressed (if at all) - Whether tribes were notified of the project restart in 2022 - Current tribal positions on the project Issue 2.5: Recently Mentioned Tribal Coordination Lacks Detail Location: Section 2.2.1 (Pages 2-6) Problem: States “Amrize has initiated coordination meetings with interested Tribal representatives through the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council” and mentions a “mailing distributed May 5, 2025” (future date). Multiple Critical Issues: 1. Dates reference 2025 (future year) suggesting document is incorrectly dated 2. No outcomes of these “coordination meetings” are documented 3. No list of which tribes were contacted 4. No summary of tribal responses or concerns 5. Meetings described as “initiated” suggests they were informal and incomplete Impact: This fails to meet the standard of government-to-government consultation and suggests proponent-solicited outreach rather than formal agency consultation. P a g e | 18 3. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) - COORDINATION ISSUES Issue 2.6: TAC Structure Favors Proponent Location: Section 2.2.2.1, Table 2-2 (Pages 2-6 to 2-7) Problem: The TAC composition includes: - Proponent representatives (Amrize, Barr Engineering) - Consultant representatives (Stantec, EnviroScience, Midwest Natural Resources) - Agency representatives Critical Imbalance: The proponent’s consultants serving on the “Technical Advisory Committee” creates a conflict of interest where the “advisors” are actually project contractors paid by the proponent. Structural Flaw: A true “Technical Advisory Committee” should consist of independent experts, not project contractors. Issue 2.7: No Documentation of TAC Disagreements Location: Section 2.2.2.1 (Pages 2-8) Problem: The chapter describes 15 TAC meetings between February 2022 and February 2024, but provides: - No minutes from meetings - No documentation of disagreements or dissenting views - No record of agency concerns or objections - No public access to TAC discussions Critical Gap: Without access to meeting records, the public cannot assess whether agency concerns were properly addressed or dismissed. Issue 2.8: Agencies with Oversight Not Invited Location: Table 2-2 Problem: Notable absences from the TAC: - Minnesota Indian Affairs Council - Listed as regulatory authority in permits but not on TAC - Tribal Representatives - No tribal presence despite cultural resource concerns - Environmental advocacy organizations - Only “Friends of the Mississippi River” invited, but as a non-profit without regulatory authority Impact: Agencies with oversight responsibilities appear to have been excluded from technical discussions. P a g e | 19 4. Public Involvement Process - INSUFFICIENT Issue 2.9: Limited Public Review Period Location: Section 2.2.3 (Pages 2-8) Problem: - SEAW and Draft SDD published March 15, 2022 - Comment period: March 15 - April 15, 2022 (30 days) - Public meeting held March 28, 2022 - Final SDD adopted May 4, 2022 Critical Issues: 1. 30-day comment period is the legal minimum, not adequate for complex project 2. Public meeting held early in comment period (day 13), giving public little time to prepare 3. DEIS comment period December 10, 2024 - January 17, 2025 included holidays (Christmas/New Years) - similarly inadequate 4. No public access to TAC discussions mentioned Issue 2.10: Public Meeting Attendance Not Representative Location: Section 2.2.3 (Page 2-8) Problem: DEIS public meeting December 19, 2024: - Only 55 attendees registered - Held in Cottage Grove (project-proximate location) - Format was “open house” not formal hearing - No recorded sessions or transcripts Critical Gaps: 1. No indication if affected downstream communities were notified 2. 55 attendees is miniscule for 395-acre industrial project affecting Mississippi River 3. Open house format limits opportunity for formal public statements 4. No documentation of questions or concerns raised at meeting Issue 2.11: Insufficient Scoping Documentation Location: Section 2.1.1 (Page 2-1) Problem: States “Scoping EAW and Final Scoping Decision Document” exist but: - Not reproduced in EIS - only referenced - Public cannot verify what issues were raised and dismissed - No accountability for decisions made - Accessibility barrier - public must request separate documents Impact: The scoping decisions that shaped the entire EIS are not transparent or reviewable within the document. P a g e | 20 5. Issues Addressed in Scoping - INADEQUATE TREATMENT Issue 2.12: Cumulative Effects Downplayed Location: Section 2.1.2.1 (Page 2-2) Problem: Cumulative effects listed as “potentially significant” (D-level treatment) but the 30+ years this area has been subject to multiple projects and land use changes is not: - Documented as part of affected environment - Analyzed for cumulative stress on ecosystem - Considered in impact criteria Critical Gap: Past mining, dredging, development, and pollution in this corridor are barely mentioned in baseline conditions. Issue 2.13: Climate Change Treated as Non-Significant Location: Section 2.1.2.1 Problem: Climate adaptation and resilience discussed as an “other potential environmental effect” but: - Not given D-level treatment requiring new analysis - Greenhouse gas emissions mentioned but not climate vulnerability - No consideration of climate impacts on river hydrology - No adaptation planning despite 20-25 year project timeline Impact: Project planned in 2024-2025 but will operate through ~2040-2050, during period of significant climate change. Issue 2.14: Water Quality Issues Minimized Location: Table 2-1 - “Water Resources” (D-level) Problem: While water resources received “D” treatment, the issues identified are focused on: - Wetland delineation - Channel head-cutting - Modeling updates But NOT on: - Existing contamination (PFAS mentioned but not analyzed) - Water quality degradation from mining - Comparative analysis with other water uses - Drinking water impacts Critical Gap: The area has documented PFAS contamination, but source assessment is deferred to another section without proper baseline. P a g e | 21 6. Documentation Gaps Issue 2.15: Scoping Comments Not Summarized Location: Throughout Chapter 2 Problem: While Section 2.2.3 mentions “95 parties submitted comments during DEIS review,” Chapter 2 provides: - No summary of specific concerns raised - No categorization of comments - No indication of major themes - Comments relegated to Appendix F without integration Impact: Public cannot understand what issues were raised in scoping versus DEIS comment period. Issue 2.16: Agency Comments Not Documented Location: Section 2.2.2 Problem: 15 TAC meetings occurred but no agency comments are: - Summarized in Chapter 2 - Incorporated into issues list - Documented as requiring response Critical Gap: Agencies may have raised concerns that were not adequately addressed, but public cannot know this. 7. Alternatives Screening Process - INADEQUATE Issue 2.17: No Public Review of Alternatives Before EIS Location: References to Appendix A Problem: - Alternatives screening report is in Appendix A, not part of scoping documents public reviewed - Public did not have opportunity to comment on alternatives screening - No independent review of why alternatives were eliminated - Screening criteria not subjected to public scrutiny Impact: Public was presented with a “done deal” on alternatives rather than being involved in the screening process. Issue 2.18: No -Build Alternative Minimized Location: Section 2.1.2.1 P a g e | 22 Problem: No-Action Alternative (Alternative A) is described as: - Fails to meet “purpose and need” - Only serves as “baseline” - Assumes most negative scenario (20,000-30,000 truck trips) - No positive environmental effects documented Critical Bias: The No-Action alternative is framed purely in terms of transportation disbenefits, ignoring environmental benefits of not proceeding. 8. Timeline and Coordination Issues Issue 2.19: Extended Review Period with Limited Transparency Location: Section 2.2.2.1 (Pages 2-7 to 2-8) Problem: EIS development timeline: - February 2022 - Kickoff - February 2024 - Wrap-up meetings - 25-month Month Timeline** for a “Final EIS” Critical Questions: 1. Were there extensions due to inadequate data? 2. Why did it take so long? 3. What issues delayed completion? 4. Were agencies requesting additional analysis? Impact: Without explanation of delays, public cannot assess if rushed or if concerns were adequately addressed. SUMMARY OF CRITICAL FINDINGS Must Be Addressed Before Approval: 15. Tribal Consultation: Complete documentation of all tribal consultation from 2008- present, including all tribal concerns and responses 16. Public Involvement: Provide public access to TAC meeting minutes, scoping comments summary, and agency concerns 17. Scoping Decisions: Justify why significant issues received minimal analysis (B/C treatment) with independent peer review 18. Alternatives Screening: Make process transparent and subject to public review before finalizing alternatives list 19. TAC Composition: Restructure to exclude proponent contractors from “advisory” role 20. Cumulative Effects: Document all past impacts on corridor before assessing “cumulative” effects 21. Document Dating: Clarify date inconsistencies (references to 2025 in 2024 document) P a g e | 23 Procedural Deficiencies: • No government-to-government tribal consultation documented • TAC conflict of interest (contractors serving as “advisors”) • Inadequate public review periods (holiday periods, 30-day minimums) • Public meeting format limits formal input (open house vs. hearing) • No minutes or transcripts of TAC meetings available to public • Significant issues dismissed without justification • Alternatives screening not subject to public review Gaps Requiring Response: • What tribal concerns were raised 2008-2010 and how addressed? • What agency concerns raised in 15 TAC meetings? • Why did 95 comments received during DEIS review get no summary in Chapter 2? • What issues delayed EIS completion from 2022 to 2024? • Why were tribal representatives excluded from TAC despite cultural resource concerns? P a g e | 24 Critical Analysis: Chapter 3 - Proposed Action and Alternatives Executive Summary Chapter 3 presents the project alternatives, but exhibits severe deficiencies in alternatives development, analysis depth, and comparison methodology. The alternatives appear designed to favor the proposed action (Alternative B) rather than provide a genuine range of reasonable options. Critical gaps exist in economic analysis, socio-environmental impacts, and elimination rationale for reasonable alternatives. 1. Alternatives Range - INSUFFICIENT DEVELOPMENT Issue 3.1: Narrow Range of Alternatives Presented Location: Sections 3.1.1 to 3.1.5 (Pages 3-1 to 3-18) Problem: Only five alternatives are presented despite MEPA requiring consideration of “reasonable range”: - Alternative A: No Action (framed negatively) - Alternative B: Proposed Action (proponent’s preferred alternative) - Alternative C: Baldwin Lake (same proponent-controlled site) - Alternative D: Coates Site (dismissed as impracticable due to land acquisition) - Alternative E: Reduced Scale (just Alternative B with less acreage) Critical Deficiency: - No consideration of alternative aggregate sources - No analysis of recycled materials - No evaluation of alternative transportation modes - No assessment of different locations (Alternative D is only upland considered) - No analysis of phased or incremental approaches Regulatory Failure: MEPA at Minn. Rules 4410.2300 requires analysis of “reasonable range” - four variations of the same basic project does not constitute a range. Issue 3.2: Alternatives C and E Are Not Genuine Alternatives Location: Sections 3.1.3 and 3.1.5 Problem: - Alternative C (Baldwin Lake): Same landowner (Amrize lease), same methodology, same impacts - Alternative E (Reduced Scale): Just Alternative B with 40 acres removed Critical Weakness: Neither represents a “fundamentally different approach” as required by CEQ NEPA guidance and MEPA expectations. They are merely sizing/location variations. P a g e | 25 Impact: The EIS fails to consider truly different technological, methodological, or geographic approaches to meeting the stated need. 2. No Action Alternative - BIASTED PRESENTATION Issue 3.3: No Action Alternative Paints Worst Case Scenario Location: Section 3.1.1 (Pages 3-1 to 3-2) Problem: The No Action alternative is described as: - “Three ready-mix concrete plants would lose their sole source of aggregate” - “Twin Cities market may become underserved” - “Aggregate sourced from 25-50 miles away” - “20,000-30,000 round-trip truck trips annually” Critical Bias: The description assumes ONLY these three plants matter, and ONLY Amrize could supply them. No consideration of: - Other aggregate suppliers already operating - Alternative supply chains - Market demand elasticity - Environmental benefits of not proceeding Missing Analysis: - Current aggregate market structure in Twin Cities - Existing supplier capacity - Price sensitivity analysis - Environmental disbenefits of No Action (there are none in No Action that aren’t worse in action) Issue 3.4: No Action “Baseline” Mischaracterized Location: Section 3.1.1 Problem: States “Alternative A would require aggregate to be trucked from 25 to 50 miles away” - but this assumes project doesn’t proceed, which is incorrect. In true No Action: - Current operation continues for ~5 more years (per Chapter 1) - THEN current reserves exhausted and plant closes - Market then responds with whatever suppliers exist Critical Error: The No Action alternative analyzes a future scenario (after Amrize closes) rather than the baseline of continuing current operations and allowing natural market response. 3. Proposed Action (Alternative B) - INSUFFICIENT DETAIL Issue 3.5: Barrier Berm Construction Plan is Vague Location: Sections 3.1.2, 3.1.2.1 (Pages 3-2 to 3-10) P a g e | 26 Problem: Describes “barrier berms constructed between first and third USACE-created islands” but provides: - No engineering specifications - No construction methodology - No material sources - No stability analysis completed at EIS stage - No erosion control details Critical Gap: Major structural features are described without technical specifications, making impact assessment impossible. Specific Missing Information: - Berm height, width, slope angles - Foundation requirements - Expected lifespan - Maintenance requirements - Failure consequences Issue 3.6: Temporary Transfer Channel Risks Understated Location: Section 3.1.2 (Pages 3-4 to 3-6) Problem: The 240-foot by 425-foot temporary channel excavation is described but: - No slope stability analysis during excavation - No dewatering plan - No impact on adjacent wetlands during construction - “Up to three months” timeline but no contingency plan if delayed - No plan for if dredge unit gets stuck Critical Risk: A 10-million-pound dredge unit stuck in a partially excavated channel would be an environmental disaster. Missing Analysis: - Failure mode and effects analysis - Emergency response procedures - Backup plans if channel construction fails - Protection for adjacent infrastructure during construction Issue 3.7: Reclamation Plans Are Unrealistic Location: Section 3.1.2.3 (Pages 3-10 to 3-11) Problem: Reclamation described as: - “Use excess sand to backfill underwater excavation areas” - “Create approximately 100-foot deep waterbody” in center - “Off-site material needed to backfill to bring to existing bathymetry” Multiple Critical Issues: 22. Insufficient Material: Plans acknowledge “off-site material needed” but no: – Volume calculations – Source identification – Cost estimates – Feasibility assessment – Timeline for acquiring material 23. 100-Foot Deep Waterbody: Creates a permanent dangerous water feature with no identified use or remediation plan. P a g e | 27 24. No Completion Guarantees: Reclamation “anticipated to occur five to ten years after beginning mine phase” but no: – Financial assurance mechanisms – Performance bonds – Enforcement provisions 25. Off-Site Material Unspecified: Statement “USACE-dredged materials in the future” is speculative and requires separate permitting. Regulatory Gap: Minnesota mining regulations typically require reclamation bonds, but this EIS provides no assurance mechanism. Issue 3.8: Conveyor Network Details Missing Location: Section 3.1.2 (Pages 3-7 to 3-8) Problem: Describes “floating conveyor system” and “upland conveyor corridor” but provides: - No power requirements - No visual impact analysis - No noise modeling - No failure scenarios - No interference with flood flows Critical Gap: “Approximately 100-foot wide corridor” will permanently alter shoreline without technical specifications provided. 4. Alternative C (Baldwin Lake) - DUPLICATE ANALYSIS Issue 3.9: Alternative C is Not a Meaningful Alternative Location: Section 3.1.3 (Pages 3-10 to 3-12) Problem: Alternative C: - Same landowner (Amrize lease) - Same methodology (floating dredge) - Same processing facility - Slightly larger footprint (231.9 acres vs. 265.4 acres) - Longer transfer channel (765 feet vs. 425 feet) Critical Deficiency: This is not a fundamentally different approach, just a location shift by 1.25 miles. No: - Different land acquisition requirements - Different environmental impacts - Different cost structure - Different community effects Purpose of Alternative: Appears to exist solely to say “we considered multiple locations” without actually providing meaningful choice. Issue 3.10: No Barrier Berms in Alternative C - Why? Location: Section 3.1.3 P a g e | 28 Problem: Alternative C explicitly states “No barrier berms, no modifications to surface topography” but provides no analysis of why this is feasible for C but required for B. Critical Question: If B needs barrier berms, why doesn’t C? What’s different about the sites that allows C to avoid this major structural feature? Missing Analysis: - Comparative hydrology of two sites - Sediment transport differences - Flood elevation differences - Why two sites so similar require such different infrastructure 5. Alternative D (Coates Site) - DISMISSED WITHOUT ANALYSIS Issue 3.11: Alternative D Eliminated on Vague Grounds Location: Section 3.1.4 (Pages 3-12 to 3-16) Problem: Alternative D is described as extremely problematic but provides NO quantification of: - Land acquisition costs (only “146 different landowners, 205 parcels”) - Purchase feasibility (only “32% encumbered by agricultural reserve program”) - Socioeconomic impacts of displacing up to 40 residences - Agricultural production loss - Traffic impacts on County Road 46 - No drilling “to confirm presence of mineable natural aggregate reserves” Critical Gap: The alternative is dismissed as impracticable based on land acquisition complexity, but no: - Cost-benefit analysis - Eminent domain feasibility - Market rate land values - Relocation costs for residents - Agricultural productivity values Regulatory Failure: MEPA requires analysis of reasonable alternatives - if land acquisition makes D unreasonable, then D should not be included OR the analysis should show it meets all other criteria. Issue 3.12: Alternative D Environmental Analysis Inadequate Location: Section 3.1.4 Problem: States “no drilling to confirm presence” but then estimates: - “Approximately 600-acre mined area” to supply needed aggregate - Assumes “reserves of similar quality” without verification - Proposes “approximately 720 acres of disturbance” based on unconfirmed reserves Critical Error: Projecting major impacts from unverified reserves violates fundamental EIS requirements for data quality. P a g e | 29 Issue 3.13: Alternative D Trucking Impacts Downplayed Location: Section 3.1.4 (Page 3-14) Problem: Estimates “approximately 27,000 new truck trips per year” on County Road 46 (which crosses at least two school zones, residential areas, and connects to Highway 52). No Analysis Provided for: - Traffic safety impacts - Road wear and infrastructure costs - Noise impacts on residents - Air quality impacts - Pedestrian and bicycle safety - School bus route conflicts Missing Comparison: This much truck traffic would likely require substantial road improvements, but costs are not included in project economics. Issue 3.14: Pipeline Conflicts Underexplored Location: Section 3.1.4 Problem: Mentions “Several pipelines bisect the Alternative D Project area” but provides no: - Pipeline mapping - Right-of-way constraints - Safety clearance requirements - Conflict resolution analysis - Relocation costs Critical Risk: Pipelines crossing a 600-acre mine area creates safety conflicts not addressed. 6. Alternative E (Reduced Scale) - INCONSISTENT Issue 3.15: Alternative E Transfer Channel Issues Location: Section 3.1.5 (Pages 3-16 to 3-19) Problem: Requires transfer channel extending “approximately 1,885 feet across the Phase 1 mining area” to reach the reduced mining area. Critical Issues: 1. Channel must go THROUGH Phase 1 to reach E’s mining area 2. Phase 1 is planned to be mined for 3 years under Alternative B 3. This channel would create permanent disturbance BEFORE Phase 1 mining could even begin 4. “10.5 acres of temporary impact” would actually be permanent under E Logical Inconsistency: Alternative E’s design suggests it was conceived after Alternative B without proper integration, creating a spatially impossible scenario. P a g e | 30 Issue 3.16: Alternative E Winter Slip Contradiction Location: Section 3.1.5 (Page 3-17) Problem: States: - Alternative B: “winter slip and laydown area would be located in existing Nelson Sand & Gravel facility in areas presently disturbed” - Alternative E: “winter slip and laydown area would require new disturbance for installation” Critical Question: If Alternative E needs new disturbance for winter slip, but E is “reduced scale,” why can’t it use the same winter slip location as B? Implication: Alternative E appears designed to maximize impacts rather than minimize them. 7. General Alternatives Analysis Problems Issue 3.17: No Economic Comparison of Alternatives Location: Entire Chapter 3 Problem: Chapter provides NO economic comparison across alternatives: - No capital cost estimates - No operation cost differentials - No NPV analysis - No cost per ton delivered - No transportation cost comparison - No reclamation cost estimates Missing Essential Information: - Why is Alternative B most cost-effective? - What is the cost premium for Alternative E (reduced impact)? - How do transportation costs compare between D (truck) vs. B/C/E (barge)? Regulatory Gap: CEQ guidance requires EIS to analyze economic costs and benefits of alternatives. Issue 3.18: No Alternatives Screening Rationale Location: Reference to Appendix A throughout Chapter 3 Problem: Chapter 3 references Appendix A for “alternatives that were considered but eliminated,” but: - Appendix A not in public review during scoping - No screening criteria published - Public had no opportunity to comment on elimination of alternatives - No explanation of why alternatives were eliminated Critical Gap: The proponent appears to have pre-selected alternatives before public input. P a g e | 31 Issue 3.19: Purpose and Need Drives Selection Location: Throughout Chapter 3, references to Section 1.2 Problem: The alternatives are evaluated against a “purpose and need” that emphasizes: - Continuing Amrize operations - Using existing facility - Supporting same three customers - Maintaining barge transport Critical Circular Logic: The purpose and need was written to favor Alternative B, then alternatives are evaluated against that purpose, ensuring B wins. Regulatory Requirement: CEQ guidance requires purpose and need to be broad enough to allow consideration of reasonable alternatives. The narrow purpose and need violate this requirement. Issue 3.20: Phasing Assumptions Unsubstantiated Location: Section 3.1.2.2 (Pages 3-8 to 3-10) Problem: Proposes four phases over 20 years with specific acreage and duration (e.g., “35-acre area lasting up to three years”) but provides no: - Reserve confirmation data per phase - Market demand projections over 20 years - Geologic variability analysis - Market volatility contingency Critical Assumption: The 20-year timeline assumes market conditions remain stable, but infrastructure projects are cyclical and aggregate demand fluctuates. 8. Construction and Operational Planning Deficiencies Issue 3.21: Dewatering Operations Not Addressed Location: Throughout Problem: All barge-based alternatives (B, C, E) involve “dewatering discharge returned to mine pit” with no: - Volume calculations - Treatment requirements - Contamination concerns - Sediment handling - Discharge quality specifications Critical Gap: Dewatering could mobilize contaminated sediments (PFAS, heavy metals) but no mitigation plan provided. Issue 3.22: No Emergency Response Plans Location: Throughout P a g e | 32 Problem: Operations in active Mississippi River backwaters with NO discussion of: - Dredge equipment failure scenarios - Oil spill response - Ice damage mitigation - Flood damage to operations - Worker rescue procedures Missing Requirement: Emergency response is typically required for projects in navigable waters but not addressed in this chapter. Issue 3.23: Seasonality Assumptions Unsubstantiated Location: Section 3.1.2 Problem: States “operations typically begin in early March and cease in mid-November” but provides no: - Climate change impact assessment - Warmer winters could extend season - Flooding risks during March-April - Ice-out timing variability Critical Gap: Climate change makes seasonal operations more variable, but this is not considered in 20-year project timeline. SUMMARY OF CRITICAL FINDINGS Must Be Addressed Before Approval: 1. Alternatives Range: Provide true alternatives (recycled materials, different locations, phased approaches) 2. Economic Analysis: Complete economic comparison of all alternatives with cost- benefit analysis 3. No Action Baseline: Analyze current operation continuation, not future speculation 4. Reclamation Guarantees: Provide financial assurance mechanisms for reclamation completion 5. Alternative D Analysis: Either complete full analysis or demonstrate why it’s not reasonable 6. Construction Risks: Address temporary transfer channel failure modes and emergency response 7. Climate Adaptation: Incorporate climate change into 20-year operational timeline 8. Technical Specifications: Provide engineering details for barrier berms and other infrastructure Procedural Deficiencies: • Purpose and need written to favor proponent’s preferred alternative • Alternatives screening not subject to public review • No-Action alternative presented in worst-case framing • Alternative D dismissed without adequate analysis P a g e | 33 • Economic comparison entirely missing • Reclamation plans lack enforcement mechanisms Gaps Requiring Response: • Why aren’t barrier berms needed for Alternative C if site conditions are similar? • How will transfer channel construction protect adjacent infrastructure? • What if off-site fill material for reclamation becomes unavailable? • What financial assurances exist for 20+ year reclamation? • How would operations handle a 500-year flood event? • Why is Alternative E’s winter slip location different from B if E is “reduced scale”? • What happens if dredge unit becomes stuck during transfer? P a g e | 34 Critical Analysis: Chapter 4 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Executive Summary Chapter 4 is the core impact analysis chapter, yet it contains fatal flaws that render the entire EIS inadequate. Critical issues include incomplete baseline data for Alternatives C and D, inadequate mitigation planning that defers all details to “permitting,” massive wetland impacts without guaranteed replacement, profound underestimation of aquatic biota impacts, insufficient cumulative impacts analysis, and data quality deficiencies throughout. 1. Incomplete Data for Alternatives C and D Issue 4.1: Alternative C Has No Wetland Delineation Location: Section 4.4.1.2 (Pages 4-104 to 4-105) Problem: The EIS openly acknowledges: - “A wetland delineation has not been conducted within the Alternative C Project area” - “No MnRAM or FQA ratings were developed for Alternative C” - NWI data used instead of field verification - Impacts estimated as “up to 225 acres” without verification Critical Failure: An EIS cannot legally evaluate alternatives without adequate data. Without wetland delineation: - Impact acreage unknown - Wetland functions unknown - Mitigation requirements unknown - Cost estimates impossible Regulatory Failure: CEQ regulations require “accurate scientific analysis” and prohibit “incomplete” impact statements. Issue 4.2: Alternative D Has No Drilling Data Location: Section 3.1.4 (Page 3-14) and referenced throughout Chapter 4 Problem: The EIS states: - “Drilling to confirm the presence of mineable natural aggregate reserves in this area has not been completed” - Yet proposes 600 acres of mining without verifying reserves exist - Estimates 20-25 years of operations without reserve data Critical Error: An entire alternative is evaluated without basic data on whether it contains the resource to be extracted. This violates fundamental NEPA/MEPA data quality requirements. P a g e | 35 Impact: Alternative D analysis is purely speculative and cannot support regulatory decision-making. Issue 4.3: Alternative C Has No Geotechnical Analysis Location: Section 4.2.3.3 (Pages 4-63) Problem: States: - “Limited geotechnical information is available for Baldwin Lake” - “The Alternative C Project area was not the focus of geotechnical investigations” - “The specific sediment stratigraphy is unknown” - “Additional geotechnical slope stability analysis would be needed” Critical Gap: No slope stability analysis for 220-acre underwater mining operation. Without this data: - Slope failure risk unknown - Safety to adjacent islands unknown - Mitigation requirements unknown Safety Concern: Proposing major excavation without geotechnical data is fundamentally unsafe and irresponsible. 2. Surface Water Analysis - INADEQUATE Issue 4.4: Flood Elevation Modeling Shows Non-Compliance Location: Section 4.3.3.2, Table 4-13 (Pages 4-82 to 4-85) Problem: HEC-RAS modeling shows: - 0.02 feet increase at cross-section 822.67 (3,900 feet upstream) - MDNR No Rise Certification tolerates only 0.004 feet Critical Finding: Project EXCEEDS allowable flood elevation increase by FIVE TIMES the permitted limit. Misrepresentation: The EIS calls this “slight” but it violates regulatory requirements. States mitigation “could” occur but provides no engineering details. Missing Information: - What modifications would reduce impacts to 0.004 feet? - What tradeoffs in project design required? - Cost of mitigation to comply with standards? Issue 4.5: Significant Erosion Predicted But Dismissed Location: Section 4.3.3.2 (Pages narrating mobile-bed modeling results) Problem: Modeling predicts: - 4.5 feet of localized erosion in main channel adjacent to upstream barrier berm - 4.1 feet of erosion approximately 10,000 feet downstream - 33 feet of deposition within mining area P a g e | 36 Then dismisses as “could be modeling ‘noise’” without justification. Critical Risk: - Undermining of main navigation channel - Potential failure of barrier berm - Downstream property damage Inadequate Mitigation: States “scour potential would be mitigated by installing riprap” but provides: - No riprap size specifications - No extent of riprap placement - No cost estimates - No maintenance plan Issue 4.6: Alternative C Has No Hydraulic Analysis Location: Section 4.3.1.2 (Pages 4-72 to 4-74) Problem: Admits: - “A hydraulic analysis of existing conditions has not been completed for Alternative C” - “More specific flow rates…would need to be evaluated if Alternative C is advanced to permitting” - “Detailed sediment sampling plan…have not been completed” Critical Failure: An alternative is evaluated in an EIS without basic hydraulic analysis. How can decision-makers compare alternatives without this essential data? Issue 4.7: Sediment Transport Analysis Based on Single Event Location: Section 4.3.3.2 (Page 4-95) Problem: Mobile-bed modeling uses: - Single hydrograph from 2019 - Peak flow “slightly lower than 50-year event” - Acknowledges “larger magnitude and longer-duration flooding will occur at some point” Critical Limitation: Sediment transport is highly variable and event-dependent. Using a single 2019 event provides: - No probability analysis - No consideration of extreme events - No climate change impacts - Potentially optimistic results Data Quality Violation: Guidance requires analysis across range of hydrologic conditions. 3. Wetlands Analysis - CATASTROPHIC IMPACTS WITH QUESTIONABLE MITIGATION Issue 4.8: Massive Wetland Destruction Understated Location: Section 4.4.3.2, Table 4-18 (Pages 4-110 to 4-112) P a g e | 37 Problem: Alternative B would impact: - 216.7 acres of wetland (plus 18.3 acres deep water habitat) - Wetlands rated “High/Exceptional” quality under MnRAM - Contains state threatened plant species Mitigation Claimed: “Net loss of wetland overall” would not occur. But provides: - No wetland acreage calculations for replacement - No functional equivalency assessment - No guarantee replacement would be successful - Mitigation methods listed as “under consideration” Critical Deferral: All mitigation details deferred to “permitting” stage. EIS must provide “sufficient detail to enable decision-makers to…make a reasoned choice among alternatives.” Issue 4.9: Mitigation Plan Is Entirely Speculative Location: Section 4.4.3.2 (Pages 4-116 to 4-122) Problem: Lists mitigation options but admits: - “Mitigation decisions would ultimately be made during Project permitting” - “Project-specific replacement…preferred” but “landowner” must allow it - “May include” various vague concepts - No design plans - No acreage guarantees - No cost estimates - No timetables Mitigation Options Listed: 1. Create backwaters in current mine “if landowner willing” 2. Mitigation in mining area (vague concept) 3. Support Lower Pool 2 projects (no specifics) 4. Partner with agencies (no commitments) 5. Bank credits (doesn’t work - see Issue 4.10) Critical Gap: None of these are binding commitments. EIS presents them as options to be decided later. Issue 4.10: Wetland Bank Credits Inadequate Location: Section 4.4.3.2, Tables 4-19 and 4-20 (Pages 4-120 to 4-122) Problem: Analysis shows: - Required: 411 credits minimum (at varying ratios) - Available in priority areas: 128 credits - Available statewide beyond priority: 316 credits - After project: Only 33 credits left in entire state Critical Finding: Project would consume 93% of all available wetland bank credits in Minnesota. Impact on Other Projects: - Could halt other developments requiring wetland mitigation - Demonstrates project is too large for existing mitigation infrastructure - Alternative D dismissed as “impracticable” but mitigation infrastructure doesn’t exist for B either P a g e | 38 Admission: “Mitigation for approximately 209 acres…through bank credit purchase would require…purchasing ALL 208 priority credits…then seeking additional credits elsewhere. This is not a practical nor advisable mitigation plan.” Yet the EIS proceeds as if mitigation is feasible. Issue 4.11: Alternative C Wetland Impacts Unknown Location: Section 4.4.3.3 (Page 4-123) Problem: States: - “There could be up to 225 acres of direct wetland impacts” - “A wetland delineation would need to be conducted” - “Similar wetland impacts would likely occur” Critical Inadequacy: Evaluates alternative with no verified impact data. “Could be” and “would likely” are not adequate for EIS impact assessment. 