This transcript appears to be a meeting of the **Cottage Grove Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission**. Based on the roles provided and the context of the dialogue (specifically the recusal regarding the Olsen naming and the staff reports), I have identified the speakers. **Main Speakers:** * **Chair:** The presiding officer of the Commission. * **Zac Dockter:** Parks and Recreation Director (the primary staff presenter). * **Councilmember Justin Olsen:** The City Council liaison to the Commission (who recuses himself from the Olsen naming discussion and provides the Council update at the end). * **Commissioners:** Members of the board (referenced in text as Commissioner Miller, Commissioner Waterman, and "Dave"). *** [00:00] **Chair:** Calling to order the December 12 meeting of the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission. The mission of the Cottage Grove Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission is to create and promote policies, programs, and places that enable active living for a more vibrant community. There are only two action items on our agenda tonight, but we'll also learn about the local option sales tax and receive updates on some of our past actions. Roll call? Okay. Have we had time to review the agenda? Can I get a motion? [00:45] **Commissioner:** I move to approve the agenda for this evening's meeting. [00:50] **Commissioner:** Second. [00:52] **Chair:** Any additional discussion? Those in favor? As opposed? Motion passes. Have we reviewed the minutes? [01:05] **Commissioner:** I can make a motion. Okay, you have a motion for the minutes. [01:10] **Commissioner:** Second. [01:12] **Chair:** Okay, any additional discussion? Okay, those in favor? All right, opposed? Motion passes. Okay, any Open Forum this evening? No? Okay. Presentations? None tonight. Okay, on to our first action item: the park naming request from the Olsen family. [01:23] **Councilmember Justin Olsen:** Thank you, Chair. Members, Chair—I'd like to recuse myself from the conversation and the vote. [01:28] **Chair:** Okay, thank you. [01:32] **Zac Dockter:** Thank you, Chair, members of the Commission. Before you is a park naming application. This is the first submittal for this application. As the title suggests, there's a couple different options: "Olson Memorial Trail" or "The Olson Memorial Trail." Basically, whether the word "The" is in the front or not; the family is open to both interpretations. This is for the trailway at the north—the North Trail Loop around the ponds at Hamlet Park. As I said before, this is the first official application, but as the Commission may be aware, there was a similar application about a year ago that started the process. There were a couple different locations the family was considering along with support from some family and friends, and that got sidelined. But now, after reviewing some of the different options, the family has come back with the application before you and so we'll start that process fresh. Since this is the first meeting, there's no official action required at this time other than to review it and request any additional information you might have for staff to bring to the next meeting. At any time, the Commission can reject the naming request, but then after the second meeting and the third meeting, the Commission will take formal action and make a recommendation to the City Council. City Council makes the final decision on park naming. So with that, I will turn it back over to the Chair. [03:02] **Chair:** To me, this is actually the second meeting. This is the second meeting, correct? I wanted to clarify that too because there was the initial naming request for renaming Hamlet Park as Olson Park, and then we had that one withdrawn. Then there was an additional request for the mini-park near the fire station. Is this replacing that request? I saw this as a replacement of that request. I don't recall that we actually talked about the trail system. [03:30] **Zac Dockter:** Well, I'll verify my records. Go ahead. [03:33] **Chair:** When Mr. Levold was here requesting the rename of Hamlet Park—and yeah, Dave was here that night too—they were talking about, well, if we didn't rename the entire park, could we consider possibly naming a trail an Olsen Trail? That came up in the discussion. [03:50] **Zac Dockter:** I will leave this—it completely feels like the second meeting for this request. I will leave that up to the Commission. If you feel like this is the second review of it, then by all means that's fine. But there is the consideration for the mini-park at the fire station. You are correct that at one point there was also a discussion about Hamlet Park and the trailway system too, so we could interpret this as the second meeting if the Commission desires. Once again, the Commission always has the right to take as many meetings as they want. We try to make sure that our park namings are done with diligence and there's no rush necessarily. But if the Commission feels like this is the second meeting and wants to make a recommendation in accordance with the policy, the Commission is welcome. Let me reiterate