Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2026-04-01 City Council Regular Packet (Public)
1 COTTAGE GROVE CITY COUNCIL April 1, 2026 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 World Autism Month Proclamation Staff Recommendation: Proclaim April 2026 as World Autism Month. B National Volunteer Month Proclamation Staff Recommendation: Proclaim April 2026 as National Volunteer Month. 7 Consent Agenda A Public Services Commission Meeting Minutes (2025-11-17) Staff Recommendation: Approve the November 17, 2025, Public Service Commission meeting minutes. B Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (2026-02-23) Staff Recommendation: Accept and place on file the minutes from the February 23, 2026, Planning Commission meeting. C Rental License Approvals Staff Recommendation: Approve the issuance of rental licenses to the addresses listed in the attached table. D Massage Therapist & Business License (Sole Massage by Savannah, LLC) Staff Recommendation: Authorize the issuance of a massage business license and massage therapist license to Savannah Marie Koenig at the new location of Oasis Chiropractic (7424 E Point Douglas Rd). E Giza Inc. DBA Moon Soon Tobacco – Cannabis Lower-Potency Hemp Edible Business Registration Staff Recommendation: Approve the Cannabis Lower-Potency Hemp Edible Business Registration for Giza Inc DBA Moon Soon Tobacco (7584 80th Street South, Suite #201). F Six Remnant Defendants Opioid Settlement Agreement Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution 2026-048, and authorize the City Clerk to execute the Combined Subdivision Participation and Release Form with the Six Remnant Defendants Settlement Agreement and any related documentation. G Receive Fund Balance of General Fund as of December 31, 2025 Staff Recommendation: Receive information on the General Fund as of December 31, 2025 2 H 2025 and 2026 Budget Revisions Staff Recommendation: 1) Adopt Resolution 2026-052, 2025 Budget Revisions. 2) Adopt Resolution 2026- 053, 2026 Budget Revisions. I Intrastate Mutual Aid Cooperative Agreement Staff Recommendation: 1) Approve the City of Cottage Grove’s participation in the Minnesota Incident Command System (MNICS) Organization/Incident Management Team. 2) Approve the Intrastate Mutual Aid Cooperative Agreement between the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Homeland Security and Emergency Management, and the City of Cottage Grove. J Approve 2025 and 2026 Interfund transfers and closing of funds Staff Recommendation: 1) Approve Resolution 2026-051, approving 2025 interfund transfers and closing of funds. 2) Approve Resolution 2026-060, approving the 2026 interfund transfer. K Recreational Motor Vehicles Ordinance Amendment Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance 1112, amending Title 6, Chapter 5 of the Cottage Grove city code relating to recreational motor vehicles. L UASI Competitive Grant Award Acceptance Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2026-062 authorizing the acceptance of the FY2025 UASI Competitive Grant in the amount of $60,000. M St. Paul Park Refinery Equipment Donation Staff Recommendation: Accept and approve the donation of used rescue equipment from the Saint Paul Park Refinery Fire Department. N Military Trailhead Master Plan Staff Recommendation: Approve the Military Trailhead Master Plan. O Peterson Park Playground Master Plan Staff Recommendation: Approve Peterson Park Master Plan. P National Park Service Grant Application for a Paddler Launch Staff Recommendation: Authorize staff to apply for the National Park’s Mississippi National River and Recreation Area Grant for up to $8,000. Q Stump Grinding Quote Award Staff Recommendation: Authorize resolution 2026-049 awarding the 2026 City-Wide Stump Grinding Project to Anderson Stump Grinding & Restoration, in the amount of $3.10 per inch and authorize the service agreement between Anderson Stump Grinding & Restoration and the City of Cottage Grove. R Concrete Maintenance Quote Award Staff Recommendation: Authorize resolution 2026-050 awarding the Public Works Concrete Maintenance Quote Award to Frank Zamora’s Concrete and authorize the service agreement between Frank Zamora’s Concrete and the City of Cottage Grove. S 2026 Street Sweeping - Quote Award and Service Agreement Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2026-057 awarding the 2026 Annual Spring City-Wide Street Sweeping Program to the low quote supplied by Mike McPhillips, Inc., in the amount of $135.00 per hour. T Budget Increase for Garbage Truck & Purchase of Skid Attachment Staff Recommendation: Approve the increased budget for the Parks Division garbage truck from $165,000.00 to $187,111.73 (within the Equipment Replacement Fund). Authorize the purchase of a 2026 Isuzu garbage truck from Koenig & Sons Equipment, Inc. in the amount of $164,611.73 (which may vary slightly due to tax, title and license fees) and a Beekman Skidvac from Truman Welters in the amount of $24,257.00 with funds used from trading in a jetter trailer ($22,500) and the Stormwater budget ($1,757). U East Point Douglas Road – No Parking Zone Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2026-034 restricting parking along the south side and in the cul-de- sac on East Point Douglas Road South, west of Hardwood Avenue. 3 V Denzer Park – Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize Bidding Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2026-058 approving the plans and specifications and authorizing bidding for the Denzer Park Project. W Still Ponds Natural Resources Management Plan Staff Recommendation: Approve Still Ponds Park Natural Resources Management Plan. X Ravara Trails – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2026-055 approving an amendment to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to re-guide 9.3 acres from High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and authorize staff to submit the amendment to the Metropolitan Council. Y Acting Public Safety Director and CLEO Appointment Staff Recommendation: Effective April 2, 2026, appoint Brad Petersen as the Acting Public Safety Director and Chief Law Enforcement Officer. 8 Approve Disbursements A Approve Disbursements Staff Recommendation: Approve disbursements from 03-13-2026 through 03-26-2026 in the amount of $2,476,473.99. 9 Public Hearings 10 Bid Awards A 80th Street, East Point Douglas Road, and TH 61/80th Street Interchange Rehabilitation Project – Bid Award Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2026-059 authorizing the City Administrator to award the contract for the 80th Street (TH 61 to Ideal Ave), East Point Douglas Road (80th Street South to Tee Intersection), and TH 61/80th Street Interchange Rehabilitation Project to Park Construction Company for a project cost of $13,125,468.18 upon MnDOT Office of Civil Rights approval. 11 Regular Agenda 12 Council Comments and Requests 13 Workshops - Open to Public 14 Workshops - Closed to Public A Performance Evaluation — Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator Staff Recommendation: Close the meeting pursuant to MN Statute 13D.05 subd. (3)a to conduct a performance evaluation of City Administrator, Jennifer Levitt. 15 Adjournment 1 City Council Action Request 6.A. Meeting Date 4/1/2026 Department Communications Agenda Category Presentation Title World Autism Month Proclamation Staff Recommendation Proclaim April 2026 as World Autism Month. Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. April 2026 World Autism Month PROCLAMATION April 2026: World Autism Month WHEREAS: the City of Cottage Grove recognizes the importance of fostering a community that embraces diversity, inclusion, and understanding; and WHEREAS: World Autism Month begins with World Autism Awareness Day an April 2nd and provides an opportunity to raise awareness about autism, or autism spectrum disorder (ASD), celebrate the unique contributions of individuals on the autism spectrum, and promote acceptance; and WHEREAS: the City of Cottage Grove acknowledges the need to support, empower, and uplift people with ASD, their families, and caregivers; and WHEREAS: World Autism Month provides an opportunity to celebrate the unique contributions of individuals on the autism spectrum and their families; and WHEREAS: the City of Cottage Grove commits to creating an environment where everyone, regardless of neurodiversity, feels valued, respected, and included; and WHEREAS: we celebrate the strengths, talents, and perspectives of autistic individuals, which enrich our community and contribute to its vibrancy. NOW, THEREFORE, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, hereby proclaim the month of April 2026 to be designated as World Autism Month. Passed this Wednesday, the 1st day of April 2026. _____________________________________ Myron Bailey Mayor 1 City Council Action Request 6.B. Meeting Date 4/1/2026 Department Communications Agenda Category Presentation Title National Volunteer Month Proclamation Staff Recommendation Proclaim April 2026 as National Volunteer Month. Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. April 2026 National Volunteer Month Proclamation PROCLAMATION April 2026: National Volunteer Month WHEREAS: the contributions of volunteers enrich Cottage Grove and the lives of our fellow community members; and WHEREAS: volunteers play an essential role in our community, dedicating their time, talents, and passion to make a positive impact; and WHEREAS: their commitment to service inspires us all to create a better, more connected, and vibrant city; and WHEREAS: National Volunteer Month provides an opportunity to recognize and celebrate the invaluable contributions of volunteers; and WHEREAS: these dedicated individuals enhance the quality of life for all residents by fostering community connections and promoting civic engagement; and WHEREAS: we recognize that even small acts of kindness can have a profound impact on our community’s well-being and future generations; and WHEREAS: during National Volunteer Month, we honor those who generously give their time, talents, and passion to make a difference; and WHEREAS: we extend our deepest appreciation to all volunteers who contribute to the well- being of our city and its residents. NOW, THEREFORE, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, hereby proclaim the month of April 2026 to be designated as National Volunteer Month. Passed this Wednesday, the 1st day of April 2026. _____________________________________ Myron Bailey Mayor 1 City Council Action Request 7.A. Meeting Date 4/1/2026 Department Public Works Agenda Category Action Item Title Public Services Commission Meeting Minutes (2025-11-17) Staff Recommendation Approve the November 17, 2025, Public Service Commission meeting minutes. Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. 11-17-2025 Public Service Commission Meeting-final COTTAGE GROVE PUBLIC SERVICES COMMISSION November 17, 2025 12800 Ravine Parkway South Cottage Grove, Minnesota 55016 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER 1. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Ron Kath called the Public Services Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Kons asked everyone to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL Vice Chair Kath was advised that Roll Call had been taken, all commissioners were present. 4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Vice Chair Kath said we’re going to add a presentation to tonight’s agenda, 8 (B) for E-bikes. With that, I’ll ask for a motion to approve the agenda with the addition of 8B, E-bikes. Commissioner Jenny Olson made a motion to approve the agenda; second by Chair Lisa Kons. Motion carried: 7-0. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approve Minutes from the September 15, 2025 meeting. Commissioner Tracy Jenson made a motion to approve the September 15, 2025 meeting minutes; second by Commissioner Kelsey Moyer. Motion carried: 7-0. 6. OPEN FORUM Vice Chair Kath opened the Open Forum. As no one wished to speak, Vice Chair Kath closed the Open Forum. 7. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Snowmobile Club Map Approval Vice Chair Kath said Ryan Burfeind, Public Works Director, will begin this presentation. Director Burfeind said thank you, Chair, Members of the Commission. So, each year we like to connect with the local Snowmobile Club; this is our chance just to talk about what’s going on in the City, if there are any changes in town that could affect the Snowmobile Trail, we just want to make sure we can preserve that ability to snowmobile in Cottage Grove. I think it’s a good amenity to have access like we do to the Star Trail and the local trails as well, so we like to talk about what kind of development is coming up, how could that impact the trail, and how do we keep the Snowmobile Trails open. We also have on the screen the map of the Star Trail, specifically the Cottage Grove section, so each year we like to do and approval of that map as well. I will say a couple of the key items for next year we’re already working on with the staff is development potentially east of Keats Public Services Commission November 17, 2025 Page 2 of 22 Avenue, so making sure we can maintain that Snowmobile Trail along Keats Avenue and then as we get more development kind of in the south part of town as well. With that, Jeremy Goebel of our local Snowmobile Club is here, so I’ll turn it over to him just to talk a little bit more about last year and any changes for this year. Public Services Commission November 17, 2025 Page 3 of 22 sewer, that’s actually even outside of that. So, there’s going to be a lot of nice, open buffer space between Keats Avenue and the homes, so I think that’s what we have to look at, and then just kind of setting the stage, right? You want that understanding that the snowmobile trails are there, we want to keep them there, and make sure people understand it’s a positive, overall, for the City. So, that’s just kind of an ongoing dialogue with our Planning staff, I would say as well. 8. PRESENTATIONS Public Services Commission November 17, 2025 Page 4 of 22 Vice Chair Kath said I’ll turn this over to Fire Chief Jon Pritchard to kick it off for us. Public Services Commission November 17, 2025 Page 5 of 22 B.J. said when you look at Project Deliverables, we really have this broken down in four phases: • Improving Dispatch Time, Turnout Time, and Total Response Time: We’ll show you a little bit on each of those buckets coming up here. • Considerations for Fire Station Locations, Station 4, and a Regional Solution: This is what Chief Pritchard had talked about for Fire Station Locations, particularly Station 4, and our Regional Solution. As you likely know, you provide Fire service to the City of Cottage Grove and your EMS landscape goes beyond the borders of Cottage Grove to three other communities. • Capital Planning for Fire Department Vehicles: We know Fire Department vehicles are not cheap, and they’ve gotten more expensive, but at the same time, you want to make sure that you have highly reliable vehicles that have modern technology in them to support your staff in providing service to the community. • Stakeholder Feedback: We did some input from the stakeholders. • Cost Recovery Considerations: We’ll talk a little bit about that tonight. • Add an additional dedicated EMS transport unit to deal with your increasing demand for EMS volume. Public Services Commission November 17, 2025 Page 6 of 22 Overall Response Time because it’s a function of how they’re dispatched, that the actual call processing time might be slightly lower than that. Public Services Commission November 17, 2025 Page 7 of 22 overlap between the two fire stations. So, you’re not really increasing the capacity of response and the customers’ experience by staffing that facility. You can meet over 93% of the time with that one central location. So, we would recommend considering other options for that physical location where Station 4 is currently at, because the level of investment doesn’t equate with the benefit. You have a diminishing return of value when you’re operating that close in proximity. Public Services Commission November 17, 2025 Page 8 of 22 that they’re transported, it’s being equitable across all of the different communities served, which we would expect to see, and that aligns with national averages. Additionally, if you look at kind of the squiggly lines, the dark blue line and the light blue line, that’s transport rates over a 24-hour period. So, you would not want to see a huge variation in transport rates, let’s say at 3:00 a.m., because somebody wants to get back to doing whatever and not transport somebody, or during peak times, where they’re just trying to turn calls. Everything that we analyzed within the transport rates was appropriate and aligns with national Best Practices, so that just reaffirms kind of the services that Cottage Grove Fire and EMS is providing. Public Services Commission November 17, 2025 Page 9 of 22 week, it takes 3.72 FTEs when you figure that out. Now, that is if everything happens perfectly; if we knew exactly when everybody’s going to call in sick and the vacation was equitable across the entire year. It doesn’t quite work that way, but that’s how you plan for it. So, currently, you need 15 FTEs to cover that, they currently have 16, to cover that 4 personnel a day. • Overall, respondents were highly satisfied with Fire and EMS services. • There are strong expectations for prompt service. A majority of the survey respondents expecting Response Times within 4 to 8 minutes, some were even wanting less than that. • Most participants strongly expressed the desire for the department to participate in outreach, prevention, and engagement opportunities and initiatives. • There were questions about the cost associated with some of these changes. There was conditional support on tax increases if that could be tied to value, such as improving Response Times, and slightly lower but still substantial support to fund prevention, outreach, and engagement initiatives. • There was some conversation about Regional Service and cost sharing, concern about timely mutual aid and demand in neighboring communities. Concern about Cottage Grove residents subsidizing the response and just want a cautionary model that’s fair across all jurisdictions; I think the key to that, as B.J. had mentioned, was that we would recommend having a collaborative approach in determining what that looks like. Overall, there was an interest in Regional Collaboration between the stakeholder feedback and the Focus Group. • Primary themes: There is strong support and trust in the local Fire Department in Cottage Grove, with Fire and EMS. A desire for fast and reliable Response Times. There is a general willingness to invest more, especially among those residents and people that had identified as using the service, if they’re tied to tangible, real service improvements. As I mentioned, there’s concerns about financial equity, and there’s openness to structural reforms, such as cost sharing or Regionalization of the Fire and EMS District. Public Services Commission November 17, 2025 Page 10 of 22 Vice Chair Kath said so I’m curious on the Board you guys talked about, the Tax Board. How does that Board come together? You mentioned now it’s an elected office vs. an appointed office, because that was always my concern, that if you have appointed people that are in charge of taxation, that didn’t seem to feel very good to me. Public Services Commission November 17, 2025 Page 11 of 22 continues to increase, it would look at future investments in the number of bodies or the staff that are required to respond from those areas. So, that does account for future planning and future growth. We met with Community Development and know that there’s growth to the east and then to the southwest, and that’s why we looked at that other hypothetical model. So, if you really started to see a boom, you would want more reliable service, and I’ll just go to kind of the graph here: Down where it gets light green or is not highlighted, you would want more reliable service there if that area continues to grow, and the hypothetical modeling would say hey, now, if we have 2 stations, we can get there within that 8-minute Travel Time 90% of the time. So, it does account for future growth and allows for the plan to grow and the staffing plan to grow into that. Public Services Commission November 17, 2025 Page 12 of 22 So, it’s not necessarily we need the people because we currently are fully staffed, in terms of our fulltime staff, so these additions would be that additional staff on top of the folks we already have. Public Services Commission November 17, 2025 Page 13 of 22 correct me if I’m wrong, we lose a little bit of control because now you have a number of different members that are all part of that. So, you’ve got that dynamic to work for, and especially, I spent a number of years on the School Board that was part of a collaborative that was really hard to manage, and we were the biggest district within that collaborative. And once you go into those collaboratives or taxing authorities or whatever you want to call it, you do lose control, and I think that’s the one thing we have to really be cognizant of is the control part of it, too, and the decision has to come. So, I share that as my own personal opinion. • Class 1: Has pedals, the motor only engages when you’re pedaling, and it can only go 20 MPH. • Class 2: Still tops out at 20 MPH, but it has a throttle on it, so you can either pedal, engage the throttle, or both. • Class 3: The motor only engages when you’re pedaling, but the speed goes up to 28 MPH. Then, like I said, if it’s over 750 Watts, that’s a motorized bicycle. • Motorized bicycles encompass a lot of things, it can be those little pocket rocket scooters, it can be a traditional bicycle with a gas engine on it, or it can be an E-bike with a larger electric motor on it. • Traditional motorcycles includes everything from Harleys to dirt bikes to mopeds to these autocycles, which are your 3- wheeled vehicles that you’re seeing more commonly now. Public Services Commission November 17, 2025 Page 14 of 22 • One of the newest things is these neighborhood electric vehicles, or the medium speed electric vehicles. I’ll be the first to admit I don’t know much about these, but we are seeing them in our community now, I’m sure you’ve seen them on social media; there was a posting recently where you’re seeing this driving on the road, and I know we’ve had some conversations with a resident who has a doctor’s permission to drive these on our paths and trails. I don't know if that’s legal yet or not, I’ve got to do some research and dig into that, so more to come on that. • Then you’ve got that other bucket of just other stuff that we see on the roads occasionally: Utility vehicles, golf carts, etc. • The last thing I want to note is there’s a wide array of different wheelchair devices that can literally go anywhere. If they have a need for it, or some type of disability, it can literally go anywhere. So, along with all of those definitions and classifications, it’s important to understand all of those different categories because there’s Statutory requirements tied to each of those different definitions. There’s not a whole lot of uniformity across those different devices; so, I can’t say that none of these devices can be on sidewalks, or the age requirement is the same across all of these devices, it’s all over the map. Like I said, Statute is not keeping up with the market. What I have done here and what is before you is I’ve summarized some of the common Statutes, most of them fall under 169.011, where you’ll find your definitions and descriptions. The other definitions you’ll see pertain to traditional bicycles and E- bikes, and some of that is applicable to those other devices. One generality would be to say that the rules that apply to bicycles apply to E-bikes, for the most part, at least in the eyes of the State Statute, but that’s not a universal statement, it’s just a generality. E-bikes: When we’re talking about just E-bikes, none of this other stuff, there’s a 15-year-old age requirement. There’s no license, registration, or insurance requirement. Surprisingly, there’s no helmet requirement for E-bikes anywhere in the State. They can go anywhere that a bicycle can go, but the exception to that would be they’re not supposed to be on sidewalks in Business Districts. A Business District is considered a block that has over 50% of the addresses on that block that’s listed as a business vs. a residence; so, areas like your Hy-Vee Business District, that would be a traditional Business District where E-bikes are not supposed to be, according to Statute. On State trails and traditional recreational trails, they generally can travel there unless the local municipalities have regulated or prohibited their access to those trails. Then I’ve got a bunch of our Ordinance copied and pasted onto this; the important thing to note is we haven’t really regulated E-bikes or any of these other devices yet. If you remember as a commission, you visited this topic about 2 years ago, and at that point, we decided that we did not want to regulate E-bikes. So, most of what you’ll see on our Ordinance pertains to bicycles, recreational vehicles, things of that nature. Captain Petersen said with that, I’m going to pause for a minute and just open it up for questions because I’ve dumped a lot on your plates, and I’m sure there are questions. Once we get through those questions, I’m going to hopefully guide us through a discussion in terms of where does our community need to go next to enhance our safety, so I’ll stand for your questions. A female commissioner asked if Captain Petersen could go back a slide; the minimum age is at least 15, is that like a law or is that a recommendation? Captain Petersen replied that’s a State law for an E-bike. The same female commissioner said okay, so if you see kids riding around in the neighborhood that are 10 or 12, they’re not allowed to be doing that? Captain Petersen replied correct. She said okay, so what is the recommendation? Do I call and say something, do I just let them drive? It’s scary seeing them out there, riding those bikes, without helmets on. Captain Petersen replied yeah, so, we’re encouraging our residents to report that, or if you know the children, or you know the family well, talk to them, that’s always our first recommendation. But if you don’t, call us, and we’ll deal with it. Enforcement becomes the hard part, like what do you do with a 12-year-old who shouldn’t be riding an E-bike, right? Nobody wants to see them get ticketed and have to go to court and all that stuff. So, and that’s a discussion that I’m going to ask us to push pause on for a minute, and at the tail end of this, I’m going to talk about what we’re doing currently and what we plan to do in the future, in terms of enforcement. Chair Kons said there are three significant pieces of legislation that are being worked on this year. Part of it is defining motorized vehicle and redefining in 169, so I think that that’s something that we need to just keep in mind, although it is very short and it’s going to be a very fast session, so who knows what policies will go through. We do have authors for a couple of them in addition to DWIs on these vehicles, because it’s very hard to define if they’re pedaling or if they’re motorized, and we’ve had some pushback. So, stay tuned for that. The helmet suggestion says shall, in the Statute right now, wear a helmet vs. must wear a Public Services Commission November 17, 2025 Page 15 of 22 helmet. So, there’s a lot of, and to your point then, how do you enforce? So, there are so many pieces to this puzzle that are out of control, and it’s coming faster than we can do anything with. So, thank you for bringing this to our attention, and hopefully, we can find, we have cities every day who are looking for advice because it’s a Statewide issue. Public Services Commission November 17, 2025 Page 16 of 22 to put the kid in jail, but we’ve got our ways of holding them, investigating them. The good thing is that we have a pretty robust RMS system, so generally speaking, we can figure out who this kid is, and we have other means, too, like an IBIS, where we can use their fingerprint to figure out who they are if they’ve ever given a fingerprint before. There’s all kinds of ways, and I can’t think of a time where a 10- or 12-year-old has refused to identify themselves, right? They’re too scared to do that. Public Services Commission November 17, 2025 Page 17 of 22 Captain Petersen replied sure. To answer your question, I don't know. I would assume or guess that there probably are E-bikes on that course, but I can’t say that I’ve ever seen one, but I’ve never looked either. Public Services Commission November 17, 2025 Page 18 of 22 Commissioner Olson said I think my challenge with that, though, and working with kids every day is you can have rules in place all you want, it’s whether they’re going to choose to do them and when they don’t, what goes along with that? So, that’s a real concern because at that age, 16 and 15, 16 and 17, they’re pretty, they think they’re pretty invincible, and they just, they tend to do what they want to do when they want to do it, many times, especially when there’s not a parent around. So, that would be a real concern of mine, theoretically, it sounds good on paper, but I don't know that that’s what you’re going to really get. Public Services Commission November 17, 2025 Page 19 of 22 of social media messaging and things of that nature to educate the entire community. And, so, really what I’m hopeful is that we can leave here tonight with some suggestions from you, and along with the input from other stakeholders, package it up neatly for Council, to present that to them in December, and hopefully move forward with some Ordinance changes. At the very least, clean up some definitions, descriptions, and very clear guidelines on what is and is not allowed. Even if we don’t take a more restrictive approach, those definitions and rules need to be cleaned up so we know this device fits into this bucket, and these are the rules for that type of vehicle. So, that’s my goal. 9. COMMISSION COMMENTS Public Services Commission November 17, 2025 Page 20 of 22 what it is today, right now, because of the construction that’s going on. So, thank you to you and your staff, I very much appreciate it. 10. STAFF REPORTS AND MATERIALS Public Services Commission November 17, 2025 Page 21 of 22 Director Burfeind replied oh, I see, thank you. Sorry, I was focusing more, so next year, we are only redoing down to Arby’s, so that little section, and then we are looking at sidewalks and pedestrian improvements; 2027 is when we’ll redo that long stretch of East Point Douglas by all the homes. So, I apologize for that, I was thinking of the small section. But yes, that is something we are definitely looking at, so we’re looking at additional sidewalks and pedestrian crossings as well on East Point Douglas Road. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Public Services Commission November 17, 2025 Page 22 of 22 Commissioner Rediske said I just didn’t know if I missed it from like the. 12. ADJOURNMENT 1 City Council Action Request 7.B. Meeting Date 4/1/2026 Department Community Development Agenda Category Action Item Title Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (2026-02-23) Staff Recommendation Accept and place on file the minutes from the February 23, 2026, Planning Commission meeting. Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. Planning Commission Minutes 2026-02-23 12800 Ravine Parkway South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 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 Brittain called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Schmitz called the roll: Pradeep Bhat-Here; Ken Brittain-Here; Jessica Fisher-Excused Absence; Evan Frazier-Excused Absence; Eric Knable-Excused Absence; John Stechmann-Here; Terrence Woodman-Here. Members Absent: Jessica Fisher, Evan Frazier, Eric Knable Staff Present: Emily Schmitz, Community Development Director; Samantha Pierret, Senior Planner; Max Erickson, Planner; Kelly Becker, Associate Planner; Paul Sponholz, City Engineer; Ryan Burfeind, Public Works Director; Justin Olsen, City Council Liaison. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Stechmann made a motion to approve the agenda. Bhat seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (4-to-0 vote). 4. OPEN FORUM Brittain opened the Open Forum and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on any non-agenda item. No one spoke. Brittain closed the Open Forum. 5. CHAIR’S EXPLANATION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS Brittain 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. To be sure that everyone in attendance has a fair opportunity to be heard, while allowing the Planning Commission to complete the City’s business, we will be observing a three-minute limit per speaker. As you approach the three-minute mark, Emily Schmitz, Community Development Director, will hold up a red card as a signal to wrap up your remarks. Once the bell sounds at the three- minute mark, we ask that you respectfully yield the floor to the next speaker. Upon completion of testimony, the hearing will be closed to public comment. The Planning Commission will then discuss and act on the matter. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND APPLICATIONS A. New Life Church - Case SP2026-004 Station 19 Architects, on behalf of New Life Church, has submitted an application for a Site Plan Review to construct a 5,814 square foot building addition to the existing church building located at 11245 Point Douglas Drive South. The addition will consist of lobby space, restrooms, and five new classrooms for youth religious education. Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting Becker summarized the staff report and recommended approval based on the findings of fact stipulated in the staff report. Brittain asked if there were any questions for staff; none were asked. Brittain asked if the applicant would like to speak to the commission. Dan Torgerson, 16934 Kamacite Street, Ramsey, MN, said I’m with Station 19 Architects, I’m just representing the owner, and I have nothing to add, but I’m available for questions or comments. Brittain asked the commission if they had questions for the applicant. Bhat asked what’s a proof of parking stall? Are you going to pave it, or is it just going to be marked somehow? Torgerson replied the proof of parking really is just to show if we needed to add parking in the future, we are designating that area for that parking. So, we’re kind of saying we will not build on this area so that we could provide parking if needed in the future. Bhat said thank you. There were no further questions for the applicant, and Brittain thanked Torgerson. Brittain opened the Public Hearing. No one spoke. Brittain closed the Public Hearing. Brittain asked if there were any comments or further discussion by the commission. Commissioner Stechmann said this seems pretty straightforward, and all T’s have been crossed and I’s have been dotted, so I see myself voting in favor of this. Brittain asked if there were any further comments, none were made. Brittain said I’ll look for a motion. Stechmann made a motion to approve the Site Plan for a 5,814 square-foot building addition to the New Life Church building subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Woodman seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (4-to-0 vote). Brittain noted that item will on the March 4 meeting of the City Council. B. Panera - Cases SP2026-007 & CUP2026-007 CA Commercial Development has applied for a Site Plan Review of a proposed Panera restaurant and a Conditional Use Permit to allow a drive-through to be located at 7162 East Point Douglas Road South. Erickson summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in this staff report. Brittain asked if there were any questions for staff. Woodman asked regarding the sign that’s being used: A) Is it lit? and B) Has the City approached Panera to say do you absolutely need that, can it be abandoned? Just based on the fact that we created that Code to try to shift away from having those. It doesn’t feel like a necessity and we’re trying to improve that look along 61. Erickson replied we have approached the applicant. This is a very highly-desired piece of the property to advertise to Highway 61. It’s been part of the conversation, and we have talked to them, and they have proposed to remove the lower cabinet to reduce the overall square-footage design. Woodman asked and is that lit? Erickson replied it is lit. Brittain asked if there were any additional questions for Erickson, and none were asked. Brittain asked if the applicant had anything they’d like to add. Hello, Good Evening, my name is Mark Wilhoite, I’m a V.P. of Development of CA Commercial Development, out of Cincinnati, OH, 3805 Edwards Road, Suite 390. I also have Matt Langan, our Civil Engineer with Kimley Horn, in case we have any questions regarding the project, but the staff’s done a great job. We’ve been working with Emily and Max, and it’s been a challenge on some of the issues, especially your sign. We can state that one of the biggest issues for Panera, for acceptance in the real estate committee, is to have a sign intact. So, we did go back and have them remove the bottom half, because they actually wanted Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting that, too, so it was a little bit of a battle, but it’s just because its an embedded site and interstate visibility from Highway 61 was crucial for them. So, we think it’ll be much nicer than it probably used to be, but that was a big issue for our real estate approval. We’re just here to answer any other questions, so we’re happy to do that. Brittain opened the Public Hearing. No one spoke. Brittain closed the Public Hearing. Woodman made a motion to approve the Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit for the proposed Panera restaurant at 7162 East Point Douglas Road, subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Bhat seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (4-to-0 vote). C. Ravara Trails - ZA/PUD/SP/PP/MS2026-003 Twin Cities Land Development has submitted an application for a Zoning Amendment, Planned Unit Development (PUD), Preliminary Plat, and Minor Subdivision for a subdivision consisting of 575 residential lots including 306 townhome lots and 269 single-family lots on property that is located east of Keats Avenue (CSAH 19) at 77th Street and south of 70th Street. Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting Brittain said all right, thank you. He asked the commissioners if they had any questions for the applicant, but none were asked. Brittain opened the Public Hearing. No one spoke. Brittain closed the Public Hearing. Stechmann made a motion to approve the Zoning Amendment, PUD, Preliminary Plat, and Minor Subdivision, subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Woodman seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (4-to-0 vote). D. Talcott Glen - ZA2026-003 & PP2026-003 US Home, LLC, dba Lennar, has applied for a Zoning Amendment and Preliminary Plat for a subdivision to be called Talcott Glen that will be located west of 95th Street and Mississippi Dunes Boulevard, with the primary access via an extension of 95th Street. The Zoning Amendment will rezone the property from AG-2, Agricultural, to R-4, Transitional Residential. The proposed single-family community will consist of 177 homes with a mix of 50- and 65- foot wide lots. Brittain opened the Public Hearing. Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting are some eagles that we see are back behind our house quite a bit. There’s also a lot of mature trees that are going to be removed, and I know that’s part of the plan. I’m curious, I guess I haven’t heard what, it sounds like we’ll work with the City on that tree buffer to be put back in place and what that looks like for our landscaping because I know there’s a 25-foot easement behind our property. And then I guess the last concern I would mention is we see a lot of kids that go flying down the hill towards that land and then there’s kind of a blind curve on the left, like where the nursery is, going into where this intersection’s going to be. So, I’m curious what all like pedestrian and child studies were done for this area, because now there’s a couple miles of trails that go to the south that people can come out and go directly into Strawberry Park and never have to cross a road; and this is an area of an intersection, so I’m curious about signage and just safety concerns with all those kids who now have gone for years straight into the new Strawberry Park. Now, that’s I guess one of the concerns I have, seeing all those kids fly kind of down that hill towards that area and how that’s going to be handled for signage. No one else spoke. Brittain closed the Public Hearing. Woodman made a motion to approve the Zoning Amendment and Preliminary Plat, subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Stechmann seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (4-to-0 vote). E. McHattie Landing - PP2026-006 Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting M/I Homes of Minneapolis/St. Paul, LLC has applied for a Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a proposed subdivision to be known as McHattie Landing, that will be located at 9119 and 9165 Military Road, which will consist of 85 single-family homes on approximately 34.3 acres. The property is currently zoned R-4, Transitional Residential. Becker summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in this staff report. Brittain asked if there were any questions for staff. Bhat said so, when the roundabout is going to be built in the future, you would have like a triangular piece of land between this proposed neighborhood and the roundabout, set back from the road. What does the City have in mind for that piece of land in the future? Becker replied I will defer to our City Engineer, Paul, here. Good Evening, Mr. Chair, Commissioners, I’m Paul Sponholz, the City Engineer. Right now, its a County Right-of-Way, and at this time, they don’t know what they will need for that. It could be a place for a County drainage pond or something, but at this point, they don’t want to give up the use of that Right- of-Way at this time. Bhat said okay, thank you. Brittain asked if there were additional questions for staff, and there were none. Brittain asked does the applicant have anything they’d like to add? Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I’m Emily Becker with M/I Homes, 5354 Parkdale Drive, Suite 100, St. Louis Park, 55416. I don’t have anything to add, Kelly did a great job, very thorough with her report and presentation. Only maybe that we did work really hard to avoid the bedrock, to avoid as much blasting as possible. We would be happy to alert property owners, certainly. I did get a comment from one of the neighboring properties, the Lochridge Development, that they didn’t even think that there was blasting. So, it is a lot less impactful than one might think, it does sound kind of scary, but if there are any questions, I’d be happy to answer them. Brittain said thank you, are there questions for the applicant? Stechmann said could you just tell us a little bit more about the blasting, so it’s not something that you’d expect, from what you see on TV? So, what do they do with the blasting? Becker said so, they’re just trying to loosen up the bedrock so that it can actually be excavated. I’ve never experienced it myself, I’ve seen videos of it. And down at Mississippi Landing, we’re also building down there, so it’s loud for a very, very short amount of time. Brittain asked if there were additional questions, and there were none. Brittain said thank you. Brittain opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, thank you very much. My name is Mark Kolosky, 6322 Jeffery Avenue South, Cottage Grove, MN. I wrote a little something here on the effect of Military Road closing. Currently, Jeffery Avenue South functions already as a cut- through road for traffic coming off Keats and Woodbury Drive, heading north. We experience speeding daily, there are many young children on our streets, and just today there was actually a crash on our road. If Military Road is closed, that traffic won’t disappear, it will be redirected on Jeffery Avenue South. There are approximately 250 single-family homes in that area, and our street will effectively become a collector road even though it was never designed to handle that volume or speed of traffic. This also raises concerns about emergency response times if Jeffery Avenue South becomes congested with additional traffic. For our through traffic, it could delay police, fire, and medical vehicles trying to access our neighborhood or surrounding areas. This is a Public Safety issue that deserves careful consideration. I understand the importance of trails and connectivity, but we cannot solve one planning goal by creating a safety problem on an existing residential street. Military needs to remain open or, at a minimum, be connected to Ravine Parkway South to preserve proper traffic flow. I respectfully ask that a formal traffic and speed study be conducted on Jeffery Avenue South before any decision is finalized so it’s based on real data. Again, right now all traffic to the east and the south come right through our neighborhood, and that’s a lot. With this proposed plan, and with closing down Military Road, all west and southwest traffic will now use our road to connect the family homes up north. Thank you so much for your time. Brittain said thank you. My name is Glen Dahlquist, 6235 Jarvis Avenue South, and I’m in Cardinal Reserve. I saw a picture up there on a road, a red line, on the north side of Cardinal Reserve. Was that a planned road to be fed into Pioneer Drive? Brittain said we’ll take notes on the questions that you have, and then once we have all the notes, then staff will respond. Dahlquist said I do understand that’s in Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting Woodbury, but was wondering if any of that was a planned route for the people in the north side of that area to get over to Pioneer and then north. Thank you. Brittain said thank you, sir. No one else spoke. Brittain closed the Public Hearing. Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting Woodman made a motion to approve the Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development (PUD) for McHattie Landing, subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Bhat seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (4-to-0 vote). 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approval of the December 15, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Woodman made a motion to approve the December 15, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Stechmann seconded. Motion passed unanimously (4-to-0 vote). 8. REPORTS A. RECAP OF JANUARY AND FEBRUARY 2026 CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting as you can so that we can have a discussion about how we want to move forward with that position. Obviously, the Chair position is a very important position, as you saw this evening when we have a number of things on the agenda, it’s really critical that we manage things efficiently but also ensure that the public is heard, and that all of their various thoughts, opinions, and concerns get addressed appropriately. So, it’s a big job. If you or anyone else on the commission are interested, please let me know. As I said, we already do have one person who has expressed interest. That also means that we will have an opportunity to fill a seat on the Planning Commission, and with that said, I have spoken to a few people in the public who have expressed some interest, but I haven’t seen their applications yet. So, if you have anyone in your sphere of influence that you think might be a great addition to the team of the Planning Commission, I would encourage you to reach out to those folks; let them know that we will be appointing a new member to the Planning Commission before the next Planning Commission meeting, which is always the last Monday of the month, and I would welcome your feedback and input on anybody that you reach out to that you think should be under consideration. The key is they have to fill out that application, it has to come through so that we can do some interviews. And with that, I’ll turn it over to you, Mr. Chair, if there are any questions. B. RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION INQUIRIES - None. C. PLANNING COMMISSION REQUESTS 9. ADJOURNMENT Stechmann made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Woodman seconded. Motion passed unanimously (4-to-0 vote). The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. 1 City Council Action Request 7.C. Meeting Date 4/1/2026 Department Community Development Agenda Category Action Item Title Rental License Approvals Staff Recommendation Approve the issuance of rental licenses to the addresses listed in the attached table. Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. Rental License Approvals CC Memo 2. Rental License Approvals Table TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Samantha Drewry, Code Enforcement Officer DATE: March 24, 2026 RE: Rental License Approvals Background/Discussion Recommendation 2026 RENTAL LICENSES CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL - APRIL 1, 2026 RENTAL LICENSE NUMBER PROPERTY STREET #PROPERTY STREET NAME PROPERTY OWNER RENT-002035 8015 Hadley Avenue South Wagner, Ken RENT-002351 7571 Immanuel Avenue South Ola & Associates RENT-002410 6995 Timber Ridge Drive South Yang, Kee Tongpia RENT-002958 9607 Hallmark Avenue South HPA Borrower 2019-2 LLC RENT-003050 6734 Meadow Grass Lane South Afton Holdings RENT-003119 6748 Pine Crest Trail South Maria Ron Vargas MULTI-FAMILY: Aurilla Apartments, 7689 Hardwood Avenue: 1 Building, 171 Units Cottage Grove Estates (Oakwood Heights), 7565 79th Street: 6 Buildings, 24 Units Cottages of Cottage Grove, 8240 East Point Douglas Road: 5 Buildings; 60 Units Legends of Cottage Grove, 6999 East Point Douglas Road: 1 Building; 184 Units Norris Square, 6990 80th Street: 2 Buildings, 148 Units 1 City Council Action Request 7.D. Meeting Date 4/1/2026 Department Administration Agenda Category Action Item Title Massage Therapist & Business License (Sole Massage by Savannah, LLC) Staff Recommendation Authorize the issuance of a massage business license and massage therapist license to Savannah Marie Koenig at the new location of Oasis Chiropractic (7424 E Point Douglas Rd). Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. Savannah Koenig (Massage Therapist & Business) 2. Memo - Public Safety (Koenig) 1 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator FROM: Tamara Anderson, City Clerk DATE: March 9, 2026 RE: Massage Business and Massage Therapist License - Savannah Marie Koenig Discussion: On January 3, 2025, Ms. Savannah Koenig originally submitted an application to operate a massage therapy business and to be licensed as a massage therapist within the City of Cottage Grove. While she was previously authorized to practice at Salons by JC, Ms. Koenig is now requesting to relocate her professional practice. Per City ordinance, both massage business and massage therapist licenses are specifically tied to the physical location at which the services are provided. Ms. Koenig is moving her operations to the following address: Oasis Chiropractic, 7424 E Point Douglas Rd. Background Investigation & Compliance: Ms. Koenig continues to meet all professional and educational standards required by the City: In addition to passing the initial City background investigation conducted by the Public Safety Department in January 2025, Ms. Koenig has now successfully cleared the newly required Federal Background check. There are no records of disciplinary actions against Ms. Koenig with the MN Department of Health Office of Unlicensed Complementary and Alternative Health Care Practice. Her educational credentials from St. Paul College, an accredited institution, remain on file and in full compliance with City Code licensing requirements. Recommendation: 1 City Council Action Request 7.E. Meeting Date 4/1/2026 Department Administration Agenda Category Action Item Title Giza Inc. DBA Moon Soon Tobacco – Cannabis Lower-Potency Hemp Edible Business Registration Staff Recommendation Approve the Cannabis Lower-Potency Hemp Edible Business Registration for Giza Inc DBA Moon Soon Tobacco (7584 80th Street South, Suite #201). Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. Memo - City Clerk 2. Memo - Public Safety 3. 2025-181 (CUP Low Potency Edible Retailer 7584 80th Street) MoonSoon To: From: Date: Subject: Introduction: • Zoning: To meet zoning requirements, the applicant must obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Moon Soon received theirs at the December 3, 2025, Council meeting Resolution 2025-181. • Fees: The applicant has paid the required $250 registration fee, which covers the first year and the first renewal. • Taxes: The applicant is current on all property taxes, assessments, and other city fees. • State License: The business holds a preliminary state license from the Office of Cannabis Management for the requested operations. • Background Check: The applicant has passed the necessary background check. • Inspections: The business agrees to be open to inspection by local law enforcement or other authorized city officials during regular business hours. Staff Recommendation: 1 City Council Action Request 7.F. Meeting Date 4/1/2026 Department Administration Agenda Category Action Item Title Six Remnant Defendants Opioid Settlement Agreement Staff Recommendation Approve Resolution 2026-048, and authorize the City Clerk to execute the Combined Subdivision Participation and Release Form with the Six Remnant Defendants Settlement Agreement and any related documentation. Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. Memo - New National Opioids Settlement – Six Remnant Defendants 2. Resolution 2026-048 1 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator FROM: Tamara Anderson, City Clerk DATE: 3/16/2026 RE: Approval of New National Opioids Settlement – Six Remnant Defendants Discussion The City has been notified of another national opioid settlement, this time involving six regional distributors and dispensers known as the "Six Remnant Defendants." These include Associated Pharmacies, J M Smith Corporation, Morris and Dickson Co., Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company, North Carolina Mutual Wholesale Drug Company, and United Natural Foods (including SuperValu). This agreement is fundamentally consistent with the previous settlements the City has processed with entities such as Janssen, Teva, Allergan, CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart. To participate, we must agree to the terms for all six defendants together—we can't pick and choose. By signing, the City releases these entities from future claims and agrees that any funds received will be used only for the purposes outlined in the settlement. The deadline to submit the signed forms is May 4, 2026. The City Attorney has been made aware of the agreement. The settlement documents will be provided via DocuSign, and the City Attorney will review the final forms for legal sufficiency prior to execution. The deadline to submit the signed forms is May 4, 2026. Recommendation Approve Resolution 2026-048, and authorize the City Clerk to execute the Combined Subdivision Participation and Release Form with the Six Remnant Defendants Settlement Agreement and any related documentation, subject to review and approval as to form by the City Attornery. WHEREAS, the City of Cottage Grove has been notified of a new proposed national opioids settlement involving six regional distributor and dispenser defendants known as the "Six Remnant Defendants": Associated Pharmacies, Inc. (and American Associated Pharmacies); J M Smith Corporation; Morris and Dickson Co., L.L.C.; Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company, Inc.; North Carolina Mutual Wholesale Drug Company, Inc.; and United Natural Foods, Inc. (including subsidiaries SuperValu and Advantage Logistics); and WHEREAS, participation requires the City to agree to the terms for all six defendants collectively and to release these entities from all future claims related to the national prescription opiate litigation; and WHEREAS, any monetary payments received through this settlement must be used solely for the opioid remediation purposes defined within the settlement agreement; and WHEREAS, the deadline to submit the executed Combined Subdivision Participation and Release Form is Monday, May 4, 2026 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, that the City hereby approves participation in the Six Remnant Defendants Settlement Agreement and authorizes the City Clerk to execute the Combined Subdivision Participation and Release Form and any other necessary documentation to effectuate this agreement. Passed this 1st day of April, 2026. __________________________ Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: ___________________________ Tamara Anderson, City Clerk 1 City Council Action Request 7.G. Meeting Date 4/1/2026 Department Finance Agenda Category Resolution Title Receive Fund Balance of General Fund as of December 31, 2025 Staff Recommendation Receive information on the General Fund as of December 31, 2025 Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. cc memo 2025 General Fund-Fund Balance 2. General Fund -Fund Balance Calculation To: Mayor and City Council Members Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator From: Brenda Malinowski, Finance Director Date: April 1, 2026 Subject: Fund Balance – General Fund on December 31, 2025 Introduction In accordance with Resolution 2024-183, the City Council shall be advised about the designation of fund balance and associated transfers as soon as is practical after the close of the fiscal year. Discussion Council approved the Fund Balance Policy in 2024 which specifies that unassigned fund balance for the General Fund shall be between 45% and 55% of the subsequent General Fund expenditure budget. The 2025 ending fund balance after transfers is within this range at 50%. At the close of the fiscal year, the General Fund is estimated to have an increase of fund balance before transfer of $2,483,856 due to strong revenues related to permits for building and right of way activities and strong investment performance. On the expenditure side, all departments were able to control costs while providing services to the community. $300,000 of the fund balance increase will be transferred to the Compensated Absences Fund to fund the increase in the compensated absences liability in 2025, and $850,000 will be transferred to the EMS Fund to fund the deficit cash balance due to low reimbursement rates for Medicare and Medicaid, and to fund a new ambulance. After these transfers, $16,901,358 is available to allocated per the fund balance policy. Description Amount 2024 ending fund balance $15,567,502 2025 increase in fund balance (before transfers) 2,483,856 Less: transfer to the Compensated Absences Fund (300,000) Less: transfer to the Cottage Grove EMS Fund for deficit cash (550,000) Less: transfer to the Cottage Grove EMS Fund for an ambulance (300,000) 2025 ending fund balance to be assigned per fund balance policy $16,901,358 Per the fund balance policy, the General Fund balance will be assigned as follows: Action Requested General Fund Computation of Fund Balance - December 31, 2025 Estimated Designated Designated Based on Amount Based on Amount General Fund Amount Available : Per the preliminary financial statements (see below)16,901,358$ 15,567,504$ Non Spendable Fund Balance Prepaid Items 15,456 13,556 Other Amounts as determined by City Administrator/Finance Director Designated for future budgets 730,000 776,000 One-time public safety aid 414,027 1,052,777 Amounts collected for violations of "school bus arm"5,600 5,600 Compensated Absences Transfer EMS Fund Transfer Municipal Building Transfer for security upgrades & HVAC rebalance Unassigned Fund Balance per fund Balance Policy 31,143,700 28,446,310 45% to 55% of subsequent year budget 50.0% 15,571,850 48.2% 13,719,570 Total 16,736,933 15,567,503 Amounts in excess of fund balance policy - available for transfer 164,425 1 Outstanding debt 30% 49,328 30% - Equipment Replacement 25% 41,106 25% - Building Replacement 15% 24,664 15% - Future Pavement Mgmt 10% 16,443 10% - Internal Service Funds-Insurance Fund 5% 8,221 5% - Transferred to other funds 139,762 - Remaining Unassigned 24,663 Unassigned 1 Remaining year-end General Fund - Fund Balance 16,761,596$ 15,567,504$ Fund Balance Amounts Assigned (Per 2024 Fund Balance Policy) Fund Balance Amounts Assigned (Per 2024 Fund Balance Policy) 2025 2024 1 City Council Action Request 7.H. Meeting Date 4/1/2026 Department Finance Agenda Category Resolution Title 2025 and 2026 Budget Revisions Staff Recommendation 1) Adopt Resolution 2026-052, 2025 Budget Revisions. 2) Adopt Resolution 2026-053, 2026 Budget Revisions. Budget Implication See resolutions Attachments 1. CC Memo 2025 and 2026 Budget Adjustments 2. Res 2026-052 Revised 2025 Budget 3. Res 2026-053 Revised 2026 Budget To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Brenda Malinowski, Finance Director Date: April 1, 2026 Subject: 2025 and 2026 Budget Revisions Background Discussion General Fund o Development Related ($75,000) ▪ Increase engineering expenditure for costs that were needed due to increased development activity and ROW permit actvity. Increase charges for services (ROW permits) by the same amount. o Property taxes ($160,000) ▪ Decrease property tax revenue that was not received in 2025 and decrease budget contingency by the same amount. Due to a decreased collection rate of 99.28% for 2025 compared to 99.95% in 2024, an adjustment is necessary. Budget contingency is available for this purpose. 2026 Budget Adjustments General Fund Description Amount Building Inspector position funded with 2025 revenue $130,000 Engineering Permit Tech funded with 2025 revenue 150,000 Other development expenses related to permits & row 50,000 Elections carryforward 45,000 Flock cameras 36,000 Fire cadet program 56,000 Gold Award unspent funds from 2025 12,000 Transfer to Municipal Building Fund for HVAC rebalance 10,000 Transfer to Muni. Building Fund for security upgrades 30,000 Inspection expenses for scanning 15,000 Youth Service Bureau contribution 5,000 Contract items 100,000 Salt spreader controls that were not delivered until 2026 87,000 Park supplies that were not delivered until 2026 4,000 Total $730,000 Recommendation WHEREAS, events surrounding development, and other events that occurred in 2025 that were not part of the original Adopted Budget; and WHEREAS Resolution 2024-171 adopted the 2025 operating budget; and WHEREAS Resolution 2024-181 revised the 2025 operating budget; and WHEREAS Resolution 2025-190 revised the 2025 operating budget; and WHEREAS the City Council may authorize budget adjustments. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, that the 2025 Budget shall be revised as follows: General Fund 2025 Original Budget 2025 Revised Budget 12-18- 2024 2025 Revised Budget 12- 17-2025 2025 Revised Budget 4-1- 2026 Expenditures General Government Mayor & Council $120,630 $120,630 $135,630 $135,630 Administration 1,147,600 1,147,600 1,147,600 1,147,600 Professional services 540,000 540,000 585,000 585,000 City Clerk & Elections 227,700 227,700 227,700 227,700 Finance 776,550 776,550 776,550 776,550 City Hall 586,335 586,335 586,335 586,335 Emp. & Comm Prog. 180,100 192,100 223,200 223,200 Budget contingency 275,000 275,000 235,000 75,000 Community Development Planning, Zoning & Historic Preservation 640,490 640,490 670,490 670,490 Building inspection & Code Enforcement 1,602,905 1,602,905 1,902,905 1,902,905 Public Safety Police 11,025,750 11,215,750 11,399,250 11,399,250 Animal Control 29,330 29,330 29,330 29,330 Emergency Preparedness 86,680 166,680 176,680 176,680 Fire 2,498,600 2,561,000 2,583,900 2,583,900 Public Works Engineering 701,090 701,090 776,090 851,090 Street Maintenance 2,222,050 2,222,050 2,222,050 2,222,050 Signage 280,450 280,450 280,450 280,450 Snow Plowing 1,042,660 1,042,660 1,042,660 1,042,660 Public Works Admin 677,140 677,140 677,140 677,140 Forestry 504,330 614,930 614,930 614,930 Parks & Recreation Park Maintenance 2,506,070 2,537,070 2,565,570 2,565,570 Recreation 774,850 774,850 821,850 821,850 Total $28,446,310 $28,932,310 $29,680,310 $30,645,310 Passed this 1st day of April 2026. __________________________ Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: __________________________ Tamara Anderson, City Clerk WHEREAS, certain events were not included in the original adopted budget for 2026 and were assigned in fund balance at the end of 2025; and WHEREAS Resolution 2025-175 adopted the 2026 operating budget; and WHEREAS the City Council may authorize budget adjustments. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, that the 2026 Budget shall be revised as follows: General Fund Passed this 1st day of April 2026. __________________________ Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: __________________________ Tamara Anderson, City Clerk 1 City Council Action Request 7.I. Meeting Date 4/1/2026 Department Administration Agenda Category Action Item Title Intrastate Mutual Aid Cooperative Agreement Staff Recommendation 1) Approve the City of Cottage Grove’s participation in the Minnesota Incident Command System (MNICS) Organization/Incident Management Team. 2) Approve the Intrastate Mutual Aid Cooperative Agreement between the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Homeland Security and Emergency Management, and the City of Cottage Grove. Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. MNICS Cooperative Agreement Memo to Council 2. Resolution Approving Cooperative Agreement MNICS To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Gwen Martin, Deputy Director of Public Safety Date: March 25, 2026 Subject: Intrastate Mutual Aid Cooperative Agreement between the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Homeland Security and Emergency Management and the City of Cottage Grove INTRODUCTION 2025, Council again approved this annual Cooperative Agreement (Cottage Grove City Council Resolution 2025-031). RECOMMENDATIONS CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA , the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Homeland Security & Emergency Management (HSEM), pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 12.27, coordinates emergency management and intrastate mutual aid for the State of Minnesota; and in case of disaster too great to be dealt with unassisted, a local political subdivision may dispatch resources, such as equipment and personnel, as considered necessary to combat that emergency or disaster outside the political subdivision; and HSEM has identified experienced and qualified public/private/special jurisdiction/tribal employees who are available to deploy and have agreed to assist with the response and recovery missions within the requesting jurisdiction(s), who have made official requests through the Duty Officer and/or State Emergency Operations Center (SEOC) and whose mission has been approved by the Authorized Representative or their designee; and the City of Cottage Grove’s participation in the Minnesota Incident Command System (MNICS) Organization/Incident Management Team will benefit the City and other governmental units and agencies in the State of Minnesota. by the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, that: 1. The City of Cottage Grove’s participation in the Minnesota Incident Command System (MNICS) Organization/Incident Management Team is hereby approved. 2. The Intrastate Mutual Aid Cooperative Agreement for the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Homeland Security & Emergency Management is hereby approved, and the signature page shall be executed by the Mayor and City Clerk and delivered to eoc.staff.logistic@state.mn.us as provided in the Cooperative Agreement. Passed this _____ day of ____________, 2026. ___________________________ Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: ______________________________ Tamara Anderson, City Clerk 1 City Council Action Request 7.J. Meeting Date 4/1/2026 Department Finance Agenda Category Resolution Title Approve 2025 and 2026 Interfund transfers and closing of funds Staff Recommendation 1) Approve Resolution 2026-051, approving 2025 interfund transfers and closing of funds. 2) Approve Resolution 2026-060, approving the 2026 interfund transfer. Budget Implication See resolutions. Attachments 1. CC Memo 2025 and 2026 Interfund Transfers and Closing of Funds 2. Resolution 2026-51 Interfund Transfers 2025 3. Resolution 2026-60 Interfund Transfer 2026 To: From: Date: Subject: Background The City Council is requested to consider a resolution approving interfund transfers and closing of funds for 2025. During the course of the year, various funding transfers occur in order to reflect accurate financial activities between funds. In addition, there is one resolution for an interfund transfer to consider for 2026, for an action that occurred in 2025. Action Requested Adopt Resolution 2026-51, Resolution Approving Interfund Transfers and Closing Funds. Adopt Resolution 2026-60, Resolution Approving an Interfund Transfer for 2026. CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING INTERFUND TRANSFERS AND CLOSING FUNDS WHEREAS certain interfund transfers have been determined to be necessary in the completion of the 2025 financial statements, and WHEREAS certain funds can now be closed since the activity needed to be accounted for in the fund is now complete and the fund is no longer necessary, and WHEREAS budget adjustments for these transfers are approved as part of this action, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, that the following interfund transfers and closed funds are made effective December 31, 2025. From To Amount 100-General Fund 730-Comp. Absences fund $300,000 Purpose - Provide funding for the liability increase in the Compensated Absences fund. 100-General Fund 660-Cottage Grove EMS fund $550,000 Purpose - Fund deficit cash balance in the Cottage Grove EMS fund due to low reimbursement rates for Medicare and Medicaid. 100-General Fund 660-Cottage Grove EMS fund $300,000 Purpose - Fund replacement ambulance in the Cottage Grove EMS fund. 100-General Fund $139,762 300-Closed Debt fund 49,328 210-Equip. Replace. fund 41,106 525-Muni. Building fund 24,664 560-Future Pavement Mgmt 16,443 710-Fleet Services fund 8,221 Purpose -Transfers per the Fund Balance Policy. 610-Water Operating fund $261,312 620-Sewer Operating fund 92,943 230-Storm Water Utility fund 155,437 235-Roadway Maintenance 53,698 Total 560-Pavement Manage. fund 563,390 Purpose - Record utility portions of the 2025 Pavement Management project as per the CIP, feasibility report and final cost allocation report from engineers. 575-Water Area fund $21,000 Total 455-3M Settlement fund 21,000 Purpose - Reimburse for the portion of the Well 13 pump upgrades to increase the pumping capacity from 1,200 to 1,800 gallons per minute. The 3M settlement funds only reimbursed for a well with a pumping capacity of 1,200 gallons per minute. The increased pumping capacity will be necessary for future growth. From To Amount 286-ED Trust fund $1,100,000 Total 285-EDA fund 1,100,000 Purpose - Record transfer for the West Point Douglas property purchased by the EDA in 2025 with funds from the ED Trust fund. Property to be resold in the future for redevelopment. 300-Closed Debt fund 305-2019B Improve. Bonds $200,000 Purpose - Transfer per the 2025 Budget and Financial Management Plan to use the Closed Debt fund to reduce the debt service property tax levy. 568-Developer Petitioned Projects 520-MSA fund $304,929 Purpose - Close Developer Petitioned fund to the MSA fund since all projects have been completed in the fund and all assessments have been collected. Passed this 1st day of April 2026. ________________________ Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: ________________________ Tamara Anderson, City Clerk CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING INTERFUND TRANSFER WHEREAS an interfund transfer has been determined to be necessary for 2026 activity, and WHEREAS budget adjustments for this transfer are approved as part of this action, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, that the following interfund transfer be made effective January 31, 2026. From To Amount 286-ED Trust fund $2,000,000 Total 285-EDA fund 2,000,000 Purpose – Transfer for the loan with Bellagala for Cedarhurst. Loan was approved by EDA in 2025 but closing of the property and loan did not occur until January 2026. Funding for the loan is ED Trust fund. Passed this 1st day of April 2026. ________________________ Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: ________________________ Tamara Anderson, City Clerk 1 City Council Action Request 7.K. Meeting Date 4/1/2026 Department Administration Agenda Category Action Item Title Recreational Motor Vehicles Ordinance Amendment Staff Recommendation Approve Ordinance 1112, amending Title 6, Chapter 5 of the Cottage Grove city code relating to recreational motor vehicles. Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. Memo - Recreational Vehicles Ordinance Amendment March 24 2026 2. Recreational Motor Vehicle Ordinance (3-23-26) To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Peter J Koerner, Director of Public Safety Brad Petersen, Deputy Director of Public Safety Date: March 24, 2026 Subject: RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ORDINANCE AMENDMENT INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND • Add and modify definitions to align with Minnesota State Statute 169.011. • Require operators to comply with relevant Minnesota State Statutes regarding operation, licensing, and registration. • Permit motorized foot scooters to operate on mixed-use paths (not sidewalks). • Require operators to exercise due care and operate at a reasonable speed. • Require operators to yield the right of way to pedestrians. • Prohibit the operation of neighborhood electric vehicles on sidewalks, mixed-use paths, and bicycle paths. • Require expressed vs. written permission to operate recreational vehicles on private property. • Require operators under the age of 18 years to wear an approved helmet. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the amendments to the Recreational Motor Vehicle Ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 1112 AN ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING TITLE 6, CHAPTER 5 OF THE COTTAGE GROVE CITY CODE RELATING TO RECREATIONAL MOTOR VEHICLES The City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota, does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. “The Code of the City of Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota,” shall be amended by amending Section 6-5-1 to read as follows: § 6-5-1 DEFINITIONS. The following words, terms, and phrases when used in this Chapter shall have the meaning ascribed to them in this Section except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: BICYCLE PATH: A path designed for exclusive or preferential use by persons using bicycles. CLASS 1 ELECTRIC-ASSISTED BICYCLE: An electric-assisted bicycle equipped with an electric motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling and ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour. CLASS 2 ELECTRIC-ASSISTED BICYCLE: An electric-assisted bicycle equipped with an electric motor that is capable of propelling the bicycle without the rider pedaling and ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour. CLASS 3 ELECTRIC-ASSISTED BICYCLE: An electric-assisted bicycle equipped with an electric motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling and ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour. ELECTRIC-ASSISTED BICYCLE: A bicycle with two or three wheels that: (1) has a saddle and fully operable pedals for human propulsion; (2) meets the requirements for bicycles under Code of Federal Regulations, title 16, part 1512, or successor requirements; (3) is equipped with an electric motor that has a power output of not more than 750 watts; (4) meets the requirements of a Class 1, Class 2, Class 3, or multiple mode electric- assisted bicycle; and (5) has a battery or electric drive system that has been tested to an applicable safety standard by a third-party testing laboratory. ELECTRIC MOTO: A 2-wheeled vehicle powered by a high-output electric motor typically greater than 750 watts and rechargeable batteries, designed to resemble a bicycle or dirt bike, but capable of exceeding speeds of 28 mph without functional pedals. ELECTRIC PERSONAL ASSISTIVE MOBILITY DEVICE: A self-balancing device with two non-tandem wheels, designed to transport not more than one person, and operated by an electric propulsion system that limits the maximum speed of the device to 15 miles per hour. MICRO-MOBILITY DEVICE: A vehicle that: MIXED-USE PATH: A paved or improved surface path designed for travel by pedestrians, bicycles, electric-assisted bicycles, micro-mobility devices, and personal assistive mobility devices. MOTORIZED BICYCLE: A bicycle that is propelled by an electric or a liquid fuel motor of a piston displacement capacity of 50 cubic centimeters or less, and a maximum of two brake horsepower, which is capable of a maximum speed of not more than 30 miles per hour on a flat surface with not more than one percent grade in any direction when the motor is engaged. Motorized bicycle does not include electric-assisted bicycles. MOTORIZED FOOT SCOOTER: A device with handlebars designed to be stood or sat upon by the operator, and powered by an internal combustion engine or electric motor that is capable of propelling the device with or without human propulsion, and that has no more than two 12-inch or smaller diameter wheels and has an engine or motor that is capable of a maximum speed of 15 miles per hour on a flat surface with not more than one percent grade in any direction when the motor is engaged. An electric personal assistive mobility device, a motorized bicycle, an electric-assisted bicycle, or a motorcycle is not a motorized foot scooter. NEIGHBORHOOD ELECTRIC VEHICLE: An electrically powered motor vehicle that has three or four wheels, and has a speed attainable in one mile of at least 20 miles per hour but not more than 25 miles per hour on a paved level surface. PRIVATE PROPERTY: All lands other than public property. PUBLIC PROPERTY: Lands owned by the United States, the State, or any political subdivision thereof. Property owned by the federal, state, or local government, or its agencies, which is available for community use. RECREATIONAL MOTOR VEHICLE: Any motor vehicle designed for, used or capable of use for sport, amusement or recreation, whether or not eligible to be licensed for use upon streets and highways, including, but not limited to electric or liquid fuel powered scooters, minibikes, motorcycles, motorized bicycles, electric motos, golf carts, go-carts, hovercraft, snowmobiles converted to use with wheels, or all-terrain vehicles. or dune buggies, but not including motor vehicles designed for Recreational Motor Vehicle does not include motor vehicles designed for commercial, industrial or agricultural use, or snowmobiles propelled by tracks, motorized foot scooters as defined by Minnesota Statutes Section 169.011, subdivision 46, electric-assisted bicycles, as defined by Minnesota Statutes Section 169.011, subdivision 27, electric personal assistive mobility devices, micro-mobility devices or wheelchairs as defined herein or by Minnesota State Statute 169.011.as defined by Minnesota Statutes Section 169.011, subdivision 26, and snowmobiles propelled by tracks. WHEELCHAIR: Any manual or motorized wheelchair, scooter, tricycle, or similar device used by a disabled person as a substitute for walking. § 6-5-2 OPERATION RESTRICTIONS A. It shall be unlawful to operate a recreational motor vehicle within the City: 1. Upon private property without the expressed written permission of the owner or person entitled to possession thereof. This restriction shall not apply to motor vehicles registered under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 168 when operated by a driver licensed under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 171 upon private driveways, roadways, lanes, ways, or parking lots where the operation of licensed motor vehicles is not expressly prohibited by posted notice. 2. Upon any school grounds, public park, playground, recreational area, golf course, or other public property, except at such times and places as the proper authorities may authorize or designate and subject to conditions imposed by such authorities. No operation whatsoever shall be allowed on the foregoing areas or places described in this subsection when the recreational motor vehicle does not bear a license plate evidencing registration as required under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 168. 3. Upon any public sidewalk, walkway, mixed-use path, bicycle path, or boulevard. 