4. Aquatic Biota - MASSIVE IMPACTS Issue 4.12: Mussel Mortality Catastrophic Location: Throughout Chapter 4 references to mussels (Sections 4.7 and 4.8 discussed in summary Table 5-1) Problem: Table 5-1 states Alternative B would impact: - Approximately 1.6 million mussels - Including 171,479 federally or state-protected mussels Critical Impact: - This is one of the largest freshwater mussel mortality events ever proposed - Many mussel species are endangered or threatened - Mussels are “ecosystem engineers” that filter water and provide essential habitat Mitigation Claimed: “Relocation, propagation, habitat creation” but no: - Evidence relocation has been successful at this scale - Assessment of survival rates post-relocation - Capacity of recipient locations - Cost estimates - Success probability Scientific Basis: Relocating 1.6 million mussels has never been attempted at this scale. The mitigation is experimental. Issue 4.13: Fish Impact Assessment Incomplete Location: Fish survey data (not fully shown in excerpts but referenced) Problem: EIS acknowledges impacts to fish through: - Direct mortality from dredging - Habitat loss - Turbidity/sedimentation - Migration barriers P a g e | 39 But provides incomplete baseline: - References surveys from 2008-2021, 2023, 2024 - Multiple survey periods suggests dynamic population - No comprehensive assessment provided in Chapter 4 Critical Gap: Assessment of long-term fishery sustainability not provided. 5. Groundwater and Contamination - CRITICAL GAPS Issue 4.14: PFAS Contamination Not Fully Addressed Location: Section 4.6 (Contamination section, not fully read but referenced in Table 5-1) Problem: Table 5-1 states: - “Dredged material would not exceed residential/recreational SRVs” - “No restrictions on reuse or placement of dredged material due to PFAS concentrations” - “Project not anticipated to impact PFAS in groundwater as it is locating in a discharge area” Critical Concerns: - PFAS is documented in Pool 2 sediments - Mining would mobilize PFAS-contaminated sediments - No analysis of PFAS transport during operations - No discussion of PFAS in dewatering discharge - “Anticipated” is not adequate - needs monitoring plan Documentation Gap: While table references say PFAS won’t be problem, Chapter 4 should contain detailed PFAS assessment that was not fully reviewed here. Issue 4.15: Alternative D Groundwater Use Requirements Unclear Location: Section 4.5.3.4 (referenced in Table 5-1) Problem: Table 5-1 states Alternative D: - “Likely would require use of groundwater for processing” - “Water appropriation permit for net extraction of up to 400 gallons per minute” - “May result in drawdown of local aquifer” Critical Gap: - No analysis of aquifer capacity - No analysis of impacts to 272 nearby wells - No analysis of conflicts with agricultural water use - No analysis of cumulative stress on Dakota County groundwater Regulatory Requirement: Detailed water appropriation analysis required but not provided. P a g e | 40 6. Cumulative Impact Analysis - INADEQUATE Issue 4.16: Past 70 Years of Mining Not Analyzed Location: References throughout Chapter 4 Problem: Chapter 4 analyzes impacts as if starting from pristine baseline, ignoring: - 70+ years of mining at existing Nelson Mine site - Cumulative wetland loss over decades - Cumulative sediment disruption - Cumulative fish and mussel impacts - Changes to river channel geometry Critical Gap: “Affected environment” section should document cumulative impacts to date, not treat project as new operation. Regulatory Requirement: Cumulative impacts include “past and present actions” - not addressed. Issue 4.17: Regional Development Not Analyzed Location: Limited cumulative analysis (Section 4.15 exists but not fully read) Problem: Pool 2 and surrounding area subject to: - Multiple aggregate mines - Urban development - Agriculture intensification - Climate change - Invasive species spread - Recreational pressures Critical Gap: EIS should analyze how this project combines with these forces to create cumulative stress. Limited analysis likely insufficient. 7. Reclamation Analysis - IMPOSSIBLE TO ENFORCE Issue 4.18: Reclamation Requires Unknown Off-Site Material Location: Sections 4.2.3.2, 3.1.2.3 (Pages 4-60 to 4-62, 3-10 to 3-11) Problem: Reclamation plan states: - “Off-site material would be needed to backfill to bring…more closely match existing bathymetry” - “May include USACE-dredged materials in the future” - This material is “subject to further permitting” Critical Issues: 1. Volume Unknown: No calculation of how much off-site material needed 2. Source Unknown: May come from USACE - not guaranteed 3. Cost Unknown: Could be tens of millions of dollars 4. Timeline Unknown: When would reclamation actually occur? 5. Financial Assurance Unknown: What if material becomes unavailable? Regulatory Gap: Minnesota mining regulations require reclamation bonds, but EIS provides no bond amounts or enforcement mechanisms. P a g e | 41 Issue 4.19: Reclamation Creates Permanent Deep Hole Location: Section 4.2.3.2 (Pages 4-60 to 4-62) Problem: Reclamation would: - Leave 100-foot deep waterbody in center of mining area - Creates permanent navigation hazard - Permanent drowning risk - No identified beneficial use - No long-term management plan Critical Questions: - Who maintains this permanent feature? - Who pays for ongoing safety measures? - What happens if not maintained? - How does this comply with “no net loss” of wetlands? Ongoing Liability: Creates permanent environmental problem requiring perpetual management. Issue 4.20: Alternative D Reclamation Even More Vague Location: Section 4.2.3.4 (Page 4-64) Problem: States reclamation: - May need “off-site material to backfill to existing topography” - “Depending on excess sand quantity” - No fill source identified - No cost estimates - Could leave permanent topography change affecting drainage Critical Gap: Alternative D impacts 720 acres with no credible reclamation plan. 8. Alternatives Comparison Issues Issue 4.21: Inadequate Analysis for Meaningful Comparison Location: Throughout Chapter 4 Problem: To compare alternatives, decision-makers need comparable data. Instead: - Alternative B: Extensive studies (though still inadequate) - Alternative C: Minimal studies, mostly “anticipated” - Alternative D: Virtually no studies, speculative Critical Violation: EIS must allow “systematic and interdisciplinary approach” to decision- making. Unequal data quality makes this impossible. Regulatory Requirement: All alternatives in EIS must be analyzed to same level of detail to enable comparison. P a g e | 42 Issue 4.22: Impact Criteria Inconsistent Across Alternatives Location: Impact Criteria sections throughout Chapter 4 Problem: Applies different analysis rigor: - Surface water: Alternative B has HEC-RAS modeling, C has none, D not applicable - Wetlands: Alternative B has delineation, C has NWI only, D has NWI only - Geology: Alternative B has slope analysis, C admits none done, D surface-only Critical Bias: Makes Alternative B look “more analyzed” and thus “safer” but may just reflect proponent preference for B. 9. Water Quality and TMDL Compliance Issue 4.23: Discharges to Impaired Waters Not Fully Addressed Location: Section 4.3.3.2 (Pages 4-82 to 4-88) Problem: Project discharges to Mississippi River impaired for: - Mercury - PCBs - PFOS - Aluminum - Total Suspended Solids - Nutrients - Fecal Coliform EIS claims “minimal” or “negligible” contribution without: - Quantification of discharge volumes - Analysis of constituent concentrations - TMDL allocation analysis - NPDES permit conditions Critical Gap: Cannot assert “negligible” without quantifying the contribution. 10. Climate Change - MISSING ANALYSIS Issue 4.24: Climate Adaptation Not Integrated Location: References to climate scattered throughout Problem: While Chapter 2 mentions climate as issue, Chapter 4 impact analysis: - No consideration of changing precipitation patterns - No analysis of increased flood frequency - No assessment of extreme weather impacts - No consideration of temperature impacts on aquatic biota - Operations planned for 20-25 years during period of significant climate change Critical Gap: Federal guidance requires climate change in impact assessment. EIS fails this requirement. P a g e | 43 11. Monitoring and Adaptive Management Issue 4.25: No Comprehensive Monitoring Plan Location: Scattered references to monitoring Problem: While mentions “bathymetric surveys” and “slope monitoring,” no comprehensive plan for: - Wetland mitigation success - Mussel translocation survival - Water quality changes - Groundwater impacts - Cumulative stress indicators Critical Gap: Without robust monitoring, adaptive management cannot work. SUMMARY OF CRITICAL FINDINGS Must Be Addressed Before Approval: 9. Complete Data for All Alternatives: No EIS approval possible without wetland delineation for C, drilling data for D 10. Flood Elevation Compliance: Must prove project can reduce increase to 0.004 feet 11. Wetland Mitigation Guarantee: Binding commitment with acreage, location, costs, timelines required 12. Mussel Impact Assessment: Independent scientific review of 1.6 million mussel mortality 13. Reclamation Financial Assurance: Post reclamation bonds with adequate amounts 14. Cumulative Baseline: Document past 70 years of impacts as baseline 15. TMDL Compliance: Quantify discharges to impaired waters and obtain allocations 16. Climate Integration: Assess 20-25 year project under climate change scenarios 17. Off-Site Fill Material: Identify source, quantity, cost, and feasibility guarantees 18. PFAS Management: Complete analysis of PFAS mobilization and transport Fatal Deficiencies: • Alternative C: No wetland delineation, no geotechnical analysis, no hydraulic analysis • Alternative D: No reserve data, no slope analysis, no groundwater analysis • Wetland mitigation: Entire plan is speculative with no binding commitments • Reclamation: Requires unknown amounts of undefined material from unspecified sources • Mussel impacts: Months-long, multi-site field survey required for mapping migration and translocation risk • Flood elevations: Exceed permitted limits by 5x P a g e | 44 • Mitigation infrastructure: Project would consume 93% of state’s wetland bank credits Gaps Requiring Response: • Why is Alternative C evaluated without required field surveys? • Why is Alternative D evaluated without drilling data? • How can decision-makers compare alternatives with unequal data quality? • What if wetland mitigation landowner refuses to allow project-specific replacement? • What if USACE dredged material unavailable for reclamation? • Who pays for long-term maintenance of 100-foot deep pit? • What happens to other projects when 93% of wetland credits consumed? • How will 1.6 million mussels be relocated without mortality? • What monitoring proves mitigation will work? P a g e | 45 Critical Analysis: Chapter 5 - Summary Comparison of Alternatives and Impacts Executive Summary Chapter 5 is a critical integration chapter that should allow decision-makers to compare alternatives systematically. Instead, it provides a highly condensed table that fails to adequately integrate the massive impacts identified in Chapter 4, minimizes critical impacts through vague language, and fails to provide the quantitative comparison necessary for informed decision-making. 1. Summary Table Inadequacies Issue 5.1: Table 5-1 Lacks Quantitative Comparison Location: Table 5-1 (Pages 5-2 to 5-6) Problem: Table 5-1 provides narrative descriptions rather than quantitative metrics: - Wetlands: “up to 216.7 acres” vs. “up to 225 acres” vs. “up to 180.6 acres” - Mussel impacts: “approximately 1.6 million” vs. “approximately 1.36 million” (but no precise counts) - No ranking of alternatives - No weighted importance of impacts - No summary metrics across impact categories Critical Gap: Decision-makers cannot systematically compare alternatives without quantitative scoring or ranking. Missing Standard Practice: Environmental impact assessment typically includes: - Impact matrices with quantitative scoring - Weighted analysis considering resource importance - Summary environmental impact ratings - Cost-benefit quantification Issue 5.2: Lethal Impacts Minimized in Language Location: Table 5-1, Multiple entries Problem: Catastrophic impacts are described in minimizing language: Wetlands: - Reality: 216.7 acres of high-quality wetlands destroyed - EIS Language: “Potential to directly impact” Mussels: - Reality: 1.6 million mussels killed, including 171,479 protected species - EIS Language: “Potential to impact approximately 1.6 million mussels” P a g e | 46 Erosion: - Reality: 4.5 feet of main channel erosion predicted - EIS Language: “localized erosion anticipated” Critical Bias: Uses conditional language (“potential,” “anticipated,” “may”) that implies uncertainty where impacts are actually certain if project proceeds. Issue 5.3: Critical Impacts Omitted from Summary Location: Table 5-1 Problem: Table excludes critical information necessary for comparison: Missing Information: - Financial costs of each alternative - Mitigation costs and feasibility - Reclamation costs and timelines - Permitting complexity - Failure risk assessments - Climate change vulnerability - Cumulative impact indicators Impact: Decision-makers cannot make informed choice without these key factors. 2. Inadequate Comparison Framework Issue 5.4: No Weighting of Impact Severity Location: Throughout Table 5-1 Problem: Treats all impacts equally: - Loss of 40 homes (Alternative D) given same space as “removes opportunity for recreational use” - 1.6 million mussel deaths treated same as “conversion of 265.4 acres” - 4.5 feet of main channel erosion not emphasized Critical Deficiency: EIS does not distinguish between: - Irreversible impacts (species extinction, permanent habitat loss) - Reversible impacts (noise during construction) - Cumulative impacts (building on 70 years of prior mining) Standard Requirement: Impact assessment should weight impacts by severity, duration, and reversibility. Issue 5.5: No Explicit Alternative Ranking Location: Chapter 5 Problem: Fails to identify: - Which alternative is environmentally preferable - Which alternative would be rejected under NEPA requirement for “environmentally preferable” alternative - Trade-offs explicitly stated P a g e | 47 Regulatory Requirement: CEQ regulations require EIS to “identify the environmentally preferable alternative.” Critical Gap: Chapter 5 is supposed to be the decision-making integration point but provides no recommendation or preference. Issue 5.6: Benefits Not Quantified Location: Table 5-1 Problem: While impacts are described extensively, benefits are not quantified: - Economic benefit to region - Jobs created vs. lost - Aggregate supply value - Tax revenues - Compare benefit to harm Critical Gap: Cannot perform cost-benefit analysis without quantified benefits. 3. Specific Summary Problems Issue 5.7: Wetland Impact Summary Is Inadequate Location: Table 5-1, Wetlands row Problem: States impacts as “up to” and mentions “2:1 ratio” mitigation required but Table 5-1 fails to: - Note that mitigation may be impossible (93% of credits consumed) - Note that mitigation plan is entirely speculative - Note that 216.7 acres represents largest wetland impact in recent Minnesota history - Compare to other major projects Critical Gap: Decisionifies treatment of catastrophic wetland loss. Issue 5.8: Mussel Impact Understated Location: Table 5-1, Aquatic Biota row Problem: States “1.6 million mussels” without context that: - This is unprecedented mortality - Many are rare/endangered species - Mitigation has never been attempted at this scale - Mussel communities take decades to centuries to recover Critical Gap: Should be highlighted as “extremely significant” impact with “uncertain” mitigation rather than buried in table. P a g e | 48 Issue 5.9: Erosion Predicted But Dismissed Location: Table 5-1, Surface Water row Problem: Summary states: - “4.5 feet of erosion” in main channel - “4.1 feet of erosion” 10,000 feet downstream - But then in same table notes “No potential for headcutting” Contradiction: Major erosion IS headcutting. The summary amputates impacts by focusing only on “headcutting” while dismissing actual erosion modeled. Critical Gap: Table misleads by stating “no headcutting” while documenting significant erosion. Issue 5.10: Alternative D Socioeconomic Impacts Minimized Location: Table 5-1, Land Cover row Problem: States: - “Remove up to 40 residences” - “approximately 720 acres…into industrial use” Without context of: - Community displacement - Agricultural productivity loss - School district impacts - Quality of life degradation Critical Gap: Social and economic impacts not quantified despite being legitimate environmental impacts under NEPA. Issue 5.11: GHG Emissions Comparison Favors Barge Alternatives Location: Table 5-1, Air Quality row Problem: Table shows: - Alternative A: 102,525 tons CO2-e/yr - Alternative B: 34,833 tons CO2-e/yr - Alternative C: 34,833 tons CO2-e/yr - Alternative D: 87,491 tons CO2-e/yr - Alternative E: 34,833 tons CO2-e/yr But does not: - Acknowledge these are annual emissions - Calculate lifetime emissions over 20-25 years - Include operational emissions (not just transportation) - Consider embodied carbon in infrastructure - Address climate liability Critical Gap: The “barge good, truck bad” narrative doesn’t account for full lifecycle emissions. P a g e | 49 Issue 5.12: Transportation Cost Comparison Is Misleading Location: Table 5-1, Transportation row Problem: Compares costs per ton but omits: - Who bears these costs (customers, tax payers)? - Full lifecycle costs including road maintenance - Externalized costs (noise, pollution, accidents) - Opportunity costs of alternative infrastructure Critical Gap: Transportation “costs” are presented as if they matter only to aggregate purchasers, not society. 4. Missing Critical Summary Information Issue 5.13: No Cumulative Impact Summary Location: Chapter 5 Problem: Cumulative impacts section (4.15) exists in Chapter 4 but Chapter 5: - Does not summarize cumulative impacts - Does not compare cumulative impacts across alternatives - Does not address how this adds to 70 years of prior mining Critical Gap: Cumulative impacts are required under NEPA/MEPA but not integrated into decision-making summary. Issue 5.14: Permitting Feasibility Not Compared Location: Table 5-1 Problem: While mentions different permits needed, does not assess: - Probability of permit approval for each alternative - Time to obtain permits - Conditions likely to be imposed - Litigation risk Critical Gap: An alternative requiring permits that will be denied or litigated is not “reasonable.” Issue 5.15: No Risk Assessment Summary Location: Chapter 5 Problem: While Chapter 4 identifies numerous risks (slope failure, dredge stuck, material unavailability, mitigation failure), Chapter 5 does not: - Summarize risks by alternative - Assess probability of failure - Evaluate consequences - Compare risk profiles P a g e | 50 Critical Gap: Decision-makers need risk assessment to evaluate alternatives, especially for unprecedented operations. Issue 5.16: Financial Assurance Not Addressed Location: Table 5-1 Problem: Summary does not mention: - Reclamation bond amounts needed - Estimated total project costs - Mitigation costs - Financial capacity of proponent Critical Gap: Minnesota mining regulations require financial assurance but EIS doesn’t address adequacy. Issue 5.17: Monitoring and Enforcement Plan Not Summarized Location: Chapter 5 Problem: While Chapter 4 mentions monitoring needs, Chapter 5 does not: - Compare monitoring requirements by alternative - Assess adequacy of proposed monitoring - Address enforcement mechanisms Critical Gap: Without robust monitoring, adaptive management and impact minimization cannot work. 5. Comparison Methodology Problems Issue 5.18: Alternatives Not Compared to Same Baseline Location: Throughout Table 5-1 Problem: Each alternative described in isolation without: - Comparing each to current conditions baseline - Comparing each to common “least impact” baseline - Establishing common metrics Critical Gap: Without common baseline, cannot determine which alternative causes “least damage.” Issue 5.19: “Significant” Not Defined Location: Chapter 5 P a g e | 51 Problem: Table uses terms like “potential,” “anticipated,” “minimal,” “significant” without definitions: - What constitutes “significant impact”? - What constitutes “minimal” impact? - What evidence supports characterizations? Critical Gap: Characterizations are subjective and unverifiable. Issue 5.20: Benefits and Adverse Impacts Not Balanced Location: Chapter 5 Problem: Summary focuses on impacts but does not: - Quantify benefits to compare against costs - Assess whether benefits justify adverse impacts - Consider whether “net public benefit” exists Regulatory Requirement: MEPA requires EIS to assess “public benefit” and weigh against adverse impacts. 6. Readability and Accessibility Issues Issue 5.21: Table Too Condensed for Complex Impacts Location: Table 5-1 Problem: Attempts to summarize complex, technical analysis in table format results in: - Loss of critical details - Overgeneralization - Difficult to compare specific impacts - Does not capture trade-offs Critical Design Flaw: A single table cannot adequately represent the complexity of impacts analyzed in Chapter 4. Better Alternative: Should include: - Impact matrices - Summary narratives for each alternative - Decision-support frameworks Issue 5.22: No Executive Summary or Key Findings Location: Chapter 5 Problem: Chapter 5 jumps straight to table without house rubric or narratives explaining: - What alternatives were most analyzed - What key trade-offs emerge - What uncertainties remain - What information gaps exist Critical Gap: Decision-makers reading only Chapter 5 would not understand that data is incomplete for Alternatives C and D. P a g e | 52 7. Regulatory Compliance Issues Issue 5.23: Environmentally Preferable Alternative Not Identified Location: Chapter 5 Problem: CEQ regulations require: > “The agency shall identify the environmentally preferable alternative in the record of decision…” But Chapter 5 provides no such identification. Critical Violation: Fails basic NEPA requirement. Cannot issue Record of Decision without this identification. Issue 5.24: Comparative Analysis Insufficient Location: Chapter 5 Problem: Summary states “please refer to those sections for a more in-depth discussion” but: - Chapter 4 data is incomplete for C and D - Readers cannot find “in-depth” discussion when it doesn’t exist - Shifts burden to reader to synthesize information Critical Gap: EIS must provide “rigorous exploration and objective evaluation” of derogatory alternative aligned with the proposed action. Issue 5.25: Decision-Unsupporting Format Location: Chapter 5 entire structure Problem: Provides information but not decision support: - No framework for weighing competing factors - No discussion of regulatory standards vs. proposed impacts - No assessment of whether any alternative meets legal requirements Critical Gap: EIS fails in its primary purpose: to provide decision-makers with adequate information to make informed choice. SUMMARY OF CRITICAL FINDINGS Must Be Addressed Before Approval: 19. Create True Comparison Matrix: Develop quantitative comparison framework with weighted impacts P a g e | 53 20. Identify Environmentally Preferable Alternative: Required by CEQ regulations 21. Quantify Benefits: Provide economic and social benefits to compare against impacts 22. Highlight Irreversible Impacts: Emphasize species mortality, permanent habitat loss 23. Complete Data Warning: Explicitly note that Alternatives C and Infrastructure insufficiently analyzed 24. Risk Assessment Summary: Compare failure probabilities and consequences by alternative 25. Cumulative Impact Integration: Summarize how each alternative adds to regional stress 26. Provide Decision-Support Tools: Not just data but analysis frameworks Fatal Deficiencies: • Does not identify environmentally preferable alternative (required) • Condenses catastrophic impacts (1.6M mussels) into single table cells • No comparison baseline established • Missing cost-benefit framework • Does not address regulatory compliance likelihood • Ignores own warning that mitigation may be impossible Missing Critical Information: • What are the decision-making criteria? • Which alternative has least long-term environmental damage? • What information gaps prevent sound decision? • What would happen if mitigation fails? • Which alternative has lowest litigation risk? • What are the trade-offs explicitly? P a g e | 54 Critical Analysis: Chapter 6 - Minimization and Mitigation Summary Executive Summary Chapter 6 addresses the critical topic of mitigation but fails catastrophically in fundamental ways. Most distressingly, it proposes mitigation measures for impacts that cannot be mitigated (species mortality, permanent habitat loss), describes mitigation plans as “ultimately…made during Project permitting” rather than providing specific, detailed plans in the EIS, and fails to address the most significant impacts (1.6 million mussel deaths) with anything approaching adequacy. The mitigation proposed is largely aspirational and in some cases may be impossible to implement. 1. Fundamental Flaw: Unmitigable Impacts Described as Mitigable Issue 6.1: Mussel Mortality Cannot Be Mitigated Location: Section 6.8.1 Problem: Proposes “minimization and/or mitigation methods” for 1.6 million mussel kills including: - Mussel relocation - Long-term monitoring - Propagation and reintroduction - Mussel habitat creation or enhancement - Compensatory funding support Critical Reality: - 1.6 MILLION mussels cannot be “relocated” - they will be dredged into a processing plant and crushed - Relocation of aquatic organisms at this scale has never been successfully demonstrated - Species like Higgens’ eye mussel and other rare mussels cannot be “relocated” - they are embedded in specific substrate - Even if some could be relocated, many species (e.g., fragile mussels like fawnsfoot) would not survive relocation stress - Reintroduction is experimental and has only been attempted at small scales (< 1,000 individuals) - “Compensatory funding” doesn’t actually mitigate biological harm - money doesn’t bring species back from extinction Critical Gap: Describing species mortality as “mitigable” is scientifically dishonest. Once organisms are killed, they cannot be un-killed. Regulatory Violation: Fails to acknowledge that some impacts are “unavoidable and unmitigable” which could trigger decision to not proceed with project. Issue 6.2: Wetland Loss Mitigation Plan Entirely Speculative Location: Section 6.4.1 P a g e | 55 Problem: States mitigation required “at least 2:1 ratio” but then lists options ALL of which may be infeasible: 1. “Creation of backwaters area in current Nelson Sand & Gravel Facility mine area” - No analysis of feasibility 2. “Providing in-kind mitigation in proposed mining area” - Requires destroying wetlands to create wetlands - nonsensical 3. “Supporting implementation of Lower Pool 2 Restoration Project” - Depends on other projects happening 4. “Implementing projects outside Lower Pool 2” - Vague, undefined 5. “Partnering with resource management agencies” - Aspirational, not planned 6. “Wetland bank credit purchase” - Chapter 4 warns 93% of credits already consumed Critical Reality: - Requires destroying 216.7 acres of existing high-functioning wetlands - Creation of 433.4 acres (2:1 ratio) of new wetlands assumes source material and sites are available - not demonstrated - Wetland creation requires decades to reach functional equivalency - not acceptable for immediate impacts - No specific sites identified, no specific method, no cost estimates - “Mitigation decisions would ultimately be made during Project permitting” - This means EIS is incomplete Regulatory Violation: CEQ regulations require “specific mitigation measures” in the EIS, not “TBD during permitting.” Issue 6.3: “Mitigation Is Not Proposed” for Groundwater Despite Risks Location: Section 6.5.1 Problem: States “Mitigation is not proposed due to low impact potential.” Critical Reality: - Chapter 4 identifies potential for contaminated dredge material - Chapter 4 states “Groundwater flows into the Project area and is not recharged by the Mississippi River” - This means contamination would flow AWAY from river into groundwater - exactly opposite of what EIS assumes - If contamination is mobilized, it WILL reach groundwater and migrate away from site - No monitoring plan proposed despite acknowledged uncertainty Critical Gap: Admits “low impact potential” but fails to propose any monitoring to confirm impact doesn’t occur. This is not adequate mitigation - it’s absence of mitigation. 2. Mitigation Plans Are Vague and Incomplete Issue 6.4: Slope Failure “Emergency Measures” Not Detailed Location: Section 6.2.1 Problem: States if slopes fail, “emergency measures such as slope re-contouring, sheet piling, or other appropriate means would be implemented.” P a g e | 56 Critical Gaps: - What determines if slope “indicates risk of failure”? No thresholds specified - What does “sheet piling” mean for underwater slope failure? How would this work? - Who decides on “emergency measures”? What is decision-making process? - What if emergency measures fail? What is contingency? - Who pays for emergency measures? - What if emergency measures block river navigation? - Timeline for implementation? Minutes? Days? Critical Deficiency: “Emergency measures” are not specified in enough detail to be enforceable or reviewable. Issue 6.5: Undocumented Contamination “BMPs” Unspecified Location: Section 6.6.1 Problem: States “This risk would be mitigated through use of sediment management BMPs.” Critical Gap: Does not specify: - What BMPs? - Who selects BMPs? - How will BMPs work underwater during dredging? - Monitoring plan to detect contamination? - What triggers cessation of mining? - Who evaluates “plumes of unknown origin”? Critical Deficiency: Proposes “BMPs” without describing what they are or how they would function. Issue 6.6: Fisheries Mitigation Not Detailed Location: Section 6.8.1 Problem: States “Project permitting would formalize fisheries mitigation requirements.” Critical Gap: - What are the requirements? - How many fish will be killed? - What is mitigation for that mortality? - How will “silt curtains” prevent fish mortality when fish travel through silt? - What about spawning disruption? - What about food web disruption? Critical Deficiency: States mitigation required but does not specify what it would be. Issue 6.7: Mussel Mitigation Plan Entirely Conditional Location: Section 6.8.1 Problem: States “mitigation decisions would ultimately be made during Project permitting” and “mitigation plan would be developed to meet permitting requirements.” P a g e | 57 Critical Gap: - Cannot evaluate adequacy of mitigation if it’s not specified - Cannot assess cost of mitigation if it’s unknown - Cannot determine feasibility if it hasn’t been designed - Cannot make informed decision about environmental impacts Regulatory Violation: NEPA requires proposed action and mitigation be described with sufficient specificity to evaluate impacts. 3. Impossible or Unworkable Mitigation Proposed Issue 6.8: Off-Site Backfill Material Source Not Identified Location: Section 6.2.1 Problem: States “Off-site material would be needed to backfill to bring the proposed mining area more closely match existing bathymetry; this may include USACE-dredged materials in the future.” Critical Reality: - Requires massive volume of material (for Alternative B: mined to 100 feet depth over 265 acres) - Source material not identified - “May include USACE-dredged materials” - not guaranteed - No analysis of whether sufficient material exists - No cost estimate for hauling material - No timeline for when material would be available - What if USACE doesn’t cooperate? - What if other uses out-compete for material? Critical Gap: Proposes backfill with material that may not exist and timeline that’s indefinite. This is not mitigation - it’s hoping mitigation will appear. Issue 6.9: Mussel Relocation at 1.6 Million Scale Is Impossible Location: Section 6.8.1 Problem: Lists “Mussel relocation” as mitigation option. Critical Reality: - 1.6 million mussels is unprecedented scale for relocation - Would require scuba divers manually collecting mussels - At this scale, would require thousands of diver-hours - No suitable relocation sites identified - No guarantee relocated mussels would survive - No funding identified - No timeline identified - Alternative D notes “survey would be required” but doesn’t even attempt relocation Critical Gap: Describes mitigation that is logistically impossible and for which precedent doesn’t exist. P a g e | 58 Issue 6.10: Habitat Creation Without Sites or Methods Location: Section 6.4.1 Problem: Lists multiple habitat creation/restoration options but provides no specificity on: - Location of sites - Engineering design of restoration - Species to be planted - Success criteria - Monitoring plan - Performance bonds - Timeline to functional equivalency Critical Gap: Aspirational mitigation that lacks actionable detail. 4. Monitoring Plans Are Inadequate Issue 6.11: Bathymetric Survey Frequency Not Specified Location: Section 6.2.1 Problem: States slopes “would be monitored through bathymetric surveys…completed periodically.” Critical Gaps: - What is “periodically”? Monthly? Quarterly? Annually? - Who conducts surveys? - Who reviews results? - Who decides on emergency measures? - What is trigger for emergency action? - What if survey detects imminent failure on Friday - who responds? Critical Deficiency: Vague monitoring with no enforcement mechanism. Issue 6.12: No Monitoring Plan for Contaminant Mobility Location: Section 6.6.1 Problem: States “should plumes of unknown origin be observed during mining, mining shall cease” but provides no: - Systematic monitoring plan - Detection methods - Sampling protocols - Analytical methods - Decision-making criteria for “unknown origin” - Who determines cessation? - How is water quality tested? Critical Gap: Proposes cessation of mining if contamination detected but provides no systematic way to detect it. Issue 6.13: Mussel Monitoring “Long-Term” Without Specificity Location: Section 6.8.1 Problem: Lists “Long-term monitoring” as mitigation but does not specify: - What is monitored? Mortality rates? Recruitment? Species diversity? - How long? 5 years? 50 P a g e | 59 years? Forever? - Who conducts monitoring? - Who pays? - What are success criteria? - What if monitoring shows mitigation failed? Critical Gap: “Long-term monitoring” is vague and unenforceable without specificity. 