maybe if I can, Chair, just so I say it as the policy states—I try not to work too much off of memory when I don't have to. One: is the mini-park off of the table now, or is this... okay. So the policy states that at the initial meeting, the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resource Commission will discuss the merit of the names. If there's a list of potential names, they may add or delete or eliminate from the list. At this time, no formal recommendation will be required. At the second meeting, staff will provide any information that was requested from the Commission. If there's a list of names, that list should be narrowed to three. No formal recommendation will be made after the second meeting. At the next meeting, which will be the third meeting, the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resource Commission shall debate the merits of the remaining name or names and make a final recommendation to the City Council. So if this is the second one, once again, no formal action is required tonight. The third meeting is where the final recommendation can be made to City Council. This would speed it up by a month if you prefer to have this as the second meeting. [05:54] **Chair:** So do you need a motion before discussion or do we just start talking? [05:58] **Zac Dockter:** Typically a motion before discussion. Now, Motion and Second. [06:02] **Chair:** I'll make a motion so we can discuss. [06:05] **Zac Dockter:** Yeah, an motion should be made towards the... yeah, because you can amend the motion later if you decide to change. [06:12] **Chair:** Oh, you're waiting for me, I'm sorry. I have a question. Dave, are you prepared to speak tonight on behalf of the family? [06:18] **Commissioner ("Dave"):** I wasn't planning on it. [06:20] **Zac Dockter:** I don't think we're going to do anything except to have our second meeting. [06:23] **Chair:** Okay. [06:24] **Zac Dockter:** Maybe procedurally wise, if I can step in, Chair? So the motion would be to continue the discussion on the Olsen Family Memorial Park, just to make sure that the Commission still wants to proceed down that track. Motion and a Second, then we can have discussion. There will be no formal recommendation at this point; I mean, the action will be just to continue discussion to the third meeting. Sorry, I should probably clarify that at the beginning. [06:48] **Chair:** Okay, so I'll make a motion to continue discussion on the Olsen family memorial trail. [07:00] **Commissioner:** Thank you. Is there a second? [07:02] **Commissioner:** Yeah, second. [07:04] **Chair:** Further discussion? Did you have questions? [07:06] **Commissioner:** I did. So I thought we were talking about—when last time we met—we were talking about do we put both Conway and Katie's name in front of the "Olsen" part of the naming process? And we were held up because we didn't want to set a precedence that we set last meeting when we put the... is it Denzer family names on it? So I thought that was the discussion we were having. [07:30] **Chair:** Well, but that was about a different location, because for that application they were talking about the naming of the mini-park. But now they've withdrawn that application and we are considering for a second time recognizing the family's contributions to the community by naming an area at Hamlet Park. And it would be without the "Conway and Katie"; it would just be the "Olsen Memorial Trail" is what we're... so on our application, suggested names are "The Olsen Memorial Trail" or "Olson Memorial Trail" without first names. [08:00] **Zac Dockter:** Chair, if I may step in. I did have some discussion with the family prior to the application, and that was part of the discussion of the name and that debate from the last meeting. So these are the two that are on the application. This was submitted on December 5th, so that discussion had already happened. They were aware of the other park name. We also talked about, you know, the interpretive signage that would go along with this—some sort of education on what Conway and Katie Olsen did for the community. So it was my impression that they were happy with the two names that were submitted, letting the Commission kind of decide between those two names, knowing that the first names of the family would be memorialized on that plaque. [08:50] **Chair:** I'm good with it. All right. And we don't have to narrow down the list further at this point, so we can debate the merits of the word "The" at another time if we'd like to. Okay, since we have a motion and a second and we've had our discussion: those in favor of moving forward with the park naming request at our third meeting, those in favor? [09:08] **Commissioners:** Aye. [09:10] **Chair:** Okay, opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Okay, and now we can move on to the Mississippi Dunes natural resources management plan. Let our Commissioner get re-seated. [09:25] **Zac Dockter:** All right. Mississippi Dunes natural resource management plan is a plan that we have to have in place essentially to capture some of the grant funding we have available from Washington County and the State of