4. Upon the right of way of any public street or highway unless: a. The recreational motor vehicle is licensed under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 168; and § 6-5-3 STORAGE AND PARKING OF RECREATIONAL AND OTHER ELECTRIC OR MOTORIZED VEHICLES § 6-5-4 HOURS OF OPERATION Except for licensed vehicles operated upon streets or highways by licensed operators, no recreational motor vehicle shall be operated between the hours of nine o’clock (9:00) P.M. and eight o’clock (8:00) A.M. upon any public property, or within one-fourth (¼) mile of any platted area. § 6-5-5 NOISE LIMITS Recreational motor vehicles shall meet the noise limits established for motorcycles by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 169. § 6-5-6 HELMETS A. Persons operating a recreational motor vehicle within the City or riding upon such recreational motor vehicle shall wear a helmet that complies with standards established by the Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety. B. Persons under the age of 18 years operating or riding on an electric-assisted bicycle, motorized foot scooter, electric personal assistive mobility device, or micro-mobility device within the City shall wear a helmet that meets widely accepted bicycle safety standards including, but not limited to, the United States Department of Transportation, American National Standards Institute, Consumer Product Safety Commission, American Society for Testing and Materials, or Snell Memorial Foundation. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 412.191, in the case of a lengthy ordinance, a summary may be published. While a copy of the entire ordinance is available without cost at the office of the City Clerk, the following summary is approved by the City Council and shall be published in lieu of publishing the entire ordinance: St. Paul Pioneer Press on _______. 1 City Council Action Request 7.L. Meeting Date 4/1/2026 Department Administration Agenda Category Action Item Title UASI Competitive Grant Award Acceptance Staff Recommendation Adopt Resolution 2026-062 authorizing the acceptance of the FY2025 UASI Competitive Grant in the amount of $60,000. Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. Memo to Council for Grant acceptance and signatory authorization 2. Resolution 2026-062 (UASI Grant) 3. Award Letter - FY2025 UASI To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Gwen Martin, Deputy Director of Public Safety Date: March 26, 2026 Subject: FY2025 UASI COMPETITIVE GRANT AWARD ACCEPTANCE and RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SUB-GRANT AGREEMENT INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND network penetration testing and vulnerability assessment, and ransomware preparedness assessment, IT can understand and close our capability gaps with regards to our cybersecurity needs. RECOMMENDATION CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SUB-GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE DIVISION OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT IN THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY FOR AN URBAN AREA SECURITY INITIATIVE (UASI) GRANT WHEREAS, the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) Grant Program provides financial assistance to eligible applicants to address the unique planning, organization, equipment, training, and exercise needs of high-risk urban areas, and to assist these areas in building an enhanced and sustainable capacity to prevent, protect against, prepare for, and respond to acts of terrorism; and WHEREAS, in 2023 when Cottage Grove’s Emergency Management Planning Team completed a Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) to identify hazards, determine impacts, and establish capability targets, the possibility of experiencing a cyber-attack and the need to adapt to quickly evolving cybersecurity risks was ranked in the top 5 of the 33 identified threats and hazards; and WHEREAS, Washington County’s 2023 All Hazard Mitigation Plan identified cyber threats as an emerging issue in all cities and townships in the county; and WHEREAS, a Competitive Pool UASI Grant Program Application for a Cybersecurity Risk & Vulnerability Assessment/Penetration Testing project was submitted to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety’s Homeland Security and Emergency Management Division (HSEM), and subsequently a Fiscal Year 2025 Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) Grant in the amount of $60,000 was awarded to the City of Cottage Grove; and WHEREAS, in order for this grant to be accepted and this project to be implemented, the City Council must adopt a resolution authorizing the City of Cottage Grove to enter into a sub-grant agreement with HSEM; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, that the City of Cottage Grove enter into a sub-grant agreement with the Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management in the Minnesota Department of Public Safety for an UASI Grant; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Deputy Director of Public Safety Gwendolyn Martin is hereby authorized to execute and sign such sub-grant agreements and any amendments hereto as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the City of Cottage Grove. Passed this 1st day of April, 2026. __________________________ Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: ___________________________ Tamara Anderson, City Clerk EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Driver and Vehicle Services Emergency Communication Networks Homeland Security and Emergency Management Minnesota State Patrol Office of Communications Office of Justice Programs Office of Pipeline Safety Office of Traffic Safety State Fire Homeland Security and Emergency Management 3925 Pheasant Ridge Drive NE, Blaine, Minnesota 55449 Phone: 651-201-7400 ● Fax: 651-296-0459 www.dps.mn.gov March 13, 2026 Gwen Martin 12800 Ravine Parkway S Cottage Grove, MN 55016 RE: 2025 UASI Award Notification Ms. Martin, I am pleased to inform you that the City of Cottage Grove has been awarded a Fiscal Year 2025 Urban Area Security Initiative (FY2025 UASI) Grant in the amount of $60,000.00. The grant performance period will be January 1, 2026 through December 31, 2027. The following projects have been awarded with their corresponding amounts: All purchases and expenditures must be used for the intended projects identified in your initial application. As the fiscal agent, the City of Cottage Grove is responsible for the tracking of the distribution of all equipment and funding. Your grant award is specific to projects and activities identified in application and cannot be re-allocated to other activities without prior state approval. E-Grants will be open for application by April 6, 2026. All FY2025 UASI applications must be submitted in E-Grants no later than June 30, 2026. Once your application has been submitted in E-Grants and approved, a grant agreement will be executed between HSEM and the City of Cottage Grove, the fiscal agent. Upon accepting this award in your E-Grants portal, you will have the opportunity to review and agree to the attached Terms and Conditions of this grant that will be incorporated into the Grant Agreement, including Terms and Conditions for Non-State Agencies, Federal Audit Requirements, Federal Assurances, and the Federal HSGP DHS Award Agreement Articles. All equipment must have an Authorized Equipment List (AEL) number in order to be eligible for grant funding., The most current FEMA AEL list can be found on the FEMA website: https://www.fema.gov/authorized-equipment-list. For each item that may have an EHP requirement, column E will indicate: “Environmental Planning and Historic Project Amount MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Preservation (EHP)”. This EHP requirement is only applicable if the equipment is not portable. Should the equipment be portable, an EHP will not be required. For training classes, only field-based training classes require submission. For exercises, only field- based exercises require the submission of an EHP. All EHP documentation must be submitted and approved prior to any expenditure of funds requiring EHP submission. Please direct any inquiries to the HSGP Grant Manager, Brittany Wilber at 651-201-7451 or brittany.wilber@state.mn.us. Sincerely, Brittany Wilber, HSGP Grant Manager MN Homeland Security and Emergency Management 1 City Council Action Request 7.M. Meeting Date 4/1/2026 Department Public Safety Agenda Category Action Item Title St. Paul Park Refinery Equipment Donation Staff Recommendation Accept and approve the donation of used rescue equipment from the Saint Paul Park Refinery Fire Department. Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. Refinery Donation April 1 2026 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Peter J Koerner, Director of Public Safety Peter Fischer, Deputy Fire Chief Date: March 24, 2026 Subject: ST PAUL PARK REFINERY EQUIPMENT DONATION Introduction Recommendation 1 City Council Action Request 7.N. Meeting Date 4/1/2026 Department Parks and Recreation Agenda Category Action Item Title Military Trailhead Master Plan Staff Recommendation Approve the Military Trailhead Master Plan. Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. Council Memo-Military Trailhead Master Plan 2. MT - 1A 3. MT -2f 4. 250688 - Military Trailhead Concept Plan To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator From: CC: Zac Dockter, Parks and Recreation Director Jim Forhman, Parks Superintendent Date: March 17, 2026 Subject: Military Trailhead Master Plan Introduction Through comprehensive park master planning, the City has identified historic military road as a future trailway. This trail would be a key artery in connecting to the local and regional trailway system. As part of the Military Trail, the southeast quadrant along current Military Road and Jamaica Avenue is sited as a future trailhead. Although this land is not currently under City ownership, it is timely to start planning for this area as surrounding land is quickly transitioning from agriculture to residential. The first step in park development is to produce a master plan. The master plan is attached and was reviewed and approved as submitted by the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission at its’ March 9, 2026 meeting. Background Military Trail will offer a great opportunity for Cottage Grove to showcase its trail system utilizing this historic roadway. The trailhead design includes functional resting and recreational spaces while also providing interpretive opportunities to remember the historical significance of this site. Attached with this memo are the Trailhead Master Plan concept as well as pictures of the interpretive signs along Ravine Parkway that give context to the deep history of Military Road. Upon approval of the master plan, staff will utilize this concept for future grant applications and in marketing and communications with residents, trail users, future neighbors and real estate professionals. Staff Recommendation Approve the Military Trailhead Master Plan. February 13, 2026 Project No. 250688 MILITARY TRAILHEAD | COTTAGE GROVE, MN MAP: STREETS.MN; “A HISTORY OF MINNESOTA’S HIGHWAYS PART ONE” DATED FEBRUARY 9, 2018 MAP: COTTAGE GROVE INTERPRETIVE SIGN TITLED “MILITARY ROAD HISTORIC TRAIL CORRIDOR” HISTORICAL CONTEXT PROJECT LOCATION PROJECT LOCATION February 13, 2026 Project No. 250688 MILITARY TRAILHEAD | COTTAGE GROVE, MN IXCENTRAL GREENWAY Regional Trail Master Plan D2 F A B C E D1 Figure II: Central Greenway Regional Trail Segment Map. MAP: “CENTRAL GREENWAY REGIONAL TRAIL MASTER PLAN SOUTH SEGMENT: INTERSTATE 94 TO COTTAGE GROVE RAVINE REGIONAL PARK. DATED: SEPT. 6, 2017 CONTEXTUAL TRAIL DEVELOPMENT TRAIL ON EACH SIDE OF MILITARY ROAD PROJECT LOCATION FUTURE TRAILS FUTURE TRAILS PROJECT LOCATION MILITARY TRAIL EXISTING AMENITIES February 13, 2026 Project No. 250688 MILITARY TRAILHEAD | COTTAGE GROVE, MN © 2025 Microsoft Corporation © 2025 Maxar ©CNES (2025) Distribution Airbus DS ILLUSTRATED SITE LOCATION POTENTIAL TRAILHEAD LOCATION PRELIMINARY ROUNDABOUT DESIGN SITE CONTEXT February 13, 2026 Project No. 250688 MILITARY TRAILHEAD | COTTAGE GROVE, MN PLANTINGS (TYP) BENCH (TYP) OVERHEAD GATEWAY FEATURE BIKE PARKING LIMESTONE BOULDER SEATING COVERED WAGON WATER FEATURE BIKE REPAIR STATION HAMMOCK POSTS DRINKING FOUNTAIN INTERPRETIVE SIGN PICNIC SHELTER PICNIC AREA NATIVE PLANT MATERIAL PREFERRED CONCEPT MILITAR Y T R A I L C O R R I D O R JA M A I C A A V E S 3-SIDED INTERPRETIVE SIGN MAP ETCHED IN CONCRETE FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DESIGN INSPIRATION IMAGES ARCHED-ROOF SHELTER The design establishes a strong focal point at the intersection of Jamaica Avenue and Military Road, anchored by interpretive signage and a sculptural art element. A series of overhead gateway features along the Military Road Trail clearly signal entry into a significant trail corridor and define the arrival experience at the trailhead plaza. At the heart of the plaza, a custom ground-plane map is integrated into the pavement, illustrating the historic military road routes throughout Minnesota. The plaza functions as a central gathering space, thoughtfully positioned to connect surrounding amenities and support community use. The shelter features a barrel-vaulted roof form inspired by historic covered wagons, referencing the site’s cultural heritage. Seating options include benches and limestone block elements that provide comfortable resting areas. An additional picnic table pad along the south side of the site accommodates increased visitor activity and flexible use. Additional site amenities include bicycle racks, a bike repair station, and a drinking fountain, enhancing convenience and supporting a range of recreational users. GROUND PLANE MAP FEATURE LIMESTONE BOULDER SEAT WALL MULTIPLE OVERHEAD STRUCTURES WITH SIGNAGE February 13, 2026 Project No. 250688 MILITARY TRAILHEAD | COTTAGE GROVE, MN CITY LOGO OR EMBLEM DESIGN INSPIRATION IMAGES INTERPRETIVE SIGN (SHAPED SIMILAR TO 1850’S STUMP PULLER ILLUSTRATE TOPOGRAPHY OF MILITARY TRAIL ROUTES AND CONNECTION TO RIVERS CONCEPT IMAGERY WAGON INSPIRED INTERACTIVE ART PIECE HORSE / FRONTIER INSPIRED BIKE REPAIR STATION THEMED BIKE RACKSBIKE REPAIR STATION MULTIPLE SIDED INTERPRETIVE SIGN HAMMOCKING GROVE CONTOURED MAP INTERPRETIVE SIGN HAMMOCKING POSTS PLAY EQUIPMENT STYLE ART PIECE WITH INTERACTIVE PANELS ABSTRACT WAGON SCULPTURE 1 City Council Action Request 7.O. Meeting Date 4/1/2026 Department Parks and Recreation Agenda Category Action Item Title Peterson Park Playground Master Plan Staff Recommendation Approve Peterson Park Master Plan. Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. Memo-Peterson Park Playground 2. _2026.02.13 Cottage Grove_Peterson Park DNR Submittal (4) 3. Peterson Park Master Plan 21726 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator From: CC: Zac Dockter, Parks and Recreation Director Jim Fohrman, Parks Superintendent Date: March 17, 2026 Subject: Peterson Park Playground Introduction/Background In 2025, the City acquired approximately 35 acres of land from the Lochridge development area for future Peterson Park. The first step in park development is to produce a master plan which is attached for City Council review. This master plan was approved as submitted by the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission at their February 9, 2026 meeting. Separately, the Commission approved the playground design at their March 9, 2026 meeting. Background Peterson Park’s design is focused on the natural elements of the park landscape. Most notably, the lake acts as the focal point of the park with a 1-mile lake looping trail. The land around the lake will undergo a future natural resources management study to assure habitat preservation and restoration are a top priority. The smaller active portion of the park is scheduled to include a playground, picnic shelter, open lawn, dock/water access, hammock area, solar charging station, grill, benches/tables, landscaping, signage and a small parking lot. The playground theme is also nature-based with an emphasis on the Hosta plant which was a favorite of Roger and Myra Peterson (the namesake of this park) in their notable home gardens. The play elements cater to different age groups and abilities to ensure a safe, enjoyable and inclusive play environment for all children. Key components include: 1. Age-Appropriate Equipment – play features for 2-12 year olds 2. Safety Surfacing – combination engineered wood fiber and poured in place rubber to meet accessibility and safety needs 3. Play Features – swinging, spinning, climbing, sliding, balancing, social and educational spaces to meet both physical and cognitive play experiences 4. Natural Features – design compliment natural elements of the park at every turn. 5. Environmental Stewardship – Minnesota sourced playground made of 82%, or 7,235 pounds, of recycled and post-consumer recycled materials (steel, aluminum, rubber and plastic). Upon approval of the master plan, staff will utilize this concept for future grant applications and in marketing and communications with residents, trail users, future neighbors and real estate professionals. Recommendation Approve Peterson Park Master Plan. 2026 Qty Item No.Description Price Ext Price 1 111228A Square Tenderdeck $1,474 1 111229A Square Deck Extension $1,403 1 111403N 158"Steel Post For Roof DB $571 1 111403S 118"Steel Post For Roof DB $449 7 111404A 148"Alum Post DB $566 2 111404E 116"Alum Post DB $444 1 111404F 108"Alum Post DB $423 1 115222A Slant Window Panel Above Deck $1,846 5 116244A Pipe Barrier Above Deck $893 1 123336A Double Wave Slide 48"Dk DB $3,876 1 130390A Double Swoosh Slide 72"Dk DB $3,381 1 152907B Deck Link w/Barriers Steel end panels 2 Steps $2,938 1 152907D Deck Link w/Barriers Steel end panels 4 Steps $4,738 1 152911A Curved Transfer Module Right 32"Dk DB $3,402 1 160694A Barrier With Infill Panel $882 1 178710A Hexagon Tenderdeck $4,202 1 185296A 10' PlayOdyssey Tower $39,341 1 185338B 10' Tower TurboTwister w/1 View $10,073 EQUIPMENT INFORMATION & PRICING PROJECT INFORMATION State Contract #218091 Peterson Park - 021126 Revision TBD Jamaica Ave S Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Contract Year: 1 218172A DigiFuse Barrier Panel w/Medallions Above Deck $2,739 1 222709A 10' Tower WhooshWinder Slide $9,160 1 307436A Footprint Balance Beam DB $627 1 345276A Storefront Panel $893 2 345282A Bubble Panel Above Deck $1,214 1 345285A Rain Sound Wheel Panel Above Deck $3,086 1 345286A Chimes Panel Above Deck $2,122 1 345289A Periscope Panel Above Deck $2,331 1 345311A Cliff Climber 48"Dk DB $2,535 1 345312A Loop Ladder 48"Dk DB $1,331 1 345315C Wiggle Ladder 48"Dk DB $1,091 1 362348A HomeBase Square Belt $2,208 1 373205A Zoo Infill Panel $1,102 2 375412B Petal Canopy Curved Post 3 Petal $12,031 1 152179A Saddle Spinner DB 16"Height $1,010 1 168099A Cozy Dome DB $6,339 1 173907A Log Stepper 8"Height DB Only $1,020 2 174018A Belt Seat ProGuard Chains for 8' Beam Height $179 1 176038A Full Bucket Seat ProGuard Chains for 8' Beam Height $500 1 177332A Single Post Swing Frame 8' Beam Height Only DB Only $1,744 1 177333A Single Post Swing Frame Additional Bay 8' Beam Height Only DB Only $1,295 1 177351A $1,219 1 182503C Welcome Sign (LSI Provided) Ages 5-12 years Direct Bury $0 1 252553A Rhapsody Vibra Chime 5 DB $1,494 1 252555A Rhapsody Vibra Chime 3 DB $1,494 1 252557A Rhapsody Vibra Chime 1 DB $1,494 $161,996.00 CUSTOM: Total Standard Equipment Cost at State Contract Pricing Page 2 of 3 1 CP010299 72" LEAF CLIMBER DB Includes permalene handholds.$4,427 1 CP017169 $648 2 CP017170 $638 1 CP017171 $633 1 CP031996 72" SUNBEAM CLIMBER W/IVY/VINE PATTERN AND MARBLES At Grade .$3,127 1 CP031995 $1,194 $11,305.00Total Custom Equipment Cost at State Contract Pricing Page 3 of 3 2-5 years old 5-12 years old 5-12 years old 5-12 years old 5-12 years old 5-12 years old 5-12 years old 5-12 years old PE T E R S O N P A R K PL A Y G R O U N D 02 1 1 2 6 CO T T A G E G R O V E , M N SALES REPRESENTATIVE: EMILY MALONEY DESIGNED BY: AO 2/12/26 1/4" = 1'-0" FLAGSHIP RECREATION 11123 UPPER 33RD ST N LAKE ELMO, MN 55082 763-550-7860 FLAGSHIPPLAY.COM THIS PLAY AREA AND PLAY EQUIPMENT IS DESIGNED FOR AGE RANGES AS NOTED ON PLAN. THIS DESIGN CONFORMS TO THE ADA ACCESSIBLITY GUIDELINES (ADAAG), ASSUMING THAT THE ENTIRE USE ZONE IS COVERED WITH AN ACCESSIBLE PROTECTIVE SURFACING, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE PLAN. SHEET LS101 C: \ U s e r s \ A l e x a n d r a O l s o n \ F l a g s h i p R e c r e a t i o n \ F l a g s h i p R e c r e a t i o n - D o c u m e n t s \ 2 0 2 6 P l a n n i n g \ E m i l y \ C o t t a g e G r o v e - P e t e r s o n P a r k \ D e s i g n \ 2 0 2 6 . 1 1 . 2 6 R e v i s i o n \ C o t t a g e G r o v e _ P e t e r s o n 0 2 1 1 2 6 R e v . d w g CONTAINER DETAILS TOTAL CONTAINER AREA 3692 SF ASTM SAFETY SURFACING TYPE ENGINEERED WOOD FIBER (ALTERNATE POURED IN PLACE SHOWN) TOTAL PIP ALT AREA 650 SF TOTAL EWF AREA 3692 SF TOTAL PERIMETER 233 LF EDGING TYPE 6"X12" CONCRETE CURB BY OTHERS FINISH GRADE TOP OF CURB MAX FALL HEIGHT (5-12 YR)120" *SITE PREPARATION REQUIREMENTS: ·OWNER TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM 6' WIDE APPROVED SITE ACCESS PATH TO CONTAINER AND PROTECTION OF THIS ACCESS ROUTE ·PLAYGROUND PLAN IS BASED ON IDEAL SOIL CONDITIONS. IF THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT THE SOILS BEING SUITABLE, IT IS RECOMMEND THAT THE OWNER PROVIDE A GEOTECHNICAL REPORT OF THE SITE ·MAXIMUM OF 1% GRADE CHANGE ACROSS CONTAINER ·OWNER INSTALLED DRAIN TILE TO BE WITHIN 4 FEET OF CONTAINER PERIMETER ·IF OWNER INSTALLED BORDER, DRAIN TILE STUB TO BE PROVIDED ·DRAIN TILE BY FLAGSHIP ACCOUNTS FOR WATER WITHIN THE CONTAINER AND DOES NOT INCLUDE RUN OFF FROM SURROUNDING FLATWORK, LANDSCAPING, BUILDINGS, ETC. ·OWNER TO PROVIDE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE TO CONTAINER ·MINIMUM CONTAINER SIZE NEEDED DENOTES THE INSIDE OF CURB DIMENSION ALTERNATIVE ENTRANCE RAMP WITHOUT PIP 2-5 years old 5-12 years old 5-12 years old 5-12 years old 5-12 years old 5-12 years old 5-12 years old 5-12 years old PE T E R S O N P A R K PL A Y G R O U N D DN R P L A N CO T T A G E G R O V E , M N SALES REPRESENTATIVE: EMILY MALONEY DESIGNED BY: AO 2/12/26 1/4" = 1'-0" FLAGSHIP RECREATION 11123 UPPER 33RD ST N LAKE ELMO, MN 55082 763-550-7860 FLAGSHIPPLAY.COM THIS PLAY AREA AND PLAY EQUIPMENT IS DESIGNED FOR AGE RANGES AS NOTED ON PLAN. THIS DESIGN CONFORMS TO THE ADA ACCESSIBLITY GUIDELINES (ADAAG), ASSUMING THAT THE ENTIRE USE ZONE IS COVERED WITH AN ACCESSIBLE PROTECTIVE SURFACING, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE PLAN. SHEET LS101-DRN C: \ U s e r s \ A l e x a n d r a O l s o n \ F l a g s h i p R e c r e a t i o n \ F l a g s h i p R e c r e a t i o n - D o c u m e n t s \ 2 0 2 6 P l a n n i n g \ E m i l y \ C o t t a g e G r o v e - P e t e r s o n P a r k \ D e s i g n \ 2 0 2 6 . 1 1 . 2 6 R e v i s i o n \ C o t t a g e G r o v e _ P e t e r s o n 0 2 1 1 2 6 R e v . d w g 2/13/2026 QTY Preliminary Budget Additions - Agg Base Prep Possible Addition - Concrete Curb Notes Sales Tax - if applicable 0.00 ST3 Certificate of Exemption must be provided by owner. Mobilization of Installation Crew to Job Site (Trailer Skid Steer Augur, Tools, Mixer, Etc.) Disposal of packaging material Excavation (new container) 0 0.00 BY OWNER - Owner to set desired finished grade by excavating 12" below it Concrete Border Straight (LF)0 0.00 Standard 6" W x 12" D. Concrete Border Curved (LF)233 13,275.03 BY OWNER - Concrete curb to be compelted by owner. Alternate pricing if prefer added to Playground scope. Full professional installation by Landscape Structures Certified Installers. Prevailing Labor Rate. Shade/Tower Rental Equipment Allowance (Lull, Lift, etc.)1,618.59 Rental - Req'd for Shade Fabric, Roofs, etc. Concrete Flatwork (Sq. Ft.)30 392.35 4" thick concrete Thickened Edge (LF)0 0.00 Thickened edge used when installing a sidewalk adjacent to playground container. Prevents stone base from washing out. EWF - Playground Safety Surfacing (CY)160 7,200.90 IPEMA Certified Meets ASTM, ADA & CPSC EWF Freight 1,002.00 Compacted Aggregate Base (Recycled Concrete or Class 5) (Tons)26 2,108.03 Class 5 Agg w/ Fines or Recycled Concrete, Material & Install 4" - 6" Compacted Required for PIP & Turf Installations Concrete Base / mound or sloped surface (2" skim coat)0 0.00 Concrete Skim Coating Req'd for PIP/Turf Subbase on Surfaces that are not Flat. Drain Tile (LF)0 0.00 BY OWNER - Drain stubsrequired inside container if desired. Poured In Place Rubber Surfacing (Sq. Ft.)650 26,321.27 50/50 mix of Standard Colors/Black Speckled (Designs & Premium Colors Extra) Security Guard 0.00 24 Hr Site Security req'd during Installation & Cure Time. Cure Times vary with weather and thickness. Defects or damage due to trespass before sufficient cure time will not be covered by warranty. Flagship Rec not licensed for Security Services. Site Restoration (Sq.Ft.)0 0.00 BY OWNER - All restoration by Owner. Backfilling required to stabilize border. LSI - Payment & Performance Bonds 0.00 Included By Request 0.00 Included By Request Preliminary Total Additions Total Additions Total Total w/ Additions Peterson Park Made in the U.S.A. Statement Project# CottageGrove_Peterson 021126 Rev® 5-12 February 13, 2026 Cottage Grove playlsi.com presented by Total Product Made in the U.S.A. 99% Calculation includes standard play products only. *Our fabrication, rotomolding, concrete, welding and painting operations in Delano, Minnesota, U.S.A. produce the vast majority of our standard play components. Peterson Park Environmental Statement Project# CottageGrove_Peterson 021126 Rev February 13, 2026 Cottage Grove playlsi.com presented by RECYCLED CONTENT OF LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES PRODUCT: 3,423 lbs. 483 lbs. Rubber 0 lbs. Plastic 418 lbs. Total Recycled Content:4,324 lbs. Total Post Consumer Recycled Content:2,911 lbs. Total Recycled Content (%):49% Total Post Consumer Recycled Content (%):33% Total Weight:8,736 lbs. Total Recycled Content:Material that has been recovered or diverted from the solid waste stream. Total Post-Consumer Recycled Content: Material generated by households or commercial, industrial and institutional facilities in - Calculations include standard play products only. Landscape Structures and American Forests are committed to working together to create a clean and healthy environment for future generations. We are proud to say that our partnership with American Forests has supported the planting of more than 35,000 trees per year, on average. Our corporate partnership with American Forests helps support the planting of trees in urban spaces where tree cover is limited, contributing to American Forests' Tree Equity Program. Our support also enables the Resilient Forests initiative, reviving forests to mitigate the impact of climate change and create a healthy future for all of us. Tons of CO2: Carbon Footprint: A measurement of the effect on the climate in terms of the amount of greenhouse gases produced in the February 13, 2025 Project No. 250688 PETERSON PARK COTTAGE GROVE, MN PREFERRED CONCEPT04080 40 SCALE 20 NORTH A B C D E F G Q H P N I LAKE ROBERT C Legend: PICNIC SHELTER WITH RESTROOMS PLAY AREA NATIVE PRAIRIE AREA PARKING AREA POLLINATOR GARDEN INTERPRETIVE SIGN AND BENCH VIEWING PIER WETLAND BUFFER PORTABLE RESTROOM SHADE UMBRELLA UTILITY EASEMENT OPEN LAWN PARK SIGN SPECIALTY SEATING OVERLOOK BENCH HAMMOCK GROVE PADDLERS LAUNCH A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q J K EXISTING WOODED AREA (TREES LIMBED UP TO OPEN VIEWS TO LAKE) L STORMWATER POND RAVINE PARKWA Y JA M A I C A A V E N U E S O U T H CONCEPT DESCRIPTION: The proposed design establishes a primary trail axis extending from the intersection of Ravine Parkway and Jamaica Avenue to Lake Robert, creating a strong visual and physical connection to the water. The main trail axis provides direct access to the play area, dock, and a network of secondary trails. The park structure, which will include restrooms, drinking fountain, and open air shelter space is situated within an open green space, with Lake Robert and the adjacent wooded area serving as a scenic backdrop. A small pollinator garden is located between the shelter and the wooded area, offering both aesthetic value and educational opportunities for park users. A pedestrian walkway encircles the play area, allowing caretakers to easily supervise children using the equipment. Adjacent to the play area, a shaded seating area with an umbrella provides a comfortable resting space. The dock structure is positioned in an open-water area of the lake, intentionally set back from wetland vegetation. M O OP O C D February 13, 2025 Project No. 250688 PETERSON PARK COTTAGE GROVE, MN MASTER PLAN DESIGN INSPIRATION IMAGERY DESIGN INSPIRATION IMAGERY PICNIC SHELTER WITH RESTROOMS Similar layout to the park shelter at Oakwood Park SPECIALTY SEATING OVERLOOKING LAKE VIEWING PIER ON LAKE ROBERT POLLINATOR GARDEN WITH INTERPRETIVE SIGN UMBRELLA SHADE OPEN LAWN PARK SIGN NATIVE PRAIRIE PARK DRINKING FOUNTAIN WITH BOTTLE FILLER HAMMOCKING GROVE February 13, 2025 Project No. 250688 PETERSON PARK COTTAGE GROVE, MN ROBERT LAKE LOOP TRAIL PETERSON PARK PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL LOTS PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL LOTS LAKE ROBERT RAVINE P A R K W A Y PROPOSED LAKE LOOP TRAIL PROPOSED BOARDWALK JA M A I C A A V E S O U T H 1 City Council Action Request 7.P. Meeting Date 4/1/2026 Department Parks and Recreation Agenda Category Action Item Title National Park Service Grant Application for a Paddler Launch Staff Recommendation Authorize staff to apply for the National Park’s Mississippi National River and Recreation Area Grant for up to $8,000. Budget Implication 50% cash match from the Park Improvement Fund not exceeding $8,000. Attachments 1. Memo-NPS Grant - Kayak Dock & Launch To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator From: Zac Dockter, Parks and Recreation Director Date: March 23, 2026 Subject: National Park Service Grant Application for Hazen P Mooer Park Paddler Launch Introduction/Background Hazen P Mooer Park is a popular destination for Mississippi River paddlers because of its’ gravel- based launch and parking options. This park is also home to the Paddle Share service where visitors can rent city-owned kayaks along the river. The accessibility of the gravel-based launch is concerning due to equipment damage from dragging the kayaks across the gravel as well as the challenges with launching during low water elevation. During low water elevation periods, paddlers need to wade out into the muddy water several feet which can be unsafe and quite filthy. This degrades the paddling experience while also increasing staff labor to clean and maintain the rentable kayaks. The National Park Service offers grant funding opportunities to local community partners for improving paddler experiences within the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area. Staff recommends the construction of a small dock with a connected paddler launch to improve paddler access experience at the river. The cost of the project is estimated to not exceed $16,000. A 50% cash match is required from the City. If grant is successful, funds would be derived from the Park Improvement Fund. Staff Recommendation Authorize staff to apply for the National Park’s Mississippi National River and Recreation Area Grant for up to $8,000. 1 City Council Action Request 7.Q. Meeting Date 4/1/2026 Department Public Works Agenda Category Action Item Title Stump Grinding Quote Award Staff Recommendation Authorize resolution 2026-049 awarding the 2026 City-Wide Stump Grinding Project to Anderson Stump Grinding & Restoration, in the amount of $3.10 per inch and authorize the service agreement between Anderson Stump Grinding & Restoration and the City of Cottage Grove. Budget Implication $3.10 per inch will be covered in the Forestry budget. Attachments 1. 2026 Stump Grinding Council Memo 2. Resolution_2026_StumpGrinding 3. Service Agreement_StumpGrinding_2026 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator From: CC: Gavin Hochstetler, Management Analyst Ryan Burfeind, Public Works Director Date: April 1, 2026 Subject: 2026 City-Wide Stump Grinding Contract Background The City of Cottage Grove recently received quotes to complete the annual city-wide stump grinding project. Approximately 140 trees have been removed due to disease or storm related issues and stumps need to be ground. The awarded stump grinding contractor will be backfilling all stump holes to city specifications. Discussion The City of Cottage Grove has evaluated the solicited quotes, and Anderson Stump Grinding & Restoration has come back with the low quote. Recommendation Authorize resolution 2026-049 awarding the 2026 City-Wide Stump Grinding Project to Anderson Stump Grinding & Restoration, in the amount of $3.10 per inch and authorize the service agreement between Anderson Stump Grinding & Restoration and the City of Cottage Grove. Contractor Quoted Amount Low Anderson Stump Grinding & Restoration $3.10/Inch #2 Haaven’s Stump Removal $5.50/Inch CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION AWARDING THE 2026 CITY-WIDE STUMP GRINDING PROJECT WHEREAS, quotes were requested to provide the necessary work for the 2026 City-Wide Stump Grinding Project according to City standards; and WHEREAS, quotes were requested to provide the necessary work; and WHEREAS, two firms submitted quotes; and WHEREAS, it appears that Anderson Stump Grinding & Restoration provided the lowest responsible quote; and WHEREAS, it is the recommendation of the City Engineer that the quote be awarded to Anderson Stump Grinding & Restoration. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, that the 2026 City-Wide Stump Grinding Project be awarded Anderson Stump Grinding & Restoration for $3.10 per linear inch. Passed this 1st day of April 2026. Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: Tamara Anderson, City Clerk EXHIBIT A 1 City Council Action Request 7.R. Meeting Date 4/1/2026 Department Public Works Agenda Category Action Item Title Concrete Maintenance Quote Award Staff Recommendation Authorize resolution 2026-050 awarding the Public Works Concrete Maintenance Quote Award to Frank Zamora’s Concrete and authorize the service agreement between Frank Zamora’s Concrete and the City of Cottage Grove. Budget Implication $85,000 - Roadway Maintenance Fund Attachments 1. Council Memo-Concrete Services 2. Resolution Public Works Concrete Services 3. Service_Agreement_ConcreteServices To: From: Date: Subject: Introduction/Background Discussion Budget Implications Staff Recommendation Frank Zamora’s Concrete KC Gustafson Construction Co Inc. Remove and Replace Sidewalk Panels $22.65 sq ft $23.55 sq ft Remove and Replace Pedestrian Ramps $28.50 sq ft $29.35 sq ft Remove and Replace Section of Curb and Gutter $77.50 lineal ft $88.50 lineal ft Remove and Replace Valley Gutter $24.50 sq ft $28.00 sq ft Colored and Stamped Concrete $32.00 sq ft $32.75 sq ft CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION AWARDING THE PUBLIC WORKS CONCRETE SERVICES CONTRACT TO FRANK ZAMORA’S CONCRETE WHEREAS, quotes were requested to provide the necessary work for the Public Works Concrete Services Contract according to City standards; and WHEREAS, quotes were requested to provide the necessary work; and WHEREAS, two firms submitted quotes; and WHEREAS, it appears that Frank Zamora’s Concrete provided the lowest responsible quote; and WHEREAS, it is the recommendation of the City Engineer that the quote be awarded to Frank Zamora’s Concrete NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, that the Public Works Concrete Services Contract be awarded to Frank Zamora’s Concrete. Passed this 1st day of April 2026. Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: Tamara Anderson, City Clerk Exhibit A 1 City Council Action Request 7.S. Meeting Date 4/1/2026 Department Engineering Agenda Category Action Item Title 2026 Street Sweeping - Quote Award and Service Agreement Staff Recommendation Adopt Resolution 2026-057 awarding the 2026 Annual Spring City- Wide Street Sweeping Program to the low quote supplied by Mike McPhillips, Inc., in the amount of $135.00 per hour. Budget Implication $47,250 - Stormwater Maintenance Fund Attachments 1. MEMO 2026 Annual Spring City-Wide Street Sweeping Program Quote Award 2. 2026 Sweeping Service Agreement Signed by Contractor 3. RESOLUTION 2026 Annual Spring City-Wide Street Sweeping Program Quote Award To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator From: Genevieve Tester, EIT, Graduate Engineer Hailey Sutton, Engineering Technician Date: April 1, 2026 Re: 2026 Annual Spring City-Wide Street Sweeping Program Quote Award Background The City of Cottage Grove recently received quotes for the annual city-wide street sweeping program. Each spring, sweeping removes sediment and organic debris from streets before it can enter the storm sewer system. If this material reaches stormwater ponds, it is costly to remove. Additionally, the material can contain phosphorus, which contributes to algae blooms in local ponds, lakes, and rivers. Regular sweeping is one of the most effective ways to protect water quality. Discussion It is estimated that the 2026 program will require about 350 hours of sweeping. Quotes were due on March 23, 2026, and three contractors submitted proposals. The table below summarizes the quote results. Contractor Quoted Amount #1 (Low) Mike McPhillips, Inc. $135.00/hour #2 Allied Blacktop Company $145.00/hour #3 Pearson Bros, Inc. $150.00/hour The low quote for the program was submitted by Mike McPhillips, Inc. at $135.00 per hour. With the estimated 350 hours of sweeping, the total projected cost is $47,250.00. This fits within the program budget and will be funded through the Stormwater Maintenance Fund, as the work serves as a preventative measure and best management practice to reduce sediment in the City’s stormwater system. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution 2026-057 awarding the 2026 Annual Spring City-Wide Street Sweeping Program to the low quote supplied by Mike McPhillips, Inc., for $135.00 per hour. 1 AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES 2026 Annual Spring City-Wide Street Sweeping Program THIS AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and executed this ___ day of _____________, 2026, by and between the City of Cottage Grove, 12800 Ravine Parkway South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota 55016, (“City”) and Mike McPhillips, Inc., 825 Concord Street North, South Saint Paul, Minnesota 55075 (“Contractor”). WHEREAS, the City has accepted the proposal of the Contractor for certain services; and WHEREAS, Contractor desires to perform the services for the City under the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual consideration contained herein, it is hereby agreed as follows: 1. SERVICES. a. City agrees to engage Contractor as an independent contractor for the purpose of performing certain Services (“Services”), as defined in the following documents: i. A proposal dated March 2, 2026, incorporated herein as Exhibit A. (Hereinafter “Exhibits”). ii. Where the terms and conditions of this Agreement and those terms and conditions included in the Exhibits specifically conflict, the terms of this Agreement shall apply. b. Contractor covenants and agrees to provide the Services to the satisfaction of the City in a timely fashion, as set forth in the Exhibits, subject to Section 9 of this Agreement. c. Contractor agrees to comply with all federal, state, and local laws and ordinances applicable to the Services to be performed under this Agreement, including all safety standards. Contractor shall be solely and completely responsible for conditions of the job site, including the safety of all persons and property during the performance of the Services. Contractor represents and warrants that it has the requisite training, skills, and experience necessary to provide the Services and is appropriately licensed and has obtained all permits from all applicable agencies and governmental entities. 2 2. PAYMENT. a. City agrees to pay Contractor $135.00 per hour, and Contractor agrees to receive and accept payment for Services as set forth in the Exhibits. b. Any changes in the scope of the work of the Services that may result in an increase to the compensation due the Contractor shall require prior written approval by the authorized representative of the City or by the City Council. The City will not pay additional compensation for Services that do not have prior written authorization. c. Contractor shall submit itemized bills for Services provided to City on a monthly basis. Bills submitted shall be paid in the same manner as other claims made to City. d. Prior to payment, the Contractor will submit evidence that all payrolls, material bills, subcontractors and other indebtedness connected with the Services have been paid as required by the City. 3. TERM. The term of this Agreement is identified in the Exhibits. This Agreement may be extended upon the written mutual consent of the parties for such additional periods as they deem appropriate, and upon the same terms and conditions as herein stated. 4. BONDS. If the Services provided by the Contractor as set forth in the Exhibits and this Agreement exceeds $175,000, Contractor shall furnish performance and payment bonds covering faithful performance of all the Contractor’s obligations, including, without limitation, warranty obligations and of all payment of obligations arising under this Agreement. The bonds shall each be issued in an amount equal to 100% of the stipulated sum identified in Section 2 of this Agreement. 