5. Cost and Feasibility Not Addressed Issue 6.14: No Cost Estimates for Mitigation Location: Entire Chapter 6 Problem: Proposes extensive mitigation measures but provides NO cost estimates for: - Mussel relocation (if feasible) - Mussel propagation programs - Wetland creation (433+ acres) - Slope stabilization emergency measures - Off-site backfill material hauling - Contamination cleanup - Long-term monitoring - Habitat restoration - Cultural resource mitigation Critical Gap: Cannot assess whether mitigation is financially feasible if costs are unknown. Regulatory Requirement: NEPA requires disclosure of costs so decision-makers can evaluate feasibility. Issue 6.15: Financial Assurance Not Addressed Location: Chapter 6 Problem: Proposes mitigation requiring potentially tens of millions of dollars but does not address: - Is Amrize financially capable of implementing mitigation? - What happens if Amrize declares bankruptcy mid-project? - Are bonds required and adequate? - Who pays for “emergency measures”? - Who pays for contaminated material handling? - Who pays for long-term monitoring? Critical Gap: Without financial assurance, mitigation may never occur. Issue 6.16: Mitigation Timeline Not Specified Location: Entire Chapter 6 Problem: States “Project permitting would formalize…requirements” but does not specify: - When mitigation occurs relative to mining? Before? During? After? - Timeline to wetland creation functional equivalency? (Decades) - Timeline to slope stabilization? (During active mining) - Timeline to mussel reintroduction success? (Unknown if ever) P a g e | 60 Critical Gap: Mitigation without timeline cannot be enforced or evaluated. 6. Aspirational vs. Guaranteed Mitigation Issue 6.17: Conditional Language Used Throughout Location: Throughout Chapter 6 Examples: - “would be needed” - “may include” - “could be” - “anticipated” - “under consideration” - “would be developed” - “ultimately be made” Critical Problem: Uses conditional language describing speculative future mitigation rather than committed mitigation. Regulatory Requirement: EIS must describe “proposed mitigation” not “possible future mitigation.” Issue 6.18: “To Be Determined During Permitting” Location: Sections 6.4.1, 6.8.1 Explicit Statements: - “Mitigation decisions would ultimately be made during Project permitting.” - “Project permitting would formalize…requirements” - “Additional evaluation would be needed…” Critical Violation: EIS is incomplete if critical mitigation “to be determined later.” Regulatory Interpretation: This is effectively admitting the EIS does not contain sufficient information for informed decision-making. Issue 6.19: Wetland Mitigation Credits May Not Exist Location: Section 6.4.2 Problem: For Alternative D, states “Impacts are expected to be of a scale that they could be mitigated through purchase of wetland bank credits at a 2:1 ratio.” Critical Reality from Chapter 4: - 93% of available wetland bank credits already consumed - Only 145 acres remaining statewide - Alternative D requires mitigating 11 acres at 2:1 = 22 acres needed - This would consume 15% of remaining state supply - What if credits run out before permitting complete? Critical Gap: Proposes mitigation method that may not be available. P a g e | 61 7. Specific Mitigation Inadequacies Issue 6.20: Speed Limit to “Minimize Wildlife Impacts” Location: Section 6.7.1 Problem: Proposes “speed limit of 10 miles per hour would be utilized for access roads” as wildlife mitigation. Critical Reality: - Wildlife doesn’t read speed limit signs - 10 mph won’t prevent mortality from equipment - 10 mph won’t prevent habitat fragmentation - 10 mph won’t prevent displacement - 10 mph won’t prevent barrier effects Critical Deficiency: Minimal measure trivializing major wildlife impacts. Issue 6.21: Construction Timing as Only Mitigation Location: Sections 6.7.1, 6.9.1 Problem: Proposes “constructing during winter months” or “avoiding breeding season” as sole mitigation for wildlife/bat impacts. Critical Reality: - Some wildlife present year-round - Habitat loss is permanent regardless of timing - Species disrupted by construction may not return - “Avoiding breeding season” doesn’t avoid displacement of adults Critical Deficiency: Timing controls don’t eliminate impacts, only delay them. Issue 6.22: Silt Curtains for Turbidity but Not Fatalities Location: Section 6.8.1 Problem: Proposes “silt curtains around dredge unit” to “exclude fish from entering the active working area.” Critical Reality: - Silt curtains are temporary and will be penetrated by currents - Aquatic organisms ARE in the area before curtain placement - Migratory fish may not respect curtain boundaries - Curtains don’t prevent mortality from dredge equipment - Curtains don’t prevent habitat destruction under dredge Critical Deficiency: Describes partial mitigation as complete mitigation. P a g e | 62 Issue 6.23: Visual Mitigation Through Lighting Controls Location: Section 6.11.1 Problem: Proposes BLM lighting guidance to minimize visual impacts. Critical Reality: - Lighting controls don’t address massive visual change from mining - Barrier berms will be visible regardless of lighting - Mining equipment visible regardless of lighting - Noise and other impacts not addressed by visual mitigation Critical Deficiency: Addresses minor visual impact while ignoring major visual transformation. 8. Missing Critical Mitigation Issue 6.24: No Mitigation for Headcutting Risk Location: Section 6.3.1 Problem: Chapter 4 acknowledges risk of headcutting, but Chapter 6 proposes only riprap and other measures without specific mention of headcutting prevention. Critical Gap: 4.5 feet of main channel erosion and 4.1 feet downstream erosion documented but no specific mitigation other than generic “riprap.” Issue 6.25: No Mitigation for Sediment Accumulation Location: Section 6.3.1 Problem: Chapter 4 documents “up to 33 feet of deposition” but Chapter 6 proposes only generic “riprap” without addressing deposition impacts. Critical Gap: Major deposition events not directly mitigated. Issue 6.26: No Mitigation for Invasive Species Despite Mention Location: Section 6.8.1 Problem: States “The need for mitigation is not anticipated” despite identifying risk of invasive species spread. Critical Gap: Identifies risk but proposes no monitoring or enforcement measures. P a g e | 63 Issue 6.27: No Mitigation for Cumulative Impacts Location: Entire Chapter 6 Problem: Chapter 4 documents cumulative impacts of 70 years of prior mining plus proposed mining, but Chapter 6 provides NO specific mitigation addressing cumulative effects. Critical Gap: Cumulative impacts are addressed analytically but not mitigated. 9. Regulatory Compliance Issues Issue 6.28: Mitigation Plans Insufficient for Permit Application Location: Entire Chapter 6 Problem: Mitigation measures proposed are too vague for actual permit applications, which require: - Specific site plans - Engineering designs - Performance standards - Success criteria - Monitoring protocols - Financial assurance - Enforcement mechanisms Critical Gap: This is a Final EIS but mitigation is at a “conceptual” stage suitable for Draft EIS only. Issue 6.29: “Mitigation During Permitting” Is Inadequate Location: Sections 6.4.1, 6.8.1 Problem: States mitigation “ultimately be made during permitting” but NEPA requires “specific mitigating measures” identified during environmental review phase. CEQ Guidance (40 CFR 1502.14(f)): > “The statement shall specify when, where, and how mitigation measures will be adopted and implemented.” Critical Violation: EIS does not meet CEQ requirement for specificity. Issue 6.30: No Adaptive Management Framework Location: Entire Chapter 6 Problem: Does not propose adaptive management plan for: - Unknowns about impact severity - Uncertain mitigation effectiveness - Contingency if mitigation fails - Ongoing monitoring and adjustment P a g e | 64 Critical Gap: For unprecedented operations, adaptive management is essential but absent. SUMMARY OF CRITICAL FINDINGS Must Be Addressed Before Approval: 27. Specify Exact Mitigation: Cannot have “TBD during permitting” - must be specified in EIS 28. Provide Cost Estimates: Cannot assess feasibility without costs 29. Identify Specific Sites: Wetland creation, habitat restoration sites must be identified 30. Provide Timeline: When does mitigation occur relative to impacts? 31. Demonstrate Feasibility: Show that 1.6M mussel relocation, 433-acre wetland creation, etc. are actually achievable 32. Financial Assurance: Bonds, insurance, guarantees that mitigation will be completed 33. Acknowledge Unmitigable Impacts: Some impacts cannot be mitigated - must acknowledge 34. Monitoring Plans: Specific protocols, frequency, enforcement 35. Success Criteria: How will we know if mitigation worked? 36. Failure Contingencies: What if mitigation fails? Fatal Deficiencies: • Proposes mitigation for impacts that are unmitigable (species mortality) • States mitigation “to be determined” - makes EIS incomplete • No cost estimates for potentially millions in mitigation • No financial assurance for mitigation implementation • Wetland mitigation relies on credits that may not exist • Mussel relocation at 1.6M scale is untested and likely impossible • Off-site backfill material source unknown and may not exist • No adaptive management for unprecedented operations Critical Missing Information: • How much will mitigation cost? • Who pays for mitigation? • What happens if mitigation fails? • Are mitigation measures actually feasible? • When will mitigation occur? • Who monitors and enforces? P a g e | 65 • What are success criteria? • What if adaptive management reveals unacceptable harm? P a g e | 66 Critical Analysis: Chapter 7 - List of Preparers Executive Summary Chapter 7 lists those responsible for preparing the EIS, but this superficial listing reveals critical conflicts of interest, gaps in expertise for this unprecedented project, and significant competency concerns. Most importantly, this chapter confirms that consultants working FOR the applicant (Amrize) prepared the environmental impact analysis - creating an inherent bias that is reflected throughout the EIS in systematic impact minimization. 1. Fundamental Conflict of Interest Issue 7.1: Consultants Working for Applicant, Not Lead Agency Location: Page 7-1, Line 2 Problem: States “Barr under contract with Amrize and at the direction of the City.” Critical Reality: - Barr Engineering is working FOR Amrize (the applicant) - Barr is PAID by Amrize - City merely provides “direction” but contracting relationship is with Amrize - This creates inherent bias toward approval of project - Consultant’s financial incentive is to minimize impacts to secure permit Critical Conflict: NEPA fundamentally requires independent analysis. This is like defendant hiring their own expert to testify for prosecution. The consultant’s financial interest is in project approval, not environmental protection. Industry Practice: Typically, lead agency hires consultants OR consultants acknowledge they work for applicant which colors their analysis. Here, chapter doesn’t even acknowledge this relationship creates potential bias. Issue 7.2: No Independence Statement Location: Entire Chapter 7 Problem: Nowhere does the EIS state: - Whether Barr Engineering has ongoing business relationships with Amrize - Whether Barr Engineering’s compensation is contingent on permit approval - Whether Barr Engineering has other contracts with Amrize that create financial dependency - Whether Barr Engineering will benefit from future contracts if project approved Critical Gap: Cannot evaluate potential bias without disclosure of all financial relationships. P a g e | 67 Issue 7.3: Lead Agency Control Issues Location: Page 7-1 Problem: States “at the direction of the City” but also states “under contract with Amrize.” Critical Questions: - Who actually pays Barr Engineering’s invoices? Amrize or City? - Does City have authority to direct work if Amrize is paying? - What happens when City directs work Amrize doesn’t want to pay for? - How can “direction” be given by someone not party to contract? Critical Gap: Dual relationship creates accountability gap - who is Barr ultimately answerable to? 2. Expertise Gaps and Insufficient Experience Issue 7.4: No Specialized Expertise for Unprecedented Project Location: Table 7-1, Entire Table Problem: This is a project of unprecedented scale and complexity: - Largest wetland impact in Minnesota recent history - 1.6 million mussel mortality - largest ever attempted - Underwater slope stability with documented risk of failure - Cumulative impacts on Mississippi River after 70 years of prior mining Critical Expertise Gaps: - No specialists in freshwater mussel conservation at 1.6M scale - No specialists in underwater slope stability for 100-foot deep mines - No specialists in cumulative impact assessment - No wildlife biologists specialized in Mississippi River ecosystems - No climate scientists despite significant GHG analysis - No specialists in Indigenous cultural resources beyond single staff member Reality Check: This is like having general practitioners perform complex surgery. The team is competent generalists but lacks expertise in the specific unprecedented challenges this project presents. Issue 7.5: Inadequate Mussel Expertise Location: Table 7-1, Emily Grossman Problem: Lists “Malacologist, M.S. Biology, 11 years experience” but: - This person is subcontracted from EnviroScience (not Barr employee) - 11 years experience but has there EVER been a project removing 1.6 million mussels? - M.S. in Biology is general - no P a g e | 68 indication of specialization in Mississippi River mussels - No indication of expertise in relocation, propagation, or restoration Critical Gap: For unprecedented mussel mortality, consultant with standard credentials may be insufficient. Comparison: This is like consulting a pediatrician for complex heart surgery - might have relevant background but not the specialized expertise needed. Issue 7.6: Groundwater Assignment to Junior Staff Location: Table 7-1, Liz Evenocheck Problem: Groundwater assigned to person with “2 years of experience.” Critical Reality: - Alternative D requires groundwater appropriation permit for “up to 400 gallons per minute” - Project involves dewatering massive areas under river - Project involves potential PFAS and contamination concerns - Project involves complex groundwater-surface water interactions in Mississippi River backwaters Critical Gap: Assigning to least experienced team member the most complex and potentially controversial aspect (water appropriation) of the most environmentally risky alternative. Comparison: This is like having a medical intern perform the most complex surgery on the most critical patient. Issue 7.7: Wildlife Impacts to Non-Expert Location: Table 7-1, Jess Butler Problem: One person (Jess Butler) assigned to “Vegetation, Wildlife, Aquatic Biota, Rare and Unique Natural Resources, Wetlands, Cumulative Impact Analysis.” Critical Reality: - These are distinct disciplines requiring different expertise - Rare and unique resources typically require specialist input - Cumulative impact analysis requires specialized training and expertise - Wildlife in Mississippi River corridor requires specific knowledge of this ecosystem Critical Gap: Assigning SIX different complex topics to single person guarantees none will receive adequate expert attention. Reality Check: This is like one doctor simultaneously handling cardiology, neurology, oncology, orthopedics, psychiatry, and radiology - impossible to do adequately. P a g e | 69 Issue 7.8: No Independent Peer Review Location: Entire Chapter 7 Problem: Entire EIS prepared by single consulting firm with no indication of: - Independent peer review by other experts - Agency peer review of scientific methods - Validation of modeling assumptions - Review of conclusions by specialists in each field Critical Gap: No quality control mechanism to catch errors or biases. Industry Standard: Complex EISs typically receive peer review from specialists not affiliated with applicant or consultant. 3. Competency Concerns Issue 7.9: Cumulative Impact Analysis Shared Across Multiple Generalists Location: Table 7-1, Multiple entries Problem: Cumulative Impact Analysis assigned to: - Jess Butler (Senior Ecologist) - primary - Tyler Conley (Environmental Scientist, 7 years) - secondary - Gina Greenleaf (Chemical Engineer) - secondary - Hagen Kaczmarek (Senior Environmental Scientist) - secondary - Veronica Parsell (Cultural Resources Specialist) - secondary Critical Reality: - Cumulative impact analysis requires specialized expertise in: - Statistical methods - Temporal modeling - Spatial analysis - System-level dynamics - Regulatory interpretation - No one person has primary responsibility - Spread across 5 people but no cumulative impact specialist Critical Gap: Chapter 4.15 cumulative analysis was clearly inadequate - this is why. No one had the expertise to do it properly. Issue 7.10: Cultural Resources to Single Staff Member Location: Table 7-1, Veronica Parsell Problem: One person (13 years experience) assigned to: - Cultural Resources (hundreds of archeological sites) - Visual impacts - Noise impacts - Cumulative Impact Analysis Critical Reality: - Chapter 4 documents 487 archeological sites and 147 burial mounds - Requires consultation with tribes, SHPO, OSA, MIAC - Requires evaluation of human remains disturbance potential - Requires visual modeling and noise modeling (engineering work typically) - Requires cumulative impact analysis (different skill set) P a g e | 70 Critical Gap: Impossible for single person to adequately address all of this, especially with added burden of visual/noise/cumulative. Issue 7.11: Contamination Assessment Split Without Coordination Location: Table 7-1, Multiple entries Problem: “Contamination, Hazardous Materials, and Waste” assigned to: - Jamie Bankston, PE (Vice President, 24 years) - primary - Casy Fath, PG (Geologist, 10 years) - secondary - Dan Fetter, PE (Vice President, 30 years) - secondary Critical Issues: - Three people with different backgrounds (engineering vs. geology) - Not clear who has overall responsibility - Potential for inconsistent approaches - No indication of coordination process Critical Gap: Chapter 6.6.1 discussion of contamination mitigation was vague - this is why. Responsibility was divided without clear leadership. 4. Qualifications Don’t Match Responsibility Issue 7.12: Air Quality/Climate to Chemical Engineer Location: Table 7-1, Gina Greenleaf Problem: Air Quality, GHG Emissions, and Climate Change assigned to “Senior Chemical Engineer.” Critical Reality: - Climate change analysis requires understanding of: - Climate science - Atmospheric physics - Regulatory policy - Emission factors and modeling - Chemical engineering background may provide some modeling skills but lacks climate science expertise - GHG emissions require understanding of LCA methodology, climate policy, emission factors for transportation/materials Critical Gap: While chemical engineer may have relevant skills, lacks the climate policy and climate science specialization needed for comprehensive climate analysis. Issue 7.13: Geologist Assigned Contamination Location: Table 7-1, Casy Fath Problem: Person with “B.S. Geology” and “M.S. Teachers in Adolescent Earth Science Education” assigned contamination/hazardous materials. P a g e | 71 Critical Reality: - Contamination assessment requires: - Chemistry - Toxicology - Risk assessment - Environmental engineering - Geology background is relevant but insufficient - Education degree has no relevance to contamination assessment Critical Gap: Qualifications don’t align with responsibilities. Issue 7.14: No Water Resources Specialist for Complex Hydraulics Location: Table 7-1 Problem: Surface Water assigned to Hagen Kaczmarek (Physical Geography/Pol. Sci) and Tom MacDonald (Civil Engineering) but project requires: - Complex 2D hydraulic modeling (HEC-RAS) - Sediment transport analysis - Headcutting risk assessment - Underwater slope stability - River geomorphology Critical Reality: - Tom MacDonald has relevant background but: - One person doing all surface water modeling for such a complex system? - Chapter 4 documented major modeling limitations and errors - No water resources engineering specialist assigned Critical Gap: Adequacy of surface water analysis in Chapter 4 was questionable - staffing is insufficient for complexity. 5. Missing Critical Expertise Issue 7.15: No Native American Consultation Specialist Location: Table 7-1 Problem: Cultural resources person (Veronica Parsell) must handle tribal consultation for: - 487 archeological sites - 147 burial mounds - 4 identified traditional cultural properties - Requires consultation with multiple tribes - Requires understanding of NAGPRA - Requires understanding of cultural protocols Critical Gap: Does not indicate whether this person has the relationships, training, and experience required for effective tribal consultation. This is not a skill set that can be learned on the job. Regulatory Requirement: Early and continuous consultation with federally recognized tribes is required. Issue 7.16: No Financial Assurance Expert Location: Entire Chapter 7 P a g e | 72 Problem: No one listed as responsible for: - Reclamation cost estimates - Reclamation bond adequacy - Mitigation cost estimates - Financial assurance compliance Critical Gap: Chapter 6 proposed extensive mitigation with no cost estimates. This explains why - no financial expertise on team. Issue 7.17: No Mitigation Design Specialist Location: Entire Chapter 7 Problem: No one listed as specifically responsible for: - Wetland mitigation design (433+ acres) - Mussel relocation methodology - Habitat restoration engineering - Reclamation plan engineering Critical Gap: Chapter 6 mitigation plans are vague because no one on team has expertise in mitigation design for wetlands or freshwater mussels. Issue 7.18: No Risk Assessment Specialist Location: Entire Chapter 7 Problem: Project involves unprecedented risks: - Underwater slope failure - Dredge getting stuck in silt - Mitigation failure - Cumulative ecosystem collapse Critical Gap: No one assigned to comprehensively assess these risks. Chapter 4 acknowledges risks but doesn’t adequately assess probability or consequences. 6. Transparency Issues Issue 7.19: Role Definitions Are Vague Location: Table 7-1, Column 4 “Responsibility” Problem: Lists like “Barr Principal in Charge” or “Barr Project Manager” but: - What does “Principal in Charge” mean in practice? - Who made final decisions? - Who was responsible for quality control? - Who was responsible for accuracy? - Who was responsible for objectivity? Critical Gap: Cannot evaluate accountability when roles are not clearly defined. P a g e | 73 Issue 7.20: Experience Levels Don’t Guarantee Competence Location: Table 7-1, Years of Experience Column Problem: Lists “Years of Experience” but: - Does not indicate in what field - Does not indicate quality of experience - Does not indicate whether experience is relevant to THIS project - 35 years experience as “Administrative Assistant” not relevant to environmental assessment Critical Gap: Years of experience don’t necessarily translate to competency for unprecedented challenges. Issue 7.21: No Disclosure of Conflicts Location: Entire Chapter 7 Problem: Does not disclose: - Whether any preparer has financial interest in project approval - Whether any preparer has previous contracts with Amrize - Whether any preparer will benefit from future contracts if project approved - Whether any preparer has consulting relationships with City beyond this project - Whether any preparer has other clients with competing interests Critical Gap: Cannot assess potential bias without disclosure. 7. Document Quality Issues Issue 7.22: No Certification of Professional Conduct Location: Entire Chapter 7 Problem: No statement that preparers: - Followed generally accepted scientific standards - Conducted analysis independently - Based conclusions on available data - Did not suppress unfavorable data - Did not exaggerate favorable data Critical Gap: Cannot evaluate whether preparers adhered to professional standards without certification. Issue 7.23: No Quality Assurance Statement Location: Entire Chapter 7 Problem: No indication of: - Review procedures - Quality control measures - Fact- checking protocols - Peer review processes - Error correction methods P a g e | 74 Critical Gap: Cannot assess reliability of analysis without quality assurance procedures. 8. Specific Preparer Concerns Issue 7.24: Principal in Charge Is Soil Scientist, Not Environmental Assessment Expert Location: Table 7-1, Cheryl Feigum Problem: “Barr Principal in Charge” has PhD in Soil Science but this is an environmental impact assessment requiring: - NEPA/MEPA expertise - Ecological risk assessment - Cumulative impact assessment - Regulatory interpretation Critical Gap: Principal in Charge should have extensive EIS preparation experience, not just technical expertise in soils. Issue 7.25: Wetland Specialist Has No Wetland Credentials Location: Table 7-1, Karen Wold Problem: Lists “Wetlands” responsibility but “B.A. St. Olaf College” and “Years of Experience: 18” with no indication of: - Wetland delineation training - Functional assessment training - Mitigation design training - Wetland banking expertise Critical Gap: For project requiring destruction of 216.7 acres of wetlands and creation of 433+ acres for mitigation, insufficient credentials. Issue 7.26: Fisheries Biologist Has Only B.S. Location: Table 7-1, Dave Czayka Problem: Fisheries assigned to “Senior Aquatic Biologist” with only “B.S. Biology” and 19 years experience but: - This is Mississippi River fisheries with endangered species - Requires knowledge of migratory patterns - Requires knowledge of habitat requirements - Requires assessment of spawning disruption Critical Gap: For project killing unknown thousands of fish and disrupting critical habitat, might need specialist with higher credentials. P a g e | 75 SUMMARY OF CRITICAL FINDINGS Must Be Addressed Before Approval: 37. Disclose Full Financial Relationships: All contracts, past and future, between Barr and Amrize 38. Provide Independent Review: EIS must receive peer review from specialists not affiliated with applicant 39. Add Expertise for Unprecedented Aspects: – Mussel conservation specialist for 1.6M mortality – Underwater slope stability engineer for 100-foot mines – Wetland restoration specialist for 433+ acres creation – Cumulative impact assessment specialist 40. Enhance Tribal Consultation Capability: Dedicated specialist with relationships and training 41. Reassign Junior Staff: 2-year experience hydrogeologist cannot handle water appropriation for D 42. Add Financial Expertise: For cost estimates and financial assurance assessment 43. Add Mitigation Design Expertise: For wetland creation, habitat restoration 44. Add Risk Assessment Expertise: For comprehensive risk evaluation Fatal Deficiencies: • Consultants working for applicant creates inherent bias • No independent peer review • Insufficient expertise for unprecedented project scope • Junior staff assigned to most complex aspects • No specialists in critical areas (mussels, underwater slopes, wetland creation) • Missing financial and risk assessment expertise • Inadequate staff for cumulative impact analysis • No disclosure of conflicts of interest Critical Missing Information: • What is full extent of Barr-Amrize financial relationship? • Are there other Barr contracts with Amrize? • Who will pay for mitigation if Barr’s cost estimates are wrong? • Where is independent verification that analysis is sound? • Why are most qualified people not assigned to most critical impacts? • What quality control ensures objectivity? • What accountability exists if analysis proves deficient? P a g e | 76 Critical Analysis: Chapter 8 - References Executive Summary Chapter 8 lists 150 references used in the EIS, but on detailed examination reveals critical problems: self-referential studies by the same consulting firm, outdated and superseded sources, missing citations for critical claims, reliance on internal documents not publicly available, and references to standards that don’t actually support the conclusions drawn. Most critically, many references appear to be “fill” rather than substantive support for the analysis, and key claims lack proper citations entirely. 1. Self-Referential Studies Raise Credibility Issues Issue 8.1: Multiple References to Barr Engineering’s Own Work Location: References 34, 40, 43, 49, 119, 112, 142 Problem: EIS prepared by Barr Engineering Co. cites extensively its own previous work: - Reference 34: “Barr Engineering Co. Nelson Mine Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Statement. September 2010.” - Reference 40: “Barr Engineering Co. Hydraulic Modeling Summary: Nelson Mine Backwater Project. December 2023.” - Reference 43: “Barr Engineering Co. 2022 CFI Pine Bend Terminal Barge Slip Sediment Characterization memorandum.” - Reference 49: “Barr Engineering Co. Wetland Delineation Report: Nelson Mine Backwater. May 2022.” - Reference 119: “Barr Engineering Co. Slope Stability Analysis: Nelson Mine Backwaters Project. January 2023.” Critical Reality: - Self-citation is circular - Barr validates its own previous work - No independent peer review of Barr’s own studies - Previous EIS (2010) was for different project - citation implies continuity but may not be valid - Slope stability analysis (Reference 119) was done by Barr - but Barr is responsible for project - conflict of interest - Wetland delineation (Reference 49) by Barr cited as if independent assessment Critical Gap: Can’t evaluate whether citations are valid without seeing the actual documents being cited. Self-reference prevents independent validation. Issue 8.2: Recent Barr Reports Not Publicly Available for Review Location: References 40, 119 Problem: References to “December 2023” and “January 2023” Barr reports that: - Are not publicly available - Cannot be reviewed for accuracy - Cannot be evaluated for methodology - May be specific to this project P a g e | 77 Critical Gap: EIS cites work products that reviewers cannot access to verify claims. 2. Outdated and Superseded References Issue 8.3: References to 2010 EIS for 2024 Project Location: Reference 34 Problem: “Barr Engineering Co. Nelson Mine Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Statement. September 2010.” Critical Issues: - This was 14 years ago - Environmental conditions have changed - Regulatory requirements have changed - Current project is NOT an expansion of previous project - it’s a new project - Previous EIS would have been for different geographic area Critical Gap: Implies continuity where none exists. Also, as an uncertified practitioner citation of one’s own prior unrelated work doesn’t count for anything. Issue 8.4: Outdated Wetland Guidance (2010) Location: Reference 52 Problem: “Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. Comprehensive General Guidance for Minnesota Routine Assessment Methodology (MnRAM) for Evaluating Wetland Functions Version 3.4 (beta). September 15, 2010.” Critical Issues: - This is 14 years old - Version 3.4 was beta version - likely superseded - Wetland assessment methods have evolved - Regulatory standards have changed Critical Gap: Applying 14-year-old beta guidance to 2024 project. Current methods may differ substantially. Issue 8.5: Outdated PMRAM Guidance (2007) Location: Reference 54 Problem: “Milburn, Scott A., Bourdaghs, Michael and Husveth, Jason J. Floristic Quality Assessment for Minnesota Wetlands (wq-bwm2-01). s.l., St. Paul, MN : Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, May 2007.” Critical Issues: - 17 years old - Methods likely superseded - Reference 53 cites 2014 updated version - Inconsistency - using old version alongside new Critical Gap: Why cite 2007 version when 2014 version exists (Reference 53)? P a g e | 78 Issue 8.6: 1994 Data Used for Current Conditions Location: Reference 80 Problem: “Fremling, Cal R. Mississippi River Fisheries: A Case History. Cal Fremling Papers. 1989. 34.” Critical Issues: - 35 years old - Fisheries have changed substantially since 1989 - Habitat conditions have changed - Species composition may have changed - Climate conditions have changed Critical Gap: Using 35-year-old fisheries data to assess current impacts is scientifically invalid. Issue 8.7: 1992 Macroinvertebrate Data Location: Reference 92 Problem: “Kuklinska, Bozena. Macroinvertebrate Analysis Report. 1997.” Critical Issues: - 27 years old - Macroinvertebrate community composition changes over time - Water quality conditions have changed - Using historical data without updating assessment Critical Gap: 27-year-old biological data is inadequate for current impact assessment. 3. Missing Critical References Issue 8.8: No References for Mussel Relocation Success Location: Chapter 6 discusses mussel relocation but no citation provided Problem: Chapter 6.8.1 proposes “Mussel relocation” as mitigation but: - No citations provided for any successful mussel relocation programs - No citations for relocation at 1.6M individual scale - No citations for Higgens’ eye mussel relocation - No citations for Mississippi River mussel relocation programs Critical Gap: Proposes mitigation with no scientific basis - no references exist because this hasn’t been done successfully. P a g e | 79 Issue 8.9: No References for Wetland Creation Feasibility Location: Chapter 6 discusses wetland creation but no specific feasibility studies cited Problem: Proposes creating 433+ acres of wetlands but doesn’t cite: - Any successful wetland creation projects of this scale - Specific soil science studies for the area - Water availability studies - Success criteria or monitoring protocols - Cost estimates from similar projects Critical Gap: Proposes massively expensive mitigation with no evidence it’s feasible. Issue 8.10: No References for Headcutting Prevention Location: Chapter 4 discusses headcutting but no specific engineering solutions cited Problem: Acknowledges headcutting risk but doesn’t cite: - Engineering solutions for headcutting prevention - Case studies of headcutting control - Design standards for headcutting prevention - Riprap design specifications for underwater slopes Critical Gap: Proposes generic “riprap” solution without engineering basis. Issue 8.11: No References for Underwater Slope Stability Engineering Location: Chapter 4 discusses slope stability but limited citations provided Problem: Discusses underwater slope stability for 100-foot deep mines but doesn’t cite: - Engineering standards for underwater slope angles - Case studies of underwater mine slope failures - Monitoring protocols for underwater slope stability - Emergency response procedures for underwater landslides Critical Gap: Proposes unprecedented engineering with limited technical basis. 4. Incomplete or Inadequate Citations Issue 8.12: “Unpublished” Data Cited Without Access Location: Reference 82 Problem: “Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Total Catch, Both Sites. 