Minnesota, but it's also a great tool in assessing the quality of the land that's out there for environmental and water quality and things of that nature. So, the Commission reviewed two pretty in-depth studies last meeting—Oakwood Park and Woodridge natural resource management plans were both on there. Very similar format, same company (Stantec) designed and submitted those, so that should be recognizable. Like any natural resource management plan we do, it includes historical analysis, soil conditions, plant inventory, and organization of different ecological zones that are prioritized for either preservation or restoration. Then there's also some funding estimates on the back end of the report as well. So without going into great detail, I will turn it back to the Chair so you guys can have a discussion and let me know if you have any questions on the plan. Then, looking for a motion to accept and place on file the Mississippi Dunes natural resource management plan. [11:05] **Chair:** I really appreciate the emphasis on maintaining both natural areas for passive recreation and for environmental education, as these were really strong requests from community members when we talked about the development of this park. Something that I think could be helpful, in part due to the interest and the passion that community members have had for this project, is to start the neighborhood park webpage early. On our city webpage, we have links to each one of our neighborhood parks that provides an overview of what amenities are there and where they're located. If we started the Mississippi Dunes Park page now, we could include a document like this, allow anyone who is interested to learn about the steps that are being taken to protect some of the rare species that are on this site and how we're preparing the park for the community to enjoy. So I'd like to ask if the parks department could consider starting maintenance of that page early to allow more information to be shared with the community. [12:12] **Zac Dockter:** Chair, members of the Commission, the answer is no and yes. "No" because we don't own the property yet, and we wouldn't want people to assume it's a public property quite yet. But once we own it, I think it's a great idea. Hopefully that happens soon. Once we get ownership of it, then we'll publish it and make a page for it. It's a good idea. [12:35] **Commissioner:** Chair, I actually have a couple of questions. I thought this was a great document. I really like the history of knowing the plants and everything that are there. I asked Zac if he could have some pictures for us to look at or be able to show us up here so we can be looking at the same thing. Actually, Zac, if you could just bring up Figure 1 right from the Stantec document—it's page four of their document. That'll probably accomplish that goal on my first question. So if we look at this, what I want to talk about tonight is that North perimeter, which is really where the development's going to be—the housing development right next to our new park. I want to make sure we're doing everything we possibly can, not only along our park boundary but also up there along the SNA boundary, so that the runoff from these homes won't go into our parkland or will be driven to the holding pond. I would even like to make it really hard for a homeowner to dump their grass over into my park, things like that, just by using the way we build the land around there. I don't know if that's possible at this point, but to me, there's some pretty important native species and animals that we're trying to protect here, and I feel like that's one of the only places where hazardous pollution can get to our park—from that neighborhood. So I just want to raise that as something that I feel is really important. [14:20] **Zac Dockter:** Yes, Chair, members of the Commission. I don't have all the answers to that question, but I think just flagging that is a good start so that as we start to talk about any development to the north of this, we can make sure that is a high priority—to make sure that any pollution or runoff coming from that development is filtered or rerouted to either that storm pond or a different system. I did talk to the City Engineer today; we didn't have any detailed facts to get you tonight other than that storm pond is meant to capture a lot of that runoff. But without looking at the topography... you know, this particular plan was built off of a concept plan for the development, so that's not necessarily the exact interpretation of how everything's going to work to the north. But I did put the bug in the City Engineer's ear, and we'll make sure that whenever we start to review a more detailed plan for development, we'll make that a high priority. [15:25] **Commissioner:** Very good. So then the other thing is, we're making an investment here and we're going to get matching funds and things like that, but I struggled a bit to understand just what that investment was. So that's this page we're coming to here. I thought it was difficult to really interpret. Now, it's also over time—I think this talks in terms of 10 years. Zac, can you kind of give us