5. TERMINATION AND REMEDIES. a. Termination by Either Party. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon thirty (30) days’ written notice delivered to the other party at the addresses listed in Section 15 of this Agreement. Upon termination under this provision, if there is no default by the Contractor, Contractor shall be paid for Services rendered and reimbursable expenses incurred through the effective date of termination. b. Termination Due to Default. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon written notice in the event of substantial failure by the other party to perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The non-performing party shall have fifteen (15) calendar days from the date of the termination notice to cure or to submit a plan for cure that is acceptable to the other party. 3 c. Remedies. Notwithstanding the above, the Contractor shall not be relieved of liability to the City for damages sustained by the City as a result of any breach of this Agreement by the Contractor. The City may, in such event: i. Withhold payments due to the Contractor for the purpose of set-off until such time as the exact amount of damages due to the City is determined. ii. Perform the Services, in which case, the Contractor shall within thirty (30) days after written billing by the City, reimburse the City for any costs and expenses incurred by the City. The rights or remedies provided for herein shall not limit the City, in case of any default by the Contractor, from asserting any other right or remedy allowed by law, equity, or by statute. d. Upon termination of this Agreement, the Contractor shall furnish to the City copies or duplicate originals of all documents or memoranda prepared for the City not previously furnished. 6. SUBCONTRACTORS. Contractor shall not enter into subcontracts for any of the Services provided for in this Agreement without the express written consent of the City, unless specifically provided for in the Exhibits. Contractor shall pay any subcontractor involved in the performance of this Agreement within the ten (10) days of the Contractor’s receipt of payment by the City for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor. 7. STANDARD OF CARE. In performing its Services, Contractor will use that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable members of its profession in the same locality at the time the Services are provided. 8. INSPECTION OF WORK. All materials and workmanship will be subject to inspection, examination, and testing by the City, who will have the right to reject defective material and workmanship or require its correction. 9. DELAY IN PERFORMANCE. Neither City nor Contractor shall be considered in default of this Agreement for delays in performance caused by circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the nonperforming party. For purposes of this Agreement, such circumstances include, but are not limited to, abnormal weather conditions; floods; earthquakes; fire; epidemics; war, riots, and other civil disturbances; strikes, lockouts, work slowdowns, and other labor disturbances; sabotage; judicial restraint; and inability to procure permits, licenses or authorizations from any local, state, or federal agency for any of the supplies, materials, accesses, or services required to be provided by either City or Contractor under this Agreement. If such circumstances occur, the 4 nonperforming party shall, within a reasonable time of being prevented from performing, give written notice to the other party describing the circumstances preventing continued performance and the efforts being made to resume performance of this Agreement. Contractor will be entitled to payment for its reasonable additional charges, if any, due to the delay. CITY’S REPRESENTATIVE. The City has designated Gary Orloff, Streets Superintendent, to act as the City’s representative with respect to the Services to be performed under this Agreement. He or she shall have complete authority to transmit instructions, receive information, interpret, and define the City’s policy and decisions with respect to the Services covered by this Agreement. 10. PROJECT MANAGER AND STAFFING. The Contractor has designated Mike Edge to be the primary contact for the City in the performance of the Services. They shall be assisted by other staff members as necessary to facilitate the completion of the Services in accordance with the terms established herein. Contractor may not remove or replace these designated staff without the approval of the City. 11. INDEMNIFICATION. a. Contractor and City each agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless each other, its agents and employees, from and against legal liability for all claims, losses, damages, and expenses to the extent such claims, losses, damages, or expenses are caused by its negligent acts, errors, or omissions. In the event claims, losses, damages, or expenses are caused by the joint or concurrent negligence of Contractor and City, they shall be borne by each party in proportion to its own negligence. b. Contractor shall indemnify City against legal liability for damages arising out of claims by Contractor’s employees or subcontractors, including all liens. City shall indemnify Contractor against legal liability for damages arising out of claims by City’s employees or subcontractors. 12. INSURANCE. During the performance of the Services under this Agreement, Contractor shall maintain the following insurance: a. Commercial General Liability Insurance, with a limit of $2,000,000 for any number of claims arising out of a single occurrence. b. Workers’ Compensation Insurance in accordance with statutory requirements. c. Automobile Liability Insurance, with a combined single limit of $2,000,000. Contractor shall furnish the City with certificates of insurance, which shall include a provision that such insurance shall not be canceled without written notice to the City. 5 The City shall be named as an additional insured on the Commercial General Liability Insurance policy. 13. WARRANTIES. Contractor warrants and guarantees that title to all work, materials, and equipment covered by any invoice, will pass to City no later than the final completion date of all Services. Contractor warrants that all work will be free from defects and that all materials will be new and of first quality. If within one (1) year after final payment any work or material is found to be defective, Contractor shall promptly, without cost to the City, correct such defect. 14. NOTICES. Notices shall be communicated to the following addresses: If to City: City of Cottage Grove 12800 Ravine Parkway South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Attention: City Administrator Or emailed: jlevitt@cottagegrovemn.gov If to Contractor: Mike McPhillips, Inc. 825 Concord Street North South Saint Paul, MN 55075 Attention: Mike Edge Or emailed: mike@mcphillipsinc.com INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS. All services provided by Contractor, its officers, agents and employees pursuant to this Agreement shall be provided as employees of Contractor or as independent contractors of Contractor and not as employees of the City for any purpose. 15. RESPONSIBLE CONTRACTOR. a. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 16C.285, Contractor is hereby advised that the City cannot award a construction contract in excess of $50,000 unless Contractor is a “responsible contractor” as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 16C.285, subdivision 3. Contractor must complete a Responsible Contractor Certificate verifying compliance with the minimum criteria specified in Minnesota Statutes, Section 16C.285, subdivision 3, to be eligible to provide the Services outlined in this Agreement. A Responsible Contractor Certificate must be signed under oath by an owner or officer of Contractor. Contractor is responsible for obtaining the required verifications of compliance with Minnesota Statute, Section 16C.285, subdivision 3 from all subcontractors, using a form provided by the City. Contractor must submit signed verifications from subcontractors upon the City’s request. 6 b. Contractor or subcontractor who does not meet the minimum criteria established in Minnesota Statutes, Section 16C.285, subdivision 3, or who fails to verify compliance with the minimum requirements of this statute, will not be considered a “responsible contractor” and will be ineligible to provide the Services under this Agreement or otherwise work on the project in any capacity. Contractor and any subcontractor are advised that making any false statements verifying compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Secti on 16C.285 will render the Contractor or subcontractor ineligible to perform the Services of this Agreement and may result in termination of this Agreement by the City. c. Contractor shall not sublet, sell, transfer, delegate or assign the Services or any portion of the Services of this Agreement without abiding by the applicable provisions of the Minnesota Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Construction, Section 1801. 16. GENERAL PROVISIONS. a. Assignment. This Agreement is not assignable without the mutual written agreement of the parties. b. Waiver. A waiver by either City or Contractor of any breach of this Agreement shall be in writing. Such a waiver shall not affect the waiving party’s rights with respect to any other or further breach. c. Nondiscrimination. Contractor agrees that in the hiring of employees to perform Services under this Agreement, Contractor shall not discriminate against any person by reason of any characteristic protected by state or federal law. d. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota and any action must be venued in Washington County District Court. e. Amendments. Any modification or amendment to this Agreement shall require a written agreement signed by both parties. f. Severability. If any term of this Agreement is found to be void or invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining terms of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect. g. Data Practices Compliance. All data collected by the City pursuant to this Agreement shall be subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. 7 h. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes all prior communications, understandings and agreements relating to the subject matter hereof, whether oral or written. 8 CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE By: _____________________________ Myron A. Bailey, Mayor By: _____________________________ Tamara Anderson, City Clerk Date: __________________________ March 2, 2026 Annual Spring City-Wide Street Sweeping Program City of Cottage Grove 12800 Ravine Parkway South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 To Whom It May Concern: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that quotes will be received by the City of Cottage Grove until 11:00 a.m. Monday, March 23rd, 2026. Work to be completed includes, but is not limited to, the following tasks: • Approximately 300-350 hours of sweeping are anticipated for the City of Cottage Grove. Quotes for the estimated quantities must be submitted on the Quote Form provided herein. Work shall be completed in accordance with the Specifications provided herein. The Contractor will be required to enter into the City of Cottage Grove Agreement for Contractor Services and submit a Certificate of Insurance that conforms to the City of Cottage Grove Insurance Requirements. No quotes may be withdrawn for a period of 30 days after the date and time set for the opening of quotes. In submitting this quote, it is understood that the City retains the right to reject any and all quotes and to waive irregularities and informalities therein and to award the quote in the best interests of the City. Quotes are due to Genevieve Tester at the Cottage Grove Utility and Engineering Building via one of the following: Email: gtester@cottagegrovemn.gov Mail: 10875 Ideal Avenue S., Cottage Grove MN, 55016 For more information on the project, contact Genevieve Tester. gtester@cottagegrovemn.gov 651-458-2829 Annual Spring City-Wide Street Sweeping Program Page 3 of 4 Minimum Specifications for Annual City-Wide Street Sweeping Program 1. Scope a. The City divides its sweeping program into three (3) zones. Each zone is assigned two (2) City trucks to haul sweepings to the designated disposal site and two (2) high-dump sweepers to deposit sweepings into the City trucks. Due to the nature of the program, bottom-dump sweepers will not be considered. Approximately 300–350 hours of sweeping are anticipated for the City of Cottage Grove. 2. Schedule/Work Hours a. Work shall begin on Monday, April 6th, 2026, and continue until completion, weather dependent. b. Sweeping units will be required to conduct operations from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. c. The Contractor shall provide a minimum of four (4) sweepers with one (1) backup available within four (4) hours in the event of equipment breakdown. d. Operations may be suspended during inclement weather, including rain or freezing conditions. 3. City Water a. The City will supply water for sweeping units to aid in dust control and equipment cleaning, provided the units are equipped with an approved filling device. 4. Contract Extension a. There will be an option to extend the contract for sweeping to the 2027 and 2028 spring sweeping programs. This extension shall be mutually agreed upon between the City and the Contractor each year and shall remain at the 2026 quoted prices. In the event of a contract extension, a new service agreement shall be executed between the City of Cottage Grove and the Contractor prior to work beginning in both 2027 and 2028. 5. Safety a. The Contractor is responsible for ensuring that all equipment is properly equipped with functioning warning lights, alarms, and other safety devices to protect Contractor employees, City staff, and the public. All safety and warning devices must remain operational throughout sweeping operations. 6. Non-Collusion Clause a. Vendor, their agent/employee hereby agree to comply and fully perform in accordance with the law and state that they have not, directly or indirectly, entered into an agreement or understanding, participated in any collusion, or otherwise taken any action in restraint of free competitive bidding in connection with the proposal submitted with respect to the above referenced invitation to bid. Vendor fully acknowledges that such an act of non-compliance may be deemed unlawful and would be considered a violation of the law and subject to prosecution. Annual Spring City-Wide Street Sweeping Program Page 4 of 4 7. Basis of Payment a. Payment will be made at the unit prices listed on the Quote Form. All associated work items are considered incidental. 8. Traffic Control a. The Contractor shall provide, erect, and maintain all necessary barricades, signs, danger signals, and lights meeting or exceeding O.S.H.A. Standards for the protection of the work and the safety of the public. The Contractor shall provide the City of Cottage Grove Public Works Department with the name and telephone number of a person who can be reached at all times during work. All activities affecting vehicular or pedestrian traffic must conform to "Temporary Traffic Control Zone Layouts" of the Minnesota Department of Transportation manual on uniform traffic control devices. CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION AWARDING THE 2026 ANNUAL SPRING CITY-WIDE WHEREAS, quotes were requested to provide the necessary work for the 2026 Annual Spring City-Wide Street Sweeping Program; and WHEREAS, three firms submitted quotes; and WHEREAS, it appears that Mike McPhillips, Inc. provided the lowest accepted quote; and WHEREAS, it is the recommendation of the City Engineer that the quote be awarded to Mike McPhillips, Inc. for $135.00 per hour. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, that the 2026 Annual Spring City-Wide Street Sweeping Program be awarded to Mike McPhillips, Inc. for $135.00 per hour and the appropriate officials are hereby authorized to sign all necessary documents to effectuate these actions. At the estimated 350 hours of sweeping for the City of Cottage Grove, the low quote of $135.00 per hour gives an estimated cost of $47,250.00. Passed this 1st day of April 2026. Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: Tamara Anderson, City Clerk 1 City Council Action Request 7.T. Meeting Date 4/1/2026 Department Public Works Agenda Category Action Item Title Budget Increase for Garbage Truck & Purchase of Skid Attachment Staff Recommendation Approve the increased budget for the Parks Division garbage truck from $165,000.00 to $187,111.73 (within the Equipment Replacement Fund). Authorize the purchase of a 2026 Isuzu garbage truck from Koenig & Sons Equipment, Inc. in the amount of $164,611.73 (which may vary slightly due to tax, title and license fees) and a Beekman Skidvac from Truman Welters in the amount of $24,257.00 with funds used from trading in a jetter trailer ($22,500) and the Stormwater budget ($1,757). Budget Implication $25,000 from the Equipment Replacement Fund for the Garbage Truck and $1,757 from the Stormwater budget for the skid vac. Attachments 1. Memo - Public Works (Garbage Truck) 2. Quote Q5281 City of Cottage Grove 3. City of Cottage Grove Beekman Skidvac 3-14-26 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Ryan Burfeind, Public Works Director Date: March 18, 2026 RE: Increase the Budget Amount and Authorize the Purchase for the Garbage Truck. Approve the Purchase of the Skid Vac Attachment and the Trade of the Jetter Trailer Introduction Background This skid vac attachment would benefit the Stormwater Division with its maneuverability and versatility versus the current trailer mounted vac on the remote ponds with poor access. Staff is currently opening flared ends in ponds with just rakes, shovels and a rubber tire backhoe. Unfortunately, staff spend more time moving rip rap and torching the bolts off to be able to lift the trash grate, to remove the leaves, only to repeat the process over again the following year. Ninety percent of the work is cleaning inlets and outlets, which requires the vac not jetting. This is safer and a much more efficient task done with the skid vac attachment rather than facing the risk of back injuries. Staff must clean out hundreds of these every year because of the City’s MS4 permit. Staff would become more efficient and be able to get through all of them in a timelier fashion. Budget Implication Equipment Replacement Fund Quote Company Total Stormwater Fund Quote Company Total Recommendation Approve the increased budget for the Parks Division garbage truck from $165,000.00 to $187,111.73 (within the Equipment Replacement Fund). Authorize the purchase of a 2026 Isuzu garbage truck from Koenig & Sons Equipment, Inc. in the amount of $164,611.73 (which may vary slightly due to tax, title and license fees) and a Beekman Skidvac from Trueman Welters in the amount of $24,257.00 with funds used from trading in a jetter trailer ($22,500) and the Stormwater budget ($1,757). QUOTATION Item Qty Description Price Each Amount 1.00 2026 Isuzu NRR 79,057.00 79,057.00 1.00 New Way Diamondback 8RL Rear Loading Garbage Packer, 8 yard cap 90,620.00 90,620.00 1.00 All LED Body Lights, Including Reverse and License Plate 1.00 Auto-Trans (Hot Shift w/Overspeed) w/Pump 1.00 Barrel Style Cart Tipper: capable of lifting/ dumping automated carts and 55 gallon drums 1.00 LED Work Lights ((2)mounted inside upper tailgate shining in hopper) 1.00 LED Round Strobes upper tailgate(2 lights) 1.00 Safety Shut Down Curbside, Driver Alert Buzzer Curb Side, Interlock on Front Acc Door 1.00 (Safety Shut Down, Driver Alert Buzzer, Accel) - Street Side 1.00 Safety Vision rear view camera system, Color Flat Screen 1.00 Access Door Steps (Ladder) 1.00 Plastic Fenders (standard) 1.00 1 Year Body & Hydraulic Warranty, 2 Year Cylinder Warranty 1.00 (1) Set of repair and operations manual 1.00 Inside controls for tailgate and eject 2,568.00 2,568.00 1.00 Flared Tailgate option 14,142.00 14,142.00 1.00 Document Fee 75.00 75.00 1.00 Title / Transfer Fee 50.00 50.00 1.00 Transit Tax 20.00 20.00 1.00 Trade Pipe Hunter Trailer 22,500.00 -22,500.00 1.00 Trade Isuzu Mamba 10,000.00 -10,000.00 *QUOTE DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY APPLICABLE LICENSE FEES SOURCEWELL CONTRACT #112014-NWY Quote Number: Q5281 Quote Date: Mar 12, 2026 Sales Rep Quoted To: City of Cottage Grove 8635 West Point Douglas Road Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Good Thru 4/11/26 Customer ID Payment Terms Page: C35 Net 30 Days K01 1 TOTAL 164,611.73 Sales Tax 10,579.73 Subtotal 154,032.00 Koenig & Sons Equipment, Inc.1384 Sylvan Street St. Paul, MN 55117 Voice: Fax: 651-769-0770 651-769-1196 10,579.7310,579.73 Todays Date: 3/14/2026 Sales Contact Seth Strehler 1600 Hwy 55E Buffalo MN, 55313 Quote Expires Phone: (763) 682-2200 Cell: (763) 286-3658 30 Days Email seth@welters.net Quote For: City of Cottage Grove Beekman Skidvac Part Number Qty.Description Price 1 Skid-Vac Model (need to select Vac for rated flow)20,900.00$ 1 5” 90-degree Cam locked nozzle(Landscape Rock)160.00$ 1 FLEX-TUBE PU60 HF 5.0” x 25’ w/black HELIX 571.00$ 1 5” Grain Vac straight nozzle with air door 362.00$ 1 FLEX-TUBE PU60 HF 4.0” x 25’ w/black HELIX 453.00$ 1 4” Grain Vac straight nozzle with air door.150.00$ 1 4” 90-degree Cam locked nozzle with 139.00$ 1 4” clean-up head 50.00$ 1 FLEX-TUBE PU60 HF 3.0” x 25’ w/black HELIX 336.00$ 1 5-inch to 3-inch reducer 53.00$ 1 3-inch 45- degree short nozzle 47.00$ 1 3” straight nozzle with female camlock 57.00$ 1 FLEX-TUBE PU60 HF 2.0” x 25’ w/black HELIX 295.00$ 1 2-inch 45-degree short nozzle 36.00$ 1 5-inch to 2-inch reducer 48.00$ Subtotal 23,657.00$ Freight 600.00$ Tax ST3 Form Grand Total 24,257.00$ _____________ Approve here to accept order Date PO# 1 City Council Action Request 7.U. Meeting Date 4/1/2026 Department Engineering Agenda Category Action Item Title East Point Douglas Road – No Parking Zone Staff Recommendation Adopt Resolution 2026-034 restricting parking along the south side and in the cul-de-sac on East Point Douglas Road South, west of Hardwood Avenue. Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. 2026-1-13 No Parking EPD Memo 2. 2026-1-13 CC No Parking EPD Resolution To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Joe Fox, PE, Project Engineer Date: February 27, 2026 Re: East Point Douglas Road – “No Parking” Zone Background th, 2026, this proposed No Parking Zone was presented. A few Legends’ residents expressed concern that there would be insufficient parking along the south side of the road. When Legends’ back parking lot is plowed, residents are asked to temporarily park on East Point Douglas. Legends’ staff thought parking during snow events would not be a problem. Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt If approved, City Staff will install No Parking signage and communicate with affected residents, businesses, and construction crews in the area about this change. Recommendation Image 1: Proposed No Parking zone on the south side and cul-de-sac of East Point Douglas Road CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING WHEREAS, the City of Cottage Grove is concerned about a vehicle’s ability to safely travel on East Point Douglas Road South, west of Hardwood Avenue when cars are parked on both sides of the street; and WHEREAS, the City acknowledges that such parking restrictions will apply to all parked vehicles within the affected zone, regardless of the residency of the vehicle owner or operator. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that the City of Cottage Grove shall ban the parking of motor vehicles on the south side and in the cul-de-sac of East Point Douglas Road South, west of Hardwood Avenue. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Cottage Grove supports full enforcement of the proposed parking restrictions by city law enforcement personnel. Passed this 1st day of April 2026. Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: Tamara Anderson, City Clerk 1 City Council Action Request 7.V. Meeting Date 4/1/2026 Department Engineering Agenda Category Action Item Title Denzer Park – Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize Bidding Staff Recommendation Adopt Resolution 2026-058 approving the plans and specifications and authorizing bidding for the Denzer Park Project. Budget Implication $300,000 - Park Trust Fund Attachments 1. 2026-04-01 Approve P&S and Authorize Bidding Memo 2. 2026-03-24 Denzer Park Planset 3. 2026-04-01 Approve P&S and Authorize Bidding Resolution To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator From: Genevieve Tester EIT, Graduate Engineer Date: March 20, 2026 Re: Denzer Park Project – Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize Bidding Background Denzer Park is a new eight-acre park located just south of 100th Street, behind Cottage Grove Logistics Park. On April 6, 2022, the City Council approved the Cottage Grove Logistics Park plat. This plat dedicated the outlot, highlighted in green in Figure 1, to the City as a future neighborhood park. With the completion of the South District Street and Utility project, and the recent residential developments in the area—apartments and single-family housing—staff is planning for the implementation of Denzer Park. Figure 1: Location of Denzer Park. Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt The Park master plan includes a playground, sportcourt, tetherball court, picnicking areas, trails, open turf field (with irrigation), ponds, landscaping, and an elevated picnic shelter with a view of the Mississippi River Valley. City Council approved a grading contract in December of 2024 to finish-grade the west side of the Park where the elevated picnic shelter will sit. The rock boulder wall was installed in the fall of 2025. This coming spring and summer, Denzer Park is scheduled to be constructed, and tentatively open to the public in early fall of 2026. Discussion 1 Approximately 1800 LF of bituminous trail 2 Approximately 620 LF of concrete sidewalk, seven bench slabs, a picnic slab, and a monument slab 3 30’ x 60’ sportcourt base (aggregate and bituminous) 4 Tetherball court 5 Stormwater culvert 6 Topsoil fill and reshaping to bring to finish grade 7 Green space manhole adjustments 8 Hydromulching and erosion control Table 1: Items included in the Bid Package for Council Approval. Recommendation WA S P R E P A R E D B Y M E O R U N D E R M Y D I R E C T S U P E R V I S I O N I H E R E B Y C E R T I F Y T H A T T H I S P L A N , S P E C I F I C A T I O N , O R R E P O R T AN D T H A T I A M A D U L Y L I C E N S E D UN D E R T H E L A W S O F T H E S T A T E O F PR I N T N A M E : SI G N A T U R E : DA T E : LI C . N O . Pl o t D a t e : 0 3 / 0 5 / 2 0 2 6 - 3 : 0 3 p m Dr a w i n g n a m e : U : \ 1 9 3 8 0 6 5 9 7 \ C A D \ D w g \ P l a n s h e e t s \ 1 9 3 8 0 6 5 9 7 _ G 0 0 1 _ P a r k . d w g Xr e f s : , 1 9 3 8 0 6 5 9 7 _ B O R D E R _ P a r k , 4 8 P R C L TH E C O N T R A C T O R S H A L L V E R I F Y A N D B E R E S P O N S I B L E F O R A L L D I M E N S I O N S . D O N O T S C A L E T H E DR A W I N G - A N Y E R R O R S O R O M I S S I O N S S H A L L B E R E P O R T E D T O S T A N T E C W I T H O U T D E L A Y . TH E C O P Y R I G H T S T O A L L D E S I G N S A N D D R A W I N G S A R E T H E P R O P E R T Y O F S T A N T E C . R E P R O D U C T I O N OR U S E F O R A N Y P U R P O S E O T H E R T H A N T H A T A U T H O R I Z E D B Y S T A N T E C I S F O R B I D D E N . 73 3 M a r q u e t t e A v e n u e , S u i t e 1 0 0 0 Mi n n e a p o l i s , M N 5 5 4 0 2 ww w . s t a n t e c . c o m MI N N E S O T A . SHEET NUMBER DATENO SURVEY APPROVED DESIGNED DRAWN PROJ. NO. REVISION CHECKED CI T Y O F C O T T A G E G R O V E , M I N N E S O T A DE N Z E R P A R K 193807622 MA R C H 6 , 2 0 2 6 PBW CSJ DRS DRS EN G I N E E R DA V I D S . S A N O C K I 40 9 7 3 EPV TI T L E S H E E T G0.01 SHEET INDEX: G0.01 TITLE SHEET C0.01 PARK PLAN C2.01 EROSION CONTROL PLAN C8.01 STANDARD DETAILS C8.02 STANDARD DETAILS C8.03 STANDARD DETAILS THIS PLAN SET CONTAINS 6 SHEETS STANTEC PROJECT NO. 193807622 DENZER PARK VICINITY MAP N Stat e H i g h w a y s 1 0 & 6 1 70th St. S. 80th St. S.Ja m a i c a A v e . S . 90th St. S. In w o o d A v e . S . Ke a t s A v e . S . 95th St. S. 100th St. S. 110th St. S. MYRON BAILEY MAYOR MONIQUE GARZA COUNCILMEMBER DAVE CLAUSEN COUNCILMEMBER JUSTIN OLSEN COUNCILMEMBER DAVE THIEDE COUNCILMEMBER JENNIFER LEVITT CITY ADMINISTRATOR RYAN BURFEIND DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS PAUL SPONHOLZ CITY ENGINEER KORI LAND ATTORNEY 2026 PROJECT LOCATION Id e a l A v e . S . 105th St. S. E 80 8 80 9 809 FES 502 >> >>FES 601 CB 602 >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lllllllllllllllllllllllllll l SS SS SS SSSS SS >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INFILTRATION BASIN TOP 806.5 HWL 802.5 BOT 793.0 79 5 80 0 80 5 805 81 0 804 804 806 807 808 809 811 811 811 812 812 60 ' 80' 810 81 0 810 815 815 805 >> HYDRANT 30' X 60' SPORTCOURT (PER DET-F) 14'x6' BENCH SLAB (PER DET-D) 20' DIA. TETHERBALL COURT (PER DET-G) PLAYGROUND TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY CITY20' X 20' SHELTER TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY CITY ADJUST SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE ADJUST SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE ADJUST SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE 8' CONCRETE SIDEWALK (PER DET-B) 8' BITUMINOUS TRAIL (PER DET-A) 8' BITUMINOUS TRAIL (PER DET-A) 8' BITUMINOUS TRAIL (PER DET-A) MONUMENT SLAB (PER SPECIAL-5) CONCRETE PAD FOR ROUND TABLES & GRILL (PER DET-E) 40'-12" RCP @ 0.50% 12" FES (PER STO-11) INV = 804.70 12" FES (PER STO-11) INV = 804.50 14'x6' BENCH SLAB (PER DET-D) 14'x6' BENCH SLAB (PER DET-D) 10'x6' BENCH SLAB (PER DET-C) 10'x6' BENCH SLAB (PER DET-C) 10'x6' BENCH SLAB (PER DET-C) 10'x6' BENCH SLAB (PER DET-C) HADLEY AVENUE FUTURE GARDEN FUTURE GARDEN EXISTING BOULDER WALLS & STEPS TRAIL TO END AT SHELTER AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER IN THE FIELD 808.17 808.52 808.44 809.65 809.63 807.99 805.96 810.97 815.02 813.42 808.43 809.04 809.20 805.94 806.64 807.90 807.87 808.68 808.62 808.17 807.55 809.11 809.12 808.68 808.10 810.29 817.00 809.48 810.72 805.94 806.12 806.38 806.78 807.25 807.50 808.47 807.90807.90 807.90 807.84 807.76 808.06 809.27 812.11 810.19 807.24 807.16 806.87 805.98 805.66 805.61 804.67 817.10 4. 0 1 % 4. 2 8 % 2.9 0 % XCEL PRIMARY EX. SERVICE CABINET IRRIGATION BOX TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY CITY SERVICE CABINET TRANSFORMER BY XCEL E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E 5.0 : 1 5. 0 : 1 5. 0 : 1 812.05 PA R K P L A N C0.01 CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 1.CONCRETE SIDEWALK & BITUMINOUS TRAIL TO BE 8 FT IN WIDTH. 2.EXCAVATED SUBGRADE & TOPSOIL GENERATED FROM THE INSTALLATION OF THE SIDEWALK, TRAILS, AND COURTS TO BE USED FOR SITE GRADING. ADDITIONAL MATERIAL MAY BE HAULED IN IF NECESSARY, AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. 3.ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE TO BE INSTALLED, LOCATION APPROVED BY ENGINEER. 4.EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE CASTING TO BE ADJUSTED TO GROUND SURFACE. 5.PROTECT EXISTING BOULDER WALLS & STEPS. 6.TRASH CANS, BENCHES, PICNIC TABLES, & GRILLS TO BE FURNISHED & INSTALLED BY THE CITY. 7.MONUMENT SIGN TO BE FURNISHED & INSTALLED BY THE CITY. 8.SPORTCOURT SURFACING PAINT & EQUIPMENT FURNISHED & INSTALLED BY THE CITY. 9.PLAYGROUND & SHELTER TO BE FURNISHED & INSTALLED BY THE CITY. 10.TREES TO BE FURNISHED & INSTALLED BY THE CITY. WA S P R E P A R E D B Y M E O R U N D E R M Y D I R E C T S U P E R V I S I O N I H E R E B Y C E R T I F Y T H A T T H I S P L A N , S P E C I F I C A T I O N , O R R E P O R T AN D T H A T I A M A D U L Y L I C E N S E D UN D E R T H E L A W S O F T H E S T A T E O F PR I N T N A M E : SI G N A T U R E : DA T E : LI C . N O . Pl o t D a t e : 0 3 / 2 4 / 2 0 2 6 - 1 0 : 2 1 a m Dr a w i n g n a m e : U : \ 1 9 3 8 0 6 5 9 7 \ C A D \ D w g \ P l a n s h e e t s \ 1 9 3 8 0 6 5 9 7 _ C 0 0 1 _ P a r k . d w g Xr e f s : , 1 9 3 8 0 6 5 9 7 _ X S X V , 1 9 3 8 0 6 5 9 7 _ X S N O , 1 9 3 8 0 6 5 9 7 _ X S N U , 1 9 3 8 0 6 5 9 7 _ X S N V , 1 9 3 8 0 6 5 9 7 _ X S X T , 1 9 3 8 0 6 5 9 7 _ X S X U , 1 9 3 8 0 6 5 9 7 _ X S N O _ P A R K , 1 9 3 8 0 6 5 9 7 _ B O R D E R _ P a r k , 1 9 3 8 0 6 5 9 7 _ X S N L , 1 9 3 8 0 6 5 9 7 _ X S N F TH E C O N T R A C T O R S H A L L V E R I F Y A N D B E R E S P O N S I B L E F O R A L L D I M E N S I O N S . D O N O T S C A L E T H E DR A W I N G - A N Y E R R O R S O R O M I S S I O N S S H A L L B E R E P O R T E D T O S T A N T E C W I T H O U T D E L A Y . TH E C O P Y R I G H T S T O A L L D E S I G N S A N D D R A W I N G S A R E T H E P R O P E R T Y O F S T A N T E C . R E P R O D U C T I O N OR U S E F O R A N Y P U R P O S E O T H E R T H A N T H A T A U T H O R I Z E D B Y S T A N T E C I S F O R B I D D E N . 73 3 M a r q u e t t e A v e n u e , S u i t e 1 0 0 0 Mi n n e a p o l i s , M N 5 5 4 0 2 ww w . s t a n t e c . c o m MI N N E S O T A . SHEET NUMBER DATENO SURVEY APPROVED DESIGNED DRAWN PROJ. NO. REVISION CHECKED CI T Y O F C O T T A G E G R O V E , M I N N E S O T A DE N Z E R P A R K 193807622 MA R C H 6 , 2 0 2 6 PBW CSJ DRS DRS EN G I N E E R DA V I D S . S A N O C K I 40 9 7 3 EPV 0 30 60 N 952 950 952 950 952 950 952 950 952 950 952 950 EXISTING CONTOUR MINOR EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR PROPOSED CONTOUR MINOR PROPOSED CONTOUR MAJOR PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION 810.29 805.66 LEGEND CONCRETE BITUMINOUS >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lllllllllllllllllllllllllll l SS SS SS SSSS SS >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INFILTRATION BASIN TOP 806.5 HWL 802.5 BOT 793.0 79 5 80 0 80 5 805 810 804 80 4 806 807 808 809 811 811 811 81 2 812 810 81 0 810 81 5 815 805 >> HADLEY AVENUE INLET PROTECTION (PER ERO-10) INLET PROTECTION (PER ERO-9) BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL INLET PROTECTION (PER ERO-9) EXISTING BIOLOGS FUTURE GARDEN FUTURE GARDEN MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS EXISTING SILT FENCE ER O S I O N C O N T R O L P L A N C2.01 CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 1.SALVAGE & MAINTAIN EXISTING BIOLOGS & SILT FENCE FOR EROSION CONTROL. 2.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR BRINGING THE SITE TO GRADE AND INSTALLING HYDROMULCH FOR EROSION PREVENTION. SEEDING & TURF ESTABLISHMENT BY OTHERS.0 30 60 N EROSION CONTROL LEGEND HYDROMULCH INLET PROTECTION EXISTING SILT FENCEMS EXISTING BIOLOGSBL WA S P R E P A R E D B Y M E O R U N D E R M Y D I R E C T S U P E R V I S I O N I H E R E B Y C E R T I F Y T H A T T H I S P L A N , S P E C I F I C A T I O N , O R R E P O R T AN D T H A T I A M A D U L Y L I C E N S E D UN D E R T H E L A W S O F T H E S T A T E O F PR I N T N A M E : SI G N A T U R E : DA T E : LI C . N O . Pl o t D a t e : 0 3 / 0 5 / 2 0 2 6 - 3 : 2 6 p m Dr a w i n g n a m e : U : \ 1 9 3 8 0 6 5 9 7 \ C A D \ D w g \ P l a n s h e e t s \ 1 9 3 8 0 6 5 9 7 _ C 2 0 1 _ P a r k . d w g Xr e f s : , 1 9 3 8 0 6 5 9 7 _ X S X V , 1 9 3 8 0 6 5 9 7 _ X S N O , 1 9 3 8 0 6 5 9 7 _ X S N U , 1 9 3 8 0 6 5 9 7 _ X S N V , 1 9 3 8 0 6 5 9 7 _ X S X T , 1 9 3 8 0 6 5 9 7 _ X S X U , 1 9 3 8 0 6 5 9 7 _ X S N O _ P A R K , 1 9 3 8 0 6 5 9 7 _ B O R D E R _ P a r k TH E C O N T R A C T O R S H A L L V E R I F Y A N D B E R E S P O N S I B L E F O R A L L D I M E N S I O N S . D O N O T S C A L E T H E DR A W I N G - A N Y E R R O R S O R O M I S S I O N S S H A L L B E R E P O R T E D T O S T A N T E C W I T H O U T D E L A Y . TH E C O P Y R I G H T S T O A L L D E S I G N S A N D D R A W I N G S A R E T H E P R O P E R T Y O F S T A N T E C . R E P R O D U C T I O N OR U S E F O R A N Y P U R P O S E O T H E R T H A N T H A T A U T H O R I Z E D B Y S T A N T E C I S F O R B I D D E N . 73 3 M a r q u e t t e A v e n u e , S u i t e 1 0 0 0 Mi n n e a p o l i s , M N 5 5 4 0 2 ww w . s t a n t e c . c o m MI N N E S O T A . SHEET NUMBER DATENO SURVEY APPROVED DESIGNED DRAWN PROJ. NO. REVISION CHECKED CI T Y O F C O T T A G E G R O V E , M I N N E S O T A DE N Z E R P A R K 193807622 MA R C H 6 , 2 0 2 6 PBW CSJ DRS DRS EN G I N E E R DA V I D S . S A N O C K I 40 9 7 3 EPV WA S P R E P A R E D B Y M E O R U N D E R M Y D I R E C T S U P E R V I S I O N I H E R E B Y C E R T I F Y T H A T T H I S P L A N , S P E C I F I C A T I O N , O R R E P O R T AN D T H A T I A M A D U L Y L I C E N S E D UN D E R T H E L A W S O F T H E S T A T E O F PR I N T N A M E : SI G N A T U R E : DA T E : LI C . N O . Pl o t D a t e : 0 3 / 2 0 / 2 0 2 6 - 2 : 0 5 p m Dr a w i n g n a m e : U : \ 1 9 3 8 0 6 5 9 7 \ C A D \ D w g \ P l a n s h e e t s \ 1 9 3 8 0 6 5 9 7 _ C 8 0 1 _ P a r k . d w g Xr e f s : , 1 9 3 8 0 6 5 9 7 _ B O R D E R _ P a r k TH E C O N T R A C T O R S H A L L V E R I F Y A N D B E R E S P O N S I B L E F O R A L L D I M E N S I O N S . D O N O T S C A L E T H E DR A W I N G - A N Y E R R O R S O R O M I S S I O N S S H A L L B E R E P O R T E D T O S T A N T E C W I T H O U T D E L A Y . TH E C O P Y R I G H T S T O A L L D E S I G N S A N D D R A W I N G S A R E T H E P R O P E R T Y O F S T A N T E C . R E P R O D U C T I O N OR U S E F O R A N Y P U R P O S E O T H E R T H A N T H A T A U T H O R I Z E D B Y S T A N T E C I S F O R B I D D E N . 73 3 M a r q u e t t e A v e n u e , S u i t e 1 0 0 0 Mi n n e a p o l i s , M N 5 5 4 0 2 ww w . s t a n t e c . c o m MI N N E S O T A . SHEET NUMBER DATENO SURVEY APPROVED DESIGNED DRAWN PROJ. NO. REVISION CHECKED CI T Y O F C O T T A G E G R O V E , M I N N E S O T A DE N Z E R P A R K 193807622 MA R C H 6 , 2 0 2 6 PBW CSJ DRS DRS EN G I N E E R DA V I D S . S A N O C K I 40 9 7 3 EPV ST A N D A R D D E T A I L S C8.01 WA S P R E P A R E D B Y M E O R U N D E R M Y D I R E C T S U P E R V I S I O N I H E R E B Y C E R T I F Y T H A T T H I S P L A N , S P E C I F I C A T I O N , O R R E P O R T AN D T H A T I A M A D U L Y L I C E N S E D UN D E R T H E L A W S O F T H E S T A T E O F PR I N T N A M E : SI G N A T U R E : DA T E : LI C . N O . Pl o t D a t e : 0 3 / 0 5 / 2 0 2 6 - 3 : 4 4 p m Dr a w i n g n a m e : U : \ 1 9 3 8 0 6 5 9 7 \ C A D \ D w g \ P l a n s h e e t s \ 1 9 3 8 0 6 5 9 7 _ C 8 0 1 _ P a r k . d w g Xr e f s : , 1 9 3 8 0 6 5 9 7 _ B O R D E R _ P a r k TH E C O N T R A C T O R S H A L L V E R I F Y A N D B E R E S P O N S I B L E F O R A L L D I M E N S I O N S . D O N O T S C A L E T H E DR A W I N G - A N Y E R R O R S O R O M I S S I O N S S H A L L B E R E P O R T E D T O S T A N T E C W I T H O U T D E L A Y . TH E C O P Y R I G H T S T O A L L D E S I G N S A N D D R A W I N G S A R E T H E P R O P E R T Y O F S T A N T E C . R E P R O D U C T I O N OR U S E F O R A N Y P U R P O S E O T H E R T H A N T H A T A U T H O R I Z E D B Y S T A N T E C I S F O R B I D D E N . 73 3 M a r q u e t t e A v e n u e , S u i t e 1 0 0 0 Mi n n e a p o l i s , M N 5 5 4 0 2 ww w . s t a n t e c . c o m MI N N E S O T A . SHEET NUMBER DATENO SURVEY APPROVED DESIGNED DRAWN PROJ. NO. REVISION CHECKED CI T Y O F C O T T A G E G R O V E , M I N N E S O T A DE N Z E R P A R K 193807622 MA R C H 6 , 2 0 2 6 PBW CSJ DRS DRS EN G I N E E R DA V I D S . S A N O C K I 40 9 7 3 EPV ST A N D A R D D E T A I L S C8.02 WA S P R E P A R E D B Y M E O R U N D E R M Y D I R E C T S U P E R V I S I O N I H E R E B Y C E R T I F Y T H A T T H I S P L A N , S P E C I F I C A T I O N , O R R E P O R T AN D T H A T I A M A D U L Y L I C E N S E D UN D E R T H E L A W S O F T H E S T A T E O F PR I N T N A M E : SI G N A T U R E : DA T E : LI C . N O . Pl o t D a t e : 0 3 / 0 5 / 2 0 2 6 - 3 : 4 5 p m Dr a w i n g n a m e : U : \ 1 9 3 8 0 6 5 9 7 \ C A D \ D w g \ P l a n s h e e t s \ 1 9 3 8 0 6 5 9 7 _ C 8 0 1 _ P a r k . d w g Xr e f s : , 1 9 3 8 0 6 5 9 7 _ B O R D E R _ P a r k TH E C O N T R A C T O R S H A L L V E R I F Y A N D B E R E S P O N S I B L E F O R A L L D I M E N S I O N S . D O N O T S C A L E T H E DR A W I N G - A N Y E R R O R S O R O M I S S I O N S S H A L L B E R E P O R T E D T O S T A N T E C W I T H O U T D E L A Y . TH E C O P Y R I G H T S T O A L L D E S I G N S A N D D R A W I N G S A R E T H E P R O P E R T Y O F S T A N T E C . R E P R O D U C T I O N OR U S E F O R A N Y P U R P O S E O T H E R T H A N T H A T A U T H O R I Z E D B Y S T A N T E C I S F O R B I D D E N . 73 3 M a r q u e t t e A v e n u e , S u i t e 1 0 0 0 Mi n n e a p o l i s , M N 5 5 4 0 2 ww w . s t a n t e c . c o m MI N N E S O T A . SHEET NUMBER DATENO SURVEY APPROVED DESIGNED DRAWN PROJ. NO. REVISION CHECKED CI T Y O F C O T T A G E G R O V E , M I N N E S O T A DE N Z E R P A R K 193807622 MA R C H 6 , 2 0 2 6 PBW CSJ DRS DRS EN G I N E E R DA V I D S . S A N O C K I 40 9 7 3 EPV ST A N D A R D D E T A I L S C8.03 CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS WHEREAS, plans and specifications have been prepared in accordance with the City Standards and Specifications for the Denzer Park Project; and WHEREAS, a bid date will be set by City staff; and WHEREAS, the Public Works Director has presented such plans and specifications to the City Council for approval. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, approves the plans and specifications and authorizes bidding for the Denzer Park Project. Passed this 1st day of April 2026. Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: Tamara Anderson, City Clerk 1 City Council Action Request 7.W. Meeting Date 4/1/2026 Department Parks and Recreation Agenda Category Action Item Title Still Ponds Natural Resources Management Plan Staff Recommendation Approve Still Ponds Park Natural Resources Management Plan. Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. Memo-Still Ponds NR Mgmt Plan 2. Final DRAFT_Still Ponds NRMP To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator From: CC: Zac Dockter, Parks and Recreation Director Jim Fohrman, Parks Superintendent Date: March 17, 2026 Subject: Still Ponds Natural Resource Management Plan Introduction/Background The City acquired Still Ponds Park in 2022 with the intention of preserving it as a natural area. However, the area has experienced significant degradation of the plant and tree communities due to a lack of natural or cultivated disturbance and overall plant management. In response, staff has collaborated with South Washington Watershed District and Washington Conservation District to develop a natural resources management plan. The park includes 42.5 acres of woodland, wetland and open water features. The management plan aims to analyze current vegetation, soil conditions and topography to develop a strategic approach to long-term land stewardship. It further recommends restorative efforts to improve overall environmental value of the site. Restoration recommendations are broken down into three units (as mapped in the report). Summary findings and recommendations for each unit are below. Units 1 and 3 – These woodland areas surround the lake and were likely Oak Savanna pre-European settlement. There is a good population of native trees such as Oaks, Maples, Hackberry, Basswood, Cherry, Chokecherry, Dogwoods and more. However, regeneration is minimal given the dense underlayer of invasive shrubbery. There is a heavy population of dead and dying Ash that has been decimated by Emerald Ash Borer. These will need to be eradicated as a first step in restoration activities. Additionally, the sub-canopy of both units are a dense thicket of Buckthorn, Prickly Ash and other invasive species that will need clearing and treatment to support the overall health and regenerative properties of the native tree population. As invasive species are eradicated, the sub- canopy should be planted with a combination of native woodland grasses, forbs and shrubbery (Hazelnut, Gooseberry, Chokecherry, etc.). Fire tolerant species should be chosen. Unit 2 – This area has undergone several transitions since European Settlement. Originally a combination of Oak Savanna and prairie, it was likely cultivated for agriculture purposes for several decades. Starting in the 1950’s, the landowner transitioned the unit into a Red Pine plantation. These Pines are now in severe decline given their age, disease and the lack of thinning to allow space for growth. The subcanopy is infested with invasive species. The plan suggests removing the Pine plantation (almost in its entirety) and transitioning to a Southern Dry Mesic Oak Woodland. This biome is a combination of native deciduous trees (such as Oak, Maple, Hackberry) with open barrens of prairie and woodland cover. This unit is perhaps the most challenging site in terms of public perception; the removal of the Pine plantation will significantly impact the park view from neighboring homes. Summary Native habitat restoration aims for long-term enhancement of plant biodiversity and improved ecosystems by stabilizing soil, filtering groundwater, improving water retention, increasing pollination, fostering native animal/bird/reptile/insect habitat and beautifying the landscape. Further, a diverse native habitat can provide natural resistance to wildfires, climate change and natural disasters. Once the Natural Resources Management Plan is approved, staff will collaborate with partners to study potential grant programs that can help support restoration efforts. Having a restoration plan in place is typically required for grant funding applications. Given the visual impact of the plan’s substantial tree removal, staff would advise holding neighborhood meetings and/or site visits prior to formalizing any work plan or grant agreement to educate residents on the short and long-term goals. The Commission approved the plan with recommendation that fiscal prudence also be considered against environmental goals as future actionable steps are taken. Considerations could include grant support, phasing or scaling of the project to reduce burden of City cost. Approve Still Ponds Park Natural Resources Management Plan. NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE Still Ponds Washington Conservation District 2025 1 Contents Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 4 Project Description ....................................................................................................................................... 4 General City Background and Context .............................................................................................................. 4 Location ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 History ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 Overall Goal for Habitat Restoration and Enhancement .............................................................................. 7 Still Ponds.......................................................................................................................................................... 8 General Location ........................................................................................................................................... 8 Background and Site History ......................................................................................................................... 9 Pre-Settlement Vegetation ....................................................................................................................... 9 Post-settlement land use ........................................................................................................................ 10 Soils ......................................................................................................................................................... 11 Topography ............................................................................................................................................. 13 Geology and Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 14 Water Features ....................................................................................................................................... 16 Project Site Vegetation and Habitat Assessment ....................................................................................... 17 Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) ............................................................................ 17 Minnesota Native Plant Community Classification and Goals ................................................................. 18 Restoration and Enhancement of Still Ponds ................................................................................................. 20 Management Unit 1 .................................................................................................................................... 22 General Description and Current Conditions ......................................................................................... 22 Desired Future Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 22 Management Unit Goals ......................................................................................................................... 24 Management Unit Activities ................................................................................................................... 24 Management Unit 2 .................................................................................................................................... 26 General Description and Current Conditions ......................................................................................... 26 Desired Future Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 26 Management Unit Goals ......................................................................................................................... 27 Management Unit Activities ................................................................................................................... 28 2 Management Unit 3 .................................................................................................................................... 29 General Description and Current Conditions ......................................................................................... 29 Desired Future Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 29 Management Unit Goals ......................................................................................................................... 30 Management Unit Activities ................................................................................................................... 30 Restoration Management Phasing & Cost Estimate Summary ...................................................................... 32 Restoration Management Activity Phasing .................................................................................................... 32 Management Activities ................................................................................................................................... 36 Climate Resiliency ....................................................................................................................................... 36 Invasive Species Management .................................................................................................................... 38 Prevention .............................................................................................................................................. 38 Integrated Pest Management ................................................................................................................. 38 Public disturbance ...................................................................................................................................... 39 Enhancement .............................................................................................................................................. 40 Interseeding ............................................................................................................................................ 40 Prairie Restoration .................................................................................................................................. 40 Restoring Ecosystem Processes .................................................................................................................. 42 Prescribed burning .................................................................................................................................. 42 Grazing .................................................................................................................................................... 42 Haying ..................................................................................................................................................... 43 Tree Removal .............................................................................................................................................. 44 Record-keeping ........................................................................................................................................... 44 Surveying ................................................................................................................................................ 44 Monitoring .............................................................................................................................................. 44 Adaptive Management ............................................................................................................................... 45 Information Sources ....................................................................................................................................... 46 List of Tables Table 1. 4-year management cost projections by Management Unit and Sub Unit ...................................... 32 Table 2. Restoration Activities and cost estimate ........................................................................................... 35 3 List of Figures Figure 1. The parks of open spaces in the City of Cottage Grove.. ................................................................... 5 Figure 2. Historical Image of Old Cottage Grove. .............................................................................................. 6 Figure 3. Orrin Thompson Developments that led to the rapid development of Cottage Grove in the 1950’s 6 Figure 4. Regional view of Still Ponds Park in Cottage Grove. .......................................................................... 8 Figure 5.Pre-European settlement vegetation at Still Ponds. ........................................................................... 9 Figure 6. Aerial Image 1937 ............................................................................................................................ 10 Figure 7. Aerial Image 1964 ............................................................................................................................ 10 Figure 8.Table and soil map for Still Ponds ..................................................................................................... 12 Figure 9. The topography at Still Ponds. ......................................................................................................... 13 Figure 10. Geological subsections surrounding Still Ponds. ............................................................................ 15 Figure 11. Water features at Still Ponds. ........................................................................................................ 16 Figure 12. Land cover mapping at Still Ponds. ................................................................................................ 17 Figure 13.Scripus Validis at Still Ponds. ........................................................................................................... 19 Figure 14. Locations of scattered trees identified in 1937 and 1964 aerial photography on 2022 aerial imagery. ........................................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 15. Wet meadow on NW side of Still Ponds. ....................................................................................... 25 4 Executive Summary Project Description The City of Cottage Grove aims to enhance the quality of its existing vegetation through comprehensive ecological restoration and management strategies. Native plant communities provide essential ecological functions, including pollinator and wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration, water filtration, flood regulation, and soil development and enrichment. However, increased urban development and land use intensity has significantly diminished these native habitats. The Washington Conservation District has assessed the project site in order to offer insights into the current plant community composition and structure and to develop targeted restoration strategies. Restoration of Still Ponds will enhance pollinator foraging resources, improve water quality, reduce erosion, support pollutant uptake from urban runoff, increase climate resilience, and contribute to the aesthetic and recreation use of this public outdoor space. The project area encompasses 42.5 acres consisting of cultivated pine stands, woodland, stormwater basins with upland buffers, wet meadows, and open water features. This management plan utilized the current vegetation, soil conditions, and topography to offer strategic guidance on woody invasive species control, hazard tree removal, enhancement of the understory and ground layers, management of invasive herbaceous species, and shoreline improvements throughout all project units. The recommendations outlined for each management unit represent the initial stage in establishing a robust, long-term approach to land stewardship. General City Background and Context Location The City Cottage Grove is located 10 miles southeast of Saint Paul in Washington County, positioned on the east bank of the Mississippi River, just north of its confluence with the St. Croix River. Along with adjacent suburbs, Cottage Grove comprises the southeastern segment of the Minneapolis-Saint Paul metropolitan area. The city features a mix of residential, agricultural, and commercial land uses with a population exceeding 38,000. Cottage Grove maintains an extensive park system, encompassing nearly 2,000 acres of designated parkland and open space across its jurisdiction. These resources are intended to support policies, programs, and facilities that foster active living—enhancing the health, well-being, education, and vitality of the community. Park amenities also include Cottage Grove Ravine Regional Park, which is owned and managed by Washington County Parks. The city’s natural areas act as important corridors for wildlife movement and provide protection for valuable natural resources such as habitats, wetlands, woodlands, and drainage ways. Cottage Grove lies within the ecological subsection of St. Paul Baldwin Plains of the Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province which consists of upland terrain between the valleys of the Mississippi and St. Croix River. The city is situated within the southwest corner of the South Washington Watershed District. Located in a developing residential district, Still Ponds plays a critical role in influencing surface water dynamics and 5 supporting ecosystems with varying levels of functionality. Its utilization by the local community further highlights the importance of ecological restoration and sustained management initiatives. Figure 1. The parks of open spaces in the City of Cottage Grove. Still Ponds is located in the NW corner of Cottage Grove. History Cottage Grove, was originally inhabited by the Dakota and Ojibwe Native American tribes who were stewards of the vast prairie landscape, interspersed with oak groves. Activities such as fishing, mound building, and wild rice harvesting were an essential part of the indigenous cultures of this region. The only known indigenous settlement in Washington County was a village called Grey Cloud Island, just west of Cottage Grove, established by Chief Medicine Bottle in 1830. However, the Treaties of 1837 led to the ceding of Dakota land east of the Mississippi, resulting in their forced relocation of the settlement. The first European settlers arrived in 1843, and the township was organized in 1858. The arrival of the railroad in the late 1800s significantly increased trade and economic growth. Cottage Grove's proximity to 6 the Mississippi River also contributed to its economic prosperity, making it an important transportation hub. The city's population grew from about 100 residents in the 1950s to over 41,000 today. Cottage Grove continues to thrive as a suburban community with a strong sense of community and a variety of economic opportunities. The first European settlers arrived in Cottage Grove in 1843 from New England, bringing Greek Revival architecture and establishing a government style that earned the township the nickname “New England of the West.” Most were grain farmers who prospered due to fertile soil and access to markets via the Mississippi River and wagon roads. In 1851, a road linked Grey Cloud Island to Stillwater via Old Cottage Grove and Afton. The Military Road, authorized in 1850, passed through the area from Point Douglas to Fort Ripley by way of St. Paul. Hastings Avenue connected the township with St. Paul until it was replaced by Highway 61 in the 1940s. The St. Paul & Chicago Railroad built a line through the township in 1869, establishing the Langdon station (present-day Cottage Grove), which quickly became a thriving trade center with businesses, a school, and a Catholic church built in 1873. The 1870s saw many German immigrants arrive, leading to increased farming and a shift toward dairy production. By 1875, Langdon had one of Minnesota’s first creameries, marking the rise of the local dairy industry. Key routes like the Military Road and Hastings Avenue connected Cottage Grove with surrounding towns, enhancing its role as a transportation hub. In 1869, the St. Paul & Chicago Railroad expanded through the township, with Langdon (now Cottage Grove) developing rapidly as a trade and shipping center. At the turn of the twentieth century, the township—including its two rural villages, Langdon and Old Cottage Grove—had an estimated population of 100. For over one hundred years, Cottage Grove retained its rural character. However, the development of Thompson Grove in the 1950s, a community of ranch-style homes initiated by real estate developer Orrin Thompson, marked the onset of suburban Figure 3. Orrin Thompson Developments that led to the rapid development of Cottage Grove in the 1950’s Figure 2. Historical Image of Old Cottage Grove. 7 expansion in the area. Thompson subsequently constructed more than half of the homes in Cottage Grove. The population increased significantly, rising from 833 residents in 1950 to over 4,800 by 1960, and exceeding 13,400 by 1970. By the year 2000, Cottage Grove had become one of Minnesota’s fastest- growing communities with approximately 30,000 residents. Due to extensive conversion of pre-European settlement land first to agriculture and subsequently to development, only a limited number of intact vegetation communities currently remain in Cottage Grove. However, the city still maintains several key natural resources including ponds, wetlands, woodlands, prairie, savanna, and the Mississippi River outflow. Many parks within the city also have preserved natural areas alongside recreational facilities. The city also promotes ecologically responsible development and establishment of greenspace within new residential and commercial developments. Overall Goal for Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Due to substantial changes in land use and fragmentation of the landscape, reconstructing native plant communities based solely on pre-settlement vegetation data may not be feasible. As a result, this plan references pre-settlement conditions as one data point and incorporates current vegetation, land use, soils, topography, future climate conditions and existing limitations to recommend a plant community that is ecologically functional, supports habitat, and maintains resilience over time. Historical data on plant communities prior to European settlement indicates that Still Ponds was characterized by oak openings and barrens, commonly known as oak savanna. Given the complexities inherent to restoration within highly disturbed metropolitan areas, the primary goals for habitat restoration emphasize the establishment of diverse, climate-resilient plant communities and the creation of natural spaces that are both equitable and accessible to the public. Restoration objectives for each management unit are tailored to reflect specific land use influences and are detailed in their respective sections below. 8 Still Ponds General Location Still Ponds is a 42.5-acre park in Cottage Grove, MN, located east of Highway 61 and north of 65th Street. The park features trails linking neighborhoods through woodlands, wetlands, stormwater basins, and pine trees. The area now known as Still Ponds was previously used for agricultural purposes before becoming a community natural area. Over the last 35 years, the land cover has undergone notable changes. Figure 4. Regional view of Still Ponds Park in Cottage Grove. 9 Background and Site History Pre-Settlement Vegetation Surveyors with the General Land Office recorded the size, species, and distribution of trees as well as general descriptions of the physical geography of the landscape they traversed throughout 1848-1907. Francis J. Marschner interpreted these notes to create a detailed map depicting how Minnesota looked at the time of European settlement. Still Ponds falls within the St. Paul Baldwins Plains and Moraines ecoregion. The pre-settlement vegetation surrounding Still Ponds consisted of oak openings and barrens or savanna and was likely dispersed with a complex mosaic of wet prairie and oak savanna. Oak openings and barrens consisted predominantly of scattered trees and groves of oaks in scrubby form with patches of open prairie and areas of brush and thickets. Present day communities in this category include oak savannas and woodlands. Figure 5.Pre-European settlement vegetation at Still Ponds. Figure 5. Pre-European settlement vegetation. 10 Post-settlement land use Aerial photos from 1937 to 2024 show Still Ponds and the surrounding landscape shifting from agricultural to residential land use. Also, during this time, previous landowners planted approximately 8-acres of red pine trees in the former row-crop fields. Pine planting began sometime after 1964. Figure 6. Aerial Image 1937 Figure 7. Aerial Image 1964 11 Soils According to the USDA Web Soil Survey, eleven soil classifications occur within Still Ponds. Overall soil throughout Still Ponds tends to be a composition of silt loam and considered prime farmland. With one area of ponded soils. Major soil types include Santiago silt loam, Freeon silt loam, and Richwood silt loam, each comprising 90% of their respective map units. Minor components contribute 10% to the map units, with specific soil types like Kingsley and Freeon. The elevation for these soils’ ranges from 670 to 1,950 feet, with mean annual precipitation between 28 to 36 inches. Special Line Features (SLP) are delineated on the soils map; these are narrow bands of contrasting soil areas that are too small to map but significant enough to influence land use and management due to slope or contrasting soil texture. Soil textures range from silt loam to sandy loam, reflecting differences in drainage and nutrient retention. Dry, sandy upland soils are deep and drain quickly, while loamy upland soils offer moderate drainage and higher pH and water capacity than sandy soils. Loamy lowland soils retain moisture but do not stay saturated, and mucky swamp soils, rich in decomposed organic matter, have poor drainage and are permanently wet and acidic. A summary of soil classifications follows, with details in Appendix A. 12 Figure 8.Table and soil map for Still Ponds 13 Topography The topography of Still Ponds consists of gently rolling slopes with natural and stormwater basins in low- lying areas. Most of the terrain is flat to relatively flat with slopes ranging from 2-6% with some areas ranging from 6-15% slopes. Aspects face all cardinal directions but most of the steeper slopes have an aspect of east, southeast, or south. Figure 9. The topography at Still Ponds. 14 Geology and Hydrology Still Ponds is located within the ecological subsection of St. Paul Baldwin Plains in the Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province. The northern boundary of this subsection is defined by a Superior Lobe end moraine complex known as the St. Croix Moraine. To the west, terraces linked to the Mississippi River mark the separation from the Anoka Sand Plain subsection. The southern boundary aligns with the southern edge of the Rosemount Outwash Plain. This subsection is small in size and extends into Wisconsin. It features a large moraine and areas of outwash plain, although it is lower in elevation compared to other regions in the state. The subsection includes part of the seven-county metropolitan area and experiences effects from urban development. The region surrounding Still Ponds contains Paleozoic bedrock overlying a thick sequence of Mesoproterozoic rocks that formed about 1,100 million years ago and are associated with the Midcontinent Rift. The Paleozoic rocks in this area consist of relatively thin, widespread layers of sandstone, shale, and carbonate deposits formed in shallow seas approximately 500 to 450 million years ago. Throughout Washington County, bedrock units are slightly tilted (less than 1°) to the southwest, toward the central Twin Cities metropolitan area, which is part of what is identified as the Twin Cities basin. Still Ponds straddles three geological subsections: Opg and Os and Ops. • Opg: Platteville and Glenwood formations (upper Ordovician) – the Platteville formation primarily consists of tan to gray, fossiliferous limestone and dolostone. This is the dominant uppermost bedrock that spans across a large extent of the southwestern part of the county. The underlying Glenwood Formation is predominantly a green-gray sandy shale. The combined thickness of these formations if approximately 30-35 ft (9-11 m). • OS: St. Peter Sandstone (Middle to lower Ordovician) – The uppermost formation is primarily a white to tan, fine- to medium-grained, quartzose sandstone. Glacial sediments are thin throughout the southern half of the county, exposing patchy outcrops of this formation adjacent to Season’s Park. Bedding and structures are typically absent. The lowermost section of this formation, referred to as the Pigs Eye Member, consists of white to gray feldspathic shale and siltstone interlayered with coarser sandstone. While the Pigs Eye Member is not exposed anywhere throughout Washington county, the basal contact of this formation with the underlying Shakopee Formation (Ops) has significant erosional unconformity. This buried erosional surface separates these two rock formations indicates that sediment depositional is not continuous. 15 • OPS: Shakopee Formation (Lower Ordovician)—A heterolithic unit composed mainly of light brown, thin- to medium-bedded dolostone, sandy dolostone, sandstone, and shale. It contains oolites, intraclasts, fossilized microbial mounds, chert nodules, quartz sandstone, and green-gray shale partings. Thickness of the Shakopee Formation beneath the St. Peter Sandstone is quite variable within the area of the Hudson–Afton horst, ranging from almost absent to nearly 200 feet (61 meters) thick. It appears to be thickest in the most southeast part of the county, east of the Hastings fault, where it is nearly 200 feet (61 meters) thick. On the opposite side of the horst, on the west side of the Cottage Grove fault, it reaches thicknesses of 115 feet (35 meters) and appears to progressively thin towards the northwest. Based on a limited amount of drill cuttings and geophysical data within the Hudson–Afton horst, it appears that the Shakopee Formation thins to less than 50 feet (15 meters) and may even be absent beneath the St. Peter Sandstone at several locations. Figure 10. Geological subsections surrounding Still Ponds. Still Ponds 16 Water Features The soil structure indicates that Still Ponds contains a mosaic of soil conditions. Soil moisture is an estimation of the fluctuating water content in soils and greatly influences vegetation types, physical properties of soils, and chemical interactions and transport. Still Ponds can generally be classified as having moderate to high infiltration rate as they consist of mainly hydrologic soil group B, with some A and C soils and combinations of C/D and B/D. Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimations of runoff potential and consider the rate at which water infiltration occurs. Approximately 15.2% of Still Ponds soils are classified as ponded, having slow or very slow infiltration rate, particularly lowland areas surrounding open water. Although flooding frequency is minimal in this area, occasional to frequent ponding occurs in soil section 1055 (Aquolls and Histo sols). Ponding is defined as standing water in a closed depression. The aerial photos suggest that open water in the ponds was either rare, or was not present. This increased ponding frequency is likely due to the inflow source from residential development in combination with low infiltration rate of the soil surrounding this area. Ponding occurs at a depth of 80 inches. Still Ponds has three freshwater emergent wetlands and two freshwater ponds. There are also three stormwater detention basins on the south ends of the property. Figure 11. Water features at Still Ponds. 17 Project Site Vegetation and Habitat Assessment Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) The Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) maps land cover based on historical plant community inventories and aerial photos from the 1990s. Because MLCCS relies on older data and past technology, it may not reflect recent land use changes, leading to differences between mapped and current vegetation. More precise descriptions of current vegetation are provided in the following Management Units Vegetation section. The MLCCS survey identified six different land cover types within Still Ponds, shown below in Figure 15. Most of the site is mapped as oak forest dry subtype, cattail marsh, and cultivated coniferous trees. The former surrounding agricultural fields have been converted to residential housing. Figure 12. Land cover mapping at Still Ponds. 18 Minnesota Native Plant Community Classification and Goals Similar to MLCCS mapping, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resource’s Native Plant Community Classification relies on analysis of comprehensive field data collected during the 1990s, 2000s, and considers key environmental variables such as azimuth, soil composition, and hydrology. In contrast to MLCCS, this system employs a hierarchical framework, organizing vegetation according to broad, landscape-scale ecological systems and incorporating ecological processes as a guiding principle. Native plant community types are identified based on dominant canopy species, substrate variations, and detailed environmental factors such as moisture and nutrient availability. Subtypes reflect more nuanced differences in canopy structure, substrates, or additional environmental variables. Native plant community classifications are often used to describe current or desired vegetation and provide guidance for the goals and objectives of stewardship activities. More Detailed descriptions of each plant community can be found in Appendix B. Southern Dry-Mesic Oak (Maple) Woodland (FDs37) These dry-mesic forests are found throughout the Eastern Broadleaf Forest in the transition between the prairies which frequently burned in the southwest and the mesic hardwoods which rarely burned. Oak woodland was probably one of the most extensive community types in Minnesota, comprising much of the vegetation described as oak barrens, brushland, and thickets by the early surveyors. Often found on sand and sand-gravel soils associated with moraines, these historically occurred where there were firebreaks in fire-prone regions. The Canopy of this community is interrupted to continuous (50-100%) with dominant canopy species are either bur oak or northern pin oak, with quaking aspen often present. Hazelnuts, chokecherry, gray dogwood, and raspberries are common to abundant in the understory. Historically, disturbance in the form of fire affected these communities about every 10 years Southern Mesic Maple-Basswood Forest (MHs39) and Southern Wet-Mesic Hardwood Forest (MHs49) Mesic hardwood forests are present throughout the Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province in upland areas where wildfires are less common and soils have greater water retention. The canopy cover is mostly continuous from 50-100% and dominated sugar maple with basswood, northern red oak and occasionally red and American elm. Ironwood, sugar maple, basswood and Bitternut Hickory are present in the subcanopy. The shrub layer is patchy to interrupted with tree saplings, chokecherry, and gooseberry. The ground-layer varies from patchy to continuous with Virginia waterleaf, bloodroot, wild leek, blue cohosh, early meadow rue and Spring ephemerals. Wet-mesic hardwood forests MHs49 overlap with the MHs39 communities and are present in areas protected from wildfires and have high water tables. Basswood, Black ash, Sugar maple green ash, hackberry and Boxelder are common in the canopy and subcanopy. The shrub layer and ground layer are similar with waterleaf and wood nettle are often common and abundant Northern Wet Meadow/Carr (WMn82) Wet Meadow/Carr communities are present throughout Minnesota, and are common in wetland basins, and along streams and shorelines. Occurrences of Wet Meadows along stream courses or adjacent to lakes often have fairly constant water levels relative to Wet Meadows in depressions or basins. These communities occur on wet mineral soil, muck, or shallow peat where standing water is present in the spring and after heavy rains. However, the water table is generally beneath the surface of the soil for 19 most of the growing season. The Northern Wet Meadow/Carr is composed of dense, closed stands of sedges such as lake sedge, tussock sedge, beaked sedge, and grasses such as bluejoint. Forb cover is variable with species such as tufted loosestrife, marsh bellflower, and marsh skullcap. Shrub cover varies depending on the subtype; the Willow – Dogwood Shrub Swamp (WMn82a) typically has shrub cover greater than 25% with species such as willows (Salix spp.), red-osier dogwood, and speckled alder. This subtype tends to occur on drier wet meadow sites, or when the water-table has been lowered by drought or ditching Northern Bulrush-Spikerush Marsh (MRn93) and Open Water The marsh communities are common throughout the region in wetland basins or along sheltered lakeshores and streams. These are forb- and graminoid-dominated wetland communities that have standing water for most of the growing season. The water level is typically stable but can vary in marshes that are rooted into floating mats. Nutrients tend to be readily available, especially following a drawdown in the water level providing organic matter an opportunity to oxidize. The Northern Mixed Cattail Marsh (MRn83) is typically dominated by cattails with other forbs such as broad-leaved arrowhead and marsh skullcap. Graminoid cover is variable with lake sedge (Carex lacustris) and bristly sedge (Carex comosa) often present. The Northern Bulrush-Spikerush Marsh (MRn93) tends to be dominated by bulrushes (Scirpus validis, S. fluviatilis), and submergent aquatics. Floating-leaved and submergent aquatic plants are limited in cover with species like duckweeds (Lemna spp.), water lily (Nymphaea spp.), and pondweeds (Potamogeton spp.) Figure 13.Scripus Validis at Still Ponds. 20 Restoration and Enhancement of Still Ponds To establish management unit objectives based on existing vegetation structure, vegetation surveys were conducted during the spring and summer of 2025. These surveys documented the dominant species in canopy, sub-canopy, and ground layers. Findings were compared with historical imagery and prior vegetative surveys to assess current vegetation and to identify the most appropriate native plant community goals for the site, where appropriate. The park’s location within an established metropolitan area result in varying extents of habitat modification, the presence of invasive species, alterations in hydrology, and diminished frequency of natural disturbance regimes that are essential to native ecosystems. These factors, combined with recent intensification of land use in residential development and stormwater infrastructure, have led to notable changes in vegetation that diverge from those described in Native Plant Communities (NPCs). Restoration planning should address historical, current, and potential future environmental conditions. Consequently, not all management units are assigned an NPC target, and some areas may be better suited to alternative management objectives that still provide ecological functions and recreational opportunities. Management activities to achieve desired plant community goals are detailed within each management unit and more thoroughly described in the Management Activity section. This section provides restoration and management recommendations based on the desired Native Plant Communities and composition (referred to as Management Units), as well as recommendations for management activities that are considered priorities (Management Priorities). The following section (Management Activities) provides an overview of the implementation of specific management activities that are recommended. Management units have been identified based on the current vegetation and land cover types. The management units are labeled on maps with associated plant community goals including NPC’s where applicable. A description of the current conditions of each unit is provided in addition to desired conditions. Desired conditions range from high quality native plant communities as described in the Field Guide to Native Plant Communities to reconstructed urban ecosystems. The following summary of current conditions reflects the dominant and notable species identified throughout Spring and Summer 2025 at Still Ponds and does not reflect a comprehensive survey of all species within the project site. 21 Figure 13. Management units and target plant communities at Still Ponds. 