2008. unpublished (Nelson Mining Site, Grey Cloud Slough).” Critical Issues: - Cannot be verified without access to unpublished data - Not peer- reviewed - 16 years old - Why is it unpublished? P a g e | 80 Critical Gap: Citing unpublished 16-year-old data that can’t be accessed for verification. Issue 8.13: Internet Citations May Be Broken Location: Multiple references throughout Problem: Cites many internet URLs but: - Links may break over time - URLs are location- specific and may change - Content may be updated rendering citations stale - Can’t archive offline Critical Gap: Public reviewers may not be able to access cited materials. Examples: - Reference 1: https://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/Locks- Dams/Lock-Dam-2/ - Reference 4: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ecs/index.html - Reference 11: https://rs.umn.edu/ - Many others throughout Issue 8.14: Email Citations Not Accessible Location: References 44, 85 Problem: - Reference 44: “Aggregate Industries. Email to Barr Engineering Co.” - Reference 85: “Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Email to Barr Engineering Co.” Critical Issues: - Private communications not accessible to public - Cannot be reviewed for content - Cannot be verified for accuracy - May contain privileged or confidential information Critical Gap: Basing EIS conclusions on private communications that public cannot review. 5. Questionable Source Quality Issue 8.15: Newspaper Articles Cited as Evidence Location: References 145, 146 Problem: - Reference 145: “Haumesser, Andrew F. In the Aggregates: Forty-two Years in the Sandbox. Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration, 2023.” - Reference 146: “Bornhoft, William. Solar Gardens Growing In Rosemount. Patch Media, February 27, 2017.” Critical Issues: - Reference 145 appears to be industry propaganda from mining society - Reference 146 is irrelevant to project (about solar gardens) - Newspaper articles are not peer-reviewed science - May contain biased or inaccurate information P a g e | 81 Critical Gap: Using industry literature and irrelevant news articles as “sources” is inappropriate for scientific EIS. Issue 8.16: Light Pollution Map Without Methodology Location: Reference 123 Problem: “Stare, Jurij. Light Pollution Map. https://www.lightpollutionmap.info/.” Critical Issues: - Online map without publication - No peer review - Methodology not documented - May be crowdsourced or unverified data Critical Gap: Using unverified online data source for environmental analysis. Issue 8.17: Wikipedia-Level Sources for Critical Analysis Location: References 24, 38, 79, 88 Problem: Citing sources that are essentially fact sheets or overview websites rather than technical studies: - Reference 79: “Waterbird use of Mississippi River Pool No. 2…Draft.” - Reference 88: “Fish of the Mississippi River.” National Park Service web page Critical Gap: Using overview pages rather than detailed technical studies for scientific analysis. 6. Inconsistencies Between References and Claims Issue 8.18: Citations Don’t Support “Functional Replacement” Claims Location: Throughout wetland analysis Problem: Proposes 2:1 wetland mitigation but cites references that don’t actually support feasibility: - Reference 56 (USACE Mitigation) doesn’t state 2:1 is always achievable - Reference 57 (St. Paul District Policy) doesn’t guarantee credits available - Reference 59 (Wetland Bank Credits) documents scarcity but doesn’t address adequacy Critical Gap: Citations don’t actually support the proposal that wetland creation will work. Issue 8.19: Cumulative Impact References Don’t Address Project Location: Cumulative impact analysis P a g e | 82 Problem: References 147-150 don’t actually support cumulative impact analysis: - Reference 147: “Twin Cities locks and dams scoping documents” - Reference 148: “Lower Pool 2 Channel Management Study” - Reference 149: Rosemount AUAR - Reference 150: Meta data center news article Critical Gap: These don’t establish “cumulative impact” as required - just reference other projects without integration. Issue 8.20: Mussel Survey References Don’t Support 1.6M Mortality Location: References 88-91 Problem: Citations describe surveys but don’t actually provide: - Methodology for extrapolating to 1.6M - Confidence intervals for estimates - Uncertainty quantification - Verification that assumptions are valid Critical Gap: Surveys exist but don’t support the specific claims made about mortality. 7. Missing Critical Literature Issue 8.21: No References to Mussel Conservation Science Location: Mussel analysis lacks foundational citations Problem: For unprecedented 1.6M mussel mortality, should cite: - Standard textbooks on freshwater mussel biology - Conservation biology literature on species translocation - Mussel propagation and reintroduction research - Mississippi River mussel restoration case studies - Regulatory guidance from USFWS for Higgens’ eye mussel Critical Gap: Lacks foundational science necessary to evaluate proposals. Issue 8.22: No References to Ecological Cumulative Impact Methods Location: Cumulative impact analysis Problem: Should cite: - CEQ guidance on cumulative impacts (40 CFR 1508.7) - Academic literature on cumulative impact assessment methodology - Case studies of cumulative impacts in river systems - Statistical methods for cumulative impact analysis Critical Gap: Has generic citations but lacks specific cumulative impact methodology. P a g e | 83 Issue 8.23: No References to Climate Vulnerability Assessment Location: Climate analysis Problem: Discusses climate change but doesn’t cite: - IPCC reports - Regional climate projections for Minnesota - Vulnerability assessment methods - Climate adaptation planning guidance Critical Gap: Climate analysis lacks scientific foundation. Issue 8.24: No References to Financial Assurance Standards Location: Mitigation discussion Problem: Discusses reclamation and mitigation costs but doesn’t cite: - Minnesota mining reclamation standards - Financial assurance calculation methods - Bond adequacy standards - Comparable reclamation cost studies Critical Gap: Cannot assess adequacy of financial assurance without standards. 8. Inappropriate Use of Government Documents Issue 8.25: Uses Draft Documents as Final Location: References 79, 83, 121 Problem: - Reference 79: “Draft.” - Reference 83: “DRAFT.” - Reference 121: “Feasibility Study-DRAFT” Critical Issues: - Draft documents are not finalized - May contain errors - Have not been through final review - Content may change Critical Gap: Relying on draft documents for critical conclusions is inappropriate. Issue 8.26: Circular Citation - EIS Citing Itself Location: Throughout EIS Problem: Future readers will cite this EIS, but it cites its own conclusions as if they were established fact. For example, if wetland delineation (Reference 49) was done for THIS project, citing it back to support THIS project is circular. Critical Gap: Can’t validate conclusions when they’re supported by the same work that drew the conclusions. P a g e | 84 9. Accessibility Issues for Reviewers Issue 8.27: Many Citations Not Publicly Accessible Location: Multiple references throughout Problem: References include: - Private emails - Unpublished data - Draft documents - Internal memos - Contract reports Critical Gap: Public reviewers cannot access these materials to verify claims. Regulatory Requirement: NEPA requires EIS to be reviewable by public. If cited materials aren’t accessible, EIS is not reviewable. Issue 8.28: Over-Reliance on Internet URLs Location: Heavy emphasis on online sources Problem: URLs can: - Break - Be updated (making citations stale) - Be taken down - Require authentication Critical Gap: Online-only citations may become inaccessible over time. SUMMARY OF CRITICAL FINDINGS Must Be Addressed Before Approval: 45. Provide Access to Cited Materials: All citations must be publicly accessible 46. Eliminate Self-Referential Circularity: Remove Barr citations of its own work unless absolutely necessary 47. Update Outdated References: Replace 10+ year old sources with current data 48. Remove Unpublished Data: Don’t cite unpublished or inaccessible sources 49. Provide Missing References: Add citations for critical claims about: – Mussel relocation feasibility – Wetland creation feasibility – Slope stability engineering – Cumulative impact methodology 50. Remove Irrelevant Citations: Delete references to solar gardens and other unrelated topics 51. Add Peer-Reviewed Sources: Replace web pages and news articles with peer- reviewed studies P a g e | 85 52. Cite Regulatory Requirements: Add proper citations for NEPA/MEPA requirements 53. Provide Access Mechanisms: Make hard copies available or create permanent archive 54. Verify All URLs Work: Check that all web links are functional and will remain so Fatal Deficiencies: • Heavy reliance on self-citation (Barr citing Barr) • 14-35 year old data presented as current • Unpublished or inaccessible sources cited extensively • Missing citations for most critical claims • Internet URLs that may break • Newspaper articles and industry propaganda cited as science • Draft documents used as if final • Emails and private communications cited without public access Critical Missing Information: • Where are the scientific studies supporting mussel relocation at this scale? • Where are the studies supporting wetland creation of 433+ acres? • Where are the engineering standards for underwater 100-foot slope stability? • Where is the cumulative impact methodology being applied? • Why cite outdated data when current data exists? • How can the public review materials that aren’t publicly accessible? • What happens when URLs break or are updated? P a g e | 86 Critical Analysis: Appendices A-F Executive Summary The appendices reveal critical information not adequately addressed in the main EIS chapters, including severe deficiencies in the alternatives screening process (Appendix A), regulatory warnings about permit requirements (Appendices B & E), inadequate visual simulation documentation (Appendix C), questionable emission calculations (Appendix D), and incomplete responses to public comments (Appendix F). Most critically, the appendices confirm that critical mitigation and consultation are “to be determined” during permitting, making this Final EIS incomplete. APPENDIX A: Alternatives Screening Report Issue A.1: Screening Criteria Vague and Subjective Location: Section 4, Page 4 Problem: Criteria include “Environmental Benefit” and “Socioeconomic Benefit” without definitions or quantification methods. Critical Gap: No measurable thresholds to determine when an alternative qualifies for analysis. Issue A.2: Purpose and Need Overly Narrow Location: Page 337, Section 3 Problem: States “approximately 70 percent of aggregate resources in the Twin Cities metropolitan area are covered by development” and “depleted by year 2029.” Critical Reality: - This data is from 2000 - 24 years old - Projected depletion date of “2029” is now only 5 years away - clearly outdated - Entire purpose and need based on outdated information Critical Gap: EIS based on 24-year-old market analysis predicting crisis that may not exist. Issue A.3: Alternative Sites Inadequately Analyzed Location: Section 6.2.4, Pages 19-43 P a g e | 87 Problem: Analysis relies on: - Minimum 80 acres (later increased to 120 acres per MDNR recommendation) - 20-mile radius from customers - Excludes urban areas, public lands, and agricultural preserve program lands Critical Gaps: - No analysis of sites 20-50 miles away - No analysis of sites in agricultural areas that could be purchased - No analysis of financial capacity to purchase sites - Section 6.2.4.2 creates elaborate screening maps but key constraints (like agricultural preserve enrollment) are addressable with “8 year notice” requirement Critical Deficiency: Eliminates reasonable alternatives without demonstrating they’re truly infeasible. Issue A.4: Coates Site Analysis Acknowledges Major Problems Location: Pages Throughout Section 6.2.4.2 Problem: Documents for Coates alternative: - 40 homes would need to be removed - Requires Dakota County Conditional Use Permit - Requires multiple township permits - Has wetlands - Has water wells - Has buildings and infrastructure - Has hazardous liquid pipelines Critical Gap: Lists all these problems but still considers it “viable” - should have been eliminated from detailed analysis given these constraints. Issue A.5: Conservative Transportation Radius Limits Location: Page 873, Section 6.2.4.1 Problem: States “20-mile radius was considered” to “limit transportation costs.” Critical Reality: - This arbitrarily excludes many potentially viable sites - No analysis of whether customers would pay slightly more - No analysis of whether sites 25-30 miles away are truly infeasible Critical Gap: Artificially constrains search to favor river-based alternative. Issue A.6: Modified Scale Alternative Reduced Too Much Location: Section 6.5.1, Page 47 Problem: Reduced scale alternative cuts footprint but still: - Destroys 180+ acres of wetlands - Kills 1.36 million mussels - Requires 433+ acres of wetland mitigation Critical Gap: Not meaningfully different - still catastrophic. P a g e | 88 APPENDIX B: IPaC Species List Issue B.1: Lists Endangered Species But EIS Minimizes Impacts Location: Throughout Appendix B Critical Species Identified: - Higgens’ eye mussel (Endangered) - Tricolored bat (Proposed Endangered) - Whooping crane - Rusty patched bumble bee (Endangered) - Monarch butterfly (Proposed Threatened) - Multiple state-listed species Critical Gap: Appendix identifies these species but main EIS treats impacts as “potential” and “not likely to adversely affect” with vague mitigation promises. Issue B.2: States “NOT FOR CONSULTATION” But Used in EIS Location: Throughout Appendix B Problem: Every page states “This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts. NOT FOR CONSULTATION” Critical Violation: Using document explicitly marked as “NOT FOR CONSULTATION” as basis for impact analysis in EIS violates regulatory requirements. Issue B.3: IPaC Is Automated Tool Not Site-Specific Location: Page 22 Problem: States “This report is an automatically generated list” based on “known or expected range of each species.” Critical Gap: - Not based on site-specific surveys - Based on probability models - Cannot be used as definitive impact assessment Critical Deficiency: EIS relies on automated tool outputs rather than project-specific surveys. APPENDIX C: Visual Simulation Issue C.1: Simulations Only From Limited Viewpoints Location: Throughout Appendix C P a g e | 89 Problem: Photos taken from: - Public access points - Not from private residences - Limited angles Critical Gap: Real residences like those on River Acres Road most impacted don’t have photo simulations. Public Comment Response: EIS acknowledges “Photo points were not taken from the yards of residences in the River Acres Road area as these properties are privately owned” - but offers 2022 photos “from the water adjacent to” rather than FROM the residences. Issue C.2: Leaf-Off Views Only Location: Throughout Appendix C Problem: Majority of visual simulations are “leaf-off” conditions. Critical Gap: Doesn’t show summer views when impact would be most visible. Issue C.3: No Nighttime Visual Analysis Location: Appendix C Problem: EIS discusses 24-hour operation with lights but provides no nighttime visual simulation. Critical Gap: Public comment states lights will affect view but no simulations provided. Issue C.4: Doesn’t Show Progression Over 20-25 Years Location: Appendix C Problem: Provides “snapshot” views but doesn’t show how visual impact changes as mining progresses. Critical Gap: Public deserves to see what their view will look like in year 5, 10, 15, 20. APPENDIX D: Air Emissions Calculations Issue D.1: Emission Factors May Be Outdated Location: Page D-7 Problem: References “2008 EPA document” for emission factors. P a g e | 90 Critical Gap: - 16 years old - Emission standards have tightened - Vehicles more efficient now Critical Deficiency: Using outdated emission factors underestimates impacts. Issue D.2: Doesn’t Calculate Operational Emissions Location: Throughout Appendix D Problem: Only calculates transportation emissions, not: - Mining equipment emissions - Processing equipment emissions - Barge emissions (mentioned but not detailed) Critical Gap: Missing major emission sources. Issue D.3: Downplays Increase Due to Distance Location: Page D-1 Problem: Shows Alternative D (Coates) has lower emissions (87,491 tons) than No Action (102,525 tons). Critical Reality: But Alternative D: - Requires destroying 40 homes - Has no barge access - Would require all truck transport Critical Gap: Transportation emissions presented without context of other massive impacts. Issue D.4: Assumes Truck Fleet Not Controlled Location: Page D-17 Problem: States “Holcim does not own a trucking fleet. Customers provide trucking to their facilities.” Critical Gap: Cannot mandate emission controls but proposes mitigation for trucks they don’t control. APPENDIX E: MDNR Natural Heritage Reviews Issue E.1: Multiple Permits Required But Not Detailed Location: All Three Letters (Alternative B, C, D) P a g e | 91 Critical Permits Required: - “Permit to take” for endangered/threatened species - “Permit to take” for 1.6 million mussels - “Incidental Take Permits” for listed mussel species - Wetland Conservation Act permits - No “violation of Minn. Stat. 307.08” (Native burial sites) Critical Gap: EIS doesn’t address whether these permits can be obtained or what conditions would be imposed. Issue E.2: Surveys Required But Not Conducted Location: Throughout Appendix E Requirements Stated: - “Survey would be required” - “Qualified surveyor needed” - “Further surveys may be needed” Critical Gap: Surveys NOT done for Final EIS - deferred to “during permitting.” Regulatory Violation: Cannot complete Final EIS without required survey data. Issue E.3: “1.6 Million Mussels” Establishes Catastrophic Impact Location: Alternative B Review, Page 5 Problem: State clearly states “1.6 million mussels…are estimated to occupy the project area.” Critical Reality: - This is an unprecedented kill - “Permit to take will be needed” - “Relocation” is impractical at this scale Critical Gap: EIS doesn’t adequately address this catastrophe. Issue E.4: Habitat Surveys Incomplete Location: Throughout Appendix E Problem: States repeatedly “suitable habitat exists” but doesn’t confirm presence. Critical Gap: Cannot determine impacts without surveys. Issue E.5: Avoidance Seasons Conflict With Operations Location: Throughout Appendix E P a g e | 92 Requirements: - “Avoid disturbance April 1 - July 31” for birds - “Avoid work in water April 1 - June 15” for fish - “No mowing/burning April - October” for rusty patched bumble bee Critical Reality: - Mining occurs “early March through mid-November” - Direct conflict with required avoidance periods Critical Gap: EIS doesn’t explain how to resolve conflict between operational needs and species protection. Issue E.6: State-Listed Plants Require Botanical Survey Location: Alternative B and C Reviews Problem: Multiple endangered/threatened plants identified but states surveys needed. Critical Gap: Surveys not done for Final EIS. APPENDIX F: Public Comments and Responses Issue F.1: Responses Don’t Address Core Concerns Location: Throughout Appendix F Common Concerns: 1. Property value impacts - “beyond RGU’s authority” 2. Burial mounds - “coordination during permitting” 3. Noise/Visual impacts - “discussed in Section X” 4. PFAS concerns - “noted” Critical Deficiency: Responses acknowledge concerns but don’t propose solutions. Issue F.2: Dismisses Native American Concerns Location: Comments 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, etc. Concerns Raised: - Burial mounds - Sacred sites - Cultural desecration - Need for Tribal consultation Responses: Generic statements about “coordination during permitting” and “Section 106 compliance.” Critical Gap: Doesn’t address spiritual/cultural impact - only legal compliance. P a g e | 93 Issue F.3: Public Not Confident in No Burial Mounds Location: Multiple comments Concern: Residents believe burials exist on site. Response: States “no evidence of burial mounds within project area” from Phase I survey. Critical Gap: Phase I survey may be insufficient for underwater areas. Issue F.4: Noise Measurements From 2010 Location: Comment 28.4, 38.4 Concern: Noise studies are 14 years old. Response: States measurements valid because “operations would remain the same.” Critical Gap: - Nearby homes have been built since 2010 - Sound attenuation may have changed - Doesn’t address that dredge will be CLOSER to homes Issue F.5: Doesn’t Address Property Value Loss Location: Comments 28.1, 28.6 Concern: Property values will decrease. Response: “Beyond RGU’s authority to assess property value impacts.” Critical Deficiency: Major concern for residents but dismissed as outside scope - inadequate response. Issue F.6: Silt and Sediment Concerns Dismissed Location: Comments 5.2, 28.7 Concern: Shoreline will become shallow from sedimentation. Response: “Modeling indicates deposition is not anticipated to increase.” Critical Gap: Doesn’t guarantee sedimentation won’t occur or what happens if it does. P a g e | 94 Issue F.7: Rosemount Opposition to Alternative D Ignored Location: Comment 30.1 Problem: City of Rosemount states “not supportive of any amendment to City’s zoning ordinance that would expand mineral extraction.” EIS Response: Adds text noting Rosemount opposition. Critical Gap: Alternative D should have been eliminated if city won’t permit it. Issue F.8: MPCA PFAS Warnings Not Addressed Location: Comments 31.4, 31.5, 31.6 Critical Warnings: - “Dredge material should be managed within channel itself and not moved off-site” - “Proposed expansion area abuts southern terminus of known groundwater contamination plume” - “Future NPDES permits may require monitoring and/or include effluent limits” EIS Responses: “Comment noted” or “Will be managed in accordance with applicable regulations.” Critical Gap: Doesn’t explain HOW PFAS will be managed or what happens if contamination discovered. Issue F.9: National Park Service Extension Request Location: Comment 1.1 Problem: NPS requests 7-day extension due to federal holidays reducing comment time. Response: Extended by 15 days instead of 7. Critical Issue: NPS is federal agency with “oversight responsibilities” - their comments needed before Final EIS should have been issued. Issue F.10: “Too Many” vs. “Not Enough” Ready-Mix Plants Location: Comments 32.1, 39.1 Concern: EIS implies only 3 ready-mix plants exist but there are “dozens.” Response: “The three ready-mix plants discussed are those clients served by Nelson mine.” P a g e | 95 Critical Clarification Needed: EIS implies supply crisis but reality is competitive market. Issue F.11: Lake of Outstanding Biological Significance Location: Comments throughout Problem: Multiple comments reference this designation but EIS downplays significance. Appendix E States: “Pool 2 of Mississippi River has been labeled a Lake of Outstanding Biological Significance.” Critical Gap: Doesn’t adequately address why mining in “Outstanding” waterbody is acceptable. Issue F.12: Responds to Concerns By Pointing to Other Sections Location: Throughout Appendix F Pattern: “Potential impacts discussed in Section X of EIS.” Critical Deficiency: - Circular response - Doesn’t actually solve the problem - Just references back to analysis that doesn’t adequately address concerns SUMMARY OF CRITICAL FINDINGS Must Be Addressed Before Approval: 55. Conduct Required Surveys: Mussel, botanical, habitat surveys required by MDNR but not done 56. Obtain Required Permits: Cannot approve without knowing whether permits obtainable 57. Update Market Analysis: 2000 data predicting 2029 crisis is outdated 58. Expand Alternative Site Search: 20-mile radius is arbitrary - analyze sites further away 59. Address Property Value Impacts: Major concern for residents 60. Resolve Burial Mound Concerns: Tribal consultation and surveys needed 61. Provide Complete Mitigation Plans: “To be determined” is insufficient 62. Calculate ALL Emissions: Operational emissions missing 63. Update Visual Simulations: From actual residences, nighttime, all seasons 64. Respond to Public Concerns Substantively: Not just “discussed in Section X” P a g e | 96 Fatal Deficiencies: • Multiple surveys required but deferred to “during permitting” • Permits required but existence and conditions unknown • Public comments not adequately addressed • Alternative sites inadequately searched • Market data 24 years old • Property value impacts ignored • Tribal concerns dismissed • Mitigation “to be determined” makes EIS incomplete From:Daniel Elder To:Environmental Impact Study Cc:Emily Schmitz; Wayne Sandberg; Frank Ticknor; Lyssa Leitner; Connor Schaefer; Georgia Eilertson; Emma.Dvorak@metc.state.mn.us Subject:Washington County Comments Nelson Mine Backwaters Project EIS Date:Tuesday, October 28, 2025 3:34:25 PM Attachments:Outlook-bkbffsyz.png Washington County Comments Nelson EIS.pdf EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING: This email originated from an outside organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, I have attached Washington County's comments for the Nelson Mine Backwaters Project EIS. If you have any questions please reach out. Thanks, Daniel Elder | Planner II Washington County Public Works Department 11660 Myeron Road North, Stillwater, MN 55082 Office: 651-430-4307 Rooted in Connection, Growing with Direction Book time to meet with me ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notice of Email Domain Name Change Note that this email address has changed to @washingtoncountymn.gov. Please update your contacts Washington County is in the process of changing employee email addresses from co.washington.mn.us to washingtoncountymn.gov North Shop | 11660 Myeron Road North | Stillwater, MN 55082-9537 P: 651-430-4300 | F: 651-430-4350 | TTY: 651-430-6246 www.washingtoncountymn.gov Washington County is an equal opportunity organization and employer Washington County appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Nelson Mine Backwater Project. The County values the importance of careful evaluation and transparent communication regarding this project, particularly given its potential impacts on the local environment, community, and recreational opportunities. Washington County previously participated as a member of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and appreciates the opportunity to provide formal comments on the EIS. Our comments only apply to the alternatives presented in Washington County. Grey Cloud Island Regional Park Master Plan The County acknowledges the City’s response that federal consultation under Section 106 will occur during U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permitting. Given the cultural and historic significance of Lower Grey Cloud Island, the County recommends that the RGU continue proactive coordination with affected Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs) prior to federal consultation. The County reiterates the need for a detailed shoreline reclamation and restoration plan. Without this information, the County cannot evaluate long-term compatibility with future park development and scenic quality objectives. Examples may include: • Specific design standards for shoreline stabilization, vegetation restoration, and visual mitigation of industrial features such as the conveyor and transfer channel. • A timeline for reclamation activities linked to phased mining operations. The County reiterates the need for a comprehensive natural resource inventory. This would establish a baseline for reclamation and habitat restoration objectives. The County requests that the FEIS include a commitment to conduct this inventory and share results with the County and relevant agencies. The County requests the FEIS identify a clear framework for monitoring, compliance, and enforcement. Specifically: • Identification of the lead agency responsible for oversight during reclamation. • Required frequency and content of progress reports and site inspections. • Mechanisms for public transparency. The County appreciates that Section 4.15.2 has been updated per previous comments. The County requests continued acknowledgment in subsequent permitting documents that the project area is within the future influence area of a planned regional park, and that visual, ecological, and cultural restoration be aligned with long-term regional park objectives. Mitigation of Visual Impacts The County reiterates that early integration of visual mitigation into project design is essential. Public Information and Signage The County supports the City’s intent to coordinate on safety and access management. PUBLIC WORKS Wayne Sandberg, P.E., Director, County Engineer Frank D. Ticknor, P.E., Deputy Director North Shop | 11660 Myeron Road North | Stillwater, MN 55082-9537 P: 651-430-4300 | F: 651-430-4350 | TTY: 651-430-6246 www.washingtoncountymn.gov Washington County is an equal opportunity organization and employer Transportation The proposed project indicates that there will not be an increase in traffic on Washington County roads. The County remains committed to ensuring safe and sustainable transportation infrastructure, and this analysis confirms that current traffic conditions will be maintained. As such, Washington County Public Works has no comments regarding the EIS other than that Washington County supports responsible aggregate mining in the local area. Aggregate resources are essential for maintaining and developing our region's infrastructure, and the County recognizes the importance of balancing economic development with environmental stewardship. Washington County Public Health and Environment Washington County encourages further study of the following items during the permitting process in regards to mining activity in the Mississippi River: mining BMPs for differing flow patterns as well as the long-term impacts of altered water flow, increased TSS, and turbidity on aquatic habitat quality. The Groundwater Atlas of Washington County, Minnesota identifies portions of the existing and proposed project area as having high pollution sensitivity. Proper precautions should be taken in areas with high pollution sensitivity. The county encourages ongoing and meaningful engagement with Native American tribes on this project. Thank you for the opportunity to review the Amrize Nelson Quarry EIS. If you have any questions, please get in touch with me at 651-430-4307 or daniel.elder@washingtoncountymn.gov Sincerely, Daniel Elder Planner II Cc (email only): Wayne Sandberg, Public Works Director/County Engineer Frank Ticknor, Deputy Director of Public Works Lyssa Leitner, Public Works Planning Director Connor Schaefer, Senior Planner Georgia Eilertson, Planner, Public Health and Environment Emma Dvorak, Senior Planner, Metropolitan Council From:Christine Fugate To:Environmental Impact Study Subject:EIS Letter Fugate Date:Tuesday, October 28, 2025 10:43:20 PM Attachments:EIS Letter Fugate .pdf You don't often get email from xtinefugate@gmail.com. Learn why this is important EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING: This email originated from an outside organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Ms. Emily Schmitz, I have included a letter regarding comments and concerns over the proposed Nelson Mining Expansion off Lower Grey Cloud Island. Please let me know if there is trouble with document. Thank you, Christine Fugate October 26, 2025 Ms. Emily Schmitz Community Development Director 12800 Ravine Pkwy S, Cottage Grove, MN 55016 To Ms. Emily Schmitz, My name is Christine Fugate, I live at 10655 Grey Cloud Trl S. I live off the Grey Cloud Slough/Channel. I have many concerns over mining in the Mississippi River near Grey Cloud Island. I have spent most of my life living near the Mississippi River. I witnessed the Great Flood of 1993, while living in Quincy, Illinois. I witnessed the catastrophe of when the levees broke in West Quincy and a barge escaped to collide with an Aerco gas station on July 16, 1993, creating black smoke and fire clouds over a mile high. I spent ten years as a utility worker and representative of a major natural gas and electricity provider. I became well-informed on the environment and how extracting natural resources can have negative, damaging, and often detrimental and irreversible impacts on water systems, even when regulations are strictly followed. I have strong concerns over pollution and the release of toxins from disturbing sediments in the river, especially in an area that is already compromised with concerningly high levels of PFAS per the MN watershed reports from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The Minnesota Department of Health reported in July of 2023 that Pool 2 of the Mississippi River (the area from St. Paul to Hastings) was one of two areas in the metro area that children and pregnant women should absolutely not eat fish from due to PFAS, PCBs, and mercury. Even healthy adult men should not eat more than one fish per month from Pool 2. I also have concerns over fuels, oils, and other pollutants from the equipment that will be needed to mine the area. Machines break, and these pollutants leak, spill, and contaminate. You can only plan so much for a natural disaster and flooding. With climate change, these disasters are getting harder to predict, and much more frequent. What happens if a boat or barge goes rogue and crashes, or if another plane crashes near the mine like it did on September 15, 2020? What’s the plan if an F3, 4 or 5, tornado strikes the mining facility? We’re talking about a 20-25 year plan for mining. I don’t think its a matter of “if” but “when” a disaster costing millions of dollars to fix, usually paid by tax payers, will happen. What’s the plan to fix the area after mining? Who’s going to fix it? Taxpayers? A note on noise. I saw mention in an earlier document that there had been “no noise complaints”. I live about a mile from the current mining location on the Lower Grey Cloud Island. Noise is an issue. We’ve all accepted it knowing that there wasn’t anything we could do to change it, and that the current mining situation would be ending soon. It has never occurred to any of us to report on it, or even who we would contact to complain about it. My husband loves to sleep with the windows open in summer. Every night you hear the sound of large chains moving equipment and, my guess, some sort of large conveyer belt. If that wasn’t loud enough to keep you awake, you will definitely be woken up a few times a week, usually between 12AM and 3AM, by large crashing sounds. I swear, I even heard demolition explosions at night, a few times, coming from the area. I can’t imagine that would be appealing to the luxury homes being built at Mississippi Landing. With the current plan to add 400 homes at Mississippi Landing, and a possible 300 homes rumored for the island. Housing prices could be greatly impacted. Everything you read about river mining tells you how dangerous it is to the environment and how when something goes wrong, the damage is often permanent in destroying ecosystems. Minnesotans have worked for decades to improve these waters. Just because a company promises to do everything it can to make it safe, all so they can turn a profit, often at the expense of tax payers, doesn’t make it right. Cottage Grove will need to decide if its going to choose its people and its plans for housing