what that number really looks like? We thought maybe a couple hundred thousand? [16:05] **Zac Dockter:** Yeah, so the table before you shows one-time fees: the plant survey, removing trees, doing prescribed burns, spraying for invasive species control, and then site preparation and native seed. That's all one-time fees, which I calculated—that's to get that first layer of seed in the ground—and I'll just use round numbers, it was a little shy of $200,000 for restoration. That gets into that first phase, and then there's going to be annual maintenance after that. Typically, the second or third year we'll do another prescribed burn, and after that, we'll do a burn every three to five years kind of forever. There will be some additional spot spraying, but the $200,000... if I had to guess, I would say $200,000 to $225,000 is going to get the full restoration plus probably five years of growing maintenance. Typically, when we do a grant—this would be under a Conservation Partners Legacy Grant through the Minnesota DNR—it’s a 10% cash match. So the city will be responsible for $20,000 to $25,000 in a cash match, which is typically funded from our Public Landscapes Initiative Program. The neat thing about that is any trees that come out of this entire development area, those funds get put back into the fund to help pay for this restoration. There's also labor, volunteer, and in-kind matches as well. [17:58] **Commissioner:** Thank you. Then the last thing is, I was really kind of surprised as I read through this report that there is such little discussion about the effects that climate change might have on our park. We're looking at a 10-year plan here from Stantec, and yet I only found climate change mentioned once, and it was talking about how climate change is allowing invasive species to survive because it's warmer and wetter here now. I might make the argument that those are no longer invasive species; they're just going where the climate is good for them, and we maybe should be thinking about having our park be planned with that in mind as well. I realize it's a philosophical conversation, but as a member of this Commission, I would want to be forwarding that concern to City Council for them to consider whether we should look at that more closely—especially when we're going to this trouble to fix what's really kind of a mess right now. The ecologist that wrote the report is very optimistic about what's possible, and our residents are so passionate about this. This is a gem, and I want to make sure we take time to really do it right. [19:28] **Chair:** I'm really excited to see this moving forward. Zac, are impacts of climate change often included in these types of plans? Is that something that you're seeing more frequently? [19:40] **Zac Dockter:** Yeah, every ecologist is different; everybody sees the science differently. But the species that are recommended today are different than species that were recommended 20 years ago, so things do change over time. I can certainly include that if that's a concern for the Commission in the report that goes to City Council. Basically, I take this report and I say that the Parks Commission made recommendations with the following comments. We can drop those into the plan if that's desired. [20:18] **Chair:** And I guess I was kind of thinking that, like some of our other documents, this is more of a living document where as we experience changes over the next couple of years, we will also change the approach—whether it's storm damage or climate change. [20:34] **Zac Dockter:** Chair, that's a great comment. At the end of each year, we'll typically update this if there's been any activity. Even if no activity happened for 10 years, we would go back through and do a plant survey. In a typical program, we'll start the restoration and each year after that we update the plan, including everything we've done and what the long-term maintenance strategy is until the site has matured into the intended product. [21:10] **Commissioner:** I'd like to make a motion to recommend City Council accept and place on file the Mississippi Dunes natural resources management plan along with two comments from the Commission: one around the North perimeter of the park and how that development's going to be managed to control runoff, and second, that we ask City Council to take into consideration the effects climate change might have and make sure we're investing our money in the types of plants that will do well to the best of our ability to predict at this point. [21:54] **Commissioner:** Second. [21:56] **Chair:** Thank you. Any additional discussion? Those in favor? [22:00] **Commissioners:** Aye. [22:01] **Chair:** Those opposed? Motion carries. Okay, next we have presentation of information: the local option sales tax discussion. [22:12] **Zac Dockter:** Thank you, Chair. We've been giving information to the Commission over the past year about the potential of a local option sales tax. In this report, I've included where we're at today. We've identified five projects, which is allowed by State Legislature. I have included information on the actual local sales tax option process and