22 Management Unit 1 General Description and Current Conditions Management Unit 1 consists of 11.4 acres of open water and wetlands and 8.5 acres of degraded oak woodlands. Based on the aerial imagery, the wetland basins have varied hydrologically with period of open water in present times but historic drawdowns that allowed the area to be farmed. The soils are the Otter silt loam and ponded aquasolls. Currently the open water is surrounded by wetlands that include a mosaic of wet meadow and marsh vegetation with generally high diversity and intact native species. Species such as tussock sedge, lake sedge, woolgrass, waterdock, marsh fern, touch-me-not, Joe pye weed, and sensitive fern are present. However, numerous stands of dense reed canary grass as well as scattered patches are present. Some patches of purple loosestrife and narrow leaf cattail also occur on the shoreline. The dry-mesic oak woodland is a fire-dependent plant community that has developed on upland soils on the ridges that surround the wetland basins. Soils are silt loams (Antigo, Brill, Crystal, Freer and Santiago) with relatively shallow slopes (2-6%). The woodland has a mix of canopy species including large bur oak trees, red oak, pin oak, red maple, aspen, basswood, and black cherry. Much shrub layer in the uplands in this unit is dominated by common and glossy buckthorn, a few individuals of Tartarian honeysuckle, and native species such as prickly ash, prickly gooseberry, red raspberry, and red-berried elder. The herbaceous layer included species such as Pennsylvania sedge, graceful sedge, pointed-leaf tick trefoil, Canada mayflower, wild geranium, lady fern, Virginia creeper, wild grape, and jack-in-the-pulpit. Non- native herbaceous species also included fescue, Canada thistle, garlic mustard, dame’s rocket, burdock, and bird’s foot trefoil. Desired Future Conditions A target condition has been described for each of the management areas. The target condition is a description of a healthy plant community based on the MNDNR Native Plant Community description. Recommended restoration and management activities are designed to guide the existing community towards a plant community that resembles the target condition described. The target condition should be considered a long-term goal that will be achieved incrementally over time with sustained management effort. The desired future conditions for Unit 1 include: 23 • Reconstructed Southern Dry-Mesic Oak (Maple) Woodland (FDs37) Native Plant Community. Canopy cover should be interrupted to continuous (50–100%). Bur oak and northern pin oak should continue to be the most common tree species. Northern red oak, white oak, and red maple should also be maintained. • Enhanced Northern Wet Meadow/Carr (WMn82) and Northern Bulrush-Spikerush Marsh (MRn93) Native Plant Communities. • Restored habitat to provide provisions for humans and wildlife, such as the production of food, water, and shelter. • Removed woody and herbaceous non-indigenous species to prevent continued habitat degradation. The shrub layer should be patchy with 25-50% cover by native shrub species typical of an FDs37 NPC. Dense non-native invasive shrub cover should be <5%. • Increased diversity with additional ecologically appropriate trees, shrubs, grasses, and wildflowers. The herbaceous layer should be continuous up to 100% cover such that it is sufficient to carry periodic prescribed surface fires along with oak leaf litter. • Climate resilient woodlands and wetlands that can withstand environmental changes in an urban environment. Figure 14. Locations of scattered trees identified in 1937 and 1964 aerial photography on 2022 aerial imagery. 24 Priority Level: High Management Unit Goals • Unit 1 was likely an oak openings and barrens, also referred to as oak savanna, historically. The 1937 aerial photos and map (Figure 18) show the locations of the original oaks found on site include scattered trees within the existing woodland. Currently the plant composition more closely resembles a southern dry-mesic oak (maple) woodland (FDs37) with a canopy of bur oak, pin oak, and maple and sub-canopy of cherry, chokecherry, dogwoods, and prickly ash. Long term management will need to address the ash trees that have died due to the Emerald Ash Borer; the density of buckthorn present in the subcanopy; and the die off of large canopy trees from construction disturbance. The uplands in Unit 1 need the re-establishment of a natural disturbance regime to control extensive overgrowth by non-native invasive shrubs such as buckthorn and to promote a diverse ground cover by native herbaceous species. Native tree species such as red maple, black cherry, hackberry, and basswood that would typically be susceptible to fire have been allowed to regenerate. Unfortunately, this recruitment is at the expense of oak regeneration and replacement. Periodic surface fires (every 10 years or so) and woody invasive shrub control will support better oak regeneration and native plant diversity. Management Unit Activities To maintain and enhance the open water and wetland plant communities in addition to the dry-mesic oak woodland, the main activities should be: • Remove non-indigenous wetland herbaceous species such as narrow leaf cattail, reed canary grass, and purple loosestrife. • Remove non-indigenous woody species such as buckthorn and honeysuckle and ecologically inappropriate woody species such as prickly ash. • Remove non-indigenous herbaceous species such as garlic mustard, burdock, fescue, Canada thistle, garlic mustard, bird’s foot trefoil and dame’s rocket (Appendix C). • Remove ecologically inappropriate species such as black locust and boxelder and aspen in areas. Dead ash should be removed where considered hazardous. • Thin or remove the less desirable trees species around desirable trees, enhancing the health of the remaining trees and promoting oak regeneration. Species that are fire-intolerant in seedling and sapling stages, including box elder, birch, black cherry, hackberry, and elm should be thinned and minimized. • Interplant with ecologically appropriate tree species from FDs37 (Appendix B). • Maintain any native shrub species already present at the site including American hazelnut, grey dogwood, gooseberry, raspberry, and chokecherry. • Planting a shrub layer of chokecherry, chokeberry, Juneberry, and hazelnuts would provide provisions for humans and wildlife while diversifying the structure and composition of FDs37. • Maintain and enhance herbaceous species including the native species currently on site such as wild geranium, interrupted fern, sedge species, etc. 25 • Prescribed burning should be implemented after tree and shrub removal once the fuel loads will support the movement of fire through the unit. In the long-term, the implementation of burns on an approximately 8- to 10 –year cycle restores natural processes such as the cycling of nutrients and the prevention of (re)establishment of fire-intolerant woody species. Figure 15. Wet meadow on NW side of Still Ponds. 26 Management Unit 2 General Description and Current Conditions The cultivated pine stand occurs on uplands with well-drained and moderately well-drained soils including the Santiago and Freeon series. These soils were developed in loess over sandy till. Topography is relatively flat in the northern section with slopes less than 6%. The southern section has slopes ranging from 6-15% with aspects facing east and south. Pre-European settlement vegetation suggests this area was oak openings and barrens or oak savanna. Prior to 1964, the area appears to have been utilized for agricultural purposes. Currently the unit consists of an even-aged stands of 30- to 40-year-old planted red pine. The dominant canopy species was red pine, with individual white pine and a small stand of Norway spruce in the northeast corner. Some quaking aspen, eastern red cedar, black cherry and boxelder were also present in the canopy. The subcanopy and shrub layers were heavily infested with non-native, invasive common buckthorn including both common and glossy buckthorn. While buckthorn comprised at least 50-75% cover under the pines, additional shrub cover included gooseberry, prickly ash, black raspberry, and red- berried elder. The herbaceous layer was generally lacking in areas with the lack of light due to the heavy buckthorn cover. However, some areas contained a few native herbaceous plants such as lady fern, Pennsylvania sedge, Virginia creeper, and enchanter’s nightshade as well as numerous ash seedlings. Garlic mustard, an invasive herbaceous species, was found in scattered patches in the understory. Desired Future Conditions • Reconstructed Urban Forest that is compatible and complementary to the surrounding oak woodland communities in Unit 1. The composition of a Southern Dry-Mesic Pine-Oak Woodland (FDs27) can be used as a transitional native plant community goal. The canopy cover would be patchy (25-75%) and dominated by white pine, bur oak, northern pin oak, white oak, paper birch, quaking aspen, red oak, and basswood. • Restored habitat to provide provisions for humans and wildlife, such as the production of food, water, and habitat. 27 • Removed woody and herbaceous non-indigenous species to prevent continued habitat degradation. The shrub layer should be patchy with 25-50% cover by native shrub species typical of an FDs27 NPC. Dense non-native invasive shrub cover should be <5%. • Increased the diversity with additional ecologically appropriate trees, shrubs, grasses, and wildflowers. The herbaceous layer should be continuous up to 100% cover such that it is sufficient to compete with woody and herbaceous species and contain species such as sweet cicely, northern bedstraw, wild geranium, heart-leaved aster, Canada mayflower, bracken fern, and Pennsylvania sedge. Climate resilient woodland that can withstand environmental changes in an urban environment. Priority Level: Moderate Management Unit Goals Unit 2 was likely an oak openings and barrens or oak savanna historically. However, it is now mostly a monoculture of red pine. Overgrowth of invasive shrubs, mostly common and glossy buckthorn, have impacted the development of a diverse herbaceous ground layer. As is typical of pine plantations from this era, the even-age stand generally lacks any regeneration. Selective thinning has not occurred, and many mature trees are weak and susceptible to wind-throw during high winds or storms. Within this monoculture are pockets of pine experiencing die off and wind throws. In developing management goals and activities, the site was reviewed the DNR Forester Karl Mueller to assess the health and recovery of the pine stands. With two consulting DNR Foresters, they provided the recommendations to clearcut the pine stand and convert it to a native plant community, leaving some pine in the pine enhancement areas depicted on the map (Figure X). In these areas where thinning the pine is an option, the pine is slightly larger and spaced out more, intermixed with adjacent hardwoods. The younger pine stand at the southern end would not be a possibility for thinning as it would result in a stand prone to windthrow. However, the edge of this pine stand could be retained as there are spruce and hardwoods partially protecting them from the wind. The designated removal area is 10.8 acres and the thinning area is 1.3 acres. Ideally, the cultivated pine stand would be removed or thinned where designated on the map and transition towards a southern dry-mesic pine-oak woodland (FDs27). This would connect to the surrounding woodland in Management Unit 1 and create a larger tract of contiguous habitat. Incorporating climate ready woods species (Appendix D) may also be advantageous as it is an urban reconstructed woodland ideally, timber harvest would utilize the pine logs for lumber or other marketable wood products. However, it is very unlikely that there would be interest given the lumber market. The size and quality of the pine is below what is desired, and the size of pine stand is not large enough to make it financially viable project in this part of the state. If a near clearcut of the pine is planned, The DNR recommends connecting with: Call Before You Cut — Minnesota Forestry Association; a program between the MN Forestry Association and the MNDNR. The MFA foresters would have a better understanding of the local markets and could provide some guidance prior to removal. 28 Management Unit Activities To maintain sections of enhanced pine stand or to transition to a native plant community with clearcutting with a long-term goal of connectivity to the existing FDs37 community, the main activities should be: • Remove non-indigenous woody and herbaceous species such as buckthorn, and amur maple. • Remove ecologically inappropriate species such as black locust and boxelder. • Remove non-indigenous herbaceous species such as garlic mustard, burdock, and dame’s rocket (Appendix C). Thin or remove the planted pine stands, enhancing the health of the remaining trees and promoting pine and oak regeneration. • Consider coppicing aspen in the NE section of site or on fringe areas to provide valuable wildlife habitat. • Seed and plant herbaceous material and shrubs as a transitional plant community to set the foundation for future savanna/woodland • Interplant with ecologically appropriate species from FDs27 (Appendix B) or with ecologically appropriate species from the University of Minnesota Climate Ready Woods program Managing woodlands in the Anoka Sand Plain, Big Woods, and St. Paul-Baldwin Plains and Moraines | UMN Extension. Incorporate southern species as an assisted migration model to further enhance the resiliency of the unit Region 7: Anoka Sand Plain, Big Woods, St. Paul-Baldwin Plains and Moraines • Planting chokecherry, chokeberry, wild plum, and hazelnuts would provide provisions for humans and wildlife while diversifying the structure and composition of the cultivated pine stands. 29 Management Unit 3 General Description and Current Conditions Management Unit 3 is a mosaic of constructed stormwater ponds surrounded by upland buffers of both grassland and woodland. In addition to the open water of the ponds, the soils include mostly silt loams (Freeon, Otter, Richwood, Waukegan, Crystal Lake, and Antigo) and a small amount of sandy loam (Mahtomedi). Slopes are largely flat and under 6% with a few west- and south-facing slopes ranging up to 15%. Similar to management unit 1, Unit 3 was likely an oak openings and barrens or oak savanna historically. The 1937 image and Figure x show the original oaks found on site, some of which remain today. Currently, the plant composition more closely resembles a southern mesic maple-basswood forest with canopy trees of bur oak, pin oak, and maple, ash, elm and boxelder and with a subcanopy of maple, ironwood, and ash saplings. The forest transitions to a wet-mesic hardwood system in lower lying areas along wetlands. The understory of the mesic hardwoods is dominated by buckthorn, a portion of which on the east side was forestry mowed in the winter of 2024-25. The buffers are a mainly composed of non- native cools season grasses including brome, fescue and reed canary grass. Burdock and Canada goldenrod are the most common forbs present. Some southern mesic prairie species are present with sedge meadow species such as lake sedge and soft-stemmed bulrush along the water’s edge. Desired Future Conditions • Enhanced mesic hardwoods that resemble MHs39 and MHs49 Native plant Communities and will be resilient moving into the future. Canopy cover should be interrupted to continuous (50-100%) and dominated by sugar maple, basswood, northern red oak. • The restoration of habitat to provide provisions for humans and wildlife, such as the production of food, water, and habitat. • Restored subcanopy structure in the forest with the removal of woody to prevent continued habitat degradation. The shrub layer should be rare to interrupted (5-75%) cover by native shrub species typical of MHs39 such as gooseberry and chokecherry. Dense non-native invasive shrub cover should be <5%. 30 • Removed herbaceous non-indigenous understory species in the open areas surrounding the stormwater basins and increased diversity with additional ecologically grasses, sedges, and wildflowers. • Climate resilient plant communities that can withstand environmental changes in an urban environment. Priority Level: Moderate Management Unit Goals This unit has experienced quite a bit of disturbance in the transition from oak savanna prior to European settlement, through logging and agriculture, and more recently in the construction trails and stormwater basins. Ash trees in the canopy of the forested areas are experiencing die off from Emerald Ash Borer; the sub canopy is strongly dominated by buckthorn. There is additional die off of large existing canopy trees and newly installed trees from construction disturbance. While native plant community goals have been assigned to this unit, the restoration of the structure and composition of the native plant communities will be challenging. Efforts in these areas should focus on minimizing the cover of non-indigenous species and increasing the overall diversity. Management Unit Activities • To enhance the southern mesic maple-basswood forest (MHs39) in the wooded areas and southern mesic prairie (Ups23) and northern bulrush-spikerush marsh (MRn93) along the stormwater basins, the main activities would be: Continued removal of non-indigenous woody such as buckthorn, honeysuckle, and amur maple. • Remove canopy species that would be considered hazardous or ecologically inappropriate species such as ash, dead oak, black locust, and boxelder. • Remove non-indigenous herbaceous species such as garlic mustard, burdock, dame’s rocket, and cool season grasses (Appendix C). • Interplant the forested areas with ecologically appropriate species from MHs39 or MHs49 (Appendix B) or with ecologically appropriate species from the University of Minnesota Climate Ready Woods program Managing woodlands in the Anoka Sand Plain, Big Woods, and St. Paul- Baldwin Plains and Moraines | UMN Extension • Incorporate southern species in the forested areas as an assisted migration model to further enhance the resiliency of the unit Region 7: Anoka Sand Plain, Big Woods, St. Paul-Baldwin Plains and Moraines • Planting chokecherry, gooseberry, and nannyberry in the shrub layer of the forested areas would provide provisions for humans and wildlife while diversifying the structure and composition of the hardwoods. • Consider prairie and wetland restoration in the open areas surrounding the wetland basins. This would involve the removal of existing vegetation with site preparation methods such as spraying, burning, soils disturbance, and seeding. Establishment maintenance would include mowing, spot- treating and prescribed burning. 31 Figure 16. Stormwater Retention Pond at Still Ponds 32 Restoration Management Phasing & Cost Estimate Summary Total management costs were based on 4-year management plans. Total 4-year costs for all vegetation management are $693,050.00. Cost estimation is based on current 2025 market rates, contractor rates from 5 different companies, for a similar project, were averaged to get cost estimates. Management unit nuances may influence costs totals and should be considered. Continued Enhancement is recommended beyond the 4 year estimate. Existing Land Cover Acres Priority Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Management Unit 1 High Altered non-native Woodland FDs37 8.5 $112,200 $28,900 $28,900 $17,000 Open Water & Wet Meadow 11.4 Management Unit 2 Moderate Pine Tree Planting removal areas FDs37 10.8 $82,400 $32,400 $77,240 $47,000 Pine Tree Planting Thinning and Enhancement FDs37 1.3 $17,230 $6,240 $6,240 $2,600 Management Unit 3 Moderate Stormwater Ponds and Buffers UPs24 8.9 $33,300 $24,400 $23,800 $18,900 Woodland MHs39 or MHs49 6.6 $69,800 $25,000 $25,000 $12,000 Table 1. 4-year management cost projections by Management Unit and Sub Unit 33 Restoration Management Activity Phasing Total management costs were based on 4-year management plans. Total 4-year costs for all vegetation management are $693,050.00. Cost estimation is based on current 2025 market rates, contractor rates from 5 different companies, for a similar project, were averaged to get cost estimates. Management unit nuances may influence costs totals and should be considered. Existing Land Cover land Cover Goals Recommended Actions Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Notes and Assumptions Management Unit 1 Altered non-native Woodland 8.5 Acres FDs37 Invasive Species Management- Woody $44,200 $5,200/Acre Canopy thinning of unhealthy and Ecologically Inappropriate Trees & around Save Trees $68,000 $8,000/Acre Understory Enhancement seeding and planting $11,900 $11,900 $2,800/Acre Continued Enhancement $17,000 $17,000 $17,000 $2,000/Acres; 2 visits per year. Open Water & Wet Meadow 11.4 Acres Opn92 & WMn82 Invasive Species Management- Reed Canary Grass $5,000 $5,000 2 visits per year Invasive Species Management- Purple Loosestrife Bio control $1,200 $1,200 Vegetation enhancement $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 Management Unit 2 Pine Tree Planting removal areas 10.8 Acres FDs 39 Tree Removal-Canopy Removal $82,400 $8,000/Acre Invasive Species Management- Herbaceous $21,600 2 visits per year 34 Prairie Restoration- Site prep $10,800 Prairie Restoration- seeding $30,240 Establishment- Tree and Shrub Planting $15,000 $15,000 20 trees/ Acre Establishment- Maintenance $20,000 $20,000 Establishment- Tree and shrub maintenance $12,000 $12,000 Pine Tree Planting Thinning and Enhancement 1.3 Acres Invasive Species Management- Woody $6,730 Tree Removal- Canopy thinning of unhealthy and Ecologically Inappropriate Trees and save trees $10,500 Enhancement- Understory seeding and planting $3,640 $3,640 Restoring Ecosystem processes- Continued Enhancement $2,600 $2,600 $2,600 Management Unit 3 Stormwater Ponds and Buffers 8.9 Acres Invasive Species Management- Herbaceous $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 $10,000 Interseeding $6,000 $6,000 Invasive Species Management- Reed Canary Grass $2,400 $2,400 $2,400 Prescribed Burning $8,900 $8,900 35 Woodland 6.6 Acres MHs39/49 Invasive Species Management- Woody $17,000 Tree Removal- Canopy thinning of unhealthy and or Ecologically Inappropriate Trees and around save trees $52,800 Enhancement- Understory seeding and planting $12,000 $12,000 Restoring Ecosystem processes- Continued Enhancement $13,000 $13,000 $12,000 Table 2. Restoration Activities and cost estimate 36 Management Activities The descriptions below are intended to provide the land steward with an introduction and overview of management activities that could be implemented on the land to help achieve the objectives of the Conservation Values. These activities are specific to the land at the time this HMP was developed. If interested in implementing any of these activities, contact the Land Trust for more information or to develop an Action Plan, as necessary. Climate Resiliency Climate resiliency refers to the capacity of a landscape to respond, recover and maintain its structure and function under changing climate conditions such as extreme weather events, increased wildfires, or additional non-indigenous species. Washington County has historically been vulnerable to the effects of climate change and trends show that Minnesota will experience increased precipitation, hotter summers, warmer and wetter winters, and more severe weather events in the next 50 years. This threatens natural resources by adding additional stressors to native plants and giving advantages to non-indigenous species. Many non-indigenous species benefit from the increased humidity in summers and warmer winters, extending the ranges of species that used to be limited by the colder temperatures. Non-Indigenous species also have a higher tolerance for flooding and large fluctuations in water levels. They degrade native plant communities in a variety of ways including loss of species diversity, increased erosion, reduced water quality, and altered nutrient cycling and soil health. Non-indigenous species often employ reproductive strategies that increase dispersal whereas native species have more limited abilities to expand their range. Hindered by this inability of the natural world to adapt, scientists are concerned that natural areas will degrade to non-indigenous and generalist species and lose the ecosystem functions that intact native plant communities provide. Fragmentation and habitat loss of natural areas further limit the movement of species across the landscape. Much of the work on climate resiliency has focused on landscape scale processes. Models incorporate geophysical characteristics such as soils, bedrock geology, landforms, and elevation with measures of how connected a natural area is to other natural areas in the landscape. Microclimates differ even with small differences on the landscape. Sites that have more diverse landscape features may allow for more species to move and persist at a local scale. The same is true for natural areas that are more connected to landscapes at higher latitudes. This work highlights the importance of protecting and creating corridors to allow for climate adaptation. Being a city park, this land will contribute to connectedness and species adaptation to climate change on the landscape scale. There are stewardship activities at the site level that can also increase climate resiliency. Many of these activities have been mentioned elsewhere in this plan but also have importance through the lens of climate resiliency. 37 Climate resiliency strategies for a site: • Adaptation. Natural plant communities can adapt to changing conditions through natural processes such as succession and colonization. Restoration and management goals on native plant communities should focus on native plant communities that are well suited to the conditions using historic native plant communities as a reference. However, there are sites and species that may benefit by the process of assisted colonization, or the act of moving species to a habitat where it may not have previously occurred. Using the adaptive management framework (See Adaptive Management section), management activities are adjusted based on monitoring the outcomes of an activity. • Restoring and Maintaining Diversity. Species diversity plays a critical role in a healthy ecosystem. Generally, the greater the biodiversity, the more ecosystem services that are provided. Species diversity also provides greater stability and adaptability to climate change; a diverse native plant community will have more resources to help it recover from flooding, drought, or insect diseases. Species diversity can be encouraged by restoring native plant communities; reintroducing natural disturbance regimes such as prescribed burning; and enhancing species diversity by planting native trees, shrubs, grasses, and wildflowers. • Reduce impacts to soil and nutrient cycling. Maintaining both soil quality and nutrient cycling can improve the resiliency of ecosystems to adapt to new conditions. Land management in combination with the effects of climate change such as fire drought and flooding can impact ecosystem processes. Best management practices have been developed to protect soil and water such as retaining coarse woody debris to maintain moisture and nutrient cycling; limiting compaction in areas used for recreation and allowing heavy equipment only under frozen conditions; and maintaining and restoring due recreational access; and maintaining and restoring native herbaceous groundcover following management activities. • Promoting Natural Disturbance. Disturbances play a key role in maintaining native plant communities. Conservation grazing, selective harvesting and prescribed burning are all techniques that can be used to mimic natural disturbance. Fire, for example, was once commonplace across much of the landscape. The Suppression of fire has shifted the structure and composition of native plant communities; prescribed burning has become a common management tool for restoration purposes. It can reduce non-indigenous species and understory completion. The seasonality of these prescribed burns may need to shift to align with projected changes in seasonal precipitation. Wildfire season is expected to lengthen and become more frequent in much of the Midwest. The risk of wildfire can be reduced by using prescribed burning in those areas. • Managing non-indigenous Species. Climate change is expected to increase habitat for many of these non-indigenous species. Early detection and rapid response strategies are critical for control. Special attention should be paid to highly mobile non- indigenous species. Increase monitoring for known or potential non-indigenous species to ensure early detection, especially 38 at trailheads and along roadsides. Quickly eradicate existing populations or seed sources of non- indigenous plants and clean equipment prior to entering natural areas to prevent the spread. Once a species has become well-established, management efforts will need to be prioritized based on species, locations, time of year, etc. Integrated Pest Management can be used to manage non-indigenous species while decreasing the use of herbicides or improving their methods of use. Invasive Species Management Urban sites are inherently susceptible to a variety of invasive species vectors. At Sill Ponds, several pre- existing infestations present the potential for further spread throughout the area. In addition to these established populations, seeds may be introduced via pedestrian traffic (including footwear and pets), and maintenance equipment. Wildlife can also contribute to the migration of invasive materials. Accordingly, it is recommended that site management efforts prioritize comprehensive invasive species removal, with ongoing early detection and mitigation measures forming a core component of regular maintenance activities. In the long term, establishing resilient and competitive native vegetation will provide the most effective defense against invasive species colonization, thereby reducing the risk of monoculture development. Prevention Preventing the introduction of invasive species that are currently not found on the land should be prioritized. Since the protected land will primarily be used for recreational purposes, “Play, Clean, Go” provides a useful framework: • Remove plants, animals, and mud from boots, gear, pets and vehicles. • Clean your gear before entering or leaving. • Stay on designated roads and trails. • Use certified materials such as firewood, straw, seed. For more information on specific activities, visit the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources website on Invasive Species Integrated Pest Management The goal of Integrated Pest Management, often referred to as IPM, is an approach to managing non- indigenous species that considers a suite of management options and attempts to reduce the use of pesticides. Tools include biological (such as the introduction of a biocontrol agent), mechanical (such as mowing or pulling), or chemical (such as herbicide). In order to minimize the use of chemicals and the harm to plants that are not the target, IPM strategy uses the biology of the life cycle of the invasive species to determine the best course of action. The target species at Sill Ponds include: • Smooth brome (Bromus inermis) • Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) • Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) • Honeysuckles (Lonicera sp.) 39 • Common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) • Amur maple (Acer ginnala) • Dame’s rocket (Hesperis matronalis) • Crown vetch (Securigera varia) • Spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe) • Glossy Buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula L. Species that are not currently on the land but are in the area and occur in the current or desired native plant communities include: • Wild parsnip (Pastinaca sativa) • Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) • Tansy (Tanacetum vulgare) • Grecian foxglove (Digitalis lanata) • Barberries (Berberis sp.) • Roundleaf bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus) See Appendix C for more information on the species listed above. More general information on invasive species can be found on invasive online at the Minnesota Department of Agriculture and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources webpages. Public disturbance As a public site bordered by development and interconnected trails, Still Ponds experiences significant pedestrian traffic. It is important to recognize that certain areas within the park have been utilized for personal purposes, such as compost dumping and the construction of a tree house. While some of these activities may have occurred prior to the park's designation and were possibly well-intentioned, they can adversely impact restoration outcomes and require attention. Engaging local residents in restoration efforts aligned with the management objectives set by the City presents opportunities for meaningful community involvement. Examples include organized volunteer planting events and the development of City-approved soft trails using chipped materials generated during restoration activities, such as woody debris removal. Continuous communication and public engagement are essential for ensuring the sustained success of restoration initiatives. 40 Enhancement Ecological restoration is an indefinite long-term commitment to a set of activities that initiate or accelerate the transition to a more integral, healthy, and sustainable landscape. The concept of restoring ecosystems has increased in importance as more natural landscapes become degraded or converted to other uses with consequences on the services they can provide, from habitat to groundwater recharge, fisheries, pollination, etc. The activities involved in restoration are on a continuum of less intervention and disturbance to a complete overhaul of an area, such as in reclamation of a mining site. Enhancement describes an activity that focuses on improving ecological function often by increasing species diversity with planting or seeding. It is often in conjunction with a management activity, for example, interseeding a prairie after a prescribed burn. Interseeding Interseeding is the practice of setting back the existing vegetation to allow new seeds a chance to grow; with the goal of increasing stand diversity, reducing weed populations, and habitat enhancement. Considerations for interseeding include the following: • Set back existing vegetation temporarily if the existing vegetation is desirable; this can be done by mowing, grazing, or burning the vegetation. If the current vegetation is undesirable, for example a weed dominated patch in or amongst a high-quality plant community, the vegetation should be set back permanently. This can be accomplished using solarization, herbicides, or physical removal. • Thick vegetation or duff layer may need to be removed prior to seeding, most of the seed should be touching bare soil. • If soils are compacted aeration or soil loosening may be necessary for seed to soil contact and seed germination. • Ideal seeding times are in the spring or in fall during the dormant season. When dormant seeding, seed does not need to be raked in unless the soil is excessively compact. The winter freeze-thaw cycle will “rake” the seed in for you. When spring seeding, the seed should be lightly raked into the soil. This will prevent the seed from washing out, drying out in the sun, and predation from birds. • For large sites, typically greater than an acre, a no-till drill will reduce seeding time and eliminate the need for soil loosening and raking soil in. • New seeds should be seeded at the recommended rate for each new species. If possible, consider sourcing seed from nearby native plant communities. Prairie Restoration The goal of restoration is often returning a landscape to its condition prior to disturbance or improving ecological function at a large-scale. For the purposes of this document, it is used to describe the process of converting the landscape to a native plant community that would be appropriate to the soils, geographic location, hydrology, current tree cover, etc. The process is a more comprehensive form of 41 management that often involves removing the current vegetation and reintroducing the native species through seed or plants. In the context of prairie and wetland restoration, it involves a site preparation, seeding and maintenance. The goal of the site preparation is to kill existing vegetation and prepare the surface to ensure that the seed is in contact with the soil. However, once the existing vegetation has been removed, the soil should be disturbed as little as possible to reduce the germination of any weed seed in the soil. Often land managers resolve this conflict in one of two ways: 1) Preparing the soil and broadcasting- vegetation is killed off and removed (often with prescribed burning); the soil surface is prepared with tilling, disking and/or harrowing; the restoration area is left to allow the weeds to germinate and be re-killed; seed is broadcast and lightly incorporated with harrowing and any erosion control is added. 2) Drill seeding - vegetation is killed off and removed (often with prescribed burning); this step is often repeated until the weeds are considered under control; seed is drilled into the area with a seed drill and any erosion control needed is added. There are variations to the above strategies and each strategy has benefits and shortcomings. The decision to disturb the soil versus drill into existing soil often depends on the land use history, the type and quantity of invasive species present, the soil type, and the time of year of the seeding. The time of year of the seeding will also influence the outcome of the prairie. Spring seedings are completed prior to June 30th (see Appendix E). These seedings tend to favor the prairie grasses and provide stable, but less diverse prairie plantings. Dormant seedings occur after November 1st and freeze up; frost seedings occur when the ground is frozen. These seedings tend to have more diversity and abundance of flower species, but less germination of the native prairie grasses. Management of the prairie installation is critical to the success of the restoration, especially for the first two growing seasons. Depending on the timing of the seeding, the 1st growing season will be the first few months for a spring seeding or the following spring and summer for a dormant or frost seeding. The flush of vegetation that emerges after seeding is often the cover crop that has been planted for erosion control and annual weeds. To ensure that the cover crop and weeds do not prevent sunlight from reaching the germinating prairie seeds, it is recommended to mow the prairie for the first two growing seasons. When the planting reaches 12-15 inches in height, the prairie is mown to a height of 6-8 inches. Typically, this is needed about 2-3 times per growing season. Prescribed burning is recommended at the beginning of the 3rd growing season and then at 3-5 year intervals, depending on the management goals. Some amount of IPM is needed every year to ensure the long-term success of the prairie. When a retired or current agricultural field has the goal of savanna restoration, a prairie restoration will be completed first and the trees and shrubs will be planted after establishment. Often, a degraded oak woodland is the current land cover for savanna restoration. That approach often involves tree and shrub removal, prescribed burning, and enhancing with interseeding. 