in the area, or an industry that by design, destroys whatever it touches. Sincerely yours, Christine Fugate From:Kent Byrne To:Environmental Impact Study Subject:Nelson Backwaters Mining Project Date:Tuesday, October 28, 2025 5:43:03 PM You don't often get email from kent.byrne@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING: This email originated from an outside organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. My wife and I built our home on River Acres Rd in 1993. Looking out over the river we realized the tranquility beauty and wildlife of this area. I believe that all of that and more will be lost if this project is allowed. I strongly ask the City of Cottage Grove to put a stop to it NOW! Kent Byrne kent.byrne@yahoo.com From:Sue Chamberlain To:Environmental Impact Study Subject:Comments on Final EIS Date:Tuesday, October 28, 2025 11:55:30 PM Attachments:FinalEIS comments 0ct 28.pdf You don't often get email from chamberlainsue@gmail.com. Learn why this is important EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING: This email originated from an outside organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please see the attached letter regarding the Final EIS report. Thank you for your consideration. Sue Chamberlain October 28, 2025 Attn: Emily Schmitz, Community Development Director City of Cottage Grove, MN RE: Final EIS Comments on proposed Nelson Backwaters Project After thoroughly reading the public comments and responses in Appendix F of the Final EIS report, I was very much dismayed to read that most of the responses to serious issues that are lacking in the EIS report were answered by the words “although no further studies are planned during the EIS process, additional studies could be required during the federal and state permitting process.” My comment letter to the draft EIS report raised 34 areas of concern that were either inadequate or lacking in areas that have not provided enough information regarding the consequences of mining down into the Mississippi River and THAT answer to most of my concerns is what I received as a response for most of my questions raised? This EIS report that the City Council of Cottage Grove is supposed to vote on Nov 5 is a crucial document to provide information for a host of agencies that will determine the future of this project and it is simply “kicking the can” down the street to wait and figure out major environmental issues with regard to mining into the river. I ask you, how in the world can the City Council of Cottage Grove even think of agreeing to/passing such an EIS report with major areas of unknown consequence with regard to digging a 200 foot deep mine into the river? No details for how the barri er berms will be constructed to contain the mining area without risking great impact on the water flow of the river or great erosion; no detailed plan whatsoever of how to restore the 216 acres of pristine, protected wetlands that will be destroyed, not to mention what the cost would be to restore in 20 -30 years time. Where is the financially secured funding that this company is going to provide for the reclamation at the end of life of this mining project? What about funding for any liability claims and/or natural resource damage that could potentially happen during the operation of this mine? What if some city south on the river is detrimentally impacted and decide to sue the City of Cottage Grove for allowing this mine to operate in the Mississippi River? Or sue the State of Minnesota? To mine into the Mississippi River and desecrate this beautiful, pristine area of wildlife will have negative, lasting impacts for generations to come—all for the greed of a mining company. Also, still lacking in this report is any vital study of underwater noise created from the mining and its’ detrimental impact to the aquatic life of the river and th e surrounding wildlife. Since I used the word “bedrock” mistakenly in my comments rather than “digging aggregate” my entire comment was disregarded. This is a huge area of study missing from the final EIS report. Moreover, this is a “new” mine of nonmetallic material and as such, is illegal by state law. This mining company is trying to use “smoke and mirrors” to cover over the fact that their original contract is ending when the currently mined aggregate runs out. They propose to physically move to a new geographical location…it is NOT simply expanding the current mining operations as they want everyone to believe. The Mississippi River is a federally mandated public waterway. This mining company thinks that it can “privatize” almost 300 acres of the Mississippi River for its’ own use…to make money…who cares that they will forever ruin Pool 2 and not allow the public to enjoy and use the river for recreational purposes; fishing, hunting, kayaking, bird watching, enjoying the beautiful serenity of the area…as Native Americans did thousands of years ago. I ask each member of the City of Cottage Grove Council and Mayor Bailey to ask themselves if they can , in good conscience, decide to desecrate the mightiest river in America by allowing this EIS report to be voted through. They have the power, right now, to stop this travesty from happening to our Mississippi River. A river that we, as citizens of Cottage Grove, are so fortunate to live near and enjoy it’s beauty. Thank you for your time and serious consideration regarding the dire inadequacies and incompleteness of this final EIS report. Citizen of Cottage Grove, Sue Chamberlain 8151 River Acres Road Cottage Grove, MN 55016 , 1 City Council Action Request 7.T. Meeting Date 11/5/2025 Department Engineering Agenda Category Action Item Title Summers Landing 5th Addition Final Streets - Final Payment Staff Recommendation Adopt Resolution 2025-158 approving the final payment in the amount of $10,966.90 to OMG Midwest, Inc. dba Minnesota Paving & Materials for the Summers Landing 5th Addition Final Street Improvements Project. Budget Implication $10,966.90 - Project Assessments Attachments 1. Summers Landing 5th Addition Final Street Improvements_Closeout Letter 2. Summers Landing 5th Addition Final Street Improvements_Pay Request 2_Final 3. Final Payment 4. Summers Landing 5th Addition Final Street Improvements _IC134s & LWs Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 2080 Wooddale Drive Suite 100, Woodbury MN 55125-2920 October 13, 2025 Paul Sponholz, PE City Engineer City of Cottage Grove 10875 Ideal Avenue S Cottage Grove, MN 55125-2920 Re: Summers Landing 5th Addition Final Street Improvements City of Cottage Grove Stantec Project No. 193805197 Dear Paul, Transmitted herewith is Payment No. 2/Final, IC-134 forms, and Lien Waivers for the Summers Landing 5th Addition Final Street Improvements. The work on this project has been satisfactorily completed by Minnesota Paving & Materials and we recommend final payment in the amount of $10,966.90 at this time. The final pay request releases the project retainage in full. The awarded contract amount was $233,967.00. There were no change orders for this project. The final amount for this project is $219,338.06 which is $14,628.96 under the contract amount. If you have any questions regarding this project, please feel free to call me at 651-248-7079. Sincerely, STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. Dave Sanocki Project Manager Dave.Sanocki@Stantec.com Attachment: Pay Request No. 2/Final Project IC-134 Forms and Lien Waivers CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE TH ADDITION FINAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT WHEREAS, the City Engineer has certified that work has been satisfactorily completed; and WHEREAS, the original total contract amount was $233,967.00. The final con- struction cost was $219,338.04, which is $14,628.96 less than the contract amount. The reduced construction cost was due to a decrease in the quantity of material needed; 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 $10,966.90 is paid to OMG Midwest, Inc. dba Minnesota Paving & Materials for the final payment for the Summers Landing 5th Addition Final Street Improvements Project. Passed this 5th day of November, 2025. Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: Tamara Anderson, City Clerk Contractor Affidavit Submitted Thank you, your Contractor Affidavit has been approved. Confirmation Summary Confirmation Number:1-651-992-032 Submitted Date and Time:18-Sep-2025 3:24:26 PM Legal Name:C R FISCHER & SONS INC Federal Employer ID:41-1716349 User Who Submitted:crfischer Type of Request Submitted:Contractor Affidavit Affidavit Summary Affidavit Number:496840704 Minnesota ID:1605604 Project Owner:CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE Project Number:634150 Project Begin Date:16-Sep-2024 Project End Date:31-Oct-2024 Project Location:SUMMERS LANDING 5TH FINAL STREET COTTAGE GROVE Project Amount:$50,631.01 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. 9/18/25, 3:24 PM mndor.state.mn.us/tp/eservices/_/Retrieve/0/Dc/ZeJObm9zDAzrvkdAbDlS2A__?FILE__=Print2&PARAMS__=50564476848387990… https://www.mndor.state.mn.us/tp/eservices/_/Retrieve/0/Dc/ZeJObm9zDAzrvkdAbDlS2A__?FILE__=Print2&PARAMS__=5056447684838799095 1/1 1 Weidenbacher, Rachel (Minnesota Paving & Materials) From:MN Revenue e-Services <eservices.mdor@state.mn.us> Sent:Wednesday, September 10, 2025 7:29 AM To:juliao@midstatecompanies.com Subject:Your Recent Contractor Affidavit Request This email is an automated notification and is unable to receive replies. Contractor Affidavit Submitted Thank you, your Contractor Affidavit has been approved. Confirmation Summary Confirmation Number: 0-964-576-736 Submitted Date and Time: 10-Sep-2025 7:28:50 AM Legal Name: MID STATE RECLAMATION INC Federal Employer ID: 39-1727526 User Who Submitted: Juliao Type of Request Submitted: Contractor Affidavit Affidavit Summary Affidavit Number: 201011200 Minnesota ID: 1719563 Project Owner: CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE Project Number: 634150 Project Begin Date: 13-Sep-2024 Project End Date: 13-Sep-2024 Project Location: SUMMER LANDING Project Amount: $5,602.00 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. How to View and Print this Request You can see copies of your requests by going into your History. This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may contain nonpublic / private data. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, use, or distribution of the information included in this message and any attachments is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us and immediately and permanently delete this message and any attachments. Thank you. Caution: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments. When in doubt, contact your IT Department 1 City Council Action Request 7.U. Meeting Date 11/5/2025 Department Engineering Agenda Category Action Item Title Pine Hill Elementary - Encroachment Agreement Staff Recommendation Approve the Encroachment Agreement for Independent School District 833, Pine Hill Elementary School located at 9015 Hadley Avenue South and appropriate officials are hereby authorized to sign the Encroachment Agreement to effectuate this action. Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. Memo - Pine Hill Elementary Encroachment Agreement 2025-10-29 2. Encroachment Agreement - signed To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator From: Paul Sponholz, PE, City Engineer Date: October 29, 2025 Re: Pine Hill Elementary School, 9015 Hadley Ave. S. – Encroachment Agreement Background The Independent School District 833 is making improvements at Pine Hill Elementary School. The improvements include the installation of a sanitary manhole that will be within the right-of-way of Hadley Avenue South. There also is an existing sanitary sewer pipe within the Hadley Avenue South right-of-way that services this property only. The encroachment agreement clarifies that this is also part of the private sanitary service dedicated to this property. The improvements are required to service the new expansion areas and comply with Minnesota Plumbing Code. The figure below shows the encroachment area. Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt Pine Hill Elementary School – Encroachment Agreement | October 29, 2025 Page 2 Discussion The agreement defines the responsibilities during construction and the maintenance of these developer improvements after construction. Independent School District 833 has approved and signed the attached encroachment agreement. This agreement will be recorded to the property. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council approve the Encroachment Agreement for Independent School District 833, Pine Hill Elementary School located at 9015 Hadley Avenue South and appropriate officials are hereby authorized to sign the Encroachment Agreement to effectuate this action. 1 City Council Action Request 7.V. Meeting Date 11/5/2025 Department Community Development Agenda Category Action Item Title Roers Amended Retaining Wall Easements Staff Recommendation 1) Approve the amended and restated temporary easement agreement with Roers Cottage Grove Apartments LLC for the construction of a retaining wall. 2) Approve the amended and restated permanent easement agreement with Roers Cottage Grove Apartments LLC for retaining wall improvements. Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. Roers Amended Easement Agreements CC Memo 2. Roers Temp Construction Easement Agreement 3. Roers Permanent Easement Agreement TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator FROM: Samantha Pierret, Senior Planner DATE: October 29, 2025 RE: Roers Amended Retaining Wall Easements Discussion Roers Companies was 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). On September 3, 2025, the Council approved the creation of various easements for the project, including a permanent retaining wall easement and a temporary easement for the construction of the retaining wall. Upon review and revision of retaining wall construction plans, it was determined by the developer’s engineers that additional area is needed for the retaining wall structural components and the temporary construction area. The additional easement areas needed to encompass a few feet of length and width; however, the original easements were recorded on October 7, 2025; therefore, the amended and restated easements require Council approval. Amended Temporary Construction Easement Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt Roers Amended Retaining Wall Easements October 29, 2025 Page 2 of 2 Amended Permanent Retaining Wall Easement Recommendation 1. Approve the amended and restated temporary easement agreement with Roers Cottage Grove Apartments LLC for construction of a retaining wall. 2. Approve the amended and restated permanent easement agreement with Roers Cottage Grove Apartments LLC for retaining wall improvements. 1 City Council Action Request 7.W. Meeting Date 11/5/2025 Department Engineering Agenda Category Action Item Title AJ Ecker Water Connection - Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Woodbury and Right of Way and Utility Easement between Andrew J. Ecker and the City of Cottage Grove. Staff Recommendation Approve the Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Cottage Grove and the City of Woodbury for a residential water service and Approve Right of Way and Utility Easement between Andrew J. Ecker and the City of Cottage Grove. Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. 2025-10-15 Council Memo for JPA with City of Woodbury for AJ Ecker water connection and Right of Way and Utility Easement 2. JPA with City of Woodbury-signed 3. ROW and Utility Easement - 10-29-25 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator From: Paul Sponholz, City Engineer Date: October 29, 2025 Re: Ecker Property: • Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Cottage Grove and the City of Woodbury for a Water Service Connection to a Woodbury Resident • Water Service Connection to a Woodbury Resident – Right-of-Way and Utility Easement Background Mr. Ecker is building a home in the City of Woodbury just north of the Cottage Grove boundary (see Figure 1). Given the lack of public utilities in this area by the City of Woodbury and the close vicinity of public utilities in Cottage Grove, Mr. Ecker has asked to connect to the City of Cottage Grove’s public water main only given PFAS concerns in this area. He is installing a septic system for his sanitary needs and will not be connecting to the public sanitary sewer. Figure 1: Location of Proposed Residential Home in City of Woodbury Honorable Mayor, City Council and Jennifer Levitt Ecker Property | October 29, 2025 Page 2 For this to be considered, two agreements are needed: 1) a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between the City of Cottage and City of Woodbury, and 2) a Right-of-Way and Utility Easement. Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between the City of Cottage Grove and the City of Woodbury Per State Statute, a city is unable to assess properties outside of their jurisdictional boundaries, for example, for a delinquent water bill. Therefore, the JPA will allow the Cottage Grove to invoice the City of Woodbury for the monthly residential water use who would in turn invoice the Woodbury resident. The JPA also addresses responsibilities, operations, connection costs, and termination when public utilities are extended to this property by the City of Woodbury. Right-of-Way and Utility Easement The City of Cottage Grove and the City of Woodbury’s Comprehensive Plans show Jennifer Avenue South as a north-south interconnecting street in the future. Therefore, when Jennifer Avenue South was constructed, a hammerhead turnaround was constructed as a temporary measure and utilities aligned to accommodate that configuration (see Figure 2). Now that Mr. Ecker is constructing his residential home, we want assurance that a permanent solution (i.e. a cul-de-sac and coordinating storm sewer and hydrant placement) could be constructed should the street extension not happen. Therefore, we are obtaining a right-of-way and utility easement. Figure 2: Current Configuration of Street and Utilities Honorable Mayor, City Council and Jennifer Levitt Ecker Property | October 29, 2025 Page 2 Recommendation It is recommended the City Council approve the two agreements including: 1) the Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Cottage Grove and the City of Woodbury for a residential water service, and 2) the right-of-way and utility easement on Mr. Ecker’s property for purposes of a future cul-de-sac and utilities if an interconnecting street is not constructed. . 1 RIGHT OF WAY AND UTILITY EASEMENT THIS RIGHT OF WAY AND UTILITY EASEMENT (“Easement”) is made, granted and conveyed this ______ day of __________________, 2025, by and between Andrew J. Ecker., a single person (“Landowner”), and the City of Cottage Grove, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”). PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Landowner owns real property in Washington County, Minnesota legally described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein (the “Landowner’s Property”). EASEMENT DESCRIPTION The Landowner for and in consideration of One Dollar and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant and convey to the City, its successors and assigns, the following: A permanent right-of-way easement for public right of way, street, utility and drainage purposes and all such purposes ancillary, incident or related thereto (“Easement”) under, over, across, through and upon the real property legally described and identified as Easement Area on Exhibit B and depicted on Exhibit C (collectively “Easement Area”), attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. EXEMPT FROM STATE DEED TAX 2 The rights of the City also include the right of the City, its contractors, agents and servants: (a) To enter upon and have clear and unobstructed access to the Easement Area at all reasonable times for the purposes of construction, inspection, repair, replacement, grading, sloping, and restoration relating to the purposes of the Easement Area; and (b) To remove from the Easement Area trees, brush, herbage, aggregate, undergrowth and other obstructions interfering with the location and maintenance of the utility pipes, conduits, mains and above ground and below ground drainage facilities and to deposit earthen material in and upon the Easement Area; and (c) To remove or otherwise dispose of all earth or other material excavated from the Easement Area as the City may deem appropriate. The City shall not be responsible for any costs, expenses, damages, demands, obligations, penalties, attorneys’ fees and losses resulting from any claims, actions, suits, or proceedings based upon a release or threat of release of any hazardous substances, petroleum, pollutants, and contaminants which may have existed on, or which relate to, the Easement Area or the Landowner’s Property prior to the date hereof. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed a waiver by the City of any governmental immunity defenses, statutory or otherwise. Further, any and all claims brought by Landowner or its successors or assigns, shall be subject to any governmental immunity defenses of the City and the maximum liability limits provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466. The Landowner, for itself and its successors and assigns, does hereby warrant to and covenant with the City, its successors and assigns, that it is well seized in fee of Landowner’s Property described above and the Easement Area described on Exhibit B and depicted on Exhibit C and has good right to grant and convey the Easement herein to the City. Either party may assign this Easement without consent of the other. This Easement is binding upon the heirs, successors, executors, administrators and assigns of the parties hereto. This Easement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. [Remainder of this page has been intentionally left blank] 3 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Easement to be executed as of the day and year first above written. CITY: CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE By: Myron Bailey Mayor By: Tamara Anderson City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON ) On this _____ day of _______________, 2025, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared Myron Bailey and Tamara Anderson to me personally known, who being each by me duly sworn, each did say that they are respectively the Mayor and the City Clerk of the City of Cottage Grove, the Minnesota municipal corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that it was signed on behalf of said municipal corporation by authority of its City Council and said Mayor and City Clerk acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said municipal corporation. Notary Public A-1 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LANDOWNER’S PROPERTY That certain real property located in the City of Woodbury, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, legally described as follows: The South One-Third of the East Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 34, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, Washington County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 34; thence easterly along the southerly line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter for 188.00 feet; thence northerly and parallel with the westerly line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter for 232.00 feet; thence Westerly parallel with said southerly line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter for 188.00 feet to said westerly line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, thence southerly along said westerly line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter for 232.00 feet to the point of beginning. PID: 3402821340001 B-1 EXHIBIT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF EASEMENT AREA A permanent easement for right of way purposes over, under, and across the West 110.00 feet of the East 457.00 feet of the South 110.00 feet of the East Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 34, Township 028 North, Range 21 West, Washington County, Minnesota. C-1 EXHIBIT C DEPICTION OF EASEMENT AREA 1 City Council Action Request 8.A. Meeting Date 11/5/2025 Department Finance Agenda Category Action Item Title Approve Disbursements Staff Recommendation Approve disbursements from 10-10-2025 through 10-30-2025 in the amount of $5,608,730.48. Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. Expense Approval Report 11-05-2025 Council Meeting 2. Payroll Check Register 11-05-25 Council Meeting 3. UB Check Register 11-05-25 Council Meeting 4. UB Check Register 11-05-25 Council Meeting - 2 5. UB Check Register 11-05-25- Council Meeting - 3 1 City Council Action Request 11.A. Meeting Date 11/5/2025 Department Community Development Agenda Category Action Item Title Site Plan Review for Proposed Additions to Grey Cloud Elementary Staff Recommendation 1) Adopt Resolution 2025-162 approving the Site Plan Review of an approximate 3,476 square foot classroom addition, an approximate 6,505 square foot gymnasium addition, and reworking of the site stormwater and parking lots at Grey Cloud Elementary School located at 9525 Indian Boulevard South. 2) Approve the amended permanent drainage and utility easement. 3) Approve the Hydrant Access Agreement with Independent School District 833, which allows the city access to the site’s fire hydrants. 4) Approve the Stormwater Maintenance Agreement with Independent School District 833 for the proposed stormwater pond. Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. Grey Cloud Elementary CC Memo 2. Grey Cloud Elementary Resolution 2025-162 3. Grey Cloud Elementary Civil Plans 4. Grey Cloud Elementary Engineer Review Memo 2025-09-11 5. Grey Cloud Elementary Project Letter 6. Grey Cloud Elementary Stormwater Maintenance Agreement 7. Grey Cloud Elementary Permanent Hydrant Access Easement 8. Grey Cloud Elementary Amended Stormwater Easement TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator FROM: Max Erickson, Planner DATE: October 29, 2025 RE: Site Plan Review for Proposed Additions to Grey Cloud Elementary (ISD 833) Proposal KOMA Architects and Engineers (Applicant), on behalf of South Washington County School District ISD 833 (Property Owner), has submitted an application for a site plan review for building additions to Grey Cloud Elementary, located at 9525 Indian Boulevard. The site improvements include approximately 6,505 square feet for a gymnasium/storm shelter and a 3,476 new classroom addition. The site plan review request also includes minor reworking of the drive lanes within the northeastern and northwestern parking areas and the relocation of a playground. Site Location Review Schedule Application Received: August 27, 2025 Application Accepted: August 27, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting: September 22, 2025 City Council Meeting: October 15, 2025 60-Day Review Deadline: October 26, 2025 120-Day Review Deadline: December 25, 2025 Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt Background Grey Cloud Elementary was approved and constructed in 1990-1991. Several additions to the building have been added since the school’s original construction in 1991. In 2001, an approximate 3,700 square foot addition was approved and constructed along the eastern portion of the building. In 2008, a 2,845 square foot kindergarten addition and 12,570 square foot fifth- grade wing was approved and constructed. The latest addition to Grey Cloud Elementary was completed in 2015 as a restructuring and remodel of the main entrance to the school on the northwestern side of the building. The South Washington County School District had a successful referendum in 2023 for a total of 15 projects across the district including improvements at Cottage Grove buildings at Cottage Grove Middle School, Oltman Middle School, Grey Cloud Elementary, Pine Hill Elementary, and Park High School. Planning Considerations Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Grey Cloud Elementary is zoned R-3, Single-Family Residential, and is guided as Public/Semi- Public on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Educational facilities are permitted within the R-3 zoning district with a Conditional Use Permit. Grey Cloud Elementary was approved in 1990 under a CUP with Resolution 1990-197. Current Zoning 2040 Future Use Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt Site Plan The Applicant is proposing two additions to the Grey Cloud Elementary School building. The first addition proposed is approximately 6,505 square feet and will function as a new gymnasium/storm shelter. This addition will be located on the southwestern corner adjacent to the parking lot and drive lanes. The second addition is approximately 3,476 square feet and will include new classrooms. The location of the new classrooms will be along the northeastern edge of the current structure. The site plan includes alterations to the drive lane at the northwest side of the building and the removal of the small parking area located at the northern corner of the building. The small playground on the southeast side of the building will be relocated adjacent to the new classroom addition. A proposed stormwater pond, which will be located northwest of the main parking lot, is planned to accommodate the proposed building additions. Site Plan The site currently has two existing curb cuts off Indian Boulevard. The northern access is utilized primarily for employee parking and student pickup and drop-off. The eastern access is used for bus pickup and drop-off. Access Locations Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt Parking and Traffic Parking requirements for elementary schools are found in City Code Title 11-3-4(I). Code requires 1 space for each classroom in an elementary school, plus 1 additional space for each 100-student capacity. Currently there are 147 regular parking spaces and 6 handicapped parking spaces. The applicant is proposing to remove 10 spaces in the northeastern parking lot, making the total, after completion of the project, 143 on-site parking spaces. The applicant has indicated that after the proposed additions are completed, Grey Cloud Elementary will have a student capacity of 885 and a total of 43 classrooms requiring 52 parking spaces. The total parking spaces provided exceed what is required under city code. Parking Lot Removal The applicant has also indicated a small modification of the northwestern parking lot. Along the southeast portion of this parking lot exists a small drop-off lane along the sidewalk. This drop-off lane is proposed to be removed and the sidewalk extended to be parallel with the existing drive lane. This will still be utilized as a drop-off location for students. Drive Lane Removal Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt Staff have observed the site traffic operations during pickup at the end of the school day. All vehicle stacking was contained within the site. There were no adverse impacts to traffic on Indian Boulevard, and none are anticipated with the proposed modifications. Tree Preservation Proposed Tree Removal Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt Landscaping The Applicant has submitted a detailed landscape plan including proposed additional landscaping throughout the site. The required number of trees and shrubs for non-residential uses within a residential district is calculated with a coefficient rate found in Title 11-3-12 and multiped by the total disturbed site area. The total project disturbance area is 32,060 square feet; therefore, 8 new deciduous trees, 9 new coniferous trees, and 19 shrubs are required. The applicant has proposed these exact numbers to comply with ordinance requirements. Nonresidential uses operating within a residential district are required to preserve 30 percent of the site area as green/open space. The parcel in which this building resides is shared with Cottage Grove Middle School. This 109-acre parcel has a large sport complex and open space with intermittent wooded areas. With the proposed additions, the site will still retain over 50 percent open space area, and it is therefore compliant with this standard. The R-3 zoning district permits a maximum of 40 percent impervious surface. With both school complexes on the same parcel, there are approximately 21 acres of combined impervious surface. This only accounts for around 20 percent of the parcel and will not exceed the impervious surface maximum set by the city code. No irrigation system exists on the site. The applicant is not proposing to install an irrigation system; however, the applicant has indicated a temporary irrigation system will be in place to establish vegetation. Landscape Plan Per City Code Title 11-3-9, rooftop mechanical equipment as viewed from the centerline of all adjacent rights-of-way and from property lines of all adjacent residential properties must be Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt screened by a raised parapet, or with comparable and compatible exterior building materials. New mechanical rooftop equipment is planned between the gym addition and the existing building, which will be screened behind the gym. The new rooftop equipment will have partial metal screening that will match color and material of the existing building and metal copings aligning with code standards. New Mechanical Rendering of Gym Addition From Parking Lot Photometric Plan Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt application. The plan indicates that the newly proposed lighting will remain under 0.5 footcandles at the property lines and will not exceed the limits of the nearby parking lot. Photometric Plan Architectural Materials West View Gym Addition from Parking Lot Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt Existing Material Proposed BrickProposed Prefab Wall Panel Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt Rendering of New Classroom Addition Utilities The gymnasium addition is proposed to connect to existing private utilities onsite. The classroom addition will require connection of a private sanitary sewer line to the public sanitary sewer manhole within Indian Boulevard. The School District will be required to obtain a sewer/water permit and right-of-way permit for these connections. Additionally, the District shall enter into a hydrant access agreement that would allow the City the right to access District property to maintain, operate, and flush private hydrants within the site. Sanitary Sewer Connection on Indian Boulevard Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt Grading and Storm Water Management There is an existing City stormwater pond within the Grey Cloud Elementary parcel. The school was constructed prior to modern stormwater requirements and currently does not have a dedicated private stormwater basin. The Applicant is proposing construction of a stormwater basin to serve the additional impervious areas being proposed with this site plan modification. The proposed basin is located on the north side of the site, adjacent to the existing City pond. A detailed stormwater management plan was submitted, and the Applicant shall comply with all comments included in the City Engineer Review Memo dated 9/11/25. A private stormwater maintenance agreement will be required to be executed for the proposed private system. A grading LOC will be required prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Proposed Stormwater Pond A drainage and utility easement on the northwest corner of the site currently exists over a portion of an existing City stormwater pond. Since its original construction, the City pond has been expanded to the south, beyond the existing easement. City staff have maintained the original pond and the expanded area, but the easement was never updated to reflect the larger pond. This basin currently services the school district property, Kingston Park, and select residences along Indian Boulevard. The existing stormwater easement is required to be expanded to the south to encompass the pond within the 903.5 elevation. Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt Neighborhood Meeting The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on September 16, 2025, at Grey Cloud Elementary. Notice of the neighborhood meeting was sent to 237 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the property line. The intent of the meeting was to give neighboring property owners the opportunity to ask questions and present concerns they may have to the Applicant. No property owners attended the meeting. Three representatives from the School District and one representative of the Applicant were present. Public Hearing Notices The public hearing notice for the September 22, 2025, Planning Commission meeting was published in the Saint Paul Pioneer Press and mailed to 237 property owners within 500 feet of the proposed project on September 10, 2025, and an amended notice was sent on September 15, 2025. Staff have not received any written comments at the time of writing the report. Planning Commission Meeting The City’s Planning Commission reviewed this proposal and held a public hearing at their September 22, 2025, meeting. One clarifying question was requested by the Commission as follows: Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt • What was the reason for the playground being relocated, and was this something that was required by the city? o Staff clarified that the playground relocation was decided by the Applicant for their own self-interest, not a city requirement. The Commission unanimously voted (7-0) to recommend approval. Recommendation The City Council is recommended to take the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution 2025-162 approving the Site Plan Review of an approximate 3,476 square foot classroom addition, an approximate 6,505 square foot gymnasium addition, and reworking of the site stormwater and parking lots at Grey Cloud Elementary School located at 9525 Indian Boulevard South. 2. Approve the amended permanent drainage and utility easement. 3. Approve the Hydrant Access Agreement and Stormwater Maintenance Agreement with Independent School District 833. Attachments Civil Plans 8/27/25 (received 8/27/2025) Engineer Review Memo 9/11/2025 Grey Cloud Project Letter Stormwater Maintenance Agreement Hydrant Access Easement Agreement Amended Stormwater Easement CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2025-162 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR ADDITIONS AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS TO GREY CLOUD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LOCATED AT 9525 INDIAN BOULEVARD SOUTH WHEREAS, Koma Architects, on behalf of South Washington County School District ISD 833, applied for a Site Plan Review for additions to the current structure located at 9525 Indian Boulevard South. The proposed combined 9,981 square foot additions will provide additional classroom space and a new gymnasium. Additional site improvements include the addition of a new stormwater pond, a sewer connection, and reworking of onsite parking on property legally described below: The Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 10, Township 27, Range 21, Washington County, Minnesota. AND That part of the West Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 10, Township 27, Ranged 21, Washington County, Minnesota, described as commencing at the Northwest corner of said Northeast Quarter of Section 10; thence on an assumed bearing of South 0 degree 35 minutes 14 seconds East along the west line of said Northeast Quarter of Section 10 a distance of 1912.12 feet to the south line of Indian Boulevard South as dedicated in EAST PARKVIEW FIRST ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Washing County, Minnesota, being that point of beginning of the land to be described; thence North 89 degrees 17 minutes 02 seconds East along the south line of said Indian Boulevard South a distance of 633.91 feet to its intersection with the southerly extension of the east line of Lot 17, Block 4, said EAST PARKVIEW FIRST ADDITION; thence North 0 degrees 42 minutes, 58 seconds West along said southerly extension of Lot 17 a distance of 35.00 feet; thence easterly and southeasterly a distance of 482.57 feet along a nontangential curve concave to the Southwest, having a radius of 460.82 feet, a central angle of 60 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds, and a chord that bears South 60 degrees 42 minutes 58 seconds east, thence South 30 degrees 42 minutes 58 seconds east, tangent to said curve, a distance of 357.98 feet to point of curve of a curve having a radius of 460.82 feet and which is tangent to the last described line and to the south line of the East Half of said Northeast Quarter of Section 10; thence southeasterly a distance of 153.01 feet along said last described curve concave to the Northeast having a radius of 460.82 feet and a central angle of 19 degrees 01 minutes 29 seconds to the east line of said West Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 10; thence South 0 degrees 42 minutes 58 seconds East along said East line of the West Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 10 a distance of 110.79 feet to the Southeast corner of said West Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 10; thence South 89 degrees 41 minutes 13 seconds West along the south line of said West Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 10 a distance of 1310.55 feet to the Southwest corner of said West Half of the Northeast corner of Section 10; thence North 0 degrees 35 minute 14 seconds West along said west line of the West Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 10 a distance of 724.51 feet to the point of beginning. AND City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota City Council Resolution 2025-162 Page 2 of 4 The East Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter’ Section 10, Township 27, Range 21, Washinton County, Minnesota, except the North 572.92 feet thereof. Commonly known as 9525 Indian Boulevard South Jamacia Avenue South, Cottage Grove, Washington County, State of Minnesota. WHEREAS, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the property, and a public hearing notice was published in the St. Paul Pioneer Press; and WHEREAS, a planning staff report, which detailed specific information on the property and the application request, was prepared and presented; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was open for public testimony. No public testimony was received. The applicant attended the public hearing and staff answered questions from the Plan- ning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission unanimously (7-to-0 vote) recommended that the City Council approve the site plan review for proposed additions to the current structure and associated site improvements located at 9525 Indian Boulevard South, at their September 22, 2025, meeting. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota, hereby approves the site plan review for the construction of building additions, and associated site improvements at Grey Cloud Elementary School located at 9525 Indian Blvd South, subject to the conditions below: 1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to the plans, as determined by planning staff, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the final grading plan shall be approved by the City Engineer. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall incorporate the recommendations, requirements, and evaluations noted in the engineer review memo dated September 11, 2025, and subject to the modifications as required by the City Engineer. All comments shall be adopted herein by reference. 4. All applicable permits (i.e., building, electrical, grading, right-of-way, sewer and water, and mechanical) and a commercial plan review packet must be completed, submitted, and approved by the City prior to the commencement of any construction activities. Detailed construction plans must be reviewed and approved by the Building Official, City Engineer, and Fire Marshall. City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota City Council Resolution 2025-162 Page 3 of 4 5. Installation of landscaping shall occur in a timely fashion and be consistent with an approved plan. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a letter of credit in the amount of 150 percent of the landscape estimate shall be submitted to the City as required by City ordinance. The financial guarantee shall be held until all required plantings are installed. At the time of installation, the Planning Department shall conduct an inspection to verify compliance with the landscape plan. If the inspection is approved, 50 percent of the financial guarantee shall be released. One year from the date of the initial inspection a follow-up inspection shall be conducted to verify survivability. If the follow-up inspection is approved, the remainder of the financial guarantee shall be released. 6. The grading and erosion control plan for the site must comply with NPDES II Permit requirements. Erosion Control Devices must be installed prior to the commencement of any grading activity. Erosion control must be performed in accordance with the recommended practices of the “Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook” and the conditions stipulated in Title 9-7-1, Erosion Control During Construction, of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. The Applicant shall be responsible for the costs for the City to inspect the site in relation to erosion control conformance. 7. A grading LOC is required prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 8. A site improvement LOC will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit for public improvements associated with the sewer connection on Indian Boulevard. 9. The Applicant must provide the City with an as-built survey of all utilities and a grading plan prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. 10. All areas of the site, where practical, shall be established with sod and seed, and maintained per the approved final landscaping plan. 11. Signage is not approved as part of this application. Any proposed signage shall meet the requirements of the sign ordinance and require a separate building permit. 12. An amendment to the existing drainage and utility easement shall be recorded for the existing stormwater basin located on the northwestern edge of the property prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit and/or grading permit, the Applicant shall provide an executed private stormwater maintenance agreement. 14. Prior to the issuance of a building and/or grading permit, the Applicant shall execute an access agreement for private hydrants within the site. Passed this 5th day of November 2025. City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota City Council Resolution 2025-162 Page 4 of 4 Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: Tamara Anderson, City Clerk 0 1 LC 101A TM DETAIL NUMBER SHEET WHERE SECTION IS LOCATED BUILDING SECTION NUMBER SHEET WHERE SECTION IS LOCATED ELEMENT SECTION NUMBER SHEET WHERE SECTION IS LOCATED A1 1 SIM BUILDING ELEVATION NUMBER SHEET WHERE ELEVATION IS LOCATED A1 SHEET WHERE ELEVATION IS LOCATED CLOUD AROUND REVISION REVISION NUMBER ROOM WHERE DOOR IS LOCATED DOOR LETTER WORK POINT, CONTROL POINT OR DATUM POINT GRID REFERENCE GRID LINE EXISTING GRID REFERENCE WALL TYPE WINDOW WINDOW / STOREFRONT TAG CENTERLINE SYMBOL EARTH OR FILL POROUS FILL OR GRAVEL CMU CONCRETE BITUMINOUS BRICK GYPSUM BOARD STEEL STUD STRUCTURAL WOOD FINISHED WOOD PLYWOOD BATT INSULATION RIGID INSULATION EXTRUDED RIGID INSULATION EXPANDED STEEL DRAWING SYMBOLS: 1 A101 SIM 1 A101 SIM 1 A101 SIM ?? MORTAR NAME 101 ROOM NAME ROOM NUMBER 1 SIM ELEMENT ELEVATION NUMBER 0 VICINITY MAP: SITE ABBREVIATIONS: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATE:REG. NO.: Marc R. DuBois 44898 CHECKED BY: DATE: DRAWN BY: PROJECT: REVISIONS: 2051 KILLEBREW DRIVE, SUITE 680, BLOOMINGTON, MN 55425 P. 651.451.4605 KOMAINC.COM THE DESIGNS AND PLANS INDICATED ON THIS DRAWING ARE THE PROPERTY OF KRECH, O'BRIEN, MUELLER & ASSOCIATES, INC. ALL RIGHTS ARE RESERVED. NO DESIGNS OR PLANS SHALL BE USED OR REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM OR BY ANY MEANS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF KRECH, O'BRIEN, MUELLER & ASSOCIATES, INC. KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 501 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 P. 612.332.7281 AD D I T I O N S & R E N O V A T I O N S KDD/LAS MRD 24253 95 2 5 I N D I A N B L V D S CO T T A G E G R O V E , M N 5 5 0 1 6 TI T L E S H E E T G01 08/27/2025 GR E Y C L O U D E L E M E N T A R Y S C H O O L G01 TITLE SHEET SITE PLAN REVIEW GREY CLOUD ELEM SCHOOL ADDITIONS & RENOVATIONS COTTAGE GROVE, MN ± PLUS OR MINUS AC AIR CONDITIONING ACT ACOUSTICAL CEILING TILE ADD ADDITIONAL ADJ ADJUSTABLE, ADJACENT AFF ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR AHU AIR HANDLING UNIT ALT ALTERNATE ALUM ALUMINUM ANOD ANODIZED AP ACCESS PANEL APPROX APPROXIMATE ARCH ARCHITECT(URAL) AVG AVERAGE BD BOARD BIT BITUMINOUS BLDG BUILDING BLKG BLOCKING BO BOTTOM OF BRG BEARING BSMT BASEMENT BUR BUILT-UP ROOF CG CORNER GUARD CIP CAST IN PLACE CJ CONTROL JOINT CLG CEILING CLR CLEAR CMTBD CEMENT BOARD CMU CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT COL COLUMN CONC CONCRETE CONST CONSTRUCTION CONT CONTINUOUS COORD COORDINATION CPT CARPET CT CERAMIC TILE CTOP COUNTERTOP CTR CENTER CTRL CONTROL CUH CABINET UNIT HEATER DEMO DEMOLISH, DEMOLITION DF DRINKING FOUNTAIN DIA DIAMETER DIM DIMENSION DN DOWN DTL DETAIL DWG DRAWING EA EACH EF EXHAUST FAN EIFS EXTERIOR INSULATION FINISH SYSTEM EJ EXPANSION JOINT EL ELEVATION ELEC ELECTRIC(AL) ELEV ELEVATOR EMER EMERGENCY ENG ENGINEER EP ELECTRICAL PANEL EPDM ETHYLENE PROPYLENE DIENE MONOMER EQ EQUAL EQUIP EQUIPMENT EW EACH WAY EWC ELECTRIC WATER COOLER EXIST EXISTING EXT EXTERIOR FA FIRE ALARM FAB FABRICATE FD FLOOR DRAIN FE FIRE EXTINGUISHER FEC FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET FF&E FIXTURES, FURNISHINGS, EQUIPMENT FFE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION FIN FINISH FIXT FIXTURE FLOR FLUORESCENT FLR FLOOR FND FOUNDATION FO FACE OF FOC FACE OF CONCRETE FOF FACE OF FINISH FOM FACE OF MASONRY FOPC FACE OF PRECAST FOS FACE OF STUDS FRP FIBER REINFORCED PLASTIC PANEL FT FEET OR FOOT FTG FOOTING FURN FURNITURE GA GAGE GALV GALVANIZED GBD GYPSUM BOARD GC GENERAL CONTRACTOR GFI GROUND FAULT INTERRUPTER GL GLASS GLAZ GLAZING HB HOSE BIB HC HOLLOW CORE HDWR HARDWARE HM HOLLOW METAL HORZ HORIZONTAL HR HOUR HT HEIGHT HVAC HEATING, VENTILATION & AIR CONDITIONING HYD HYDRANT ID IDENTIFICATION IMP INSULATED METAL PANEL IN INCH(ES) INCL INCLUDE(D), INCLUDING INSL INSULATE, INSULATION INT INTERIOR INV INVERT JAN JANITOR JST JOIST JT JOINT L LENGTH LAM LAMINATE LAV LAVATORY LB POUND LBS POUNDS LF LINEAL FEET LOC LOCATION, LOCATE LTG LIGHTING LVL LAMINATED VENEER LUMBER MAS MASONRY MATL MATERIAL MAX MAXIMUM MECH MECHANICAL MEMB MEMBRANE MEZZ MEZZANINE MFR MANUFACTURER MIN MINIMUM MISC MISCELLANEOUS MO MASONRY OPENING MTD MOUNTED MTL METAL N/A NOT APPLICABLE NIC NOT IN CONTRACT NOM NOMINAL NTS NOT TO SCALE OC ON CENTER OFCI OWNER FURNISHED, CONTRACTOR INSTALLED OFOI OWNER FURNISHED, OWNER INSTALLED OH OVERHEAD OPG OPENING OPP OPPOSITE P PAINT PART PARTITION PATT PATTERN PC PRECAST CONCRETE PIV POST INDICATOR VALVE PKG PARKING PL PLATE PLAM PLASTIC LAMINATE PREFIN PREFINISHED PROP PROPERTY PRV POWER ROOF VENTILATOR PT PORCELAIN TILE PVC POLYVINYL CHLORIDE QT QUARRY TILE QTY QUANTITY R RADIUS, RISER RB RUBBER BASE RCP REFLECTED CEILING PLAN RD ROOF DRAIN REF REFERENCE, REFRIGERATOR REINF REINFORCED REQD REQUIRED REV REVERSE(D), REVISED RM ROOM RO ROUGH OPENING RT RUBBER TILE RWL RAIN WATER LEADER SAN SANITARY SC SOLID CORE SCHD SCHEDULE SF SQUARE FEET SHWR SHOWER SIM SIMILAR SLNT SEALANT SPEC SPECIFICATION(S) SQ SQUARE SS SOLID SURFACE SSTL STAINLESS STEEL STC SOUND TRANSMISSION CLASS STD STANDARD STL STEEL STR STRUCTURAL SUSP SUSPENDED SV SHEET VINYL T TREAD T&G TONGUE AND GROOVE TEMP TEMPERED, TEMPORARY TERR TERRAZZO TOC TOP OF CONCRETE TOF TOP OF FOOTING TOM TOP OF MASONRY TOPO TOPOGRAPHY TOS TOP OF STEEL TOW TOP OF WALL TYP TYPICAL UNO UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE VB VINYL BASE VCT VINYL COMPOSITION TILE VERT VERTICAL VIF VERIFY IN FIELD W/ WITH W/O WITHOUT WC WATER CLOSET WD WOOD WDW WINDOW WH WATER HEATER WRB WATER RESISTIVE BARRIER WSCT WAINSCOT WT WEIGHT WWF WELDED WIRE FABRIC CONSTRUCTION MANAGER: KRAUS ANDERSON 501 S 8TH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 AJ LILLESVE: SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER 480-369-2079 AJ.LILLESVE@KRAUSANDERSON.COM ELECTRICAL ENGINEER: EMANUELSON-PODAS, INC 7705 BUSH LAKE ROAD, EDINA, MN 55439 JACOB GARNER: SENIOR ELECTRICAL ENGINEER 952-698-9408 JGARNER@EPINC.COM KELLY ARTZ: PARTNER, ELECTRICAL ENGINEER (TECHNOLOGY) 952-540-4043 KARTZ@EPINC.COM MECHANICAL ENGINEER: EMANUELSON-PODAS, INC 7705 BUSH LAKE ROAD, EDINA, MN 55439 SCOTT VANDER HEIDEN: MANAGING PARTNER, MECHANICAL ENGINEER 952-237-8479 SVANDERHEIDEN@EPINC.COM NOAH OEHLKE: LEAD MECHANICAL ENGINEER 952-255-6214 NOEHLKE@EPINC.COM STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: KOMA, INC 2051 KILLEBREW DRIVE, SUITE 680 BLOOMINGTON, MN 55425 MATT VAN HOOF 651-789-4129 MVANHOOF@KOMAINC.COM ARCHITECT: KOMA, INC 2051 KILLEBREW DRIVE, SUITE 680 BLOOMINGTON, MN 55425 MARC DUBOIS: PROJECT MANAGER 651-789-4139 MDUBOIS@KOMAINC.COM KEVIN DÜMMER: PROJECT ARCHITECT 651-789-4136 KDUMMER@KOMAINC.COM OWNER: SOUTH WASHINGTON COUNTY SCHOOLS ISD 833 GREY CLOUD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 7362 EAST POINT DOUGLAS RD SE, COTTAGE GROVE, MN 55016 KYLE UECKER: DIRECTOR OF FACTILIES 651-425-6299 KUECKER@SOWASHCO.ORG DAN HINES: ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ENGINEERING AND INFRASTRUCTURE; DEPARTMENTS OF FACILITIES AND TECHNOLOGY 651-425-6276 DHINES@SOWASHCO.ORG ROSTER: PR O J E C T NO R T H TR U E A1 B2 C A2 B1 E KEY PLAN - NEW NOT TO SCALE D A3 PR O J E C T NO R T H TR U E A1 B2 C A2 B1 E KEY PLAN - EXISTING NOT TO SCALE D SHEET SCHEDULE SITE PLAN REVIEW SHEET NUMBER SHEET NAME GENERAL G01 TITLE SHEET CIVIL C1.0 OVERALL SELECTIVE SITE DEMOLITION AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN C1.1 SELECTIVE SITE DEMOLITION AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN C1.2 SELECTIVE SITE DEMOLITION AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN C2.0 OVERALL GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN C2.1 GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN C2.2 GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN C3.0 OVERALL UTILITY PLAN C3.1 UTILITY PLAN C3.2 UTILITY PLAN C4.0 OVERALL PAVING AND GEOMETRIC PLAN C4.1 PAVING AND GEOMETRIC PLAN C4.2 PAVING AND GEOMETRIC PLAN C5.0 CIVIL DETAILS C5.1 CIVIL DETAILS C6.0 STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN - EXISTING CONDITIONS C6.1 STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN - PROPOSED CONDITIONS C6.2 STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTTION PLAN - NOTES LANDSCAPE L100 LANDSCAPE OVERVIEW PLAN L101 LANDSCAPE PLAN AREA 'A' L102 LANDSCAPE PLAN AREA 'B' L201 LANDSCCAPE DETAILS L202 LANDSCAPE DETAILS L301 TREE PRESERVATION & MITIGATION PLAN L302 TREE PRESERVATION & MITIGATION ARCHITECTURAL A10 FIRST FLOOR PLAN - OVERALL A19 ROOF PLAN - OVERALL A31 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - OVERALL A32 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - OVERALL ELECTRICAL E03 SITE PHOTOMETRICS REFER TO C1.1 REFER TO C1.2 WH STD 25215.50 8/27/2025 CHECKED BY: DATE: DRAWN BY: PROJECT: REVISIONS: 2051 KILLEBREW DRIVE, SUITE 680, BLOOMINGTON, MN 5542 P. 651.451.4605 KOMAINC.COM KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 501 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 P. 612.332.7281 SITE PLAN REVIEW GR E Y C L O U D E L E M E N T A R Y S C H O O L AD D I T I O N S A N D R E N O V A T I O N S 95 2 5 I N D I A N B L V D S CO T T A G E G R O V E , M I N N E S O T A 5 5 0 1 6 © 2025 BKBM Engineers Bakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin, Inc. All rights reserved. This document is an instrument of service and is the property of BKBM Engineers and may not be used or copied without prior written consent. BKBM Project No. 25215.50 6120 Earle Brown Drive Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55430 Phone: 763.843.0420 bkbm.com License Number:Date: 08-27-2025 Samson T. Dollerschell 62999 I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER under the laws of the State of MN C1.0 OV E R A L L S E L E C T I V E S I T E D E M O L I T I O N A N D ER O S I O N C O N T R O L P L A N WH STD 25215.50 8/27/2025 CHECKED BY: DATE: DRAWN BY: PROJECT: REVISIONS: 2051 KILLEBREW DRIVE, SUITE 680, BLOOMINGTON, MN 5542 P. 651.451.4605 KOMAINC.COM KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 501 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 P. 612.332.7281 SITE PLAN REVIEW GR E Y C L O U D E L E M E N T A R Y S C H O O L AD D I T I O N S A N D R E N O V A T I O N S 95 2 5 I N D I A N B L V D S CO T T A G E G R O V E , M I N N E S O T A 5 5 0 1 6 © 2025 BKBM Engineers Bakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin, Inc. All rights reserved. This document is an instrument of service and is the property of BKBM Engineers and may not be used or copied without prior written consent. BKBM Project No. 25215.50 6120 Earle Brown Drive Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55430 Phone: 763.843.0420 bkbm.com License Number:Date: 08-27-2025 Samson T. Dollerschell 62999 I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER under the laws of the State of MN C1.1 SE L E C T I V E S I T E D E M O L I T I O N A N D E R O S I O N CO N T R O L P L A N WH STD 25215.50 8/27/2025 CHECKED BY: DATE: DRAWN BY: PROJECT: REVISIONS: 2051 KILLEBREW DRIVE, SUITE 680, BLOOMINGTON, MN 5542 P. 651.451.4605 KOMAINC.COM KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 501 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 P. 612.332.7281 SITE PLAN REVIEW GR E Y C L O U D E L E M E N T A R Y S C H O O L AD D I T I O N S A N D R E N O V A T I O N S 95 2 5 I N D I A N B L V D S CO T T A G E G R O V E , M I N N E S O T A 5 5 0 1 6 © 2025 BKBM Engineers Bakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin, Inc. All rights reserved. This document is an instrument of service and is the property of BKBM Engineers and may not be used or copied without prior written consent. BKBM Project No. 25215.50 6120 Earle Brown Drive Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55430 Phone: 763.843.0420 bkbm.com License Number:Date: 08-27-2025 Samson T. Dollerschell 62999 I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER under the laws of the State of MN C1.2 SE L E C T I V E S I T E D E M O L I T I O N A N D E R O S I O N CO N T R O L P L A N REFER TO C2.1 REFER TO C2.2 WH STD 25215.50 8/27/2025 CHECKED BY: DATE: DRAWN BY: PROJECT: REVISIONS: 2051 KILLEBREW DRIVE, SUITE 680, BLOOMINGTON, MN 5542 P. 651.451.4605 KOMAINC.COM KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 501 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 P. 612.332.7281 SITE PLAN REVIEW GR E Y C L O U D E L E M E N T A R Y S C H O O L AD D I T I O N S A N D R E N O V A T I O N S 95 2 5 I N D I A N B L V D S CO T T A G E G R O V E , M I N N E S O T A 5 5 0 1 6 © 2025 BKBM Engineers Bakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin, Inc. All rights reserved. This document is an instrument of service and is the property of BKBM Engineers and may not be used or copied without prior written consent. BKBM Project No. 25215.50 6120 Earle Brown Drive Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55430 Phone: 763.843.0420 bkbm.com License Number:Date: 08-27-2025 Samson T. Dollerschell 62999 I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER under the laws of the State of MN C2.0 OV E R A L L G R A D I N G , D R A I N A G E , A N D ER O S I O N C O N T R O L P L A N WH STD 25215.50 8/27/2025 CHECKED BY: DATE: DRAWN BY: PROJECT: REVISIONS: 2051 KILLEBREW DRIVE, SUITE 680, BLOOMINGTON, MN 5542 P. 651.451.4605 KOMAINC.COM KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 501 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 P. 612.332.7281 SITE PLAN REVIEW GR E Y C L O U D E L E M E N T A R Y S C H O O L AD D I T I O N S A N D R E N O V A T I O N S 95 2 5 I N D I A N B L V D S CO T T A G E G R O V E , M I N N E S O T A 5 5 0 1 6 © 2025 BKBM Engineers Bakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin, Inc. All rights reserved. This document is an instrument of service and is the property of BKBM Engineers and may not be used or copied without prior written consent. BKBM Project No. 25215.50 6120 Earle Brown Drive Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55430 Phone: 763.843.0420 bkbm.com License Number:Date: 08-27-2025 Samson T. Dollerschell 62999 I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER under the laws of the State of MN C2.1 GR A D I N G , D R A I N A G E , A N D E R O S I O N CO N T R O L P L A N WH STD 25215.50 8/27/2025 CHECKED BY: DATE: DRAWN BY: PROJECT: REVISIONS: 2051 KILLEBREW DRIVE, SUITE 680, BLOOMINGTON, MN 5542 P. 651.451.4605 KOMAINC.COM KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 501 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 P. 612.332.7281 SITE PLAN REVIEW GR E Y C L O U D E L E M E N T A R Y S C H O O L AD D I T I O N S A N D R E N O V A T I O N S 95 2 5 I N D I A N B L V D S CO T T A G E G R O V E , M I N N E S O T A 5 5 0 1 6 © 2025 BKBM Engineers Bakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin, Inc. All rights reserved. This document is an instrument of service and is the property of BKBM Engineers and may not be used or copied without prior written consent. BKBM Project No. 25215.50 6120 Earle Brown Drive Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55430 Phone: 763.843.0420 bkbm.com License Number:Date: 08-27-2025 Samson T. Dollerschell 62999 I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER under the laws of the State of MN C2.2 GR A D I N G , D R A I N A G E , A N D E R O S I O N CO N T R O L P L A N REFER TO C3.1 REFER TO C3.2 WH STD 25215.50 8/27/2025 CHECKED BY: DATE: DRAWN BY: PROJECT: REVISIONS: 2051 KILLEBREW DRIVE, SUITE 680, BLOOMINGTON, MN 5542 P. 651.451.4605 KOMAINC.COM KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 501 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 P. 612.332.7281 SITE PLAN REVIEW GR E Y C L O U D E L E M E N T A R Y S C H O O L AD D I T I O N S A N D R E N O V A T I O N S 95 2 5 I N D I A N B L V D S CO T T A G E G R O V E , M I N N E S O T A 5 5 0 1 6 © 2025 BKBM Engineers Bakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin, Inc. All rights reserved. This document is an instrument of service and is the property of BKBM Engineers and may not be used or copied without prior written consent. BKBM Project No. 25215.50 6120 Earle Brown Drive Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55430 Phone: 763.843.0420 bkbm.com License Number:Date: 08-27-2025 Samson T. Dollerschell 62999 I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER under the laws of the State of MN C3.0 OV E R A L L U T I L I T Y P L A N WH STD 25215.50 8/27/2025 CHECKED BY: DATE: DRAWN BY: PROJECT: REVISIONS: 2051 KILLEBREW DRIVE, SUITE 680, BLOOMINGTON, MN 5542 P. 651.451.4605 KOMAINC.COM KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 501 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 P. 612.332.7281 SITE PLAN REVIEW GR E Y C L O U D E L E M E N T A R Y S C H O O L AD D I T I O N S A N D R E N O V A T I O N S 95 2 5 I N D I A N B L V D S CO T T A G E G R O V E , M I N N E S O T A 5 5 0 1 6 © 2025 BKBM Engineers Bakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin, Inc. All rights reserved. This document is an instrument of service and is the property of BKBM Engineers and may not be used or copied without prior written consent. BKBM Project No. 25215.50 6120 Earle Brown Drive Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55430 Phone: 763.843.0420 bkbm.com License Number:Date: 08-27-2025 Samson T. Dollerschell 62999 I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER under the laws of the State of MN C3.1 UT I L I T Y P L A N WH STD 25215.50 8/27/2025 CHECKED BY: DATE: DRAWN BY: PROJECT: REVISIONS: 2051 KILLEBREW DRIVE, SUITE 680, BLOOMINGTON, MN 5542 P. 651.451.4605 KOMAINC.COM KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 501 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 P. 612.332.7281 SITE PLAN REVIEW GR E Y C L O U D E L E M E N T A R Y S C H O O L AD D I T I O N S A N D R E N O V A T I O N S 95 2 5 I N D I A N B L V D S CO T T A G E G R O V E , M I N N E S O T A 5 5 0 1 6 © 2025 BKBM Engineers Bakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin, Inc. All rights reserved. This document is an instrument of service and is the property of BKBM Engineers and may not be used or copied without prior written consent. BKBM Project No. 25215.50 6120 Earle Brown Drive Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55430 Phone: 763.843.0420 bkbm.com License Number:Date: 08-27-2025 Samson T. Dollerschell 62999 I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER under the laws of the State of MN C3.2 UT I L I T Y P L A N REFER TO C4.1 REFER TO C4.2 WH STD 25215.50 8/27/2025 CHECKED BY: DATE: DRAWN BY: PROJECT: REVISIONS: 2051 KILLEBREW DRIVE, SUITE 680, BLOOMINGTON, MN 5542 P. 651.451.4605 KOMAINC.COM KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 501 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 P. 612.332.7281 SITE PLAN REVIEW GR E Y C L O U D E L E M E N T A R Y S C H O O L AD D I T I O N S A N D R E N O V A T I O N S 95 2 5 I N D I A N B L V D S CO T T A G E G R O V E , M I N N E S O T A 5 5 0 1 6 © 2025 BKBM Engineers Bakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin, Inc. All rights reserved. This document is an instrument of service and is the property of BKBM Engineers and may not be used or copied without prior written consent. BKBM Project No. 25215.50 6120 Earle Brown Drive Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55430 Phone: 763.843.0420 bkbm.com License Number:Date: 08-27-2025 Samson T. Dollerschell 62999 I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER under the laws of the State of MN C4.0 OV E R A L L P A V I N G A N D G E O M E T R I C P L A N WH STD 25215.50 8/27/2025 CHECKED BY: DATE: DRAWN BY: PROJECT: REVISIONS: 2051 KILLEBREW DRIVE, SUITE 680, BLOOMINGTON, MN 5542 P. 651.451.4605 KOMAINC.COM KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 501 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 P. 612.332.7281 SITE PLAN REVIEW GR E Y C L O U D E L E M E N T A R Y S C H O O L AD D I T I O N S A N D R E N O V A T I O N S 95 2 5 I N D I A N B L V D S CO T T A G E G R O V E , M I N N E S O T A 5 5 0 1 6 © 2025 BKBM Engineers Bakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin, Inc. All rights reserved. This document is an instrument of service and is the property of BKBM Engineers and may not be used or copied without prior written consent. BKBM Project No. 25215.50 6120 Earle Brown Drive Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55430 Phone: 763.843.0420 bkbm.com License Number:Date: 08-27-2025 Samson T. Dollerschell 62999 I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER under the laws of the State of MN C4.1 PA V I N G A N D G E O M E T R I C P L A N WH STD 25215.50 8/27/2025 CHECKED BY: DATE: DRAWN BY: PROJECT: REVISIONS: 2051 KILLEBREW DRIVE, SUITE 680, BLOOMINGTON, MN 5542 P. 651.451.4605 KOMAINC.COM KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 501 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 P. 612.332.7281 SITE PLAN REVIEW GR E Y C L O U D E L E M E N T A R Y S C H O O L AD D I T I O N S A N D R E N O V A T I O N S 95 2 5 I N D I A N B L V D S CO T T A G E G R O V E , M I N N E S O T A 5 5 0 1 6 © 2025 BKBM Engineers Bakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin, Inc. All rights reserved. This document is an instrument of service and is the property of BKBM Engineers and may not be used or copied without prior written consent. BKBM Project No. 25215.50 6120 Earle Brown Drive Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55430 Phone: 763.843.0420 bkbm.com License Number:Date: 08-27-2025 Samson T. Dollerschell 62999 I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER under the laws of the State of MN C4.2 PA V I N G A N D G E O M E T R I C P L A N WH STD 25215.50 8/27/2025 CHECKED BY: DATE: DRAWN BY: PROJECT: REVISIONS: 2051 KILLEBREW DRIVE, SUITE 680, BLOOMINGTON, MN 5542 P. 651.451.4605 KOMAINC.COM KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 501 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 P. 612.332.7281 SITE PLAN REVIEW GR E Y C L O U D E L E M E N T A R Y S C H O O L AD D I T I O N S A N D R E N O V A T I O N S 95 2 5 I N D I A N B L V D S CO T T A G E G R O V E , M I N N E S O T A 5 5 0 1 6 © 2025 BKBM Engineers Bakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin, Inc. All rights reserved. This document is an instrument of service and is the property of BKBM Engineers and may not be used or copied without prior written consent. BKBM Project No. 25215.50 6120 Earle Brown Drive Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55430 Phone: 763.843.0420 bkbm.com License Number:Date: 08-27-2025 Samson T. Dollerschell 62999 I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER under the laws of the State of MN C5.0 CI V I L D E T A I L S WH STD 25215.50 8/27/2025 CHECKED BY: DATE: DRAWN BY: PROJECT: REVISIONS: 2051 KILLEBREW DRIVE, SUITE 680, BLOOMINGTON, MN 5542 P. 651.451.4605 KOMAINC.COM KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 501 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 P. 612.332.7281 SITE PLAN REVIEW GR E Y C L O U D E L E M E N T A R Y S C H O O L AD D I T I O N S A N D R E N O V A T I O N S 95 2 5 I N D I A N B L V D S CO T T A G E G R O V E , M I N N E S O T A 5 5 0 1 6 © 2025 BKBM Engineers Bakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin, Inc. All rights reserved. This document is an instrument of service and is the property of BKBM Engineers and may not be used or copied without prior written consent. BKBM Project No. 25215.50 6120 Earle Brown Drive Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55430 Phone: 763.843.0420 bkbm.com License Number:Date: 08-27-2025 Samson T. Dollerschell 62999 I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER under the laws of the State of MN C5.1 CI V I L D E T A I L S · · · · 1 2 WH STD 25215.50 8/27/2025 CHECKED BY: DATE: DRAWN BY: PROJECT: REVISIONS: 2051 KILLEBREW DRIVE, SUITE 680, BLOOMINGTON, MN 5542 P. 651.451.4605 KOMAINC.COM KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 501 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 P. 612.332.7281 SITE PLAN REVIEW GR E Y C L O U D E L E M E N T A R Y S C H O O L AD D I T I O N S A N D R E N O V A T I O N S 95 2 5 I N D I A N B L V D S CO T T A G E G R O V E , M I N N E S O T A 5 5 0 1 6 © 2025 BKBM Engineers Bakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin, Inc. All rights reserved. This document is an instrument of service and is the property of BKBM Engineers and may not be used or copied without prior written consent. BKBM Project No. 25215.50 6120 Earle Brown Drive Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55430 Phone: 763.843.0420 bkbm.com License Number:Date: 08-27-2025 Samson T. Dollerschell 62999 I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER under the laws of the State of MN C6.0 ST O R M W A T E R P O L L U T I O N P R E V E N T I O N P L A N - E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S 1 3 2 WH STD 25215.50 8/27/2025 CHECKED BY: DATE: DRAWN BY: PROJECT: REVISIONS: 2051 KILLEBREW DRIVE, SUITE 680, BLOOMINGTON, MN 5542 P. 651.451.4605 KOMAINC.COM KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 501 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 P. 612.332.7281 SITE PLAN REVIEW GR E Y C L O U D E L E M E N T A R Y S C H O O L AD D I T I O N S A N D R E N O V A T I O N S 95 2 5 I N D I A N B L V D S CO T T A G E G R O V E , M I N N E S O T A 5 5 0 1 6 © 2025 BKBM Engineers Bakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin, Inc. All rights reserved. This document is an instrument of service and is the property of BKBM Engineers and may not be used or copied without prior written consent. BKBM Project No. 25215.50 6120 Earle Brown Drive Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55430 Phone: 763.843.0420 bkbm.com License Number:Date: 08-27-2025 Samson T. Dollerschell 62999 I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER under the laws of the State of MN C6.1 ST O R M W A T E R P O L L U T I O N P R E V E N T I O N P L A N - P R O P O S E D C O N D I T I O N S WH STD 25215.50 8/27/2025 CHECKED BY: DATE: DRAWN BY: PROJECT: REVISIONS: 2051 KILLEBREW DRIVE, SUITE 680, BLOOMINGTON, MN 5542 P. 651.451.4605 KOMAINC.COM KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 501 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 P. 612.332.7281 SITE PLAN REVIEW GR E Y C L O U D E L E M E N T A R Y S C H O O L AD D I T I O N S A N D R E N O V A T I O N S 95 2 5 I N D I A N B L V D S CO T T A G E G R O V E , M I N N E S O T A 5 5 0 1 6 © 2025 BKBM Engineers Bakke Kopp Ballou & McFarlin, Inc. All rights reserved. This document is an instrument of service and is the property of BKBM Engineers and may not be used or copied without prior written consent. BKBM Project No. 25215.50 6120 Earle Brown Drive Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55430 Phone: 763.843.0420 bkbm.com License Number:Date: 08-27-2025 Samson T. Dollerschell 62999 I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER under the laws of the State of MN C6.2 ST O R M W A T E R P O L L U T I O N P R E V E N T I O N P L A N - N O T E S General Notes: 01. See Civil Engineer's plans for site plan layout and dimensions. 