some examples of other community projects. Most importantly are the five projects being considered. These will be considered by City Council at a future strategic planning workshop, most likely in January. The five projects include Hamlet Park improvements, River Oaks improvements, Still Ponds Park development, the Mississippi Dunes Park development, and then a future East Ravine Park acquisition and development project east of County Road 19. Those concept designs are all included for your review, minus the future East Ravine Park because we haven't quite figured out exactly where that park is going to land. Estimates are still being calculated. We'll be looking to bring this back to the City Council in January, so I'm looking to see if the Commission has any feedback on those plans. [23:45] **Commissioner:** I had a question: are we keeping the ski trail at River Oaks? [23:50] **Zac Dockter:** Yes. [23:52] **Commissioner:** I also had an observation. I didn't see any of our neighboring cities listed as having local option sales tax, and I worry a little bit about competitiveness. It'd be interesting also to understand better how many visitors we really have, because the philosophy behind this is to push visitors to provide revenue for our city. I would really like to better understand just how much of that sales tax is going to be paid by visitors and how much by us—especially if I can go up to Woodbury and not pay it. [24:35] **Zac Dockter:** Chair, members of the Commission, I think that's a good question. Actually, as a part of this process, we'll be having Ehlers, who's our financial advisor, doing some of that analysis. I'll be happy to bring that back to the Commission because if the sales tax doesn't fund it, then we have to come up with other plans. [25:05] **Chair:** I think it's exciting to see the amenities that can be added on these prioritized projects, but it also makes me wonder about our smaller neighborhood parks and trail systems. If we have an additional source of funding for these prioritized projects, could that mean that we would have additional monies that could refocus on maintaining our smaller projects? I want to make sure we live up to that commitment of maintaining all of our properties with equal enthusiasm. [25:40] **Zac Dockter:** Chair, that's a great comment. Part of the reason we started discussing this was because we do see some funding gaps for future park development. The cost of building parks has become very expensive. Land used to be a lot cheaper in Cottage Grove; the price of land is going up. As we acquire land in lieu of cash for those developments, then we don't have cash to build the parks out. This is an example of a different funding mechanism. These are regional draws; that’s why they’re being considered for local option sales tax, because the legislature requires them to be regional destinations. It can’t just be for a small neighborhood park. So it does free up money for other projects, but we're starting at a deficit already. [27:00] **Commissioner:** I have a quick question. When these local option sales tax options are put in place, how long do they typically stay in place? Is it until the projects are funded, or is it a source that stays long-term? [27:25] **Zac Dockter:** You set a budget and then you work your way back from that budget as far as how many years you establish the tax. I think you can use it for up to 20 years. Once the projects are finished, the local option sales tax should come off. [28:10] **Commissioner Miller:** I have one more comment. Let's say we implement the local option sales tax at River Oaks—would that go solely to funding projects at River Oaks, or would it be city-wide? Because if we’re looking to gain revenue, why wouldn't we put it in place where it's going to receive the most revenue? [28:35] **Zac Dockter:** Commissioner Miller, you have to be very specific in the projects that are funded. River Oaks will be one of the five projects funded, and you can't really deviate once it goes to the legislature. And just to clarify, the sales tax would be applicable to all sales within the community—it’s not just things being sold at the ice arena or River Oaks. It would be a city-wide sales tax, including internet sales. That's why it has to go through the state legislature. [29:30] **Chair:** Any additional questions or comments? Now we can move on to commissioner terms. [29:40] **Zac Dockter:** Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to update the Commission on where everybody's at with their terms. No terms are expiring this coming year, which is a good thing. I just want to make sure everybody understands where they're at. If your term is expiring eventually, I hope you would consider serving again. As you can see, we are still looking for one more youth commissioner. And I should say we have a commissioner that's leaving us unfortunately—Commissioner Williams is moving out of state, so we will be looking for another commissioner to fill her role as well. [30:50] **Commissioner:** Actually, I have a suggestion. I'd like us to have a better onboarding process for new commissioners. I found the beginning