42 Restoring Ecosystem Processes Prescribed burning Historically, fire played one of the key ecological roles in the development of prairies, savannas and woodlands. The frequency of fire varied from annually to every 50 years and was started by lightning or was set intentional by American Indians. Fires set back the woody growth and encouraged the prairie grasses and flowers. Since European settlement, fire on the landscape has largely been suppressed. Many of the prairies and savannas that depend on fire have now become overgrown with woody vegetation. Prescribed burning is used to mimic these historic fires and can be one of the most efficient and effective tools to manage prairies, savannas, and woodlands. On the protected land, fires could be used for the following objectives: • Reduce encroachment of woody species (non-indigenous or otherwise). • Reduce the cover of non-indigenous herbaceous species. • Encourage growth of native grasses and flowers. • Remove standing dead material. • Invigorate brushlands. • Improve wildlife habitat. The objectives of a burn should be established to determine factors such as the location of the burn, the time of year to implement, the weather conditions and intensity of the burn. Generally, it is not recommended to burn more than a third of a given area in any one season to maintain habitat for desired species that may not be tolerant of burning. Trails are often used as firebreaks, but firebreaks can be installed and temporary if necessary. Grazing In addition to fire, grazing by animals such as bison or elk has long played a role in shaping the North American grassland ecosystems. Historically, grazers were responsible for creating patch disturbances on the landscape that allowed for a greater number of flowering species to flourish. Today, conservation grazing, or “managed grazing” utilizes animals such as goats, sheep, cattle, and bison to mimic historical disturbance regimes, provide weed suppression, and increase habitat diversity or “heterogeneity” on the landscape. Animals used for prescribed grazing are selected based on their grazing habits and food preference. Goats tend to target soft material from 43 woody species off of the ground, whereas sheep and cattle target grasses and softer herbaceous growth. Results with these different animals will have a range of results and should be selected accordingly based on desired outcomes. The feasibility or efficacy of grazing as a management tool depends on several factors, including: • The size of the land parcel • Number of grazable acres • Desired type of livestock • Allowable stocking rate based on grazable acres • Nearby by shade and water sources • Quarantine and exclosure areas • Perimeter fencing requirements; etc. One common approach to conservation grazing is to use brief intensive grazing events when a non- indigenous plant is at its peak growth or when the plant may to more susceptible to defoliation. Often one of the most challenging issues in prairie restoration is the dominance of non-indigenous cool season grasses such as brome, reed canary grass, and Kentucky blue grass. These grasses can become so dominant that they start outcompeting native vegetation, eventually leading to a decline in overall plant diversity. Because cattle graze primarily on grasses, they can help reduce the cover of these non- indigenous cool season grasses and release other plants from competition. The timing of the grazing application typically occurs in spring and/or fall when the cool season grasses are active. Conservation grazing can also enhance the structure of the grassland community by creating a diversity of cover types—from short to tall, thick duff to open ground layer, or a combination in close proximity. This diversity or “habitat heterogeneity” in turn favors a diversity of wildlife with unique habitat preferences and requirements. It is important to consult with a qualified rangeland or natural resource manager to determine if grazing is an appropriate management tool for your land. Haying In addition to, or in place of grazing, haying can be used to achieve many of the same management objectives in grasslands. Mechanical harvest through haying can be used to remove non-indigenous species, remove biomass and reduce nitrogen, and manipulate growth stages of habitat. The timing of the haying event is the most critical factor. Similar to grazing and prescribed burning, haying should occur when the undesirable species are at their most vulnerable stage of growth, typically peak. The following are some general recommendations: • If grassland birds are heavily using the area for nesting, avoid haying during the nesting season of May 15th-August 1st. • To maximize the yield of palatable forage and its protein content, cut when the warm season grasses are sending up their flower stalks, usually late July or early August. • To favor spring and early summer-blooming flowers, hay in mid-summer. The late summer and fall blooming species are harvested before they can flower and produce seed. 44 • If haying before August 1st, leave corners, odd areas, or 30 to 60 foot borders along field edges from getting hayed to provide for ground nesting wildlife. • Typically, less than 1/3 of any given site will undergo management in a single year. • Leave all regrowth following haying for winter and nesting cover. Tree Removal Managing woodlands and savanna using tree removal is an important part of restoring the structure and composition of that plant community. Selective harvesting should use the following guidelines: • Try to mimic natural disturbance patterns such as wind throws and fire. These disturbances create forest openings to provide sunlit patches. • Ensure the presence of snags (dead standing trees) and fallen logs to provide habitat. Over 85 North American bird species feed, nest or roost in decaying trees. Many reptiles and amphibians live under rotting logs on the forest floor and feed on the invertebrates that are supported by the decaying wood. • Limit the construction of logging roads and skid trails and favor harvest techniques that minimize soil disturbance to reduce mortality and loss of suitable habitat. • Postpone timber harvests within or adjacent to valuable oak forests in the high-risk zone when oaks are most susceptible to infection, from April 1 through July 15. • Practice “Come clean, Leave clean” (See Appendix F) to prevent the spread on terrestrial invasive species. Record-keeping Keeping accurate records of management activities will be critical in understanding how the landscape is responding. In addition to recording activities, surveying ecological conditions is critical to set a baseline while ecological monitoring provides feedback for the ecosystem response to restoration and management activities. Below are some of the surveying and monitoring activities: Surveying • Distribution of buckthorn– Survey data would not only include location, but information on density of coverage and size class to determine the number of years before becoming reproductive as well as the removal approach. • Distribution of garlic mustard - Survey data would not only include location, but information on density of coverage to prioritize removal. • Species presence absence – Vegetative sampling of species presence absence by management unit to determine ecological health and for potential seed collection sources. Monitoring • Photo documentation – Qualitative monitoring using a photo point program uses photos at fixed reference points to document changes on the landscape. Because buckthorn is the most prominent 45 non-indigenous species, the recommended timing for the photos to be taken is in October when buckthorn still holding it leaves but native shrubs and trees have gone dormant. • Vegetation plots/transects – Quantitative monitoring to determine the vegetative response to restoration and management activities. Potential monitoring data includes the percent cover of invasive species pre- and post- treatment, native species diversity pre- and post- treatment, and size and distribution of pine and oak regeneration in the understory. Adaptive Management While surveying and monitoring are important to document baseline conditions, evaluating response of the ecosystem using research is necessary to make management decisions considering uncertainty. Adaptive management consists of a cycle of implementation, monitoring, evaluation, and adjustment which leads to more implementation and repeats indefinitely 46 Information Sources County History | Washington County, MN - Official website. (n.d.). https://www.co.washington.mn.us/102/County-History Minnesota Planning (Agency). (n.d.). Minnesota Land use and cover: historic. MN IT Services. https://www.mngeo.state.mn.us/chouse/land_use_historic.html White, D. (n.d.). Level III and IV maps and descriptions. Ecological Regions of Minnesota. https://gaftp.epa.gov/EPADataCommons/ORD/Ecoregions/mn/mn_eco_desc.pdf MHAPO. (n.d.). https://apps.lib.umn.edu/mhapo/ St. Paul-Baldwin Plains and Moraines Subsection. (n.d.). Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/ecs/222Md/index.html Bedrock Geology. (n.d.). University of Minnesota Geological Survey. https://conservancy.umn.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/bde71cad-4215-44af-9cda- 18c45d5cde6e/content Web Soil Survey. (n.d.). https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Generalized Land Use 2020 - Minnesota Geospatial Commons. (n.d.). https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/us- mn-state-metc-plan-generl-lnduse2020 MNDNR. 2004. Minnesota Land Cover Classification System User Manual. Version 5.3. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Central Region. Native Plant Community Classification. (n.d.). Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/npc/classification.html Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Field Guide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota: The Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province. Ecological Land Classification Program, Minnesota Biological Survey, and Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program. MNDNR St. Paul, MN, 2005. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Living with Wildlife: Nuisance Animals. https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/livingwith_wildlife/index.html Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Tomorrow’s Habitat for the Wild and Rare: An Action Plan for Minnesota Wildlife. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. MNDNR, St. Paul, MN, 2006. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Play, Clean, Go. 47 https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrial/prevent_the_spread.html. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Terrestrial Invasive Species - Identification and Management. https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrial/id.html Minnesota Department of Agriculture. Noxious and Invasive Weed Program. https://www.mda.state.mn.us/plants-insects/noxious-and-invasive-weed-program St. Croix Valley Foundation. North woods and Water of the St. Croix National Heritage Area Feasibility Study. St. Croix Valley Foundation. 2014. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. https://www.fws.gov/hunting/north-american-model-of-wildlife-conservation.html Wovcha, Daniel S, et al. Minnesota’s St. Croix River Valley and Anoka Sandplain: A guide to Native Habitats. University of Minnesota Press, 1995. Cottage Grove Parks and Recreation- Official website. Parks & Recreation | Cottage Grove, MN Washington County Historical Society- Cottage Grove- Official website Cottage Grove – Washington County Historical Society 48 List of Appendices Appendix A: Soil Classifications Appendix B: Native Plant Communities FDs37 WMn82 Mrn93 MHs39 MHs49 Appendix C: Invasive Species • Smooth brome (Bromus inermis) • Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) • Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) • Honeysuckles (Lonicera sp.) • Common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) • Amur maple (Acer ginnala) • Dame’s rocket (Hesperis matronalis) • Crown vetch (Securigera varia) • Spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe) • Glossy Buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula L. • Wild parsnip (Pastinaca sativa) • Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) • Tansy (Tanacetum vulgare) • Grecian foxglove (Digitalis lanata) • Barberries (Berberis sp.) • Roundleaf bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus) Appendix D: Climate Ready Woodlands Appendix E: BWSR Recommended Restoration Seeding Dates Appendix F: Clean Play Go; Come Clean, Leave Clean. 1 City Council Action Request 7.X. Meeting Date 4/1/2026 Department Community Development Agenda Category Action Item Title Ravara Trails – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Recommendation Adopt Resolution 2026-055 approving an amendment to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to re-guide 9.3 acres from High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and authorize staff to submit the amendment to the Metropolitan Council. Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. Ravara Trails Comp Plan Amendment CC Memo 2. Ravara Trails Comp Plan Amendment Resolution 2026-055 3. Ravara Trails Narrative TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator FROM: Samantha Pierret, Senior Planner DATE: March 24, 2026 RE: Ravara Trails – Comprehensive Plan Amendment Proposal Twin Cities Land Development has submitted an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re-guide 9.3 acres of the proposed Ravara Trails development east of Keats Avenue, north of 77th Street, and south of 70th Street, from High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. Review Schedule Application Received: March 20, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting: March 23, 2026 City Council Meeting: April 1, 2026 120-Day Review Deadline: July 17, 2026 Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt Background At its March 18, 2026, meeting the City Council approved the Preliminary Plat, Planned Unit De- velopment, Minor Subdivision, and Zoning Amendment applications by Twin Cities Land Devel- opment for Ravara Trails (4-1 vote). The Ravara Trails development will consist of 306 townhome lots and 269 single family lots on 148.72 acres. The area is guided Low, Medium, and High Density Residential and Parks/Open Space in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. As part of the construction permitting process, the developer is required to obtain a sewer connection permit from the Met Council. Upon receipt of a sewer connection permit application from the developer, Met Council notified City staff that they would not approve the sewer connection permit unless a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is approved by Met Council to re-guide the area guided as High Density Residential to correspond directly to the density proposed in Ravara Trails. For multiple decades, density averaging across a development area has been approved by the Met Council in Cottage Grove and other metro cities. The Met Council has now stated that density averaging across a development is not allowed and a development must meet density standards within the specific areas mapped in the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. High Density Residential areas are proposed to have 14 to 30 units per acre. Medium Density Residential areas are proposed to have 5 to 13 units per acre. Low Density Residential areas are proposed to have 2 to 4 units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan guides the actions of the community by presenting a vision for the future by identifying policies, strategies, and investments the community will undertake while providing a repository of information. The Comprehensive Plan occasionally utilizes land use mapping strategies that do not follow property lines or use ninety-degree angles. Proposed development may not practically be able to meet the exact land use boundary configurations on the future land use map that do not always follow property lines. These configurations are used by the City to guide the amount of density within an area, thereby guiding utility, park, transportation, and other needs of the area. The future land use map is not intended to design development or designate specific parcels or acreage for each land use type but rather provide a guide and a target. Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt Communities rely on landowners who are willing to sell their land for development. By mapping future land use classifications without strict adherence to property lines, development may occur on properties of willing land sellers at a density and scale planned for and desired by the com- munity while also not strictly assigning specific development types and densities onto individual parcels where there may be landowners that are not ready to sell. Proposed Re-Guidance 2040 Proposed Land Use Acres (Minus Major ROWs) Anticipated Units (Acreage x Midpoint of Density Range) Proposed Units Required Units Per Acre Proposed Density (Units Per Acre) Medium Density Residential 43.81 394.29 362 5 to 13 8.26 Low Density Residential 72.59 217.77 213 2 to 4 2.93 TOTAL 116.4 612.06 575 2040 Current Land Use Acres (Minus Major ROWs) Anticipated Units (Acreage x Midpoint of Density Range) Proposed Units Required Units Per Acre Proposed Density (Units Per Acre) High Density Residential 8.67 190.74 54 14 to 30 6.23 Medium Density Residential 35.14 316.26 308 5 to 13 8.76 Low Density Residential 72.59 217.77 213 2 to 4 2.93 TOTAL 116.4 724.77 575 Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt Met Council Consideration If approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, City staff will then submit the amendment to the Metropolitan Council for review and approval. The Met Council is required to review and approve all Comprehensive Plan amendments. The City’s Met Council Sector Representative verified that the proposal does not require adjacent community review. The Met Council will determine if the proposed amendment can be reviewed administratively after sub- mittal. Administrative review is allowed if the proposed amendment complies with the following standards, at the discretion of Met Council staff. 1. Conformance to regional systems plans 2. Consistent with Metropolitan Council policies 3. Consistent with local controls or the jurisdiction submits evidence that the local controls will be modified to be consistent with the proposed amendment 4. Consistent with Metropolitan Urban Service Area Implementation Guidelines 5. Compatible with the plans of affected and adjacent jurisdictions 6. Proposes a changed forecast that falls within five percent of the Met Council’s current forecasts 7. Proposes a land use change resulting in an increase or decrease in development capacity of less than 250 housing units, determined by using the midpoint density to calculate the difference between proposed allowable units and current allowable units (this project will decrease midpoint density by approximately 112.71 units in the area currently guided High Density) 8. Proposes a land use change affecting less than 80 acres 9. Does not have the potential for a cumulative impact The proposed land use amendment from High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and land use map from the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan are consistent in the following ways: • The proposed development helps provide the City with a diverse mix of housing types that are needed to serve varying income levels and stages in the life cycle. • Trail and sidewalk connections are proposed and acceptable to the City. • The proposed roadway layout is consistent with the contemplated roadway classifications in the transportation plan. • The proposed density of 8.26 units per acre in the total area proposed to be guided Medium Density is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Medium Density Residential classification. • The approved preliminary plat is consistent with the medium density and low density residen- tial land use designations for this area. Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt Planning Commission Meeting At their March 23, 2026, meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed this request and held a public hearing. The Planning Commission asked questions regarding the timeline for Met Council consideration of the proposed amendment. Staff verified the administrative review timeline versus full Met Council review timeline and noted that the Met Council will have 15 business days after the amendment is submitted to determine if the review will be administrative or require formal Met Council review and approval. The Planning Commission voted unanimously (6-0) to recommend the City Council approve the requests. Public hearing notices were mailed to 112 property owners who are within 500 feet of the proposed subdivision and published in the St. Paul Pioneer Press on March 11, 2026. Recommendation The City Council is recommended to adopt Resolution 2026-055 approving an amendment to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to re-guide 9.3 acres from High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and authorize staff to submit the amendment to the Metropolitan Council. Attachments Ravara Trails Application Narrative CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT WHEREAS, the Minnesota Land Planning Act requires all metropolitan area communities, when amending and updating their comprehensive plans, to submit the plans to the Metropolitan Council for approval; and WHEREAS, Twin Cities Land Development has applied for a comprehensive plan amendment to the Land Use chapter of the City of Cottage Grove’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan to re-guide land within the proposed development to be called Ravara Trails from High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the request on March 23, 2026. At that time the Planning Commission recommended approval by a 6-to-0 vote. Staff concurs and recommends that the City Council approve the comprehensive plan amend- ment; and WHEREAS, on April 1, 2026, the City Council considered an application from Twin Cities Land Development for an amendment to the Cottage Grove 2040 Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation from High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential for the legally described land above. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, approves the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Amendment and authorizes staff to submit the proposed amendment to the Metropolitan Council for review. Passed this 1st day of April 2026. Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: Tamara Anderson, City Clerk 4800 Olson Memorial Hwy, Suite 100 Golden Valley, MN 55422 www.TCLandDev.com RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAT/PUD SUBMITTAL Twin Cities Land Development (TCLD) is pleased to submit the Preliminary Plat, Planned Unit Development (PUD), Rezoning, and Minor Subdivision for the proposed Ravara Trails Development. This development is located along Keats Ave South, between 77th Street South and 80th Street South. We respectfully request Preliminary Plat, PUD, Rezoning, and Minor Subdivision approval from the Planning Commission and City Council to advance this thoughtfully designed community that aligns with the city’s comprehensive plan and supports long-term growth objectives. PROPERTY / DEVELOPMENT SITE INFORMATION EXISTING SITE DESCRIPTION Address: Unassigned PIDs: 1102721240001, 1102721320001, 1102721310001, 1102721230001, 1102721330001 Total Acres: 148.72 acres Existing Zoning: Agricultural Existing Guide Plan: Low Density Residential, Med Density Residential, High Density Residential 2 Ravara Trails – Preliminary Plat/PUD Development Narrative The site is located along Keats Avenue South, north of 80th Street South and south of 70th Street South within Cottage Grove. The development encompasses five existing parcels totaling approximately 148.72 acres. The land includes an existing farmstead and is predominantly active farmland, offering a diverse and adaptable landscape for residential development. The site’s topography ranges from an elevation of approximately 884 feet on the east side to 972 feet on the north side, indicating a gradual rise across the property. A regional low point is located on the eastern portion of the site, which presently serves as a natural drainage basin for much of the relatively flat surrounding terrain. The site is currently served by a sanitary sewer stub connected to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) trunk line, which runs parallel to Keats Avenue South along the western boundary. Watermain stubs are also available within Keats Avenue, providing convenient access for the proposed development. Additionally, a South Washington Watershed stormwater trunkline runs along the eastern edge of the site, offering a direct connection point for the planned onsite stormwater management system. 3 Ravara Trails – Preliminary Plat/PUD Development Narrative SITE PLAN Single Family 65’ x 140 lots 164 Single Family 40’ X 130’ lots 105 Urban Townhomes 192 Suburban Townhomes 114 TOTAL Units: 575 4 Ravara Trails – Preliminary Plat/PUD Development Narrative GENERAL DESCRIPTION The Ravara Trail development site plan includes a total of 575 residential units, featuring a diverse mix of townhome and single-family housing types. This composition aligns with the vision outlined in the East Ravine Master Plan Area’s comprehensive plan. The unit breakdown consists of 3, 4, 5, and 6-unit urban row townhomes, 4 and 6-unit suburban row townhomes; as well as single-family homes on 40-foot and 65-foot-wide lots. The proposed location is particularly well-suited for this variety of housing due to several key factors, including: 1. Alignment with the Comprehensive Plan The proposed housing mix directly supports the vision outlined in the East Ravine Master Plan, which calls for a balanced blend of low, medium and high-density residential options. This ensures consistency with long-term city planning goals by providing a desirable place to live. 2. Strong Market Demand A recent housing market analysis identified a significant unmet need for higher-value, move-up housing in Cottage Grove. Ravara Trails is designed to meet this need by offering a diverse mix of homes that appeal to first-time homebuyers, growing families who want to stay in the community, and empty nesters looking to downsize while remaining in the community. 3. Preserves and Provides Access to Natural Resources The development plan incorporates green space and natural drainage features, supporting the City’s goal to protect natural resources and environmental systems. Located adjacent to the planned East Ravine Park and Trail, as well as near the existing 500-acre Cottage Grove Ravine Regional Park, the site offers residents immediate access to scenic trails, wooded ravines, and numerous recreational opportunities. This natural setting enhances quality of life and adds long-term appeal to the neighborhood. In addition, the community’s trail network will ultimately connect to the surrounding trail system, creating seamless access for residents and promoting walkability. 4. Infrastructure and Connectivity This development will provide direct access to Ravine Parkway and Keats Avenue, allowing residents and the community convenient access to major transportation corridors, including Interstate 494, Highway 61 and Highway 95, as well as express transit routes to downtown Saint Paul and Minneapolis. This makes it an attractive location for commuters and enhances regional accessibility. 5. Proximity to schools Centrally located in Cottage Grove, the proposed development offers families convenient access to the assigned schools within the South Washington School District (SoWashCo Schools). Grey Cloud Elementary and Cottage Grove Middle School, both located just west of the neighborhood, are easily reachable by foot or bike, making daily commutes simple and safe for students. Park Senior High School provides a wide range of academic and extracurricular opportunities to support student development. 5 Ravara Trails – Preliminary Plat/PUD Development Narrative LAND USE AND ZONING REGULATIONS The property is guided as a mix of Low Density Residential, Med Density Residential and High Density Residential. The development of the property will rezone the parcel to Low Density Residential and Med Density Residential, generally keeping overall density. Land uses for the properties adjacent to the site are guided with: • To North: Commercial and High Density Residential • To West: Low Density Residential and School • To South: Low Density Residential • To East: Low Density Residential and Park/Open Space 6 Ravara Trails – Preliminary Plat/PUD Development Narrative DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS The following is a summary of the proposed development lot standards and setbacks: Urban Townhome Dimensions Width – 3 Unit, 4 Unit, 5 Unit, 6 Unit Depth – 45 feet Suburban Townhome Dimensions Width – 4 Unit, 6 Unit Depth – 57 feet 40’ Single Family Pad Dimensions Width – 30 feet Depth – 70 feet 65’ Single Family Pad Dimension Width – 52.5 feet Depth – 65 feet Urban Townhome Setbacks Front Door – 15 feet Front Door along Keats Ave – 25 feet Garage Door – 25 feet Perimeter – 30 feet Townhome Corner – 20 feet Between townhome Buildings – 20 feet Suburban Townhome Setbacks Front – 25 feet Perimeter – 30 feet Townhome Corner – 20 feet Between townhome Buildings – 15 feet Single Family Setbacks Front – 25 feet Rear – 35 feet Corner Side Yard – 20 feet Side Yard (40’ wide) – 5’/5’ Side Yard (65’ wide) – 7.5’/5’ (garage) Townhome Parking: Garage: 306 stalls Driveway: 306 stalls Guest: 73 stalls Total: 685 stalls Proposed ROW Internal ROW – 60 feet Indian Blvd ROW – 80 feet Ravine Parkway – 140 feet 7 Ravara Trails – Preliminary Plat/PUD Development Narrative Proposed Development Area/Calculations: Total Development Gross Site Area: 148.72 acres Keats Ave ROW: 7.44 acres Easements: SWWD Stormsewer Easement Area: 3.16 acres Met Council Easement: 3.43 acres Northern Gas Easement: 4.48 acres PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FLEXIBILITY AND BENEFITS The project is requesting flexibility from zoning standards for Villa single family homes and Urban townhomes. The Villa single family homes are requesting flexibility for 2 of 9 R-4 dimensional standards. The townhomes are requesting flexibility for 1 of 9 R-5 dimensional standards. Dimensional flexibility being requested for each is as follows: Villa Single Family Required Proposed lot width 45 feet 40 feet Sideyard setback 7.5 feet 5 feet Urban Townhomes Required Proposed Front Setback 25 feet 15 feet The project is also requesting flexibility from a 50-foot landscape buffer to Keats Avenue of 25 feet for the Urban Townhomes and 35 feet for the single family lots south of Indian Boulevard. A landscape buffer reduction for these areas was not presented as part of the concept plan submittal as the plan was based on anticipated Keats Avenue right-of-way of 120 feet. Since that time, Washington county has requested a total right-of-way width of 180 feet, which requires an additional 60 feet east of Keats Avenue to total 120 feet east of the Keats Avenue centerline. It should be noted that 30 feet of the requested 120 feet of right-of-way comes as a result of additional right-of-way no longer being available west of Keats Avenue due to homes in that area. Had 30 feet of additional right-of-way been available to the west the project would not require flexibility for the 50-foot landscape buffer zoning standards. It should be noted that a Landscape Buffer of 85 feet for the Urban Townhomes and 95 feet for the single-family homes will appear to exist until Washington County reconstructs Keats Avenue and occupies the additional right-of-way being requested. The applicant respectfully requests consideration of the following project elements in exchange for flexibility to the 4 zoning standards previously identified: 1. Ravine Parkway realignment through the entire site of which approximately half is located off site and to the east per the Comprehensive plan. 2. Keats Avenue right-of-way dedication and additional 30 feet no longer available to the west. 3. City Park & water tower dedication. 4. A variety of life cycle housing products and pricing options, which is consistent with the Cities Comprehensive Plan. 5. Public and private open spaces 6. A network of trails extending through the site and connecting to existing trails. 8 Ravara Trails – Preliminary Plat/PUD Development Narrative PARK AND OPEN SPACE The site plan includes 4.15 acres of open space on the north end of the site, which will be dedicated to the City of Cottage Grove. Just southeast of the development lies the future East Ravine Park, a key component of the city’s long-term recreational vision. A pedestrian trail along Ravine Parkway will connect the proposed neighborhood to nearby parks, enhancing walkability and outdoor access. Thoughtfully integrated throughout the plan are multiple green spaces, designed to encourage community interaction, support neighborhood gatherings, and create inclusive, accessible environments that strengthen social cohesion. STREET DESIGN AND ACCESS The development will have two access points from Keats Ave. One access point at Indian Blvd, which will be extended east through the site and the other access point at 77th St. S. The roadways within the development will be public roads that are 32 feet face to face within a 60-foot right-of-way and private roads that are 22 and 26 feet face to face. Ravine Parkway will not be constructed with the development. MASS GRADING The site is anticipated to be mass graded in one phase, in accordance with the City of Cottage Grove’s specifications and guidelines. The proposed grading will maintain the current drainage patterns. SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN Adequate sanitary sewer is available for connection into the existing MCES Gravity Sewer on the west side of the site. A stub is provided in the northeast corner of the Indian Blvd S and Keats Ave S intersection. Watermain for the site will be served by two connections on the west side of the site. One connection will be in the Keats Ave S and Indian Blvd S intersection and the other will be in the 77th St S and Keats Ave S intersection. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT The site will comply with all applicable requirements of the City of Cottage Grove stormwater management plan. The stormwater plan is to have four stormwater management basins on site with the ultimate discharge to SWWD storm line running through the site. WETLANDS A Wetland Report completed by Kjolhaug, dated January 24th, 2025, identified no Wetlands on the site. TREE PRESERVATION AND LANDSCAPING Trees are generally located near the existing home, in a small woodland area near the future water tower and along the north end of the east property boundary, which amounts to 3,907 caliper inches. Trees surrounding the 9 Ravara Trails – Preliminary Plat/PUD Development Narrative existing home and east boundary will be impacted as a result of site grading and total 2,805 caliper inches, which will require 1,102 caliper inches of tree replacement. The current landscape plan proposes 2,485 caliper inches of tree replacement, which complies with the City of Cottage Grove Tree Preservation code. HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES To ensure a visually appealing neighborhood, Ravara Trails will establish a Master Homeowners Association (HOA) that will enforce architectural guidelines promoting diversity and visual interest among homes. These guidelines include tracking mechanisms to prevent monotony and ensure varied styles, materials, and colors. The HOA will also ensure the long-term upkeep of common community amenities to preserve their superior quality and attractiveness. This includes overseeing the proposed entrance monument and cluster mailbox units. The HOA will oversee a review and approval process for all designs, aiming to maintain a vibrant streetscape and uphold high aesthetic standards. We believe this approach will enhance our community and contribute positively to Cottage Grove’s architectural landscape. BUILDER INFORMATION Twin Cities Land Development anticipates partnering with multiple builders for this community including Creative Homes and Robert Thomas Homes. Townhome construction will likely be divided among builders based on product type. One to three builders are expected to handle the single-family homes. CONCEPTUAL, ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS The architectural renderings we are sharing below serve as representative examples to illustrate the general dimensions and massing of the homes that could potentially be constructed on the proposed lot sizes. These renderings are intended to provide a visual reference to help stakeholders understand the possible spatial characteristics of the homes within the Ravara Trails community. It’s important to note that specific architectural designed tailored for Ravara Trails will be developed and submitted for city review and approval as part of the final application process. Future final designs will ensure compliance with the City’s regulations and reflect the unique character envisioned for this community. 10 Ravara Trails – Preliminary Plat/PUD Development Narrative CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PRECEDENTS – 22’ URBAN TOWNHOMES – HOME ENTRANCE ON ONE SIDE, GARAGE ON OTHER SIDE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PRECEDENTS – SUBURBAN TOWNHOME – HOME ENTRANCE AND GARAGE ENTRANCE ON THE SAME SIDE. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PRECEDENTS – 40’ LOTS, SINGLE FAMILY 11 Ravara Trails – Preliminary Plat/PUD Development Narrative CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PRECEDENTS – 65’ LOTS, SINGLE FAMILY CONCLUSION Twin Cities Land Development is pleased to submit the Preliminary Plat, Planned Unit Development (PUD), Rezoning, and Minor Subdivision application for the Ravara Trails project. We believe the proposed site plan is consistent with the goals and long-term vision of the City of Cottage Grove. We look forward to delivering a high-quality residential development and respectfully request approval of these applications to advance Ravara Trails to the mass grading stage. 12 Ravara Trails – Preliminary Plat/PUD Development Narrative ABOUT US The TCLD team has experience in every facet of Twin Cities real estate development, investment, and management. The project team has developed thousands of single-family and multi-family lots, establishing itself as the most prominent local lot developer in the Twin Cities. As a trusted residential developer, our track record speaks for itself. Over the years, we have successfully brought numerous projects to life, earning a reputation for integrity, reliability, and exceptional results. Our diverse portfolio showcases our ability to adapt to evolving market trends and deliver projects that stand the test of time. LOCAL DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE 13 Ravara Trails – Preliminary Plat/PUD Development Narrative DEVELOPMENT TEAM Developer/Contract Buyer: TCLD Land Holdings, LLC 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 100 Golden Valley, MN 55422 Ben Schmidt, President Ben@TCLandDev.com (612)-716-3047 Ashley D’Alessandro, Development Manager Ashley@TClandDev.com (651) 587-7983 Tracey Rust, Vice President Tracey@TClandDev.com (952) 221-2566 Civil Engineer/Surveyor: Alliant Engineering, Inc. 733 Marquette Ave, Ste 700 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Clark Wicklund, Vice President cwicklund@alliant-inc.com (612) 490-2431 Logan Josephson, Engineer ljosephson@alliant-inc.com (612) 767-9306 Dan Ekrem, Surveyor dekrem@alliant-inc.com (612) 767-9326 Legal: Mark Radke mradke@felhaber.com 1 City Council Action Request 7.Y. Meeting Date 4/1/2026 Department Administration Agenda Category Action Item Title Acting Public Safety Director and CLEO Appointment Staff Recommendation Effective April 2, 2026, appoint Brad Petersen as the Acting Public Safety Director and Chief Law Enforcement Officer. Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. Acting Public Safety Director & CLEO Appointment Memo Background As the City Council is aware, Pete Koerner will be retiring from active duty as the Public Safety Director on April 2nd. Staff is recommending that the City Council appoint Brad Petersen as the Acting Public Safety Director and Chief Law Enforcement Officer until such a time as the City Council appoints a Public Safety Director on a long-term basis. Action Requested Effective April 2nd, appoint Brad Petersen as the Acting Public Safety Director and Chief Law Enforcement Officer. To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Joe Fischbach, Human Resources Manager Date: March 30, 2026 Subject: Acting Public Safety Director and CLEO Appointment Memo 1 City Council Action Request 8.A. Meeting Date 4/1/2026 Department Finance Agenda Category Action Item Title Approve Disbursements Staff Recommendation Approve disbursements from 03-13-2026 through 03-26-2026 in the amount of $2,476,473.99. Budget Implication N/A Attachments 1. Expense Approval Report 4-1-2026 Council Meeting 2. Payroll Check Register 4-1-2026 Council Meeting 3. UB Check Register 4-1-26 Council Meeting 4. UB Check Register 4-1-26 Council Meeting-2 1 City Council Action Request 10.A. Meeting Date 4/1/2026 Department Engineering Agenda Category Action Item Title 80th Street, East Point Douglas Road, and TH 61/80th Street Interchange Rehabilitation Project – Bid Award Staff Recommendation Adopt Resolution 2026-059 authorizing the City Administrator to award the contract for the 80th Street (TH 61 to Ideal Ave), East Point Douglas Road (80th Street South to Tee Intersection), and TH 61/80th Street Interchange Rehabilitation Project to Park Construction Company for a project cost of $13,125,468.18 upon MnDOT Office of Civil Rights approval. Budget Implication $13,125,468.18 - MnDOT, Washington County, Federal, State Aid, Utility Funds, TIF, General Levy, & Special Assessments Attachments 1. 