02. Protect adjacent areas from damage during construction. 03. See Civil Engineer's details for paving and curb information. 04. Refer to Sheets L101-L102 for Landscape Plans, L201-L202 for Landscape Details, L301-L302 for Tree Preservation CHECKED BY: DATE: DRAWN BY: PROJECT: REVISIONS: 2051 KILLEBREW DRIVE, SUITE 680, BLOOMINGTON, MN 55425 P. 651.451.4605 KOMAINC.COM KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 501 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 P. 612.332.7281 GR E Y C L O U D E L E M E N T A R Y - A D D I T I O N S A N D R E N O V A T I O N S 24253 95 2 5 I N D I A N B L V D S CO T T A G E G R O V E , M N 5 5 0 1 6 A-11 OVERALL FIRST FLOOR PLAN HL BH 08/27/2025 www.bkbm.com 6120 Earle Brown Dr., Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55340 Phone: (763) 843-0420 Fax: (763) 843-0421 SITE PLAN REVIEW MN License Number:Date: XX-XX-XXXX Benjamin D. Hartberg, PLA 48084 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA L100 LA N D S C A P E O V E R V I E W P L A N LANDSCAPE OVERVIEW PLAN LANDSCAPE AREA 'A' SHEET L101 LANDSCAPE AREA 'B' SHEET L102 EXISTING BUILDING PROPOSED ADDITION PROPOSED ADDITION EXISTING BUILDING PROPOSED TURF SOD TO DISTURBED LIMITS, FIELD VERIFY EXISTING FLAG POLE TURF SOD TURF SOD TURF SOD TURF SOD PAVING PER CIVIL PLANS ROCK MULCH & EDGER PER SPECIFICATIONS WOOD MULCH & EDGER PER SPECIFICATIONS ALTERNATE #5 4' ORNAMENTAL METAL FENCE PER DETAIL 3' WIDE SINGLE SWING GATE WITH LOCKABLE COLLAR ADDITION PROPOSED ADDITION TURF SOD EXISTING LANDSCAPE AREA TO REMAIN, PROTECT DURING CONSTRUCTION EXISTING 3"X3" PEACE POLE TO BE SALVAGED AND REINSTALLED WHERE NOTED REINSTALL PEACE POLE IN THIS LOCATION. SET IN 6" WIDE X36" DEEP AUGERED HOLE, COMPACT WITH CLASS 5 OR SIMILAR METHOD. TOP WITH LANDSCAPE ROCK. CONFIRM FINAL LOCATION WITH THE OWNER IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO SETTING. LEAVE A GAP IN PLANTINGS AROUND THE PEACE POLE FOR AN INFORMAL PATH (7) EXISTING LIMESTONE BOULDERS TO BE SALVAGED & REINSTALLED WHERE NOTED REINSTALL (7) SALVAGED BOULDERS BASE BID: NO WORK IN THIS AREA, ALTERNATE #5: TURF SOD TO THE DISTURBED REMOVAL/RELOCATION WORK BY OTHERS. EXISTING PLAYGROUND TO REMAIN LIMITS PER EXISTING PLAYGROUND PLAY AREA BY OTHERS ALTERNATE #5 ALTERNATE #5 SIDE W A L K P E R C I V I L P L A N S SIDE W A L K P E R C I V I L P L A N S 8' SCREEN FENCE PER DETAIL. INCLUDE 3' WIDE SINGLE SWING GATE WITH LOCKABLE COLLAR. ROCK MULCH PER SPECIFICATIONS ROCK MULCH TURF SOD OVERSTORY TREES, TYP. OVERSTORY TREE, TYP. OVERSTORY TREES, TYP. OVERSTORY TREES, TYP. EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN (TYP.) EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN (TYP.) EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN (TYP.) General Notes: 01. See Civil Engineer's plans for site plan layout and dimensions. 02. Protect adjacent areas from damage during construction. 03. See Civil Engineer's details for paving and curb information. 04. Refer to Sheets L101-L102 for Landscape Plans, L201-L202 for Landscape Details, L301-L302 for Tree Preservation CHECKED BY: DATE: DRAWN BY: PROJECT: REVISIONS: 2051 KILLEBREW DRIVE, SUITE 680, BLOOMINGTON, MN 55425 P. 651.451.4605 KOMAINC.COM KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 501 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 P. 612.332.7281 GR E Y C L O U D E L E M E N T A R Y - A D D I T I O N S A N D R E N O V A T I O N S 24253 95 2 5 I N D I A N B L V D S CO T T A G E G R O V E , M N 5 5 0 1 6 A-11 OVERALL FIRST FLOOR PLAN HL BH 08/27/2025 www.bkbm.com 6120 Earle Brown Dr., Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55340 Phone: (763) 843-0420 Fax: (763) 843-0421 SITE PLAN REVIEW MN License Number:Date: XX-XX-XXXX Benjamin D. Hartberg, PLA 48084 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA L101 Landscape Symbols Legend: Existing Tree To Remain Turf Sod per Specifications LA N D S C A P E L A Y O U T P L A N - A R E A ' A ' LANDSCAPE LAYOUT PLAN - AREA 'A' Municipal Landscape Requirements: Landscape Area In the Work Limits*: 32,060 sq ft *Excludes Storm Basins New Overstory Deciduous Trees Required: 9 (.0002786) x 32,060 = 9 (-) Existing Trees to Remain: 0 New Coniferous Trees Required: 8 (.0002600) x 32,060 = 8 (-) Existing Trees to Remain: 0 New Shrubs Required: 19 (.0006) x 32,060 = 19 Mitigation for Tree Removals: Refer to Sheet L301 for calculations and tree removal information Mitigation Inches/Feet count towards the Landscape Requirement Replacement Deciduous Overstory Inches Required: 26 inches Replacement Coniferous Feet Required: 62 feet SYMBOL CODE BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE CONTAINER QTY EVERGREEN TREES PD Picea glauca `Densata`Black Hills Spruce 8` Ht.B&B 8 OVERSTORY TREE AS Acer x freemanii `Sienna`Sienna Glen Maple 3" Cal.B&B 4 CO Celtis occidentalis Common Hackberry 3" Cal.B&B 3 GD Gleditsia triacanthos inermis 'Draves' TM Street Keeper Honey Locust 3" Cal.B&B 2 SHRUBS Dl Diervilla lonicera Dwarf Bush Honeysuckle 3 gal.Pot 19 ANNUALS/PERENNIALS Hh Hemerocallis x `Happy Returns`Happy Returns Daylily 1 gal.Pot 13 GRASSES Ck Calamagrostis x acutiflora `Karl Foerster`Feather Reed Grass 1 gal.Pot 12 PLANT SCHEDULE Existing Peace Pole to be Salvaged & Reinstalled per Plan NATIVE SEED TO DISTURBED LIMITS, FIELD VERIFY LIVE PLUGS PER SPECIFICATIONS NATIVE SEED TO DISTURBED LIMITS, FIELD VERIFY EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN (TYP.) BASIN PER CIVIL PLANS TURF SOD TURF SOD NATIVE SEED PER SPECIFICATIONS MATCH EXISTING EDGE OF PRAIRIE TO MOWN TURF LINE SEED / SOD LINE SEED / PLUG LINE WOOD MULCH & EDGER PER SPECIFICATIONS OVERSTORY TREES, TYP. EVERGREEN TREES, TYP. CHECKED BY: DATE: DRAWN BY: PROJECT: REVISIONS: 2051 KILLEBREW DRIVE, SUITE 680, BLOOMINGTON, MN 55425 P. 651.451.4605 KOMAINC.COM KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 501 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 P. 612.332.7281 GR E Y C L O U D E L E M E N T A R Y - A D D I T I O N S A N D R E N O V A T I O N S 24253 95 2 5 I N D I A N B L V D S CO T T A G E G R O V E , M N 5 5 0 1 6 A-11 OVERALL FIRST FLOOR PLAN HL BH 08/27/2025 www.bkbm.com 6120 Earle Brown Dr., Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55340 Phone: (763) 843-0420 Fax: (763) 843-0421 SITE PLAN REVIEW MN License Number:Date: XX-XX-XXXX Benjamin D. Hartberg, PLA 48084 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA L102 Landscape Symbols Legend: Existing Tree To Remain Native Seed per Specifications LA N D S C A P E L A Y O U T P L A N - A R E A ' B ' LANDSCAPE LAYOUT PLAN - AREA 'B' Live Plugs per Specifications General Notes: 01. See Civil Engineer's plans for site plan layout and dimensions. 02. Protect adjacent areas from damage during construction. 03. See Civil Engineer's details for paving and curb information. 04. Refer to Sheets L101-L102 for Landscape Plans, L201-L202 for Landscape Details, L301-L302 for Tree Preservation 4" 4' H E I G H T 4"O.C. TYP. BLACK ORNAMENTAL STEEL FENCE. AMERISTAR 'MONTAGE PLUS' OR APPROVED EQUAL. 'MAJESTIC' 3 RAIL STYLE AS SHOWN. PROVIDE HARDWARE AS REQUIRED. POSTS AT 8' O.C. AS PER MANUFACTURES DIRECTION. NOTE: REFER TO SHEET L1.001 FOR LOCATION OF ORNAMENTAL FENCING AND GATES. PROVIDE SHOP DRAWINGS OF THE FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. 5' - 0 " ( M I N . ) 8' ON-CENTER 1'-0" MIN ALL POSTS TO BE SET IN 4,000 PSI CONCRETE. CENTER IN A 12" MIN. DIAMETER SONOTUBE, VERIFY SIZE WITH FENCE MANUFACTURER. EMBED 30" MIN. 8'-0" 6'-0"" 5" 1'-6" NOTES: 1.SUBMIT FENCE & GATE SHOP DRAWINGS FOR APPROVAL. 2.A FENCE PERMIT FROM CITY IS REQUIRED 3.PERMIT APPLICATION FEE BY FENCE INSTALLER. 4.COMPLETE INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. USE MANUFACTURER-PROVIDED FASTENERS ONLY. 5.THIS DRAWING IS FOR ILLUSTRATION ONLY. REFER TO MANUFACTURER'S LITERATURE FOR EXACT MATERIAL PLANS AND ASSEMBLY INSTRUCTIONS. 8'-0" TALL TREX COMPOSITE FENCE 'SECLUSIONS' STYLE, 100% OPAQUE. SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS AND COLOR CHART FOR ARCHITECT REVIEW AND APPROVAL. 5" NOT TO SCALE DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE TYP. SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL MULCH & EDGER DETAIL . . . . . .. .. ....... . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .. .. . ... . .. . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . ON CENTER SPACING AS STATED ON PLAN WIDTH OF HOLE EXCAVATION SHALL EXTEND A MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES BEYOND THE PLANTS ROOT SYSTEM. 3'' DEPTH WATERING BASIN PLANTING SOIL PER NOTES. MULCH PER NOTES FINISHED GRADE PLANT ACCORDING TO PLANTING DETAILS FOR ISOLATED PLANTING LOCATIONS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF REDUCED HOLE WIDTH. DO NOT HEAVILY PRUNE THE TREE AT PLANTING. PRUNE ONLY CROSSOVER LIMBS, CO-DOMINANT LEADERS, AND BROKEN OR DEAD BRANCHES. SOME INTERIOR TWIGS AND LATERAL BRANCHES MAY BE PRUNED; HOWEVER, DO NOT REMOVE THE TERMINAL BUDS OF BRANCHES THAT EXTEND TO THE EDGE OF THE CROWN. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE TO KEEP TREE STRAIGHT AND PLUM. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL 6" WHITE PVC TRUNK GUARD AT TIME OF PLANTING. MARK THE NORTH SIDE OF THE TREE IN THE NURSERY, AND ROTATE TREE TO FACE NORTH AT THE SITE WHEN EVER POSSIBLE. SET TOP OF ROOT BALL FLUSH TO GRADE OR 1-2 IN. HIGHER IN SLOWLY DRAINING SOILS. EACH TREE MUST BE PLANTED SUCH THAT THE TRUNK FLARE IS VISIBLE AT THE TOP OF THE ROOT BALL. TREES WHERE THE TRUNK FLARE IS NOT VISIBLE SHALL BE REJECTED. DO NOT COVER THE TOP OF THE ROOT BALL WITH SOIL. 4 IN. HIGH EARTH SAUCER BEYOND EDGE OF ROOT BALL (FOR ISOLATED TREES ONLY). REMOVE ALL TWINE, ROPE AND WIRE, AND BURLAP FROM TOP HALF OF ROOT BALL IF PLANT IS SHIPPED WITH A WIRE BASKET AROUND THE ROOT BALL, CUT THE WIRE BASKET OFF AND REMOVE. DISPOSE OFF OFF-SITE. PLACE ROOT BALL ON UNEXCAVATED OR TAMPED SOIL. ENSURE NOTE: FOR DIMENSIONS OF PLANTING AREAS SEE PLAN, SOIL BACKFILL SHALL BE GARDEN BLEND SOIL ( EQUAL MIX OF COMPOST, SAND & SOIL ) PER NOTES. TAMP SOIL AROUND ROOT BALL BASE FIRMLY WITH FOOT PRESSURE SO THAT ROOT BALL DOES NOT SHIFT. WOOD MULCH. DO NO PLACE MULCH IN CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNK. MAINTAIN THE MULCH WEED-FREE FOR AFTER PLANTING. MULCH RING 4 FT. DIA. MINIMUM 6 FT. DIA. PREFERRED NOTES: TREE PLANTING REQUIREMENTS: -REMOVE ALL TWINE, ROPE, WIRE, AND BURLAP FROM THE TOP-HALF OF THE ROOT BALL AND DISPOSE OF OFF-SITE. -REMOVE THE WIRE BASKET DOWN TO THE SECOND HORIZONTAL WIRE FROM THE BOTTOM AND DISPOSE OF OFF-SITE. -EXPOSE ROOT FLARE AND SET AT GRADE NEW PLANT HOLES PASS THE REQUIRED INFILTRATION TEST. 1'-6" (MIN.) 4" FACE OF WALL OR BACK OF CURB. MULCH PER LANDSCAPE NOTES EDGER PER LANDSCAPE NOTES 3 OZ. NEEDLE-PUNCH FILTER FABRIC, TURN-UP FINISHED GRADE PITCH SUB-GRADE TO DRAIN AWAY FROM BUILDING WALLS & CURBS. NOTES: SEE PLAN FOR CROSS SLOPE DIRECTION. PLANT BED WIDTH VARIES, SEE PLAN. AT EDGES, OVERLAP SEAMS 4". SEE PLANS WIDTHS MAY VARY SUBMIT MULCH, EDGER, AND FABRIC SAMPLES FOR APPROVAL. DOUBLE STAKE WITH POLYPROPYLENE WEBBING THROUGH THE EYE OF THE CINCH-TIE RUBBER SUPPORT. AVOID DAMAGE TO THE ROOT BALL WITH SUPPORT STAKES. NURSERY GRADE FIBERGLASS TREE STAKES, 11 16" X 6'-0" 2 3 5 TOMAHAWK TREE STABILIZER STAKES. MINIMUM (2) PER TREE. SOD ROOT BALL TO SIT ON MOUNDED MULCH - 4" DEEP - SEE SPEC PLANTING SOIL - SEE SPEC. TOPSOIL SUBGRADE OTHERWISE. NO MULCH TO BE IN CONIFER TO HAVE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH UNLESS NOTED PLACE ROOT BALL SO THAT BASAL FLARE IS 1" ABOVE SURROUNDING CONTACT WITH TRUNK. NOTE: SUBGRADE, REMOVE BURLAP DRAIN SYSTEM IS NECESSARY 4" DIAMETER AUGERED HOLE, 42" MIN. DEPTH. FILLED W/ 3/4" DIAMETER DRAIN ROCK. COVER W/ 6" FILTER FABRIC. FOR HEAVY CLAY SOILS. FROM TOP 1/3 OF ROOT BALL GRADE. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THE TREES ARE IN A PLUMB POSITION THROUGHOUT THE WARRANTY PERIOD. TR E E H E I G H T M E A S U R E D F R O M T O P O F R O O T B A L L T O B A S E O F C E N T R A L L E A D E R . NOT TO SCALE CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL1 CHECKED BY: DATE: DRAWN BY: PROJECT: REVISIONS: 2051 KILLEBREW DRIVE, SUITE 680, BLOOMINGTON, MN 55425 P. 651.451.4605 KOMAINC.COM KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 501 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 P. 612.332.7281 GR E Y C L O U D E L E M E N T A R Y - A D D I T I O N S A N D R E N O V A T I O N S 24253 95 2 5 I N D I A N B L V D S CO T T A G E G R O V E , M N 5 5 0 1 6 A-11 OVERALL FIRST FLOOR PLAN HL BH 08/27/2025 www.bkbm.com 6120 Earle Brown Dr., Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55340 Phone: (763) 843-0420 Fax: (763) 843-0421 SITE PLAN REVIEW MN License Number:Date: XX-XX-XXXX Benjamin D. Hartberg, PLA 48084 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA L201 LA N D S C A P E D E T A I L S NOT TO SCALE ALTERNATE #5: 4'-0" ORNAMENTAL METAL FENCE DETAIL6 NOT TO SCALE TYP. PERENNIAL PLANTING DETAIL PERENNIAL / PLUG PLANT EDGE CONDITION VARIES - SEE PLAN. MULCH PER NOTES. PLANTING SOIL PER NOTES. CONTRACTOR PREPARED SUBGRADE NOTE: HAND-LOOSEN ROOTS OF CONTAINERIZED PLANT MATERIALS. 4 General Notes: 01. See Civil Engineer's plans for site plan layout and dimensions. 02. Protect adjacent areas from damage during construction. 03. See Civil Engineer's details for paving and curb information. 04. Refer to Sheets L101-L102 for Landscape Plans, L201-L202 for Landscape Details, L301-L302 for Tree Preservation NOT TO SCALE78'-0" SCREEN FENCE DETAIL EXISTING SOD BLADE EXISTING THATCH LAYER SOIL NEW SOD BLADE NEW THATCH LAYER SOIL SUB CUT FOR NEW SOD THATCH LAYERS TO HAVE MATCHING ELEVATION 1" 3/ 4 " 4" CONCRETE SIDEWALK * THATCH LAYERS TO MATCH * NO THATCH ABOVE ADJACENT GRADE * SUB-CUT AND FINAL GRADE BY SOD INSTALLER OR CURB NOT TO SCALE NEW SOD TO EXISTING SOD8 CHECKED BY: DATE: DRAWN BY: PROJECT: REVISIONS: 2051 KILLEBREW DRIVE, SUITE 680, BLOOMINGTON, MN 55425 P. 651.451.4605 KOMAINC.COM KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 501 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 P. 612.332.7281 GR E Y C L O U D E L E M E N T A R Y - A D D I T I O N S A N D R E N O V A T I O N S 24253 95 2 5 I N D I A N B L V D S CO T T A G E G R O V E , M N 5 5 0 1 6 A-11 OVERALL FIRST FLOOR PLAN HL BH 08/27/2025 www.bkbm.com 6120 Earle Brown Dr., Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55340 Phone: (763) 843-0420 Fax: (763) 843-0421 SITE PLAN REVIEW MN License Number:Date: XX-XX-XXXX Benjamin D. Hartberg, PLA 48084 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA L202 LA N D S C A P E D E T A I L S 1. Tree saucer for individual trees outside of a plant bed to be four inches (4") depth Western Red Cedar wood mulch. Install per tree planting detail. Do not place mulch against tree trunk. Remove wire and burlap from top third of root ball before final soil back-fill and mulch. Dyed or Colorized mulch is strictly prohibited. 2. Refer to civil plan sheets for grading, drainage, site dimensions, survey, tree removal, proposed utilities & erosion control. 3. All plant material shall comply with the latest edition of the American Standard for Nursery Stock, American Association of Nurserymen. Unless noted otherwise, deciduous shrubs shall have at least 5 canes at the specified shrub height. Plant material shall be delivered as specified. 4. Plan takes precedence over plant schedule if discrepancies in quantities exist. 5. All proposed plants shall be located and staked as shown. Install 6" diameter perforated white PVC trunk guards on all new deciduous trees by November 1st. Remove tree watering bags at this time. 6. Adjustment in location of proposed plant material may be needed in field. Should an adjustment be required, the client will provide field approval. Significant changes may require city review and approval. 7. The project landscape contractor shall be held responsible for watering and properly handling all plant materials brought on the site both before and after installation. Schedule plant deliveries to coincide with expected installation time within 36 hours. 8. All plant materials shall be fertilized upon installation as specified. 9. The landscape contractor shall provide the owner with a watering schedule appropriate to the project site conditions and to plant material growth requirements. 10. If the landscape contractor is concerned or perceives any deficiencies in the plant selections, soil conditions, drainage or any other site condition that might negatively affect plant establishment, survival or guarantee, they must bring these deficiencies to the attention of the landscape architect & client prior to bid submission. Plant bed drainage concerns during plant installation shall be brought to the attention of the Owner and General Contractor immediately. 11. Contractor shall establish to his/ her satisfaction that soil and compaction conditions are adequate to allow for proper drainage at and around the building site. 12. Contractor is responsible for ongoing maintenance of all newly installed material, per specifications. Any acts of vandalism or damage which may occur prior to owner acceptance shall be the responsibility of the contractor. Contractor shall provide the owner with a maintenance program including, but not limited to, pruning, fertilization and disease/pest control. 13. Warranty: The contractor shall guarantee newly planted material through one calendar year from the date of punch list inspection. Plants that exhibit more than 20% die-back damage shall be replaced at no additional cost to the owner. The contractor shall also provide 6" dia. PVC trunk guards on deciduous trees. Prune dead wood prior to the warranty review meeting. 14. This layout plan constitutes our understanding of the landscape requirements listed in the ordinance. Changes and modifications may be requested by the city based on applicant information, public input, council decisions, etc. 15. The landscape contractor shall be responsible for obtaining any permits and coordinating inspections as required throughout the work process. 16. Plant size & species substitutions must be approved in writing prior to acceptance in the field. 17. Irrigation & Watering: There is no permanent irrigation system in the work limits. For the landscape improvements shown, the landscape contractor shall provide temporary irrigation. Refer to the Turf and Grasses Specification Section 32 92 00 for temporary irrigation requirements. Additionally, all trees planted shall receive tree watering bags. Tree watering bags to be installed and filled with water by the Contractor. Refer to spec section 32 93 00 for more information. 18. Landscape Rock Mulch & Edging: A.Rock Mulch: 4" depth of 3 4" dark grey trap rock chips. The intent is to match the existing rock mulch on site. Field verify and submit sample for approval. B.Edger: Commercial grade black polyvinyl edging. The intent is to match the existing edger on site. Field verify and submit sample for approval. 19. Landscape Contractor is responsible for coordination with the General Contractor, to protect the new improvements on and off-site during landscape work activities. Report any damage to the General Contractor immediately. 20. Unless otherwise noted/indicated, all new landscape beds, including the designated garden area, will receive 3/8" trap rock chips over weed mat per specifications. 21. All planting, seeding, and sodded areas shall be prepared prior to installation activities with a harley power box rake or equal to provide a firm planting bed free of stones, sticks, construction debris, etc. 22. Turf Sodding and Seeding activity shall conform to all rules and regulations as established in the MnDOT Seeding Manual, 2024 edition, for turf bed preparation, installation, maintenance, acceptability, and warranty. An acceptable stand of seeded turf is lush, full, and weed-free. See specifications for maintenance requirements. 23. The Landscape Contractor shall furnish samples of all landscape materials for approval prior to installation. 24. The Landscape Contractor shall clear and grub the underbrush from within the work limits to remove dead branches, leaves, trash, weeds and foreign materials. 25. The landscape contractor shall contact Gopher State One Call no less than 48 hours before digging for field utility locations. 26. The landscape contractor shall be responsible for the removal of erosion control measures once vegetation has been established to the satisfaction of the municipal staff. This includes silt curtain fencing and sediment logs placed in the landscape. 27. The landscape contractor shall be responsible for visiting the site to become familiar with the conditions prior to bidding and installation. Coordinate with the general contractors on matters such as fine grading, landscaped area conditions, staging areas, irrigation connection to building, etc. 28. See Site and Civil plans for additional information regarding the project, including infiltration area soils and sub-surface drainage requirements and performance. 29. Topsoil Requirements: 4" (minimum) depth of topsoil is required on all projects. See Specifications for additional requirements. Specifications supersede this note if a deeper topsoil depth is listed. 30. Landscape contractor must prove the open sub-grade of all planting areas after their excavation is capable of infiltrating a minimum requirement of 1/4-inch of water per hour prior to installation of plant materials, topsoil, irrigation, weed mat, and mulch. Planting areas not capable of meeting this requirement shall have 4" diameter X 48" depth holes augured every 36" on-center and filled with MnDOT Free-Draining Coarse Filter Aggregate. Re-test sub-grade percolation for compliance to infiltration minimum requirement. 31. Landscape contractor to provide nursery pull list (bill of lading) including plant species and sizes shipped to the site. Additionally, the landscape contractor shall provide nursery stock traceability, proving none of the materials provided contain or are genetic strains of the neonicotinoid family including acetamiprid, clothianidin, imidacloprid, nitenpyram, nithiazine, thiacloprid and thiamethoxam. 32. Garden Soil in At-Grade Garden Plot: The existing topsoil in the garden area indicated shall be raked, tilled, and amended with clean imported compost so that the topsoil achieves a 20% compost to 80% topsoil ratio. The garden beds shall be planting ready upon completion. Landscape Notes and Requirements: NATIVE SEED MIX: NATIVE SEEDING INSTALLATION METHOD: Drop Seeding Onto Tilled Sites This is the "standard" method for seeding on prepared sites such as those on construction projects. a)Site Preparation: The site should be prepared by loosening topsoil to a minimum depth of 3 inches. b)Fertilizer: Use a fertilizer analysis based on a soil test or a general recommendation is a 10-10-10 (NPK) commercial grade analysis at 200 lbs/acre. c)Seed Installation: Seed should be installed with a drop seeder that will accurately meter the types of seed to be planted, keep all seeds uniformly mixed during the seeding and contain drop seed tubes for seed placement (Brillion-type). The drop seeder should be equipped with a cultipacker assembly to ensure seed-to-soil contact. d)Seeding Rates: Rates are specified in the mixture tabulation for the specified mix. e)Packing: If the drop seeder is not equipped with a cultipacker, the site should be cultipacked following the seeding to ensure seed-to-soil contact. f)Mulch: Cover soil with a hydromulch consisting of natural wood fiber or paper fiber, water, and M-Binder at 100 lbs per acre. Note: Heavy equipment is not allowed in the infiltration basins to keep soils from getting compacted. If any compaction occurs due to seeding operations, the soils must be uncompacted. NATIVE SEED REQUIRED MAINTENANCE - 3 YRS: Native Grass and Forb Mixtures (mixtures beginning with the number 3) Year 1 Establishment (spring seeding): 1)Prepare site - Late April - May 2)Seed - May 1 - June 1 Maintenance: 1)Mow (6-8 inches) - every 30 days after planting until September 30. 2)Weed Control - mowing should help control annual weeds. Spot spray thistles, etc. Establishment (fall seeding): 1)Prepare site - Late August - early September 2)Seed - late September to freeze-up Maintenance (following season): 1)Mow (6-8 inches) - once in May, June, and July 2)Weed Control - mowing should keep annual weeds down. Spot spray thistles, etc. Evaluation: 1)Cover crop growing within 2 weeks of planting (except dormant plantings). 2)Seedlings spaced 1-6 inches apart in drill rows. 3)Native grass seedlings may only be 4-6 inches tall. 4)If there is a flush of growth from foxtail etc., mow as necessary. Year 2 Maintenance: 1)Mow (6-8 inches) one time between June 1 - August 15 before weeds set seed. 2)Weed Control - mowing should keep annual weeds down. Spot spray thistles, etc. 3)Some sites may not require much maintenance the second year. Evaluation: 1)Cover crop will be gone unless winter wheat was used in a fall planting. 2)Grasses forming clumps 1-6 inches apart in drill rows, but still short. 3)Some flowers should be blooming (black-eyed Susans, bergamot, etc.). 4)If there is a flush of growth from foxtail etc., mow site. Year 3 Maintenance: 1)Mow only if necessary. 2)Weed Control - Spot spray thistles, etc. 3)Sites usually do not require much maintenance the third year. Evaluation: 1)Planting should begin looking like a prairie - tall grasses, flowers, etc. Long-term Maintenance: 1)Weed Control - Spot spray thistles, etc. 2)Burning (3-5 year rotation) alternate spring and fall if possible. 3)Haying (3-5 year rotation) late summer or early fall. Alternate with burning (may substitute for burning). 4)Burning two years in a row will really "clean up" rough-looking sites. PLUGFLATRiver BullrushBolboschoenus fluviatius RootSizeCommon NameScientific Name (Provide a random and equal mixture of the plants listed) PLUGFLAT Tussock SedgeCarex stricta PLUGFLATWooley SedgeCarex pellita PLUGFLATBebb's SedgeCarex bebbi PLUGFLAT Blue Joint GrassCalamagrostis canadensis PLUGFLATBottle Brush SedgeCarex comosa PLUGFLATLake SedgeCarex lacustris PLUGFLAT Fox SedgeCarex vulpinoidea PLUGFLATCommon RushJuncus effusus PLUGFLATGreen BulrushScirpus atrovirens PLUGFLAT Cord GrassSpartina pectinata PLUGFLAT WoolgrassScirpus cyperinus 24" On-Center Plug Spacing: *Contractor is to evenly distribute the allocated amount of prairie plugs throughout the basin areas located within the site accordingly. BASIN BOTTOM: LIVE PLUG SCHEDULE: Native Seed Areas noted per plan: (unless otherwise noted on civil plans), shall be: BWSR 38-631 'Pollinator Plot Urban SE' mix, drop-seeded or hand broadcasted into the topsoil layer at the BWSR recommended rate of 21.45 lbs per acre. Submit seed mix for approval. See specifications. Grading and Erosion Control per Civil Plans and Specifications. 112 108 107 106 111 EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED (TYP.) 105 104 103 102 101 113 114 115 116 117 110 109 TREE PROTECTION FENCE PER DETAIL TREE PROTECTION FENCE PER DETAIL TREE PROTECTION FENCE PER DETAIL EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED (TYP.) EXISTING BUILDING PROPOSED ADDITION PROPOSED ADDITION EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED (TYP.) EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED (TYP.) EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN (TYP.) EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN (TYP.) EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN (TYP.) CHECKED BY: DATE: DRAWN BY: PROJECT: REVISIONS: 2051 KILLEBREW DRIVE, SUITE 680, BLOOMINGTON, MN 55425 P. 651.451.4605 KOMAINC.COM KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 501 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 P. 612.332.7281 GR E Y C L O U D E L E M E N T A R Y - A D D I T I O N S A N D R E N O V A T I O N S 24253 95 2 5 I N D I A N B L V D S CO T T A G E G R O V E , M N 5 5 0 1 6 A-11 OVERALL FIRST FLOOR PLAN HL BH 08/27/2025 www.bkbm.com 6120 Earle Brown Dr., Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55340 Phone: (763) 843-0420 Fax: (763) 843-0421 SITE PLAN REVIEW MN License Number:Date: XX-XX-XXXX Benjamin D. Hartberg, PLA 48084 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA Landscape Symbols Legend: Existing Tree To Remain Existing Tree To be Removed Tree Protection Fence L301 TR E E P R E S E R V A T I O N & M I I T I G A T I O N P L A N TREE PRESERVATION & MITIGATION PLAN Tree Mitigation Calculation:General Notes: 01. See Civil Engineer's plans for site plan layout and dimensions. 02. Protect adjacent areas from damage during construction. 03. See Civil Engineer's details for paving and curb information. 04. Refer to Sheets L101-L102 for Landscape Plans, L201-L202 for Landscape Details, L301-L302 for Tree Preservation The inventory below is showing existing trees within the project work limits 118 119 120 EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED (TYP.) EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN (TYP.) TREE PROTECTION FENCE PER DETAIL121 122 CHECKED BY: DATE: DRAWN BY: PROJECT: REVISIONS: 2051 KILLEBREW DRIVE, SUITE 680, BLOOMINGTON, MN 55425 P. 651.451.4605 KOMAINC.COM KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 501 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 P. 612.332.7281 GR E Y C L O U D E L E M E N T A R Y - A D D I T I O N S A N D R E N O V A T I O N S 24253 95 2 5 I N D I A N B L V D S CO T T A G E G R O V E , M N 5 5 0 1 6 A-11 OVERALL FIRST FLOOR PLAN HL BH 08/27/2025 www.bkbm.com 6120 Earle Brown Dr., Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55340 Phone: (763) 843-0420 Fax: (763) 843-0421 SITE PLAN REVIEW MN License Number:Date: XX-XX-XXXX Benjamin D. Hartberg, PLA 48084 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA Existing boundary, location, topographic, and utility information shown on this plan is from a field survey by others. ·Do not begin tree clearing work until tree protection measures are in place and to the permit approval of the City Forester has been granted. ·Critical Root Zone: Install high density polyethylene safety fence, 4 ft. high, international orange, at the Drip Line or at the Critical Root Zone whichever is greater, of trees to be preserved per detail, prior to commencement of earthwork activity. Field-staking of the fence location(s) subject to City approval. ·Where silt fence and proposed tree protection fence overlap, place the tree protection fence on the outside of the silt fence, double-staked at the break-point. ·Refer to Tree Protection Detail for fencing required around trees to remain. ·The contractor shall prune the canopy of existing trees to remain where the canopy is in jeopardy of damage due to the new improvements shown. It is recommended that the contractor hire a certified arborist to perform the pruning. Any branches broken during construction shall be immediately trimmed and wounds painted to prevent further damage. ·Perform work in accordance with the laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, and orders of public authority having jurisdiction. Secure and pay for permits, governmental fees and licenses necessary for the proper execution of the demolition work. ·Provide protective coverings and enclosures as necessary to prevent damage to existing work that is to remain. Existing work to remain may include items such as trees, shrubs, lawns, sidewalks, drives, curbs, utilities, buildings and/or other structures on or adjacent to the demolition site. Provide temporary fences and barricades as required for the safe and proper execution of the work and the protection of persons and property. ·Remove debris, waste, and rubbish promptly from the site. On-site burial of debris is not permitted. Burn no debris on the site. Salvage material not otherwise indicated to be reused shall become the Contractor's property and is to be removed promptly from the site and disposed of in strict accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, and/or statutes. ·Buildings, features, surfaces, and other descriptive references shown on this drawing are for informational purposes only. Field verify all information relevant to the project prior to proceeding with the work. Visit the site and determine all site conditions and hazards. ·This plan is a guide as to the anticipated amount of disturbance expected due to proposed improvements. The contractor is expected to take all necessary precautions to ensure trees noted to remain are not damaged during construction. Do not store material or drive within the drip line of existing trees to remain. Be aware of overhead branches for clearance of material and equipment. ·This plan is not a guarantee that existing trees will survive during/post construction, but rather a guide to help assure their protection and greatest chances of survival at the surface level. Further protection measures outside this scope could involve ecologists, foresters and arborists. ·Notify the Owner's Representative when tree protection fencing is taken down to perform work in conjunction with the new improvements noted in this plan set. The contractor is responsible for re-erecting the tree protection fence immediately after the work is complete, when ever possible ·Trees shown as existing to remain (be preserved) that are damaged / killed as a result of construction activities are subject to replacement per the City Tree Replacement penalty. Replacement trees are to be paid for at no additional expense to the Owner. Tree Preservation & Protection Notes: NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL TREE PROTECTION DETAIL DRIP LINE NOTE: TREE PROTECTION SHALL BE PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR AS REQUIRED TO AIDE IN SURVIVABILITY OF EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN. DO NOT STORE MATERIALS OR DRIVE EQUIPMENT WITHIN THE TREE DRIP LINE AS DESIGNATED ABOVE. MAINTAIN THE FENCE INTEGRITY AT ALL TIMES THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. TREE PROTECTION FENCE SHALL BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO THE START OF DEMOLITION. PLAN ELEVATION 4' SNOW FENCE WITH POSTS @ 8' O.C. (MAX.) AT EDGE OF CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (A RADIUS OF 1-1/2 FEET FOR EVERY 1 INCH OF DBH FOR THE TREE TRUNK OF THE TREE BEING PRESERVED. REFER TO PLAN FOR LOCATION. TREE NOTED TO REMAIN 1 L302 TR E E P R E S E R V A T I O N & M I T I G A T I O N General Notes: 01. See Civil Engineer's plans for site plan layout and dimensions. 