confusing and hard to really know how to do the things that we do. I just think if we had a more formal workshop at that first meeting to help a new commissioner really understand what we're all doing, it would be very helpful. [31:25] **Chair:** I completely agree 100%. It's a bit jarring, especially if it's your first time serving on a commission, just being thrown in head-first after just an interview. What other things would be helpful for the onboarding process? [31:45] **Commissioner:** I just think sitting together with experienced commissioners and maybe taking a previous meeting's agenda and talking about what we do here. Because it's most effective if all of us are talking. [32:10] **Chair:** It could include things like how to access our meeting notes, download past agendas if you're interested in our previous activities... [32:20] **Commissioner:** And even—sorry, Chair—but even what does it mean when it's an "Action Item"? What do we do about those? Or "Presentation of Information"? There's things we do all the time like park equipment; we could explain what that's like or show some pictures. [33:00] **Zac Dockter:** I'm taking notes; I appreciate that. You do it for 20 years, you kind of assume everybody knows as much as you, but onboarding is very important. I'll put some things together. I know Commissioner Waterman came in right in the middle of our work plan, which was probably daunting—not knowing the history of how things work. So a workshop so they can ask questions freely would be helpful. [34:10] **Chair:** And we all get to know each other at a workshop setting like that. That could be effective sharing with community members too, so they have an idea of what to expect if they apply. [34:35] **Commissioner Miller:** Is this something where the WTC would be interested in doing a little orientation video that could be put on YouTube? [34:50] **Zac Dockter:** Yeah, some of that marketing stuff would be good. Moving on to Action Updates: The Glacial Valley Park building—bids closed last Tuesday and came in just below the construction manager's estimate. I will put together the Council report for final review for the December 21st meeting. Regarding the River Oaks irrigation project: Council authorized that project. It will commence by the end of July and wrap up in October. Golfers should plan on it being a 17-hole course during that time, and we'll adjust fees accordingly. Shepard Farm programming: We met last Wednesday at the Dodge Nature Center. They had over 3,500 people for their Halloween fundraiser. Conversation focused on a community greenhouse and interpretive trails where you can scan a QR code with your phone to learn about the barns or habitat efforts. They’re moving slow by intent; they want to do it right. [38:25] **Zac Dockter:** Lastly, I included the Park Project list for 2023. We are heavily involved with three native habitat restoration areas: Campbell’s Hump, Kingston Park, and Settlers Island. At Hamlet Park, we're replacing the tennis court which is almost 30 years old. Pine Tree Valley Park will get new LED rink lighting. The bike park will get a picnic shelter. Wake Farms dog park will get some enrichment equipment and drainage correction. Playground improvements: Peter Thompson Park, Ideal, and Pine Tree Pond parks will get replaced next year. Glacial Valley Park continues to change—the ice rink boards showed up today. Hopefully, by Memorial Day next spring, we'll be done with Glacial Valley Park. Any questions? [41:15] **Chair:** No? Okay. Donation acknowledgments: none tonight. We have staff reports and educational materials in our packets. [41:28] **Zac Dockter:** We have the park maintenance staff report for review. I also included Councilmember Olsen's report from the Washington County Park Forum. [41:40] **Chair:** There was a survey from Washington County Parks to learn more about the differences they're seeing in population in terms of visitors. It was a really interesting discussion. [42:15] **Commissioner:** I actually did have one more comment—maybe the orientation could include a park department org chart. [42:30] **Councilmember Justin Olsen:** Good evening. I recognize a few of you from the holiday train event, so I’m glad everyone got to make it here. I just wanted to recap some of the things that Council has approved. We approved the park building plans and specifications for bid. We authorized a resolution for a DNR grant in the amount of $300,000 for the open park project. We moved forward with the River Oaks irrigation bid. We also approved the permanent trail easement at Glacial Valley Park. Lastly, we approved the service agreement to replace the equipment at Peter Thompson Park. You guys are doing really great work, and as development continues, we're going to see more neighborhood parks come online. Our great park and trail system is a real point of pride for constituents. Thank you, guys. Do you have any questions for Council? [44:15] **Chair:** No? I'll move to adjourn. [44:20] **Commissioner:** Second. [44:22] **Chair:** All in favor? [44:24] **Commissioners:** Aye. [44:26] **Chair:** Opposed? Motion carries. Meeting is adjourned.