01 Bid Award Memo 2. 02 131481 Bid Results Letter 3. 03 2026-03-17 180-102-020 Abstract of Bids 4. 04 Bid Award Resolution To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Paul Sponholz, PE, City Engineer Date: March 25, 2026 Re: 80th Street (TH 61 to Ideal Ave), East Point Douglas Road (80th Street South to Tee Intersection), and TH 61/80th Street Interchange Rehabilitation Project – Bid Award Background th Street from Highway 61 to Ideal 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. Discussion Contractor Bid Amount Percentage Under/Over Estimate Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Jennifer Levitt MnDOT and Washington County are participants in the project. The City has concurrence from MnDOT and the County to award the project to the lowest bidder. The low bid was balanced and the bid amount for all three participants came under the engineer’s estimate. MnDOT’s portion of the low bid is $3,780,876.45, the County’s portion is $546,768.25, and the City’s portion is $8,797,823.48. Recommendation th Street (TH 61 to Ideal Ave), East Point Douglas Road (80th Street South to Tee Intersection), and TH 61/80th Street Interchange Rehabilitation Project to Park Construction Company for a project cost of $13,125,468.18 upon MnDOT Office of Civil Rights approval. H:\COTT\0N1131481\6_Plans-Specs\B_Bid Documents\131481 Bid Results Letter.doc March 23, 2026 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Cottage Grove 12800 Ravine Parkway South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Re: Bid Results TH 61 / 80th Street Rehabilitation SP 180-102-020 BMI Project No. 0N1.131481 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council: Bids for the TH 61 / 80th Street Rehabilitation Project were opened on Tuesday, March 17, 2026. A total of three (3) bids were received. Below is the summary of bids: Contractor Total 1. Park Construction Company $13,125,468.18 2. Meyer Contracting, Inc. $13,668,926.10 3. McNamara Contracting, Inc. $14,493,630.46 The low Bidder on the Project was Park Construction Company with a Total Bid Amount of $13,125,468.18, which was under the Engineer’s Estimate of $13,434,892.35. If the City Council decides to award the Project to the low bidder, then Park Construction Company should be awarded the Project on the Total Base Bid Amount of $13,125,468.18. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (651) 968-7674. Sincerely, Bolton & Menk, Inc. Michael Boex, PE ABSTRACT OF BIDS S.P. 180-102-020, S.P. 8205-159, S.P. 180-112-014, S.A.P. 082-639-008, S.A.P. 180-020-015 BMI PROJECT NO. 0N1.131481 BID DATE: 3/17/2026 TIME: 10:00 AM 1 2 3 ITEM MNDOT APPROX. NO. SPEC NO. ITEM QUANT. UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT ROADWAY 1 2011.601 AS BUILT 1 LUMP SUM $9,420.00 $9,420.00 $10,231.12 $10,231.12 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 2 2021.501 MOBILIZATION 1 LUMP SUM $1,053,200.00 $1,053,200.00 $690,367.56 $690,367.56 $616,000.00 $616,000.00 3 2041.610 TRAINEES 1100 HOUR $1.00 $1,100.00 $1.00 $1,100.00 $1.00 $1,100.00 4 2101.502 GRUBBING 15 EACH $185.00 $2,775.00 $111.82 $1,677.30 $125.00 $1,875.00 5 2102.503 PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL 17579 LIN FT $0.73 $12,832.67 $0.79 $13,887.41 $1.00 $17,579.00 6 2102.518 PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL 240 SQ FT $3.65 $876.00 $3.97 $952.80 $4.00 $960.00 7 2104.502 REMOVE CONCRETE APRON 3 EACH $408.00 $1,224.00 $495.89 $1,487.67 $400.00 $1,200.00 8 2104.502 REMOVE ANCHORAGE ASSEMBLY - TYPE 31 3 EACH $206.00 $618.00 $559.08 $1,677.24 $300.00 $900.00 9 2104.502 REMOVE LIGHTING UNIT 64 EACH $767.00 $49,088.00 $1,046.62 $66,983.68 $425.00 $27,200.00 10 2104.502 REMOVE MANHOLE OR CATCH BASIN 16 EACH $592.00 $9,472.00 $544.25 $8,708.00 $700.00 $11,200.00 11 2104.502 REMOVE DELINEATOR / MARKER 7 EACH $26.10 $182.70 $28.38 $198.66 $30.00 $210.00 12 2104.502 REMOVE SIGN 116 EACH $26.10 $3,027.60 $28.38 $3,292.08 $30.00 $3,480.00 13 2104.502 REMOVE HANDHOLE 5 EACH $325.00 $1,625.00 $364.69 $1,823.45 $332.00 $1,660.00 14 2104.502 REMOVE CABINET 4 EACH $592.00 $2,368.00 $663.60 $2,654.40 $604.00 $2,416.00 15 2104.502 REMOVE ENERGY ABSORBING TERMINAL 5 EACH $515.00 $2,575.00 $559.08 $2,795.40 $600.00 $3,000.00 16 2104.502 SALVAGE SERVICE CABINET 1 EACH $552.00 $552.00 $618.59 $618.59 $565.00 $565.00 17 2104.502 SALVAGE SIGN 17 EACH $26.10 $443.70 $28.38 $482.46 $30.00 $510.00 18 2104.503 SAWING CONCRETE PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) 2506 LIN FT $3.40 $8,520.40 $3.70 $9,272.20 $4.40 $11,026.40 19 2104.503 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) 6437 LIN FT $1.85 $11,908.45 $1.99 $12,809.63 $4.40 $28,322.80 20 2104.503 REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM) 525 LIN FT $22.00 $11,550.00 $23.09 $12,122.25 $20.00 $10,500.00 21 2104.503 REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER 12601 LIN FT $5.60 $70,565.60 $4.13 $52,042.13 $10.00 $126,010.00 22 2104.503 REMOVE GUARDRAIL-PLATE BEAM 3038 LIN FT $8.25 $25,063.50 $8.94 $27,159.72 $10.00 $30,380.00 23 2104.503 REMOVE UNDERGROUND WIRE 13600 LIN FT $1.15 $15,640.00 $1.27 $17,272.00 $0.43 $5,848.00 24 2104.503 REMOVE DIRECT BURIED LIGHTING CABLE 2500 LIN FT $2.65 $6,625.00 $2.99 $7,475.00 $2.70 $6,750.00 25 2104.503 SALVAGE CHAIN LINK FENCE 20 LIN FT $114.00 $2,280.00 $163.02 $3,260.40 $42.00 $840.00 26 2104.504 REMOVE CONCRETE MEDIAN 4006 SQ YD $14.60 $58,487.60 $11.09 $44,426.54 $10.00 $40,060.00 Meyer Contracting, Inc. Maple Grove, MN McNamara Contracting, Inc. Rosemount, MN TH 61 / 80TH STREET REHABILITATION MINN. PROJ. NO. CDS-NHPP 0061(355) Park Construction Company Minneapolis, MN ABSTRACT OF BIDS S.P. 180-102-020, S.P. 8205-159, S.P. 180-112-014, S.A.P. 082-639-008, S.A.P. 180-020-015 BMI PROJECT NO. 0N1.131481 BID DATE: 3/17/2026 TIME: 10:00 AM 1 2 3 ITEM MNDOT APPROX. NO. SPEC NO. ITEM QUANT. UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Meyer Contracting, Inc. Maple Grove, MN McNamara Contracting, Inc. Rosemount, MN TH 61 / 80TH STREET REHABILITATION MINN. PROJ. NO. CDS-NHPP 0061(355) Park Construction Company Minneapolis, MN 27 2104.504 REMOVE PAVEMENT 10070 SQ YD $15.40 $155,078.00 $9.53 $95,967.10 $25.00 $251,750.00 28 2104.504 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT 416 SQ YD $14.40 $5,990.40 $6.75 $2,808.00 $40.00 $16,640.00 29 2104.504 REMOVE CONCRETE APPROACH PANEL 788 SQ YD $47.90 $37,745.20 $18.31 $14,428.28 $40.00 $31,520.00 30 2104.504 REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT 395 SQ YD $12.30 $4,858.50 $13.51 $5,336.45 $20.00 $7,900.00 31 2104.504 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT 3555 SQ YD $9.30 $33,061.50 $8.46 $30,075.30 $20.00 $71,100.00 32 2104.504 REMOVE BITUMINOUS SHOULDER PAVEMENT 3900 SQ YD $4.30 $16,770.00 $8.47 $33,033.00 $10.00 $39,000.00 33 2104.518 REMOVE BITUMINOUS WALK 20742 SQ FT $1.30 $26,964.60 $0.49 $10,163.58 $2.00 $41,484.00 34 2104.518 REMOVE CONCRETE WALK 26047 SQ FT $1.65 $42,977.55 $0.98 $25,526.06 $2.00 $52,094.00 35 2104.601 REMOVE CABLES 1 LUMP SUM $2,220.00 $2,220.00 $2,492.82 $2,492.82 $2,300.00 $2,300.00 36 2104.601 HAUL SALVAGED MATERIAL 1 LUMP SUM $3,610.00 $3,610.00 $4,039.29 $4,039.29 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 37 2104.602 REMOVE SIGN SPECIAL 1 EACH $26.10 $26.10 $28.38 $28.38 $30.00 $30.00 38 2104.602 SALVAGE SIGN SPECIAL 4 EACH $26.10 $104.40 $28.38 $113.52 $30.00 $120.00 39 2104.602 ABANDON MANHOLE 1 EACH $1,130.00 $1,130.00 $1,084.97 $1,084.97 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 40 2104.602 REMOVE EXPOSED REBAR 1 EACH $532.00 $532.00 $1,487.11 $1,487.11 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 41 2104.602 REMOVE CONE SECTION 4 EACH $1,400.00 $5,600.00 $1,316.08 $5,264.32 $600.00 $2,400.00 42 2104.602 REMOVE MANHOLE STEP 9 EACH $156.00 $1,404.00 $185.89 $1,673.01 $200.00 $1,800.00 43 2104.602 REMOVE INSIDE DROP 1 EACH $2,280.00 $2,280.00 $882.90 $882.90 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 44 2106.507 EXCAVATION - COMMON 19508 CU YD $18.80 $366,750.40 $29.13 $568,268.04 $52.00 $1,014,416.00 45 2106.507 EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE 5239 CU YD $21.30 $111,590.70 $25.18 $131,918.02 $40.00 $209,560.00 46 2106.507 SELECT GRANULAR EMBANKMENT (CV) 4554 CU YD $53.30 $242,728.20 $29.97 $136,483.38 $40.00 $182,160.00 47 2106.507 COMMON EMBANKMENT (CV) 908 CU YD $6.35 $5,765.80 $6.51 $5,911.08 $20.00 $18,160.00 48 2106.607 EXCAVATION SPECIAL 446 CU YD $69.40 $30,952.40 $26.88 $11,988.48 $50.00 $22,300.00 49 2108.604 GEOMEMBRANE SYSTEM 288 SQ YD $125.00 $36,000.00 $133.62 $38,482.56 $30.00 $8,640.00 50 2118.507 AGGREGATE SURFACING (CV) CLASS 1 234 CU YD $66.00 $15,444.00 $67.24 $15,734.16 $100.00 $23,400.00 51 2123.610 STREET SWEEPER (WITH PICKUP BROOM) 100 HOUR $229.00 $22,900.00 $206.86 $20,686.00 $200.00 $20,000.00 52 2211.507 AGGREGATE BASE (CV) CLASS 5 2290 CU YD $29.30 $67,097.00 $60.50 $138,545.00 $30.00 $68,700.00 53 2211.604 AGGREGATE BASE SPECIAL (TRAIL) 2075 SQ YD $10.20 $21,165.00 $12.36 $25,647.00 $6.00 $12,450.00 ABSTRACT OF BIDS S.P. 180-102-020, S.P. 8205-159, S.P. 180-112-014, S.A.P. 082-639-008, S.A.P. 180-020-015 BMI PROJECT NO. 0N1.131481 BID DATE: 3/17/2026 TIME: 10:00 AM 1 2 3 ITEM MNDOT APPROX. NO. SPEC NO. ITEM QUANT. UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Meyer Contracting, Inc. Maple Grove, MN McNamara Contracting, Inc. Rosemount, MN TH 61 / 80TH STREET REHABILITATION MINN. PROJ. NO. CDS-NHPP 0061(355) Park Construction Company Minneapolis, MN 54 2211.607 AGGREGATE BASE SPECIAL (CV) 3210 CU YD $22.40 $71,904.00 $27.11 $87,023.10 $40.00 $128,400.00 55 2215.504 FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION 50882 SQ YD $2.70 $137,381.40 $5.51 $280,359.82 $6.18 $314,450.76 56 2215.504 STABILIZED FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION 32579 SQ YD $3.70 $120,542.30 $3.60 $117,284.40 $5.50 $179,184.50 57 2215.509 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR MIXTURE 407 TON $638.00 $259,666.00 $734.29 $298,856.03 $650.00 $264,550.00 58 2215.509 CEMENT 87 TON $229.00 $19,923.00 $263.62 $22,934.94 $350.00 $30,450.00 59 2215.509 AGGREGATE BASE 50 TON $46.70 $2,335.00 $41.36 $2,068.00 $60.00 $3,000.00 60 2301.502 DOWEL BAR 4964 EACH $12.40 $61,553.60 $11.18 $55,497.52 $13.00 $64,532.00 61 2301.504 CONCRETE PAVEMENT 8.0" 9539 SQ YD $92.70 $884,265.30 $80.00 $763,120.00 $95.00 $906,205.00 62 2301.602 DRILL AND GROUT DOWEL BAR (EPOXY COATED) 180 EACH $22.70 $4,086.00 $22.37 $4,026.60 $25.00 $4,500.00 63 2331.603 JOINT ADHESIVE 37131 LIN FT $0.60 $22,278.60 $0.66 $24,506.46 $0.25 $9,282.75 64 2360.509 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,C) 394 TON $112.00 $44,128.00 $110.60 $43,576.40 $105.00 $41,370.00 65 2360.509 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (3,B) 57 TON $331.00 $18,867.00 $221.40 $12,619.80 $200.00 $11,400.00 66 2360.509 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (4,F) 7866 TON $94.80 $745,696.80 $98.07 $771,418.62 $105.00 $825,930.00 67 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (3,B)507 TON $86.70 $43,956.90 $93.64 $47,475.48 $105.00 $53,235.00 68 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (4,B) 3131 TON $79.50 $248,914.50 $75.02 $234,887.62 $85.00 $266,135.00 69 2360.509 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (4,F)8653 TON $90.10 $779,635.30 $91.50 $791,749.50 $105.00 $908,565.00 70 2406.503 EXPANSION JOINTS; DESIGN E8 410 LIN FT $41.20 $16,892.00 $48.66 $19,950.60 $45.00 $18,450.00 71 2406.504 BRIDGE APPROACH PANELS 912 SQ YD $518.00 $472,416.00 $550.00 $501,600.00 $550.00 $501,600.00 72 2451.507 COARSE FILTER AGGREGATE (CV) 32 CU YD $166.00 $5,312.00 $111.62 $3,571.84 $120.00 $3,840.00 73 2451.507 FINE FILTER AGGREGATE (CV) 11 CU YD $132.00 $1,452.00 $102.87 $1,131.57 $100.00 $1,100.00 74 2501.502 12" RC PIPE APRON 1 EACH $1,120.00 $1,120.00 $1,096.04 $1,096.04 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 75 2501.602 TRASH GUARD FOR 12" PIPE APRON 1 EACH $356.00 $356.00 $359.02 $359.02 $500.00 $500.00 76 2502.502 6" PRECAST CONCRETE HEADWALL 1 EACH $716.00 $716.00 $687.47 $687.47 $600.00 $600.00 77 2502.503 6" TP PIPE DRAIN 150 LIN FT $19.50 $2,925.00 $24.04 $3,606.00 $40.00 $6,000.00 78 2502.503 6" PERF TP PIPE DRAIN 288 LIN FT $23.50 $6,768.00 $31.41 $9,046.08 $25.00 $7,200.00 79 2502.602 6" PVC PIPE DRAIN CLEANOUT 2 EACH $508.00 $1,016.00 $406.58 $813.16 $500.00 $1,000.00 80 2503.503 12" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS V 197 LIN FT $66.00 $13,002.00 $83.24 $16,398.28 $75.00 $14,775.00 ABSTRACT OF BIDS S.P. 180-102-020, S.P. 8205-159, S.P. 180-112-014, S.A.P. 082-639-008, S.A.P. 180-020-015 BMI PROJECT NO. 0N1.131481 BID DATE: 3/17/2026 TIME: 10:00 AM 1 2 3 ITEM MNDOT APPROX. NO. SPEC NO. ITEM QUANT. UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Meyer Contracting, Inc. Maple Grove, MN McNamara Contracting, Inc. Rosemount, MN TH 61 / 80TH STREET REHABILITATION MINN. PROJ. NO. CDS-NHPP 0061(355) Park Construction Company Minneapolis, MN 81 2503.503 15" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS V 617 LIN FT $70.00 $43,190.00 $67.67 $41,752.39 $80.00 $49,360.00 82 2503.503 18" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS V 41 LIN FT $73.00 $2,993.00 $80.41 $3,296.81 $85.00 $3,485.00 83 2503.503 27" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS III 417 LIN FT $104.00 $43,368.00 $102.21 $42,621.57 $100.00 $41,700.00 84 2503.503 33" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS III 32 LIN FT $133.00 $4,256.00 $156.69 $5,014.08 $130.00 $4,160.00 85 2503.602 CONSTRUCT BULKHEAD 1 EACH $818.00 $818.00 $608.04 $608.04 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 86 2503.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING STRUCTURE 1 EACH $2,720.00 $2,720.00 $1,971.57 $1,971.57 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 87 2503.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING PIPE 2 EACH $2,310.00 $4,620.00 $704.96 $1,409.92 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 88 2503.602 CONNECT EXISTING PIPE TO NEW STRUCTURE 15 EACH $2,270.00 $34,050.00 $2,092.74 $31,391.10 $2,000.00 $30,000.00 89 2503.602 4' CIPP LINER (8" PVC) 1 EACH $4,310.00 $4,310.00 $4,584.42 $4,584.42 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 90 2503.602 6' CIPP LINER (8" PVC) 1 EACH $4,730.00 $4,730.00 $5,031.69 $5,031.69 $6,500.00 $6,500.00 91 2503.602 4' CIPP LINER (12" RCP) 1 EACH $5,490.00 $5,490.00 $5,842.36 $5,842.36 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 92 2503.603 TELEVISE STORM SEWER 1304 LIN FT $4.50 $5,868.00 $5.83 $7,602.32 $4.00 $5,216.00 93 2503.603 PLUG FILL AND ABANDON PIPE SEWER 292 LIN FT $79.00 $23,068.00 $42.57 $12,430.44 $55.00 $16,060.00 94 2503.603 CIPP LINER (9" VCP) 910 LIN FT $67.80 $61,698.00 $72.12 $65,629.20 $65.00 $59,150.00 95 2503.604 4" INSULATION 30 SQ YD $37.00 $1,110.00 $60.44 $1,813.20 $45.00 $1,350.00 96 2504.602 ADJUST VALVE BOX 13 EACH $496.00 $6,448.00 $147.14 $1,912.82 $1,000.00 $13,000.00 97 2504.602 HYDRANT RECONDITIONING AND PAINTING 10 EACH $322.00 $3,220.00 $1,772.28 $17,722.80 $2,000.00 $20,000.00 98 2504.602 REHABILITATE PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE STATION 1 EACH $84,300.00 $84,300.00 $81,636.65 $81,636.65 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 99 2504.602 VALVE NUT EXTENSION 3 EACH $329.00 $987.00 $1,046.51 $3,139.53 $500.00 $1,500.00 100 2504.602 REMOVE AND REPLACE VALVE BOX 3 EACH $1,000.00 $3,000.00 $2,189.30 $6,567.90 $3,000.00 $9,000.00 101 2504.602 REMOVE AND REPLACE VALVE BOX TOP SECTION AND MIDDLE SECTION 1 EACH $816.00 $816.00 $1,132.47 $1,132.47 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 102 2504.602 REMOVE AND REPLACE VALVE BOX TOP SECTION 1 EACH $418.00 $418.00 $1,317.46 $1,317.46 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 103 2506.502 CASTING ASSEMBLY 31 EACH $1,280.00 $39,680.00 $1,022.05 $31,683.55 $1,200.00 $37,200.00 104 2506.503 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SD-48 3.2 LIN FT $1,120.00 $3,584.00 $1,017.09 $3,254.69 $1,200.00 $3,840.00 105 2506.503 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPECIAL 1 37.3 LIN FT $509.00 $18,985.70 $695.51 $25,942.52 $600.00 $22,380.00 106 2506.503 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPECIAL 2 3.4 LIN FT $1,030.00 $3,502.00 $1,014.02 $3,447.67 $1,000.00 $3,400.00 107 2506.503 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPECIAL 3 61.1 LIN FT $613.00 $37,454.30 $668.52 $40,846.57 $700.00 $42,770.00 ABSTRACT OF BIDS S.P. 180-102-020, S.P. 8205-159, S.P. 180-112-014, S.A.P. 082-639-008, S.A.P. 180-020-015 BMI PROJECT NO. 0N1.131481 BID DATE: 3/17/2026 TIME: 10:00 AM 1 2 3 ITEM MNDOT APPROX. NO. SPEC NO. ITEM QUANT. UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Meyer Contracting, Inc. Maple Grove, MN McNamara Contracting, Inc. Rosemount, MN TH 61 / 80TH STREET REHABILITATION MINN. PROJ. NO. CDS-NHPP 0061(355) Park Construction Company Minneapolis, MN 108 2506.503 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPECIAL 4 27.3 LIN FT $776.00 $21,184.80 $959.84 $26,203.63 $800.00 $21,840.00 109 2506.503 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPECIAL 5 21.7 LIN FT $532.00 $11,544.40 $543.67 $11,797.64 $650.00 $14,105.00 110 2506.503 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPECIAL 6 7.4 LIN FT $741.00 $5,483.40 $933.08 $6,904.79 $900.00 $6,660.00 111 2506.602 ADJUST CATCH BASIN CASTING, INCL NEW R-3067-V CSTG ADJ RINGS 4 EACH $1,070.00 $4,280.00 $1,014.70 $4,058.80 $1,200.00 $4,800.00 112 2506.602 ADJUST CATCH BASIN CASTING, INCL NEW R-3067-VB CSTG AND ADJ RINGS 3 EACH $1,070.00 $3,210.00 $965.68 $2,897.04 $1,200.00 $3,600.00 113 2506.602 ADJUST CATCH BASIN CASTING, INCL NEW ADJ RINGS 15 EACH $306.00 $4,590.00 $592.91 $8,893.65 $500.00 $7,500.00 114 2506.602 ADJUST MANHOLE CASTING, INCL NEW R-1642 CSTG AND ADJ RINGS 43 EACH $1,510.00 $64,930.00 $1,498.03 $64,415.29 $1,750.00 $75,250.00 115 2506.602 12" BARREL SECTION (4' DIA) 11 EACH $1,690.00 $18,590.00 $1,724.13 $18,965.43 $1,500.00 $16,500.00 116 2506.602 18" BARREL SECTION (4' DIA) 2 EACH $1,690.00 $3,380.00 $1,724.14 $3,448.28 $1,600.00 $3,200.00 117 2506.602 24" BARREL SECTION (4' DIA) 1 EACH $2,020.00 $2,020.00 $1,555.95 $1,555.95 $1,600.00 $1,600.00 118 2506.602 CONE SECTION (4' DIA) 4 EACH $2,020.00 $8,080.00 $1,555.95 $6,223.80 $1,600.00 $6,400.00 119 2506.602 ROTATE CONE SECTION 1 EACH $1,360.00 $1,360.00 $1,316.09 $1,316.09 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 120 2506.602 REMOVE AND REPLACE TOPSLAB (4' DIA) 1 EACH $1,730.00 $1,730.00 $1,695.63 $1,695.63 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 121 2506.602 SPRAY LINE RINGS 13 EACH $1,110.00 $14,430.00 $1,188.82 $15,454.66 $900.00 $11,700.00 122 2506.602 PATCH DOGHOUSE 16 EACH $319.00 $5,104.00 $985.92 $15,774.72 $400.00 $6,400.00 123 2506.602 REMOVE AND REPLACE DOGHOUSE 5 EACH $675.00 $3,375.00 $2,473.03 $12,365.15 $600.00 $3,000.00 124 2506.602 PATCH INVERT 10 EACH $319.00 $3,190.00 $985.92 $9,859.20 $400.00 $4,000.00 125 2506.602 REMOVE AND REPLACE INVERT 4 EACH $1,490.00 $5,960.00 $1,729.47 $6,917.88 $2,500.00 $10,000.00 126 2506.602 PATCH BULKHEAD 1 EACH $319.00 $319.00 $743.57 $743.57 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 127 2506.602 CONSTRUCT INVERT 1 EACH $479.00 $479.00 $463.87 $463.87 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 128 2506.602 CATCH BASIN ADAPTOR PLATE 4 EACH $1,300.00 $5,200.00 $1,718.40 $6,873.60 $500.00 $2,000.00 129 2506.602 MANHOLE STEP 14 EACH $125.00 $1,750.00 $231.97 $3,247.58 $250.00 $3,500.00 130 2506.602 CLEAN BENCH/INVERT 10 EACH $299.00 $2,990.00 $278.84 $2,788.40 $600.00 $6,000.00 131 2506.603 HYDRANT RISER 0.5 LIN FT $4,220.00 $2,110.00 $3,760.28 $1,880.14 $5,000.00 $2,500.00 132 2506.603 SPRAY LINE STRUCTURE (4' DIA) 21 LIN FT $521.00 $10,941.00 $682.07 $14,323.47 $2,000.00 $42,000.00 133 2521.518 4" CONCRETE WALK 26614 SQ FT $6.20 $165,006.80 $8.94 $237,929.16 $6.00 $159,684.00 134 2521.518 4" CONCRETE WALK-EXPOSED AGGREGATE 8721 SQ FT $8.05 $70,204.05 $10.63 $92,704.23 $8.00 $69,768.00 ABSTRACT OF BIDS S.P. 180-102-020, S.P. 8205-159, S.P. 180-112-014, S.A.P. 082-639-008, S.A.P. 180-020-015 BMI PROJECT NO. 0N1.131481 BID DATE: 3/17/2026 TIME: 10:00 AM 1 2 3 ITEM MNDOT APPROX. NO. SPEC NO. ITEM QUANT. UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Meyer Contracting, Inc. Maple Grove, MN McNamara Contracting, Inc. Rosemount, MN TH 61 / 80TH STREET REHABILITATION MINN. PROJ. NO. CDS-NHPP 0061(355) Park Construction Company Minneapolis, MN 135 2521.518 4" CONCRETE WALK SPECIAL 2815 SQ FT $12.40 $34,906.00 $15.09 $42,478.35 $13.00 $36,595.00 136 2521.518 6" CONCRETE WALK 12680 SQ FT $11.00 $139,480.00 $8.39 $106,385.20 $12.00 $152,160.00 137 2521.518 6" CONCRETE WALK SPECIAL 3090 SQ FT $18.20 $56,238.00 $17.33 $53,549.70 $18.00 $55,620.00 138 2521.602 DRILL AND GROUT REINF BAR (EPOXY COATED) 70 EACH $10.30 $721.00 $22.37 $1,565.90 $10.00 $700.00 139 2521.618 SPECIAL SURFACE TREATMENT 25683 SQ FT $1.30 $33,387.90 $1.68 $43,147.44 $2.00 $51,366.00 140 2521.618 CONCRETE CURB RAMP WALK 8460 SQ FT $15.40 $130,284.00 $16.22 $137,221.20 $15.00 $126,900.00 141 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER DESIGN B612 (MOD) 5186 LIN FT $16.70 $86,606.20 $27.39 $142,044.54 $17.00 $88,162.00 142 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER DESIGN B618 (MOD) 5078 LIN FT $28.50 $144,723.00 $36.34 $184,534.52 $27.00 $137,106.00 143 2531.503 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER DESIGN B624 (MOD) 2294 LIN FT $36.70 $84,189.80 $43.05 $98,756.70 $36.00 $82,584.00 144 2531.504 7" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT 857 SQ YD $104.00 $89,128.00 $106.23 $91,039.11 $110.00 $94,270.00 145 2531.618 TRUNCATED DOMES 882 SQ FT $51.50 $45,423.00 $67.09 $59,173.38 $55.00 $48,510.00 146 2533.503 PORTABLE PRECAST CONC BARRIER DES 8337 1070 LIN FT $15.20 $16,264.00 $16.46 $17,612.20 $16.00 $17,120.00 147 2540.603 LANDSCAPE EDGER 773 LIN FT $11.50 $8,889.50 $17.47 $13,504.31 $15.00 $11,595.00 148 2540.618 BRICK PAVERS 6265 SQ FT $10.80 $67,662.00 $17.03 $106,692.95 $12.00 $75,180.00 149 2545.502 LIGHTING UNIT TYPE SPECIAL 1 65 EACH $17,500.00 $1,137,500.00 $19,563.99 $1,271,659.35 $17,800.00 $1,157,000.00 150 2545.502 LIGHTING UNIT TYPE SPECIAL 2 9 EACH $4,440.00 $39,960.00 $4,972.93 $44,756.37 $4,500.00 $40,500.00 151 2545.502 EQUIPMENT PAD 3 EACH $1,910.00 $5,730.00 $2,135.05 $6,405.15 $1,950.00 $5,850.00 152 2545.502 EQUIPMENT PAD B 1 EACH $2,150.00 $2,150.00 $2,414.33 $2,414.33 $2,200.00 $2,200.00 153 2545.503 1.5" NON-METALLIC CONDUIT 2000 LIN FT $4.95 $9,900.00 $5.55 $11,100.00 $5.05 $10,100.00 154 2545.503 3" NON-METALLIC CONDUIT 160 LIN FT $11.30 $1,808.00 $12.62 $2,019.20 $11.50 $1,840.00 155 2545.503 UNDERGROUND WIRE 1/C 6 AWG 28610 LIN FT $2.35 $67,233.50 $2.65 $75,816.50 $2.40 $68,664.00 156 2545.503 DIRECT BURIED LIGHTING CABLE 4/C 4 AWG 2500 LIN FT $16.10 $40,250.00 $18.02 $45,050.00 $16.40 $41,000.00 157 2545.602 ADJUST HANDHOLE 12 EACH $261.00 $3,132.00 $291.98 $3,503.76 $270.00 $3,240.00 158 2545.602 INSTALL SERVICE CABINET 1 EACH $774.00 $774.00 $866.73 $866.73 $570.00 $570.00 159 2545.602 SERVICE CABINET TYPE SPECIAL 1 3 EACH $10,400.00 $31,200.00 $11,638.92 $34,916.76 $10,600.00 $31,800.00 160 2545.602 SERVICE CABINET TYPE SPECIAL 2 1 EACH $8,770.00 $8,770.00 $9,828.17 $9,828.17 $8,900.00 $8,900.00 161 2545.602 LIGHT FOUNDATION DESIGN SPECIAL 1 65 EACH $1,420.00 $92,300.00 $1,586.86 $103,145.90 $1,440.00 $93,600.00 ABSTRACT OF BIDS S.P. 180-102-020, S.P. 8205-159, S.P. 180-112-014, S.A.P. 082-639-008, S.A.P. 180-020-015 BMI PROJECT NO. 0N1.131481 BID DATE: 3/17/2026 TIME: 10:00 AM 1 2 3 ITEM MNDOT APPROX. NO. SPEC NO. ITEM QUANT. UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Meyer Contracting, Inc. Maple Grove, MN McNamara Contracting, Inc. Rosemount, MN TH 61 / 80TH STREET REHABILITATION MINN. PROJ. NO. CDS-NHPP 0061(355) Park Construction Company Minneapolis, MN 162 2545.602 LIGHT FOUNDATION DESIGN SPECIAL 2 9 EACH $1,330.00 $11,970.00 $1,494.54 $13,450.86 $1,360.00 $12,240.00 163 2545.602 HANDHOLE (TYPE A) 24 EACH $1,220.00 $29,280.00 $1,371.05 $32,905.20 $1,250.00 $30,000.00 164 2545.602 HANDHOLE (TYPE B) 31 EACH $1,080.00 $33,480.00 $1,204.86 $37,350.66 $1,100.00 $34,100.00 165 2550.502 BURIED CABLE SIGN 5 EACH $170.00 $850.00 $190.42 $952.10 $170.00 $850.00 166 2550.503 1.5" NON-METALLIC CONDUIT 355 LIN FT $8.10 $2,875.50 $9.06 $3,216.30 $8.25 $2,928.75 167 2550.503 2" NON-METALLIC CONDUIT 180 LIN FT $10.70 $1,926.00 $12.01 $2,161.80 $11.00 $1,980.00 168 2550.503 LEAD-IN CABLE 2 CONDUCTOR NO 14 1010 LIN FT $2.00 $2,020.00 $2.25 $2,272.50 $2.05 $2,070.50 169 2550.601 TEMPORARY COMMUNICATION SYSTEM 1 LUMP SUM $12,200.00 $12,200.00 $13,693.18 $13,693.18 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 170 2550.601 FIBER OPTIC CABLE TESTING 1 LUMP SUM $14,300.00 $14,300.00 $21,740.59 $21,740.59 $14,500.00 $14,500.00 171 2550.602 FIBER OPTIC PIGTAIL TERMINATION 6 EACH $1,810.00 $10,860.00 $2,031.18 $12,187.08 $1,900.00 $11,400.00 172 2550.602 FIBER OPTIC CABLE SPLICING 1 EACH $2,740.00 $2,740.00 $3,075.63 $3,075.63 $2,800.00 $2,800.00 173 2550.602 PULL VAULT 5 EACH $2,540.00 $12,700.00 $2,848.28 $14,241.40 $2,600.00 $13,000.00 174 2550.602 LOOP DETECTOR DESIGN PREFORMED 4 EACH $1,690.00 $6,760.00 $1,889.24 $7,556.96 $1,700.00 $6,800.00 175 2550.603 ARMORED FIBER OPTIC PIGTAIL 6SM 1000 LIN FT $2.00 $2,000.00 $2.24 $2,240.00 $2.10 $2,100.00 176 2550.603 REROUTE FIBER OPTIC CABLE 515 LIN FT $5.25 $2,703.75 $5.90 $3,038.50 $1.90 $978.50 177 2550.603 1.5" BORED CONDUIT 380 LIN FT $21.30 $8,094.00 $23.81 $9,047.80 $21.70 $8,246.00 178 2550.603 2" BORED CONDUIT 150 LIN FT $29.00 $4,350.00 $32.51 $4,876.50 $29.60 $4,440.00 179 2554.502 ANCHORAGE ASSEMBLY - TYPE 31 3 EACH $2,990.00 $8,970.00 $3,242.65 $9,727.95 $3,050.00 $9,150.00 180 2554.502 END TREATMENT-TANGENT TERMINAL 4 EACH $3,810.00 $15,240.00 $4,137.17 $16,548.68 $3,900.00 $15,600.00 181 2554.503 TRAFFIC BARRIER DESIGN TYPE 31 2187.5 LIN FT $34.00 $74,375.00 $36.90 $80,718.75 $35.00 $76,562.50 182 2554.503 TRAFFIC BARRIER DESIGN TRANSITION TYPE 31 150 LIN FT $142.00 $21,300.00 $154.30 $23,145.00 $150.00 $22,500.00 183 2554.602 GUIDE POST TYPE SPECIAL 3 EACH $209.00 $627.00 $227.03 $681.09 $225.00 $675.00 184 2554.615 IMPACT ATTENUATOR 1 ASSEMBLY $39,100.00 $39,100.00 $42,489.86 $42,489.86 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 185 2557.603 INSTALL CHAIN LINK FENCE 20 LIN FT $128.00 $2,560.00 $183.83 $3,676.60 $300.00 $6,000.00 186 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LUMP SUM $90,500.00 $90,500.00 $98,249.98 $98,249.98 $124,000.00 $124,000.00 187 2563.602 RAISED PAVEMENT MARKER TEMPORARY 180 EACH $2.10 $378.00 $2.27 $408.60 $3.00 $540.00 188 2563.602 PORTABLE BARRIER DELINEATOR 45 EACH $8.35 $375.75 $9.08 $408.60 $10.00 $450.00 ABSTRACT OF BIDS S.P. 180-102-020, S.P. 8205-159, S.P. 180-112-014, S.A.P. 082-639-008, S.A.P. 180-020-015 BMI PROJECT NO. 0N1.131481 BID DATE: 3/17/2026 TIME: 10:00 AM 1 2 3 ITEM MNDOT APPROX. NO. SPEC NO. ITEM QUANT. UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Meyer Contracting, Inc. Maple Grove, MN McNamara Contracting, Inc. Rosemount, MN TH 61 / 80TH STREET REHABILITATION MINN. PROJ. NO. CDS-NHPP 0061(355) Park Construction Company Minneapolis, MN 189 2563.602 TUBULAR MARKER 264 EACH $31.40 $8,289.60 $34.06 $8,991.84 $35.00 $9,240.00 190 2563.602 REPLACE TUBULAR MARKER 45 EACH $31.40 $1,413.00 $34.06 $1,532.70 $35.00 $1,575.00 191 2563.602 TEMPORARY PEDESTRIAN RAMP 11 EACH $732.00 $8,052.00 $93.29 $1,026.19 $750.00 $8,250.00 192 2563.603 PEDESTRIAN CHANNELIZER 1050 LIN FT $5.25 $5,512.50 $5.68 $5,964.00 $6.00 $6,300.00 193 2563.613 PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN 56 UNIT DAY $78.40 $4,390.40 $85.14 $4,767.84 $85.00 $4,760.00 194 2563.615 TEMPORARY IMPACT ATTENUATOR 1 ASSEMBLY $3,140.00 $3,140.00 $3,405.55 $3,405.55 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 195 2563.618 TEMPORARY WALKWAY SURFACE 1100 SQ FT $3.15 $3,465.00 $5.59 $6,149.00 $6.00 $6,600.00 196 2564.502 INSTALL SIGN 17 EACH $392.00 $6,664.00 $425.69 $7,236.73 $400.00 $6,800.00 197 2564.502 DELINEATOR/MARKER 7 EACH $225.00 $1,575.00 $244.06 $1,708.42 $250.00 $1,750.00 198 2564.518 SIGN 1090 SQ FT $50.70 $55,263.00 $55.06 $60,015.40 $55.00 $59,950.00 199 2564.602 INSTALL SIGN SPECIAL 4 EACH $784.00 $3,136.00 $851.39 $3,405.56 $800.00 $3,200.00 200 2564.618 SIGN SPECIAL 12 SQ FT $110.00 $1,320.00 $119.20 $1,430.40 $125.00 $1,500.00 201 2565.501 EMERGENCY VEHICLE PREEMPTION SYSTEM A 1 LUMP SUM $6,700.00 $6,700.00 $7,501.52 $7,501.52 $6,850.00 $6,850.00 202 2565.501 EMERGENCY VEHICLE PREEMPTION SYSTEM B 1 LUMP SUM $8,860.00 $8,860.00 $9,925.10 $9,925.10 $9,000.00 $9,000.00 203 2565.501 EMERGENCY VEHICLE PREEMPTION SYSTEM E 1 LUMP SUM $7,730.00 $7,730.00 $8,655.61 $8,655.61 $7,900.00 $7,900.00 204 2565.516 TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM A 1 SYSTEM $317,500.00 $317,500.00 $353,310.49 $353,310.49 $330,000.00 $330,000.00 205 2565.516 TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM B 1 SYSTEM $374,100.00 $374,100.00 $419,157.76 $419,157.76 $395,000.00 $395,000.00 206 2565.516 TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM E 1 SYSTEM $259,000.00 $259,000.00 $290,208.76 $290,208.76 $270,000.00 $270,000.00 207 2565.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS 1 LUMP SUM $48,600.00 $48,600.00 $54,509.57 $54,509.57 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 208 2565.602 PAINT SIGNAL SYSTEM 2 EACH $10,900.00 $21,800.00 $12,179.02 $24,358.04 $11,100.00 $22,200.00 209 2565.616 REVISE SIGNAL SYSTEM C 1 SYSTEM $180,200.00 $180,200.00 $201,877.69 $201,877.69 $185,000.00 $185,000.00 210 2565.616 REVISE SIGNAL SYSTEM D 1 SYSTEM $64,100.00 $64,100.00 $71,801.19 $71,801.19 $65,000.00 $65,000.00 211 2565.616 REVISE SIGNAL SYSTEM F 1 SYSTEM $30,500.00 $30,500.00 $34,173.51 $34,173.51 $31,000.00 $31,000.00 212 2565.616 TEMPORARY SIGNAL SYSTEM A 1 SYSTEM $81,400.00 $81,400.00 $91,247.45 $91,247.45 $83,000.00 $83,000.00 213 2565.616 TEMPORARY SIGNAL SYSTEM B 1 SYSTEM $94,000.00 $94,000.00 $105,268.39 $105,268.39 $95,000.00 $95,000.00 214 2565.616 TEMPORARY SIGNAL SYSTEM C 1 SYSTEM $103,800.00 $103,800.00 $112,666.79 $112,666.79 $104,000.00 $104,000.00 215 2565.616 TEMPORARY SIGNAL SYSTEM D 1 SYSTEM $82,700.00 $82,700.00 $89,821.27 $89,821.27 $83,000.00 $83,000.00 ABSTRACT OF BIDS S.P. 180-102-020, S.P. 8205-159, S.P. 180-112-014, S.A.P. 082-639-008, S.A.P. 180-020-015 BMI PROJECT NO. 0N1.131481 BID DATE: 3/17/2026 TIME: 10:00 AM 1 2 3 ITEM MNDOT APPROX. NO. SPEC NO. ITEM QUANT. UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Meyer Contracting, Inc. Maple Grove, MN McNamara Contracting, Inc. Rosemount, MN TH 61 / 80TH STREET REHABILITATION MINN. PROJ. NO. CDS-NHPP 0061(355) Park Construction Company Minneapolis, MN 216 2565.616 TEMPORARY SIGNAL SYSTEM F 1 SYSTEM $136,300.00 $136,300.00 $147,953.92 $147,953.92 $137,000.00 $137,000.00 217 2565.616 VIDEO DETECTOR SYSTEM C 1 SYSTEM $58,700.00 $58,700.00 $65,782.63 $65,782.63 $54,000.00 $54,000.00 218 2565.616 VIDEO DETECTOR SYSTEM E 1 SYSTEM $73,100.00 $73,100.00 $81,939.79 $81,939.79 $76,000.00 $76,000.00 219 2571.502 PERENNIAL NO 1 CONT 1608 EACH $22.00 $35,376.00 $37.64 $60,525.12 $25.00 $40,200.00 220 2571.604 GEOTEXTILE WEED BARRIER FABRIC 1643 SQ YD $3.15 $5,175.45 $4.88 $8,017.84 $3.00 $4,929.00 221 2573.501 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT 1 LUMP SUM $33,600.00 $33,600.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 222 2573.501 EROSION CONTROL SUPERVISOR 1 LUMP SUM $14,500.00 $14,500.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 223 2573.502 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION 70 EACH $214.00 $14,980.00 $164.45 $11,511.50 $150.00 $10,500.00 224 2573.503 SILT FENCE, TYPE MS 8885 LIN FT $3.20 $28,432.00 $2.24 $19,902.40 $4.00 $35,540.00 225 2573.503 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE WOOD FIBER 1553 LIN FT $3.40 $5,280.20 $4.76 $7,392.28 $4.00 $6,212.00 226 2574.505 SUBSOILING 3.6 ACRE $526.00 $1,893.60 $335.45 $1,207.62 $500.00 $1,800.00 227 2574.505 SOIL BED PREPARATION 5.7 ACRE $210.00 $1,197.00 $223.63 $1,274.69 $500.00 $2,850.00 228 2574.507 FILTER TOPSOIL BORROW 43 CU YD $67.40 $2,898.20 $70.22 $3,019.46 $70.00 $3,010.00 229 2574.507 LOAM TOPSOIL BORROW 4096 CU YD $54.40 $222,822.40 $40.52 $165,969.92 $55.00 $225,280.00 230 2574.508 FERTILIZER TYPE 3 548 POUND $2.00 $1,096.00 $1.68 $920.64 $2.00 $1,096.00 231 2574.508 FERTILIZER TYPE 4 46 POUND $2.00 $92.00 $1.96 $90.16 $2.00 $92.00 232 2575.504 ROLLED EROSION PREVENTION CATEGORY 10 1302 SQ YD $2.35 $3,059.70 $1.62 $2,109.24 $5.00 $6,510.00 233 2575.504 ROLLED EROSION PREVENTION CATEGORY 20 4297 SQ YD $2.00 $8,594.00 $1.68 $7,218.96 $5.00 $21,485.00 234 2575.505 DISK ANCHORING 1.3 ACRE $210.00 $273.00 $83.87 $109.03 $700.00 $910.00 235 2575.505 MOWING 6.9 ACRE $300.00 $2,070.00 $111.82 $771.56 $500.00 $3,450.00 236 2575.505 WEED SPRAYING 2 ACRE $263.00 $526.00 $503.17 $1,006.34 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 237 2575.505 SEEDING 3.6 ACRE $263.00 $946.80 $559.08 $2,012.69 $500.00 $1,800.00 238 2575.506 WEED SPRAY MIXTURE 1 GALLON $105.00 $105.00 $670.89 $670.89 $500.00 $500.00 239 2575.507 MULCH MATERIAL TYPE 6 147 CU YD $105.00 $15,435.00 $72.93 $10,720.71 $150.00 $22,050.00 240 2575.508 HYDRAULIC MULCH MATRIX 2397 POUND $1.65 $3,955.05 $1.35 $3,235.95 $7.00 $16,779.00 241 2575.509 MULCH MATERIAL TYPE 3 2.3 TON $342.00 $786.60 $335.45 $771.54 $500.00 $1,150.00 242 2575.523 WATER 3.6 M GALLON $84.10 $302.76 $55.90 $201.24 $500.00 $1,800.00 ABSTRACT OF BIDS S.P. 180-102-020, S.P. 8205-159, S.P. 180-112-014, S.A.P. 082-639-008, S.A.P. 180-020-015 BMI PROJECT NO. 0N1.131481 BID DATE: 3/17/2026 TIME: 10:00 AM 1 2 3 ITEM MNDOT APPROX. NO. SPEC NO. ITEM QUANT. UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Meyer Contracting, Inc. Maple Grove, MN McNamara Contracting, Inc. Rosemount, MN TH 61 / 80TH STREET REHABILITATION MINN. PROJ. NO. CDS-NHPP 0061(355) Park Construction Company Minneapolis, MN 243 2575.607 LANDSCAPE ROCK TYPE SPECIAL 1 58 CU YD $210.00 $12,180.00 $135.28 $7,846.24 $200.00 $11,600.00 244 2575.607 LANDSCAPE ROCK TYPE SPECIAL 2 56 CU YD $256.00 $14,336.00 $288.20 $16,139.20 $200.00 $11,200.00 245 2575.608 SEED SOUTHERN BOULEVARD 19 POUND $5.90 $112.10 $7.27 $138.13 $20.00 $380.00 246 2575.608 SEED TURFGRASS 255 POUND $3.15 $803.25 $6.71 $1,711.05 $10.00 $2,550.00 247 2575.608 SEED MESIC INSLOPE 64 POUND $9.50 $608.00 $9.95 $636.80 $15.00 $960.00 248 2575.608 SEED WET DITCH 7 POUND $82.10 $574.70 $80.51 $563.57 $100.00 $700.00 249 2575.608 SEED SOUTHERN TALLGRASS ROADSIDE 14 POUND $35.30 $494.20 $42.49 $594.86 $50.00 $700.00 250 2580.503 INTERIM PAVEMENT MARKING 21700 LIN FT $0.36 $7,812.00 $0.39 $8,463.00 $1.00 $21,700.00 251 2581.503 4" REMOVABLE PREFORMED PAVEMENT MARKING TAPE 26253 LIN FT $1.40 $36,754.20 $1.53 $40,167.09 $1.50 $39,379.50 252 2581.503 6" REMOVABLE PREFORMED PAVEMENT MARKING TAPE 2583 LIN FT $2.10 $5,424.30 $2.27 $5,863.41 $3.00 $7,749.00 253 2581.518 REMOVABLE PREFORMED PAVEMENT MESSAGE TAPE 96 SQ FT $5.25 $504.00 $5.68 $545.28 $10.00 $960.00 254 2582.503 12" SOLID LINE PAINT GROUND IN 1441 LIN FT $10.50 $15,130.50 $11.35 $16,355.35 $11.00 $15,851.00 255 2582.503 24" SOLID LINE PAINT GROUND IN 518 LIN FT $13.60 $7,044.80 $14.75 $7,640.50 $14.00 $7,252.00 256 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE MULTI-COMPONENT 1226 LIN FT $1.55 $1,900.30 $1.70 $2,084.20 $2.00 $2,452.00 257 2582.503 4" BROKEN LINE MULTI-COMPONENT 140 LIN FT $1.55 $217.00 $1.70 $238.00 $2.00 $280.00 258 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE MULTI-COMPONENT (WR) 8245 LIN FT $1.55 $12,779.75 $1.70 $14,016.50 $2.00 $16,490.00 259 2582.503 4" BROKEN LINE MULTI-COMPONENT (WR) 80 LIN FT $1.55 $124.00 $1.70 $136.00 $2.00 $160.00 260 2582.503 4" DOTTED LINE MULTI-COMPONENT (WR) 48 LIN FT $1.55 $74.40 $1.70 $81.60 $2.00 $96.00 261 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE MULTI-COMPONENT GROUND IN 6967 LIN FT $1.90 $13,237.30 $2.04 $14,212.68 $2.00 $13,934.00 262 2582.503 4" BROKEN LINE MULTI-COMPONENT GROUND IN 3303 LIN FT $1.90 $6,275.70 $2.04 $6,738.12 $2.00 $6,606.00 263 2582.503 6" DOTTED LINE MULTI-COMPONENT GROUND IN 169 LIN FT $2.40 $405.60 $2.62 $442.78 $3.00 $507.00 264 2582.503 4" SOLID LINE MULTI-COMPONENT GROUND IN (WR) 617 LIN FT $1.90 $1,172.30 $2.04 $1,258.68 $2.00 $1,234.00 265 2582.503 6" SOLID LINE MULTI-COMPONENT GROUND IN (WR) 8245 LIN FT $2.40 $19,788.00 $2.62 $21,601.90 $2.50 $20,612.50 266 2582.503 4" BROKEN LINE MULTI-COMPONENT GROUND IN (WR) 40 LIN FT $1.90 $76.00 $2.04 $81.60 $2.00 $80.00 267 2582.503 24" SOLID LINE PREFORM THERMO GROUND IN ESR 51 LIN FT $34.50 $1,759.50 $37.46 $1,910.46 $35.00 $1,785.00 268 2582.503 24" SOLID LINE PREFORM THERMO GROUND IN CONT ESR 85 LIN FT $37.60 $3,196.00 $40.87 $3,473.95 $40.00 $3,400.00 269 2582.518 PAVEMENT MESSAGE PAINT 62 SQ FT $7.85 $486.70 $8.51 $527.62 $10.00 $620.00 ABSTRACT OF BIDS S.P. 180-102-020, S.P. 8205-159, S.P. 180-112-014, S.A.P. 082-639-008, S.A.P. 180-020-015 BMI PROJECT NO. 0N1.131481 BID DATE: 3/17/2026 TIME: 10:00 AM 1 2 3 ITEM MNDOT APPROX. NO. SPEC NO. ITEM QUANT. UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT Meyer Contracting, Inc. Maple Grove, MN McNamara Contracting, Inc. Rosemount, MN TH 61 / 80TH STREET REHABILITATION MINN. PROJ. NO. CDS-NHPP 0061(355) Park Construction Company Minneapolis, MN 270 2582.518 PAVEMENT MESSAGE PAINT GROUND IN 962 SQ FT $18.80 $18,085.60 $20.43 $19,653.66 $20.00 $19,240.00 271 2582.518 PAVEMENT MESSAGE PREFORM THERMOPLASTIC CONTRAST 59 SQ FT $35.60 $2,100.40 $38.59 $2,276.81 $40.00 $2,360.00 272 2582.518 PAVEMENT MESSAGE PREFORM THERMOPLASTIC GROUND IN CONTRAST 262 SQ FT $41.80 $10,951.60 $45.41 $11,897.42 $45.00 $11,790.00 273 2582.518 CROSSWALK PREFORM THERMOPLASTIC GROUND IN ENHANCED SKID RESISTANCE528 SQ FT $17.30 $9,134.40 $18.73 $9,889.44 $20.00 $10,560.00 $12,945,394.88 $13,456,703.92 $14,295,698.46 BRIDGE NOS. 82019 & 82020 274 2401.518 RAISED MEDIAN CONCRETE (3S52) 1,150 SQ FT $21.60 $24,840.00 $25.54 $29,371.00 $25.00 $28,750.00 275 2401.602 CONCRETE END POST 8 EACH $10,100.00 $80,800.00 $11,921.07 $95,368.56 $11,000.00 $88,000.00 276 2401.618 SPECIAL SURFACE FINISH (INPLACE) 15,168 SQ FT $1.30 $19,718.40 $1.52 $23,055.36 $1.50 $22,752.00 277 2404.618 CONCRETE WEARING COURSE (3U17A) 2.0" 7,282 SQ FT $2.85 $20,753.70 $3.34 $24,321.88 $3.00 $21,846.00 278 2433.502 REMOVE CONCRETE END POST 8 EACH $721.00 $5,768.00 $851.50 $6,812.00 $800.00 $6,400.00 279 2433.502 ANCH TYPE REINF BARS (TYPE NT) 416 EACH $23.70 $9,859.20 $27.98 $11,639.68 $25.00 $10,400.00 280 2433.518 REMOVE CONCRETE WEARING COURSE 482 SQ FT $20.60 $9,929.20 $24.33 $11,727.06 $22.00 $10,604.00 281 2433.603 REPAIR PAVING BRACKET 204 LIN FT $41.20 $8,404.80 $48.66 $9,926.64 $45.00 $9,180.00 $180,073.30 $212,222.18 $197,932.00 $13,125,468.18 $13,668,926.10 $14,493,630.46 TOTAL BRIDGE NOS. 82019 & 82020 TOTAL ROADWAY + BRIDGE NOS. 82019 & 82020 TOTAL ROADWAY CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO AWARD THE BID FOR THE 80TH STREET (TH 61 TO IDEAL AVE), WHEREAS, plans and specifications for the 80th Street (TH 61 to Ideal Ave), East Point Douglas Road (80th Street South to Tee Intersection), and TH 61/80th Street Interchange Rehabilitation Project were completed according to City standards; and WHEREAS, bids were requested to provide the necessary work; and WHEREAS, three firms submitted bids; and WHEREAS, it appears that Park Construction Company provided the lowest responsible bid; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer recommends that the bid be awarded to Park Construction Company in the total amount of $13,125,468.18. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, the City Administrator is authorized to award the contract for the 80th Street (TH 61 to Ideal Ave), East Point Douglas Road (80th Street South to Tee Intersection), and TH 61/80th Street Interchange Rehabilitation Project to Park Construction Company in the total amount of $13,125,468.18 upon Minnesota Department of Transportation Office of Civil Rights approval. Passed this 1st day of April, 2026. Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: Tamara Anderson, City Clerk 1 City Council Action Request 14.A. Meeting Date 4/1/2026 Department Administration Agenda Category Action Item Title Performance Evaluation — Jennifer Levitt, City Administrator Staff Recommendation Close the meeting pursuant to MN Statute 13D.05 subd. (3)a to conduct a performance evaluation of City Administrator, Jennifer Levitt. Budget Implication Attachments None