02. Protect adjacent areas from damage during construction. 03. See Civil Engineer's details for paving and curb information. 04. Refer to Sheets L101-L102 for Landscape Plans, L201-L202 for Landscape Details, L301-L302 for Tree Preservation TREE PRESERVATION & MITIGATION PLAN - NORTH BASIN Landscape Symbols Legend: Existing Tree To Remain Existing Tree To be Removed Tree Protection Fence W D 604 603 602 601 148 147 146C 148C 148B 148A 505 502 502A500A 505A 146 504 300C 300A 300B 150A 150 150B 150D 150C 150E 148H 148G 148F 148E 148D 149110E 146B 146A 145 144 14 5 A 145D 145E 14 5 B 144A 144B 144C 301 302 303304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 300D 314 15 0 G 15 0 F 140B 140A 140 139 139A 139B 139C 144D 600 606 607 608 042 041A 110A 110D 157 158 158A165 166 163 163A 16 2 164 157B 160 159 157A 155 155A 110C 112A 112B 11 2 D 110 113B 113 110B 111 11 1 A 111B 111C 11 1 E 024 020 106 108 106B 113A 10 8 A 10 7 A 107 152 10 6 A 105 104 10 3 B 103 030 03 1 032033 03 4 02202 3 022A 025 02 6 10 0 101 101A 101B 101C 101D 102 102A 102C 102D 02 1 02 8 007A 00 7 11 7 A 006A 006 006B 006D 005C 006C 005 005A 20 2 200A 200 200B 201B 201 201A 201C 200C 12 5 A 12 4 A 001 001A 002B 002A 115 116 117 118 119120121122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131132133134 135 136 137 138 003A 003B 004A 004B 503 502B 505B50 0 50 1 125B 13 6 A 300F 300E 609 50 2 C 300G 155B 128B 128A 60 0 A 145Z 112C 112 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATE: REG. NO.: Marc R. DuBois 44898 CHECKED BY: DATE: DRAWN BY: PROJECT: REVISIONS: 2051 KILLEBREW DRIVE, SUITE 680, BLOOMINGTON, MN 55425 P. 651.451.4605 KOMAINC.COM THE DESIGNS AND PLANS INDICATED ON THIS DRAWING ARE THE PROPERTY OF KRECH, O'BRIEN, MUELLER & ASSOCIATES, INC. ALL RIGHTS ARE RESERVED. NO DESIGNS OR PLANS SHALL BE USED OR REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM OR BY ANY MEANS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF KRECH, O'BRIEN, MUELLER & ASSOCIATES, INC. KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 501 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 P. 612.332.7281 AD D I T I O N S & R E N O V A T I O N S KDD/LAS MRD 24253 95 2 5 I N D I A N B L V D S CO T T A G E G R O V E , M N 5 5 0 1 6 FI R S T F L O O R P L A N - O V E R A L L A10 08/27/2025 GR E Y C L O U D E L E M E N T A R Y S C H O O L A10 FIRST FLOOR PLAN - OVERALL SITE PLAN REVIEW 1/16" = 1'-0"1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN - OVERALL PR O J E C T NO R T H TR U E A1 B2 C A2 B1 E KEY PLAN - NEW NOT TO SCALE D A3 ROOM SCHEDULE Number Name Area 001 RESOURCE ROOM 987 SF 001A COMMONS 1719 SF 002A CLASSROOM 985 SF 002B COMMONS 1721 SF 003A CLASSROOM 987 SF 003B COMMONS 1773 SF 004A CLASSROOM 985 SF 004B COMMONS 1771 SF 005 CLASSROOM 912 SF 005A STORAGE 81 SF 005C TOILET 59 SF 006 CLASSROOM 916 SF 006A STORAGE 58 SF 006B MOTOR ROOM 230 SF 006C OFFICE 188 SF 006D LAUNDRY 77 SF 007 CONF 125 SF 007A LOCKERS 670 SF 020 SE CORRIDOR 2823 SF 021 SE VESTIBULE 159 SF 022 WASH ROOM 137 SF 022A CUST 30 SF 023 BOYS 142 SF 024 NE CORRIDOR 2922 SF 025 TOILET 29 SF 026 GIRLS 114 SF 028 NE VESTIBULE 159 SF 030 WASH ROOM 139 SF 031 GIRLS 113 SF 032 TOILET 33 SF 033 CUST 33 SF 034 BOYS 147 SF 041A HALL 250 SF 042 VESTIBULE 146 SF 100 CORRIDOR 683 SF 101 CLASSROOM 1065 SF 101A STORAGE 65 SF 101B GROUP 169 SF 101C TOILET 25 SF 101D WASH 35 SF 102 CLASSROOM 1065 SF 102A STORAGE 61 SF 102C TOILET 26 SF 102D WASH 35 SF 103 MECHANICAL 825 SF 103B EQUIP 97 SF 104 PC LAB 607 SF 105 PC LAB 608 SF 106 MEDIA CENTER 4059 SF 106A CLASSROOM 145 SF 106B OFFICE 143 SF 107 OFFICE 204 SF 107A HALL 80 SF 108 OFFICE 201 SF 108A HALL 77 SF 110 MECHANICAL 2991 SF 110A COMMONS 3685 SF 110B CORRIDOR 473 SF 110C CORRIDOR 473 SF 110D VESTIBULE 130 SF 110E STORAGE 852 SF 111 WASH AREA 185 SF 111A BOYS 205 SF 111B CUST 55 SF 111C TOILET 35 SF 111E GIRLS 198 SF 112 WASH AREA 182 SF 112A BOYS 204 SF 112B CUST 55 SF 112C TOILET 35 SF 112D GIRLS 198 SF 113 FILES 242 SF 113A MEDIA WORK ROOM 518 SF 113B COMM/IT 146 SF 115 CLASSROOM 803 SF 116 CLASSROOM 796 SF 117 CLASSROOM 799 SF 117A MECH 315 SF 118 CLASSROOM 799 SF 119 CLASSROOM 807 SF 120 CLASSROOM 805 SF 121 CLASSROOM 805 SF 122 CLASSROOM 804 SF 123 CLASSROOM 798 SF 124 CLASSROOM 799 SF 124A MECH 315 SF 125 PRE-K 797 SF 125A MECH 315 SF 125B TOILET 62 SF 126 CLASSROOM 804 SF 127 CLASSROOM 803 SF 128 CLASSROOM 793 SF 128 CLASSROOM 163 SF 128A STORAGE 61 SF 128B TOILET 55 SF 129 CLASSROOM 800 SF 130 CLASSROOM 799 SF 131 CLASSROOM 805 SF 132 CLASSROOM 805 SF 133 CLASSROOM 805 SF 134 CLASSROOM 805 SF 135 CLASSROOM 799 SF 136 CLASSROOM 800 SF 136A MECH 315 SF 137 CLASSROOM 798 SF 138 CLASSROOM 804 SF 139 ART / SCIENCE 942 SF 139A STORAGE 228 SF ROOM SCHEDULE Number Name Area 139B KILN 205 SF 139C HALL 588 SF 140 MUSIC 940 SF 140A INSTRUMENT ROOM 438 SF 140B HALL 565 SF 144 GYMNASIUM 3053 SF 144A PE OFFICE 114 SF 144B PE EQUIPMENT 314 SF 144C STORAGE 303 SF 144D HALL 1097 SF 145 GYMNASIUM B 3032 SF 145A BOYS 128 SF 145B GIRLS 144 SF 145D DRESSING/ SHOWER 52 SF 145E DRESSING/ SHOWER 52 SF 145Z STORAGE 34 SF 146 CAFETERIA 3104 SF 146A STORAGE 299 SF 146B VESTIBULE 113 SF 146C CAFETERIA BREAKOUT 522 SF 147 STAFF BREAK 426 SF 148 KITCHEN 1060 SF 148A DRY STORAGE 285 SF 148B FREEZER 244 SF 148C COOLER 176 SF 148D FOOD SERVICE OFFICE 109 SF 148E TOILET 25 SF 148F LOCKER 34 SF 148G KITCHEN EQUIP 74 SF 148H DISHWASHING 197 SF 149 BOILER ROOM 1046 SF 150 RECEIVING 734 SF 150A SITE STORAGE 91 SF 150B CUSTODIAN 134 SF 150C TOILET 31 SF 150D LOCKER 50 SF 150E BUILDING EQUIPMENT 845 SF 150F HALL 116 SF 150G HALL 343 SF 152 OFFICE 141 SF 155 PRE-K 786 SF 155A TOILET 72 SF 155B STORAGE 73 SF 157 MAIN OFFICE 603 SF 157A CLOSET 10 SF 157B HALL 161 SF 158 NURSE 385 SF 158A TOILET 55 SF 159 PRINCIPAL 254 SF 160 CONF 271 SF 162 OFFICE 98 SF 163 GROUP ROOM 255 SF 163A CLOSET 25 SF 164 TOILET 56 SF 165 OFFICE 63 SF 166 WORK ROOM 343 SF 200 KINDERGARTEN 1057 SF 200A STORAGE 84 SF 200B OFFICE 84 SF 200C TOILET 36 SF 201 KINDERGARTEN 1057 SF 201A STORAGE 59 SF 201B OFFICE 84 SF 201C TOILET 36 SF 202 LOCKER BAY 513 SF 300A OFFICE 263 SF 300B EL 255 SF 300C EL 256 SF 300D SOC/PSYCH 259 SF 300E READING 263 SF 300F RESOURCE 515 SF 300G HALL 157 SF 301 CLASSROOM 856 SF 302 CLASSROOM 836 SF 303 CLASSROOM 830 SF 304 CLASSROOM 827 SF 305 CLASSROOM 836 SF 306 CLASSROOM 849 SF 307 STORAGE 221 SF 308 GIRLS 49 SF 309 BOYS 67 SF 310 CUSTODIAN 32 SF 311 FLEX SPACE 3028 SF 312 LOCKERS 927 SF 314 STAFF 50 SF 500 COMMONS 435 SF 500A STORAGE 61 SF 501 STAFF 303 SF 502 SPECIAL ED 826 SF 502A BREAKOUT 63 SF 502B TOILET 61 SF 502C STORAGE 93 SF 503 OFFICE 186 SF 504 MOTOR BREAKOUT 219 SF 505 SPECIAL ED 830 SF 505A BREAKOUT 69 SF 505B TOILET 82 SF 600 ENTRY 170 SF 600A HALL 107 SF 601 KIDS CLUB 180 SF 602 DAPE STORAGE 458 SF 603 DAPE GYM 1597 SF 604 GYM 3416 SF 606 WOMENS 122 SF 607 MENS 122 SF 608 CUSTODIAN 87 SF 609 HALL 51 SF EXISTING ROOF CONSTRUCTION 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MECH EQUIPMENT SCREEN I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATE: REG. NO.: Marc R. DuBois 44898 CHECKED BY: DATE: DRAWN BY: PROJECT: REVISIONS: 2051 KILLEBREW DRIVE, SUITE 680, BLOOMINGTON, MN 55425 P. 651.451.4605 KOMAINC.COM THE DESIGNS AND PLANS INDICATED ON THIS DRAWING ARE THE PROPERTY OF KRECH, O'BRIEN, MUELLER & ASSOCIATES, INC. ALL RIGHTS ARE RESERVED. NO DESIGNS OR PLANS SHALL BE USED OR REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM OR BY ANY MEANS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF KRECH, O'BRIEN, MUELLER & ASSOCIATES, INC. KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 501 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 P. 612.332.7281 AD D I T I O N S & R E N O V A T I O N S KDD/LAS MRD 24253 95 2 5 I N D I A N B L V D S CO T T A G E G R O V E , M N 5 5 0 1 6 RO O F P L A N - O V E R A L L A19 08/27/2025 GR E Y C L O U D E L E M E N T A R Y S C H O O L A19 ROOF PLAN - OVERALL SITE PLAN REVIEW 1/16" = 1'-0"1 ROOF PLAN - OVERALL PR O J E C T NO R T H TR U E A1 B2 C A2 B1 E KEY PLAN - NEW NOT TO SCALE D A3 MAIN LEVEL 100' -0" TO WALL KINDERGARTEN 114' -9 3/8" TO WALL GYM 128' -1 3/8"TO WALL STORM SHELTER 125' -5 3/8" NEW CLASSROOM ADDITION EF3 EF7 EF9 TYPICAL TYPICAL TYPICAL TYPICAL STORM SHELTER BEYOND, REFER TO /1 A32 EF8 EF1EF1 EF3.1EF3.1EF1 SANDSTONE COLOR EXISTING METAL INCLUDING FASCIA, COPING, WALL PANELS, ETC TO CLERESTORY 123' -6 3/8" MAIN LEVEL 100' -0" MAIN LEVEL 100' -0" TO WALL KINDERGARTEN 114' -9 3/8" TO WALL GYM 128' -1 3/8" TO WALL STORM SHELTER 125' -5 3/8" NEW STORM SHELTER ADDITIONNEW CLASSROOM ADDITION EF3 EF7 EF9 EF8 EF5 EF4 EF10 TYPICAL TYPICAL TYPICAL EF4 TYPICAL EF8 EF1 EF2.1 EF9 TYPICAL EF1 EF10 TYPICAL EF7 TO CLERESTORY 123' -6 3/8" MAIN LEVEL 100' -0" MAIN LEVEL 100' -0" TO WALL GYM 128' -1 3/8"TO WALL STORM SHELTER 125' -5 3/8" NEW STORM SHELTER ADDITION CLASSROOM BEYOND, REFER TO /1 A31 EF8 EF4 EF5 EF4 EF11 EF8 EF2 TYPICAL TYPICAL TYPICAL EF7 FENCE & GATE, REFER TO LANDSCAPING EF1 EF1 EF9EF9 EF7EF7 EF1 EF1 EF1 EF1 EF1 EF10TYPICAL TO CLERESTORY 123' -6 3/8" TO WALL 114' -9 3/8" TO WALL 119' -9 3/8" MAIN LEVEL 100' -0" MAIN LEVEL 100' -0" TO WALL KINDERGARTEN 114' -9 3/8" TO WALL GYM 128' -1 3/8"TO WALL STORM SHELTER 125' -5 3/8" STORM SHELTER BEYOND EF1 EF1 EF1 EF1 EF1 TO CLERESTORY 123' -6 3/8" TO WALL 114' -9 3/8" TO WALL 119' -9 3/8" PR O J E C T NO R T H TR U E /2 A31 / 3 A3 1 /4 A31 / 1 A3 2 / 2 A3 2 / 1 A3 1 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATE: REG. NO.: Marc R. DuBois 44898 CHECKED BY: DATE: DRAWN BY: PROJECT: REVISIONS: 2051 KILLEBREW DRIVE, SUITE 680, BLOOMINGTON, MN 55425 P. 651.451.4605 KOMAINC.COM THE DESIGNS AND PLANS INDICATED ON THIS DRAWING ARE THE PROPERTY OF KRECH, O'BRIEN, MUELLER & ASSOCIATES, INC. ALL RIGHTS ARE RESERVED. NO DESIGNS OR PLANS SHALL BE USED OR REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM OR BY ANY MEANS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF KRECH, O'BRIEN, MUELLER & ASSOCIATES, INC. KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 501 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 P. 612.332.7281 AD D I T I O N S & R E N O V A T I O N S KDD/LAS MRD 24253 95 2 5 I N D I A N B L V D S CO T T A G E G R O V E , M N 5 5 0 1 6 EX T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S - O V E R A L L A31 08/27/2025 GR E Y C L O U D E L E M E N T A R Y S C H O O L A31 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - OVERALL SITE PLAN REVIEW 1" = 10'-0"1 BUILDING ELEVATION NORTH (NORTH 1) 1" = 10'-0"2 BUILDING ELEVATION WEST 1" = 10'-0"3 BUILDING ELEVATION SOUTH (SOUTH 1) EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE LEGEND CODE ITEM MANUFACTURER MODEL COMMENTS EF1 UTILITY BRICK - RUNNING BOND EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING CONSTRUCTION (SEE IMAGE) EF2 UTILITY BRICK - RUNNING BOND HEBRON MISTY GRAY EXISTING CONSTRUCTION EF2.1 UTILITY BRICK - RUNNING BOND HEBRON MISTY GRAY EXISTING CONSTRUCTION EF3 UTILITY BRICK - RUNNING BOND SUMMIT 70/30 BLEND OF THISTLEDOWN AND ALPINE ASH BRICK BLENDED TO MATCH ADDITOIN LABELED EF3.1; REFER TO ELEVATION AND IMAGE EF4 PRECAST WALL PANEL TBD COLOR AA69E-1 SMOOTH/ACID ETCH FINISH EF5 PRECAST WALL PANEL TBD COLOR AA69E-1 MEDIUM SANDBLAST EF6 PREFINISHED METAL CANOPY TBD TBD COLOR MATCH EXISTING, REGAL RED OR SIMILAR EF7 PREFINISHED METAL TRIM TBD TBD COLOR MATCH EXISTING, REGAL RED OR SIMILAR EF8 PREFINISHED METAL COPING TBD TBD COLOR MATCH EXISTING, SANDSTONE OR SIMILAR EF9 ANODIZED ALUMINUM TBD TBD MATCH EXISTING FINISH, CLEAR ANODIZED EF10 PAINT TBD TBD COLOR MATCH EF4 EF11 PAINT TBD TBD COLOR MATCH EF8 NOTE: REFER TO SHEET A32 FOR EXTERIOR MATERIAL PERCENTAGES AND EXTERIOR MATERIAL IMAGES 1/8" = 1'-0"4 BUILDING ELEVATION EAST MAIN LEVEL 100' -0" MAIN LEVEL 100' -0" TO WALL GYM 128' -1 3/8"TO WALL STORM SHELTER 125' -5 3/8" NEW ENTRY ADDITION NEW STORM SHELTER ADDITION EF10 EF4 EF5 EF4 EF8EF9 EF7 TYPICAL TYPICAL TYPICAL TYPICAL TYPICAL EF2.1 EF2 EF9 EF6 EF8 EF11 DASHED LINE OF EXISTING EXPOSED FRAME SYSTEM EF1 EF9 EF9EF9EF9EF1 TO WALL 114' -9 3/8" TO WALL 119' -9 3/8" MAIN LEVEL 100' -0" TO WALL KINDERGARTEN 114' -9 3/8" NEW CLASSROOM ADDITION EF9 EF3 EF8 EF1 EF1 DASHED LINE OF EXISTING EXPOSED FRAME SYSTEM PR O J E C T NO R T H TR U E /2 A31 / 3 A3 1 /4 A31 / 1 A3 2 / 2 A3 2 / 1 A3 1 EXTERIOR MATERIAL PERCENTAGES: EXTERIOR MATERIALS PER ELEVATION • EAST: 1. OVERALL AREA =8,957.55 SF =100.0% 2. CLASS I =8,016.64 SF =89.5% 3. CLASS III =919.92 SF =10.3% 4. CLASS IV =20.99 SF =0.2% • NORTH 1: 1. OVERALL AREA =6,421.28 SF =100.0% 2. CLASS I =4,940.87 SF =76.9% 3. CLASS III =953.64 SF =14.9% 4. CLASS IV =526.77 SF =8.2% • NORTH 2: 1. OVERALL AREA =5,319.10 SF =100.0% 2. CLASS I =3,525.24 SF =66.3% 3. CLASS III =1,793.86 SF =33.7% • SOUTH 1: 1. OVERALL AREA =8,744.37 SF =100.0% 2. CLASS I =6,459.94 SF =73.9% 3. CLASS III =2,213.39 SF =25.3% 4. CLASS IV =71.04 SF =0.8% • SOUTH 2: 1. OVERALL AREA =3,062.68 SF =100.0% 2. CLASS I =2,893.22 SF =94.5% 3. CLASS III =169.46 SF =5.5% • WEST: 1. OVERALL AREA =9,150.39 SF =100.0% 2. CLASS I =5,424.66 SF =59.3% 3. CLASS III =3,712.10 SF =40.6% 4. CLASS IV =13.63 SF =0.1% TOTALS • OVERALL AREA =41,655.37 SF =100.0% • CLASS I =31,260.57 SF =75.0% • CLASS III =9,762.37 SF =23.4% • CLASS IV =632.43 SF =1.6% I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATE: REG. NO.: Marc R. DuBois 44898 CHECKED BY: DATE: DRAWN BY: PROJECT: REVISIONS: 2051 KILLEBREW DRIVE, SUITE 680, BLOOMINGTON, MN 55425 P. 651.451.4605 KOMAINC.COM THE DESIGNS AND PLANS INDICATED ON THIS DRAWING ARE THE PROPERTY OF KRECH, O'BRIEN, MUELLER & ASSOCIATES, INC. ALL RIGHTS ARE RESERVED. NO DESIGNS OR PLANS SHALL BE USED OR REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM OR BY ANY MEANS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF KRECH, O'BRIEN, MUELLER & ASSOCIATES, INC. KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 501 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 P. 612.332.7281 AD D I T I O N S & R E N O V A T I O N S KDD/LAS MRD 24253 95 2 5 I N D I A N B L V D S CO T T A G E G R O V E , M N 5 5 0 1 6 EX T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S - O V E R A L L A32 08/27/2025 GR E Y C L O U D E L E M E N T A R Y S C H O O L A32 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - OVERALL SITE PLAN REVIEW 1" = 10'-0"1 BUILDING ELEVATION NORTH (NORTH 2) 1" = 10'-0"2 BUILDING ELEVATION SOUTH (SOUTH 2) EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE LEGEND CODE ITEM MANUFACTURER MODEL COMMENTS EF1 UTILITY BRICK - RUNNING BOND EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING CONSTRUCTION (SEE IMAGE) EF2 UTILITY BRICK - RUNNING BOND HEBRON MISTY GRAY EXISTING CONSTRUCTION EF2.1 UTILITY BRICK - RUNNING BOND HEBRON MISTY GRAY EXISTING CONSTRUCTION EF3 UTILITY BRICK - RUNNING BOND SUMMIT 70/30 BLEND OF THISTLEDOWN AND ALPINE ASH BRICK BLENDED TO MATCH ADDITOIN LABELED EF3.1; REFER TO ELEVATION AND IMAGE EF4 PRECAST WALL PANEL TBD COLOR AA69E-1 SMOOTH/ACID ETCH FINISH EF5 PRECAST WALL PANEL TBD COLOR AA69E-1 MEDIUM SANDBLAST EF6 PREFINISHED METAL CANOPY TBD TBD COLOR MATCH EXISTING, REGAL RED OR SIMILAR EF7 PREFINISHED METAL TRIM TBD TBD COLOR MATCH EXISTING, REGAL RED OR SIMILAR EF8 PREFINISHED METAL COPING TBD TBD COLOR MATCH EXISTING, SANDSTONE OR SIMILAR EF9 ANODIZED ALUMINUM TBD TBD MATCH EXISTING FINISH, CLEAR ANODIZED EF10 PAINT TBD TBD COLOR MATCH EF4 EF11 PAINT TBD TBD COLOR MATCH EF8 EF1 EF2 & EF2.1 EF3 EF4 & EF5 NOTE: COLOR SAMPLE SHOWS MEDIUM SANDBLAST FINISH EF6 & EF7 EF8 EF9 THISTLEDOWN (70%) ALPINE ASH (30%) MISTY GRAYEXISTING ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION AA69E-1 REGAL RED SANDSTONE ANODIZED ALUM -CLEAR EF3.1 EXISTING ADDITION CONSTRUCTION Luminaire Schedule Symbol Tag Description Luminaire Lumens Luminaire Watts Total Watts W1 WDGE3 LED P1 70CRI R3 40K 7524 51.1717 102.343 P1 RADPT P3 40K ASY 6918 53.6184 107.237 Calculation Summary Label CalcType Units Avg Max Min Avg/Min Max/Min ADDITION HARDSCAPE Illuminance Fc 1.87 5.7 0.3 6.23 19.00 W1 MH: 15 W1 MH: 15 P1 MH: 15 P1 MH: 15 0.3 0.6 1.1 2.0 3.7 5.5 5.7 4.0 2.8 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.7 1.3 1.2 1.0 2.0 2.4 1.1 2.3 3.9 1.2 2.8 5.3 1.2 2.5 4.5 2.5 3.5 2.7 1.3 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.6 1.4 2.8 3.6 2.5 1.1 0.4 1.1 2.3 3.5 1.8 3.3 3.2 1.5 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.6 1.4 1.9 3.7 2.9 1.2 0.5 0.8 1.6 2.1 2.7 3.0 2.4 1.2 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.5 1.2 2.3 3.0 2.2 1.0 0.5 1 1 1. TYPE P1 POLE LIGHTS ARE EXISTING TO BE RELOCATED APPROXIMATELY 14'-0" PLAN NORTH TO NEW LOCATION SHOWN. KEY NOTES: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATE:REG. NO.: CHECKED BY: DATE: DRAWN BY: PROJECT: REVISIONS: 2051 KILLEBREW DRIVE, SUITE 680, BLOOMINGTON, MN 55425 P. 651.451.4605 KOMAINC.COM THE DESIGNS AND PLANS INDICATED ON THIS DRAWING ARE THE PROPERTY OF KRECH, O'BRIEN, MUELLER & ASSOCIATES, INC. ALL RIGHTS ARE RESERVED. NO DESIGNS OR PLANS SHALL BE USED OR REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM OR BY ANY MEANS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF KRECH, O'BRIEN, MUELLER & ASSOCIATES, INC. KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 501 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 P. 612.332.7281 8/ 2 7 / 2 0 2 5 1 1 : 5 0 : 4 7 A M AD D I T I O N S & R E N O V A T I O N S DBR JDG 5184.0001 95 2 5 I N D I A N B L V D S CO T T A G E G R O V E , M N 5 5 0 1 6 SI T E P H O T O M E T R I C S E03 08/11/2025 GR E Y C L O U D E L E M E N T A R Y S C H O O L E03 SITE PHOTOMETRICS SITE PLAN REVIEW SCALE:1" = 50'-0" SITE PHOTOMETRICS1 H:\COTT\25X140541000\1_Corres\C_To Others\2025-09-11\140541 Plan Review 2025-09-11.docx MEMORANDUM Date: 09/11/2025 To: Paul Sponholz, PE From: Mike Boex, PE Subject: Grey Cloud Elementary Additions City of Cottage Grove, MN Project No.: 25X140541000 This memo summarizes the review of site plan documents submitted by KOMA, INC. dated 8/27/25 (received 8/29/25). Civil Plans: Sheet C2.1: 1. The existing city stormwater basin in the northwest corner of the site is partially covered by drainage and utility easement. Please provide additional drainage and utility easement to the south of the existing easement to approximately encompass the 903.5 elevation, as roughly shown at the end of this memo, to ensure the city can maintain the existing basin. 2. Consider repositioning STRM-2 or STRM-4 to reduce the possibility of short-circuiting treatment. Sheet C3.1: 3. It appears that structure STRM-7 is touching or immediately over a watermain pipe; please clarify. Perhaps additional watermain removals are required. 4. Clarify the use of Keynote #13 near STRM-18; it appears the symbol may represent a fire department connection location but keynote 13 doesn’t seem to correspond. Sheet C3.2: 5. Keynote 8: Add a statement that the contractor shall reconstruct the existing invert within the manhole. 6. Direct-bury (no conduit) streetlight wire is anticipated approximately 24-inches below grade behind the curb along Indian Boulevard. Exercise care when removing the existing curb as to not damage the wire. If damaged, coordinate with Public Works regarding an appropriate repair. Sheet C4.2: 7. Proposed full-depth pavement removal limits within Indian Boulevard: a. Please depict the existing shoulder striping on Indian Boulevard and add a note that the removal limits should extend to or go just beyond where the shoulder would be in the intersection. The intent is to avoid having a joint in the wheel path of traffic utilizing Indian Boulevard. Grey Cloud Elementary Additions Plan Review Page: 2 8. Indian Boulevard Pavement was designed to be 3.5” bituminous, 8” class 5 aggregate base, and 4” class 4 subbase. The proposed plans depict 4” bit and 8” class 5 for most paved areas. Please add a note to include 4” of class 4 subbase, or, for ease of construction it would be acceptable to add another 4” of class 5 (12” total). Stormwater Comments: 9. P8 water quality model summaries for the proposed conditions were submitted. a. Please also include additional data in the summary including the Total Inflow, Surface Outflow, Groundwater Outflow, and Total Outflow for TP and TSS. b. The Stormwater narrative report explains that work is anticipated to increase the site impervious by 0.25 acres. The existing and proposed P8 models simulate 7.62 acres and 8.02 acres of impervious surfaces—a difference of 0.4 acres. The existing and proposed HydroCAD model simulate 7.85 and 8.02 acres of impervious—a difference of 0.17 acres. The existing and proposed regional HydroCAD models both simulate 102.25 acres of impervious. Please be consistent with the impervious acreage increases in the report, and the P8 and HydroCAD models or explain why differing amounts are used. c. The submitted P8 input data includes filtration efficiencies set to the default infiltration basin values including 90% and 100% for the dissolved and P10% particles. The MPCA lists filtration efficiency removals for sand and iron-enhanced sand filters in their on-line document Recommendations and Guidance for Utilizing P8 to Meet TMDL Permit Requirements Please use the MPCA recommended filtration efficiencies in your P8 analyses or explain your use of the other values. Recommendations and guidance for utilizing P8 to meet TMDL permit requirements - Minnesota Stormwater Manual 10. HydroCAD: a. Pond 3P has some instability and errors such as a higher peak outflow than peak inflow (i.e. 93.6 cfs inflow and 138.9 cfs outflow). Please work to improve the model stability and verify the results. b. Sheet C6.0 includes tables of existing and proposed drainage areas totaling 17.62 acres. The rate control summary included in the same tables includes peak flows from other HydroCAD regional models. Why have you listed drainage areas from one set of models and peak flows from another set? Please explain. 11. Sheet C2.1 Please label the EOF location(s) and elevation. It appears the 899.50 berm is the EOF; for clarity label it as such. 12. Models and CAD Files: Please note that digital copies of the final version stormwater models (HydroCAD, P8) and shapefiles or CAD drawings of existing and proposed drainage areas are to be submitted to the city once the review and revision process is complete. Grey Cloud Elementary Additions Plan Review Page: 3 Additional easement area to encompass south end of existing basin: August 27, 2025 Emily Schmitz, Community Development Director City of Cottage Grove, MN RE: Grey Cloud Elementary Additions & Renovations – Site Plan Review Application – Narrative Dear Ms. Schmitz: In November 2023, the South Washington County School District, Independent 833 (SWCS), successfully passed a Bond Referendum which included funding for renovations and additions to the Grey Cloud Elementary School site at 9525 Indian Blvd S. There are to be two additions to the school: a two-classroom addition serving Special Education, and a Gymnasium addition which will also act as a storm shelter. I have reviewed the design and materials with Max Erickson and Kelly Becker from your offices, and they found our approach acceptable and ready for final review with the rest of the application. Our proposal includes a brick blend for the classroom addition which is a close match to the adjacent brick and for the gymnasium, architectural precast panels with surface texture and reveals to provide articulation in reference to the existing building. The design team and the school district have appreciated the City’s pro-active approach to the design process. Any further questions related to the enclosed submittal can be directed to me – as the applicant on behalf of SWCS. Thank you. Sincerely, Marc DuBois, Managing Principal Architect, KOMA Kevin Bohl, Civil Engineer, BKBM Cc: Kevin Bohl, Civil Engineer, BKBM Kyle Uecker, Director of Facilities, SWCS 1 City Council Action Request 13.A. Meeting Date 11/5/2025 Department Administration Agenda Category Action Item Title Mobile Food Licensing and Fee Structure Staff Recommendation Discuss the benefits of the following: 1) Retaining the current dual- fee structure ($50 per day & $250 annual). 2) Simplifying fees for large, multi-unit vendors who contribute significantly to our major community events. 3) Adopting an event fee structure. Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. Memo - Options for Mobile Food Unit Licensing To: From: Date: Subject: Mobile Food Unit Licensing Requirements • State of Minnesota: Takes the role of plan review and preoperational inspection for food trucks. The licensing agency is determined by the truck's primary business activity: o Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA): For food trucks focusing on pre- packaged, baked, or non-hazardous foods. o Minnesota Department of Health (MDH): For food trucks operating as mobile restaurants, serving hot food for immediate consumption. • Washington County: The Department of Public Health and Environment conduct food safety inspections. • City of Cottage Grove: The city conducts fire safety inspections through the City Fire Marshal. City of Cottage Grove Fee Structure Per Day Fee of $50, which cannot be combined toward an annual license, or an Annual Fee of $250 per calendar year. This licensing framework has seen a marked increase in activity and revenue: in 2025, the city issued 86 licenses and generated $14,350 in revenue, a significant jump from the 31 licenses and $6,750 in revenue recorded in 2023. Revenue generated from licensing covers administrative staff costs of licensing and Public Safetystaff time for fire inspections. Vendor Request for Consolidated Fees Analysis of Neighboring Community Fee Structures • Eagan (Tiered/Per-Truck Model) - Eagan issues a single outdoor food sales permit to the event holder of $25 per unit. This fee covers all the food trucks at the event. Event holders are responsible for providing a site plan of all the food trucks • Stillwater (Tiered/Per-Unit Model) – Stillwater issues individual permits ($25) and single event permits for food units operating as part of an event on City property. Event holders are responsible for a fee based on how many food units will be at the event. 1- 10 vendors $50/per day and 11+ vendors $200/per day. • Woodbury (Flat Per-Truck Event Model) - Woodbury charges a simple, flat registration fee of $125 per vehicle per event. • Oakdale (Flat Per-Truck Fee) – Oakdale charges $80 per year for non-resident Food Units. They do not offer an event license option. • Hastings (Dual Fee Model) - Like Cottage Grove's existing ordinance, Hastings offers vendors a choice between a $30 per-day fee or a higher $225 annual fee. They do not offer an event license option. Conclusion Crucially, it should be recognized that a change in the fee structure does not change the regulatory requirement. Whether a vendor pays an annual per-truck fee or a single per-event fee, the City's core responsibility—the mandatory fire safety inspection conducted by the City Fire Marshal—remains a required administrative task for each mobile food unit. Changing the fee structure to benefit multi-truck vendors would therefore reduce City revenue without reducing the actual safety workload or inspection time associated with each individual food truck. Ultimately, the Council is faced with a decision between two policy objectives: 1. Upholding the current per-truck system to ensure adequate revenue capture for City services (like fire inspection) and treating all physical units of operation equally. 2. Encouraging Large Event Participation (Per-Event/Per-Company Model): Adjusting the fee structure to alleviate the burden on large, multi-unit vendors, thereby making Cottage Grove a more attractive venue for major events, despite the potential loss in licensing revenue and the unchanged workload for City safety staff. We request the Council discuss whether the benefits of retaining the current dual-fee structure ($50 per day & $250 annual) outweigh the goal of simplifying fees for large, multi-unit vendors who contribute significantly to our major community events and/or an event structure. 1 City Council Action Request 13.B. Meeting Date 11/5/2025 Department Engineering Agenda Category Presentation Title 80th Street & East Point Douglas Road Rehabilitation Project – Workshop Staff Recommendation Receive information on the 80th Street & East Point Douglas Road Rehabilitation Project and provide feedback on the proposed assessments and aesthetic enhancements. Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. 80th Street & East Point Douglas Rehabilitation Project Workshop_2025-11-05 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator From: Paul Sponholz, P.E., City Engineer Date: November 5, 2025 Re: 80th Street & East Point Douglas Road Rehabilitation Project – Workshop Background Included in the CIP for 2026 is the rehabilitation of 80th Street from Highway 61 to Ideal Avenue, which is the third and final phase of a ten-year plan to address poor road conditions on 80th Street from Highway 61 to Keats Avenue. On June 21, 2023, the City Council authorized a feasibility study for 80th Street from Ideal Avenue to Highway 61. On April 16, 2025, the City Council approved amending the scope of the feasibility study to include East Point Douglas Road from 80th Street to the T-intersection near Arby’s. On August 20, 2025, the City Council authorized the preparation of plans and specifications for the project. Discussion A draft feasibility study has been prepared and has been previously shared with the Council. The current scope of work includes the following: • Rehabilitation of 80th Street from Highway 61 to Ideal Avenue. • Rehabilitation of East Point Douglas Road from 80th Street to the T-intersection. • Reconstruction of the 80th Street & Highway 61 ramps and intersections. (MnDOT led) • Aesthetic enhancements to the 80th Street interchange and landscaped medians. • Signal upgrades throughout the project corridor. • Constructing dual left turn lanes on 80th Street at the Hardwood Ave/East Point Douglas Road signal. • Lane modifications to southbound East Point Douglas Road at the Grove Plaza signal to allow for two thru lanes. As the project team is working to finalize the feasibility study and plans, important considerations and discussions related to assessments, aesthetic enhancements, and communication are necessary. Assessments Following the City’s special assessment policy, work along 80th Street and East Point Douglas Road is proposed to be assessed to benefiting properties. No work at the 80th Street interchange is proposed to be assessed. Special benefit appraisals have been completed for all properties Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt in the project. The appraisals and proposed assessments per the City’s policy will be shared with the Council during the workshop. • Municipal State Aid • Federal Grant Funding ($5,000,000) • Assessments • TIF • MnDOT/Washington County (Highway 61 Interchange) • City utility funds • School District (new turn lanes into school properties) Aesthetic Improvements Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt couple of concepts being considered are shown below for Council feedback. More will be presented in the workshop. th Street between Highway 61 and Hardwood Avenue will be enhanced with decorative hardscaping and landscaping. On 80th Street east of Hardwood Avenue there are numerous landscape beds in the median and between 80th Street and the south frontage road. As traffic has grown on 80th Street, these narrow beds have been increasingly difficult to maintain. To enhance the look and reduce long-term maintenance, many of these beds will be converted to hardscaping. Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt Communication The project team is working with the City Communications team on an information and communication plan for the businesses affected by the project and the public. While details are still being worked on, the City will hold a business meeting, a project open house to present construction impacts, and the project updates will be regularly featured in the social media, City newsletter and City website. As the project involves the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) for work on the TH 61 ramps, MnDOT will communicate project updates through their channels on the interchange portion of the project. Recommendation Receive information on the 80th Street & East Point Douglas Road Rehabilitation Project and provide feedback on the proposed assessments and aesthetic enhancements.